# Is Haswell the Last Interchangeable Intel Client Processor?



## btarunr (Nov 26, 2012)

The processor-motherboard combination as PC enthusiasts know it could end, with Intel LGA1150 processors under the "Haswell" micro-architecture, likely to becoming the last client processors to ship in the retail channel (processor-in-box). Future Intel client processors, codenamed "Broadwell" could ship only in BGA (ball-grid array) packages, with existing motherboard vendors selling their products with processors permanently soldered onto them. The information comes from Japanese PC Watch, which cites sources in the PC industry. 

With a compacted socket-processor launch cycle that spans nearly 2 years under the company's "tick-tock" product strategy, the scope for processor updates in the client computing industry might be lower than what it was in the LGA775 days. Perhaps statistics at Intel don't show a sizable proportion of people upgrading processors on existing motherboards, or upgrading motherboards while retaining the processor, rather buying a combination of the two, not to mention the fact that pre-built PCs outsell DIY assembled ones in major markets. With the processor being "tied" to the motherboard, Intel gets room to compact the platform further, combining processor and core logic completely into a single package. It's likely that Intel could still leave processor interchangeability to its HEDT (high-end desktop) platform, which sees processors start at $300, and motherboards at $200.

*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## Sasqui (Nov 26, 2012)

Death of the motherboard industry?


----------



## AndreiD (Nov 26, 2012)

This kills the Desktop.


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Nov 26, 2012)

Sure that's the right interpretation? I'd suspect it just meant they'd be available in BGA in addition to LGA.

Even if it doesn't I'm not worried. Think about what it would mean with current chips. You have a performance board bundled with either a 3770k or a 3570k, the exact chips you'd buy with it anyways, only now probably for less money since they don't have to test and account for as many configurations and there's less shipping cost to get it to you.


----------



## HR_The_Butcher (Nov 26, 2012)

What do you mean, "in the LGA775 days"?

I'm still rocking a Q9550. 

And when it becomes obsolete, I'll just declare myself a hipster and keep on using it. 775 FTW.


----------



## WhiteLotus (Nov 26, 2012)

See also this thread


----------



## btarunr (Nov 26, 2012)

Sasqui said:


> Death of the motherboard industry?



Not death of the motherboard industry. ASUS, MSI, Gigabyte, will sell motherboards, it's just that processors will be soldered onto them. You'll not be able to come up with clever combinations such as a $300 processor with a $70 motherboard, rather a $450 processor+board.

Meanwhile, our post-PC era venture has just left dry-dock.


----------



## Lipton (Nov 26, 2012)

Keyword: "could".

However, I wouldn't be surprised if this actually went through in the low- to mid-end spectrum, leaving the i7 series (or maybe only K CPUs) being the ones sold separately.


----------



## EzioAs (Nov 26, 2012)

"Perhaps statistics at Intel don't show a sizable proportion of people upgrading processors on existing motherboards, or upgrading motherboards while retaining the processor"

If you keep changing the sockets almost every friggin year and none of them are compatible with the older cpu, of course most people won't upgrade their cpu on their old motherboards and vice versa since it's incompatible. 

While I like Intel for it's performance, this is the reason why sometimes I think AMD has major advantage especially for the budget builders or non-enthusiast since they are not upgrading frequently and when they do upgrade, most of the parts are compatible


----------



## Wrigleyvillain (Nov 26, 2012)

HR_The_Butcher said:


> What do you mean, "in the LGA775 days"?
> 
> I'm still rocking a Q9550.
> 
> And when it becomes obsolete, I'll just declare myself a hipster and keep on using it. 775 FTW.



Just because you still use it does not mean it isn't obsolete.


----------



## Sasqui (Nov 26, 2012)

HR_The_Butcher said:


> What do you mean, "in the LGA775 days"?
> 
> I'm still rocking a Q9550.
> 
> And when it becomes obsolete, I'll just declare myself a hipster and keep on using it. 775 FTW.



