Next Gen Intel CPUs Move To Yet Another Socket 254
mr_sifter writes "According to a leaked roadmap, next year we'll be saying hello to LGA1155. The socket is 1-pin different from the current LGA1156 socket Core i3, i5, and some i7s use. Sandy Bridge CPUs will be based on the current 32nm, second-generation High-k metal gate manufacturing process. All LGA1155 CPUs will have integrated graphics built into the core instead of a separate chip. This is an upgrade from the current IGP, PCI Express controller and memory controller in Clarkdale CPUs. which is manufactured on the older 45nm process in a separate die (but still slapped together the same package). This should improve performance, as all the controllers will be in one die, like existing LGA1366 CPUs."
Integrated graphics in the CPU? (Score:4, Interesting)
I can see that integrated graphics in a CPU can be handy for some applications, like low-power mobile stuff and such.
But for a desktop PC, isn't this a disadvantage? If you're using a proper graphics card, couldn't that space in the CPU be used for better things than a redundant graphics circuit?
Re:Sigh (Score:4, Interesting)
There's always AMD's Fusion on the horizon. If they can execute well on that they have a chance to do what they did with the Athlon. Intel has yet to demonstrate that they actually have GPU tech that can compete with nVidia and ATI in this space. I really hope they do, Intel has had too long at the top of the market and they're getting all monopolistic again.
Re:Sigh (Score:2, Interesting)
As in, I hope AMD can execute, not I hope Intel have tech that can compete with nVidia and ATI. The former would lead to better competition, the latter would give the monopolist more power.
That'll teach me to not preview.
Re:Figures... (Score:4, Interesting)
You upgrade the CPU/Motherboard/RAM. Big woop.
You would need a new motherboard regardless if they changed the socket or not. You would also need new RAM since the RAM requires lower operating voltages.
They probably did this so you don't try to plug in the new CPU on your old motherboard thinking it was a straight upgrade when it requires different circuitry.
Re:Integrated graphics in the CPU? (Score:3, Interesting)
Um, no. Cache is very important, especially with 64-bit code. In fact, x86 is a terribly die-area-inefficient architecture; we'd be a lot better off with a modern RISC, opening up space for more cache.
Re:Integrated graphics in the CPU? (Score:3, Interesting)
In fact, x86 is a terribly die-area-inefficient architecture; we'd be a lot better off with a modern RISC, opening up space for more cache.
Is this ignoring the fact that most of Intel's chips for many years have basically been RISC processors with an x86 translation unit?
Re:to bad it's the same gma crap that amd has a be (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.anandtech.com/show/2972/the-rest-of-clarkdale-intel-s-pentium-g6950-core-i5-650-660-670-reviewed/2 [anandtech.com]
i5-661 (with the fastest on-package graphics) is performance-competitive with AMD's latest integrated graphics. The slower on-package GPU from Intel are behind, but not by much. Nothing Intel can't solve in its next processor (especially as AMD did not increase its IGP performance)
The processor is only one part of performance (Score:3, Interesting)
A large part of the performance gain in new generation processors is actually the combination of the processor and chipset. The core i5, core i7, etc. processors did away with a a separate memory controller -- that itself has been a huge power and speed advantage. Without upgrading the stuff supporting the chip, you don't get much benefit from an upgrade.
Changing sockets sounds bad, but (Score:3, Interesting)
I've never really upgraded CPUs. By the time my CPU is outdated (2-3 years), my motherboards usually is, too: newer RAMS (SDR - > DDR -> DDR2 -> DDR3), faster HD interfaces ( PATA -> SATA -> SATA2 -> SATA3) and others (USB -> USB2 -> USB3; PCI -> PCIE -> PCIE2), bigger/faster HDs... In the end, I usually rotate entire PCs, they go My Main PC - > My Backup PC -> My parents / Niece.
My gripe with Intel is more about the price of their MBs, especially compared to AMD's. The cheapest AMD MB within an AMD IGP is listed at 54 euros at my favorite retailer ( Asus AMD2+, not 3, but perfs are broadly the same), while Intel's cheapest MB is 84 euros (Gigabyte). Their low-end CPUs are also kinda expensive. And their IGPs also still kinda suck, even for playing video, and definitely for even light gaming.
The interesting thing these days is smaller size. Mini-ITX mainboards are becoming common, there's cheapish ones with AMD2/3 or 1156 sockets, good cases (Silverstone...), huge HDs. Unless you really need a graphics card, you can build a very small and quiet PC.
Re:This simplifies cooling design so much! (Score:3, Interesting)