I've been on 775 for over 5 years now, two (2) Core2 rigs and fast memory.

I just got a 3570K, motherboard and memory.  The speed difference over the 775 rigs are unbelievable, far far far more than I expected.


----------



## Wrigleyvillain (Nov 26, 2012)

Indeed. Hell, my 3570K is a noticeable improvement over my i7 870, even. Even at much lower frequency.


----------



## dj-electric (Nov 26, 2012)

Sticking to PC's as we know them till the bitter end... T_T


----------



## HR_The_Butcher (Nov 26, 2012)

Sasqui said:


> I've been on 775 for over 5 years now, two (2) Core2 rigs and fast memory.
> 
> I just got a 3570K, motherboard and memory.  The speed difference over the 775 rigs are unbelievable, far far far more than I expected.



Nice. I'd like me a similar setup. I also crave for a new GPU. And a 120 Hz monitor. And world peace.


----------



## Morgoth (Nov 26, 2012)

im sticking with xeons


----------



## STCNE (Nov 26, 2012)

Might not be such a bad thing really. How many of us frequently swap out CPUs on our boards? What this could mean is performance boards designed around specific chips and bundled with CPUs, pre-OCed, or even with guaranteed OCs. Nothing worse than buying a high end OCing board and getting a chip that can't OC for crap.

And for the lower end board they could design them just to handle the low power chips bundled with them. Without the need for low-end boards to support higher wattage chips they would be cheaper to produce, and hopefully cheaper for us in the end.

This is a smart move for Intel financially. Motherboard makers will have to buy CPUs for each board they make. For every board out there Intel would have made a sale. When the next gen rolls around Intel will have already sold all their chips. The motherboard makers will be the ones needing to unload old product rather than them and Intel.


----------



## hardcore_gamer (Nov 26, 2012)

The semiaccurate article almost made me cry.


----------



## cdawall (Nov 26, 2012)

They will likely completely lock down overclocking with the bga based mainstream parts (1156/1155/1150) and force you to buy the equal of 2011 if you want overclocking.


----------



## Delta6326 (Nov 26, 2012)

Lol they won't go completely combo, I would guess these MB+Proc combos to be for lower end stuff for the masses. there will always be a enthusiast market.

But anyway I was planning on Haswell and a AMD HD 8000/ Nvidia GTX 700 to be my last computer build for a long time. Still rockin the Q6600.


----------



## Binge (Nov 26, 2012)

If intel goes entirely processor and mobo combination this could be an interesting change... AMD may have a reason to be considered the enthusiast chip?  That would be kind of an odd concept to me because of the last few years trends.  I would be worried about similar issues occurring with video game systems and solder points wearing out and making PCs essentially RROD.  My fears are based in my ignorance, but who knows everyone here could be right?

I would have thought this go the other way around... socket SoC CPUs with onboard ram, gpu, cpu all integrated and the motherboards would get smaller and smaller.  Just drop in another CPU and there's your upgrade/replacement etc etc.


----------



## Frick (Nov 26, 2012)

cdawall said:


> They will likely completely lock down overclocking with the bga based mainstream parts (1156/1155/1150) and force you to buy the equal of 2011 if you want overclocking.



Ever since they introduced the concept of "K" chips it's been going this way.


----------



## Frick (Nov 26, 2012)

Continuing here:



			
				Ford said:
			
		

> "Desktop" is becoming synonymous with "internet access." That's why I used the word "workstation" as in used to "work"--get something done--and not casually play solitaire, read ebooks, browse the web, etc.
> 
> Thin-clients are best served by slim-desktops. They can quickly swap towers/monitors with little fuss and if it is simple, they can service it themselves.
> 
> A VM server is cost-prohibitive for small businesses. They only become viable in medium businesses and larger.



Thin clients and slim desktops are closing each other is my point. And I'm not talking about casual solitaire, I'm talking about the offices where clerks and whatever do their work. Helpdesks, laywers, hospital clerks etc etc etc have no business doing anything with workstations. I have no idea where you get your definition of "work" from.


----------



## McSteel (Nov 26, 2012)

Sod off Intel, you bad Apple.

If it won't be bad enough to have limited choice, it will be horrible to have cold solder joints and be forced to buy a completely new combo. Seeing how it will be possible, and probably preferable to have PCH + CPU + GPU on a single package, maybe even a single die, the number of solder balls will be huge, possibly over 9000 2000, and they'll need to be of the 0,1 mm variety. Because they'll be under constant pressure and vibrational stress (from the heatsink), and the temperature delta is expected to be significant, I don't see such a setup lasting very long.

I really do hope no manufacturer agrees to this bullsheit, or everyone who appreciates what a Desktop PC is and should be will have to go AMD. Perhaps that won't be so bad after all...


----------



## Binge (Nov 26, 2012)

Frick said:


> Continuing here:
> 
> 
> 
> Thin clients and slim desktops are closing each other is my point. And I'm not talking about casual solitaire, I'm talking about the offices where clerks and whatever do their work. Helpdesks, laywers, hospital clerks etc etc etc have no business doing anything with workstations. I have no idea where you get your definition of "work" from.



I work in a helpdesk where we don't use workstations, but we would be crippled if our machines could not be serviced without dropping in another motherboard.  Lawyers are an unknown for me, but as far as medical machines they sometimes need huge memory for massive data-tables.    Unless it became cost effective to just have an extra machine in the closet a front-end system for entry/registration/ticket processing would NEED to be serviceable or work would suffer.


----------



## Frick (Nov 26, 2012)

Binge said:


> I work in a helpdesk where we don't use workstations, but we would be crippled if our machines could not be serviced without dropping in another motherboard.  Lawyers are an unknown for me, but as far as medical machines they sometimes need huge memory for massive data-tables.    Unless it became cost effective to just have an extra machine in the closet a front-end system for entry/registration/ticket processing would NEED to be serviceable or work would suffer.



I was in helpdesk too and we had no issues with that. We had two computers each though. And if the place is big enough it'll have spare machines. And if the place is small enough it might not be able to handle a motherboard breakdown on their own (if that is what the problem is). And for those smaller/cheaper systems (that most offices will use), the price difference between a motherboard and a motherboard with onboard CPU might not be so big.


----------



## iO (Nov 26, 2012)

"Next Unit of Computing"...


----------



## ChristTheGreat (Nov 26, 2012)

But with all t his, that would mean: You need to buy the CPU with mobo options, and you won't get more..

If I want a i3 but with all the features nice of an high end board, I can.. like if buying an i3 would mean buying an H77 m-ATX with no features..

Except if all bords comes with all the same features and lower price ok, but instead this is not cool:

Intel will sell to Asus, gigabyte and other, and they will sell to resellers. Before we had Intel then resellers...

Asus will want to make a small profit on CPU for sure...


----------



## yogurt_21 (Nov 26, 2012)

tbh it's been a long time since I've upgraded the cpu/mobo seperately. By the time I've got the cash for an upgrade, a new/better/flashier/cheaper option is available in a new socket. 

If they do away with socket upgrades they'll need to make it cheaper than it would have cost for individual parts though. I'm not paying 800$ for a combo that should cost 500.


----------



## Protagonist (Nov 26, 2012)

STCNE said:


> How many of us frequently swap out CPUs on our boards?



I do, If i can remember just but to mention few scenarios.

1. Intel Desktop Board D945GCCR (Processors: Pentium Dual 1.6GHz & 1.8GHz transitioned with it to the next board)

2. Intel Desktop Board D945GCNL (Processors: Pentium Dual 1.8GHz & 2.0GHz transitioned with it to the next board)

3. Intel Desktop Board DG33BU (Processors: Pentium Dual 2.0GHz & 2.2GHz transitioned with it to the next board)

4. Intel Desktop Board DG35EC (Processors: Pentium Dual 2.2GHz & 2.5GHz)

5. Intel Desktop Board DG43GT (Processor: Core 2 Duo 2.93GHz)

6. Intel Desktop Board DH55HC (Processors: Core i3-530 2.93GHz & i5-760 2.8GHz)

7. Currently on Intel Desktop Board DZ68BC (Processors: Core i5-2500K 3.3GHz & i7-3770 3.4GHz)

So clearly it will have a negative Impact on me, so to speak.



Binge said:


> I would have thought this go the other way around... socket SoC CPUs with onboard ram, gpu, cpu all integrated and the motherboards would get smaller and smaller.  Just drop in another CPU and there's your upgrade/replacement etc etc.



I thought so too, this could be nice if it ever happens I hope it will happen, I prefer this path more than what could happen.


----------



## The Von Matrices (Nov 26, 2012)

This is not much of a surprise to me since Haswell GT3 won't be available in a socketed form anyway.  I don't have a problem with not being able to swap a CPU once I acquire a motherboard, but I do have a problem with not having the choice to select a board and processsor independently when I am replacing a system.  

I recently built a system for a friend who mostly does web surfing with his PC but is an avid photographer.  He has a few external hard drives full of pictures, so he wanted a cheap system with integrated USB 3.0.  I ordered him a Pentium G2120 system with a H77 motherboard.  This is a low end CPU with a mid range chipset.  This combination wouldn't exist with a processor soldered onto a motherboard.  If socketed CPUs were the case in this generation and I wanted a G2120, I probably would have to settle for the inadequate H61 chipset and lots of add-in cards to get the features needed.  Eliminating choice is never a good thing.


----------



## Patriot (Nov 26, 2012)

Morgoth said:


> im sticking with xeons



I second that ...won't need to replace my E5-2680 for a long time anyways.


----------



## Frick (Nov 26, 2012)

BTW, all of my computers are pretty much sctap so this would affect me negatively. But i dont think its far fetched.


----------



## radrok (Nov 26, 2012)

Morgoth said:


> im sticking with xeons



I'd gladly agree if Intel gives us back bclk overclocking on Xeons :|


----------



## Easy Rhino (Nov 26, 2012)

sites like TPU will be pointless in the next decade. i guess that's why w1z created nextpowerup.


----------



## cdawall (Nov 26, 2012)

Easy Rhino said:


> sites like TPU will be pointless in the next decade. i guess that's why w1z created nextpowerup.


You shut your dirty mouth.  AMD will still be using sockets!


----------



## St.Alia-Of-The-Knife (Nov 26, 2012)

cdawall said:


> You shut your dirty mouth.  AMD will still be using sockets!



And the ghost of AMD rises from the grave...


----------



## cdawall (Nov 26, 2012)

St.Alia-Of-The-Knife said:


> And the ghost of AMD rises from the grave...



Just saying two major manufacturers exist and only one is screwing over the mainstream.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Nov 26, 2012)

cdawall said:


> You shut your dirty mouth.  AMD will still be using sockets!



like im going to use amd


----------



## ViperXTR (Nov 26, 2012)

it will be like a video card now, GPU soldered to the board, next DDR5 will be soldered into the board as well D:


----------



## Protagonist (Nov 26, 2012)

Easy Rhino said:


> sites like TPU will be pointless in the next decade. i guess that's why w1z created *nextpowerup*.



How do I register in www.nextpowerup.com?


----------



## cdawall (Nov 26, 2012)

Easy Rhino said:


> like im going to use amd



Should probably start looking into tablets then.


----------



## PopcornMachine (Nov 26, 2012)

I think will still be the ability to build systems.  Maybe not with the same flexibility as before, but at least picking the graphics, storage, and case.

I currently don't see anything to complete replace the desktop, and think word of it's demise is greatly exaggerated. 

Forgot to add that with monitors finally starting to increase in resolution, I don't see little phones an pads driving those.  Some day maybe, but not any time soon.


----------



## Nordic (Nov 26, 2012)

I wonder what amd's response to this.


----------



## HumanSmoke (Nov 26, 2012)

cdawall said:


> Should probably start looking into tablets then.


Wouldn't it just be easier to skip Broadwell (if it's BGA) and move straight to Skymont (which will be socketed afaia) when it debuts. 
I was under the impression that desktop Broadwell was going to be a one year deal. And as far as I know, Broadwell-EX will still utilize the Brickland platform (Ivy Bridge-EX/Haswell-EX)- i.e. socketed.
EDIT:
VR-Zone story concerning Grantley and Brickland platforms


----------



## unholythree (Nov 26, 2012)

Oddly enough for me it's my processors that get transplanted to new mobo's not the other way around. My old 775's now run entry level mobo's with on-board video for my HTPC and NAS while the old enthusiast mobo's are long gone.

I like collecting my old processors, I figured one day I would polish them all up and put them in a shadow box or something.


----------



## PGHammer (Nov 26, 2012)

*The CPU Isn't The Problem!*



HR_The_Butcher said:


> What do you mean, "in the LGA775 days"?
> 
> I'm still rocking a Q9550.
> 
> And when it becomes obsolete, I'll just declare myself a hipster and keep on using it. 775 FTW.



The issue with LGA775 (or anything newer) isn't the CPU itself, but the improvements since in the rest of the periphery.

Do you *really* need anything newer than LGA775 to run even Windows 8?  Surprisingly, the answer is an absolute *no*, as there is a grand total of *one* feature in Windows 8 (Hyper-V) that absolutely positively is not supported in LGA775.  (The rather amusing part is that merely by changing to a *server* version of Windows (specifically, Windows Server 2008 or later, including Server 2008R2 or 2012), you CAN run Hyper-V on LGA775 - my Q6600 dual-boots Windows 8 Pro x64 and Server 2012; while Windows 8 can't run Hyper-V clients, Server 2012 does.)  You can add (or even boot from) an SSD with LGA775-based hardware, even hardware with chipsets such as the stumblebum that is the corporate-stable/consumer-stable G41.  That said, LGA775/G41 has two rather nasty issues - 

1.  RAM capacity - G41 supports just two DIMM slots; they can be either DDR2 or DDR3, but the maximum is just two.  Adding insult to injury, G41's DDR3 DIMM capacity remains firewalled at 4GB per DIMM - it can't swallow the 8GB DIMMs that are now available at decent prices.

2.  Bottlenecking elsewhere - All too often, resolving gaming bottlenecks on an LGA775-based system requires leaving LGA775, even, if not especially, if the bottleneck is outside the CPU, and it almost always is.


----------



## xorbe (Nov 26, 2012)

When CPUs come soldered on, then they are going to rape and pillage your wallet for the best CPU and the most popular motherboards.  (Think like "$200" $40 memory upgrades for sealed Apple products.)


----------



## Morgoth (Nov 27, 2012)

Intel advertisement
_want some extra cpu power? dont like switching over to a faster cpuboard? get your self a Intel xeon co processor faster performance no need for new cpuboard _

lol?


----------



## Mussels (Nov 27, 2012)

this makes sense for nettops and the mobile markets, but is bad news for desktop.


----------



## TRWOV (Nov 27, 2012)

Although I don't see this being a _real_ issue for 90% of the people I think it would be a logistic nightmare for manufacturers. Intel has about 60 different processor models in retail channels right now. How are manufacturers going to go about all that spread? Are they going to offer 50 versions of the same motherboard?

Before it comes to that I think that Intel should consolidate its CPU offerings. How many Celerons does the market really needs? There are like 12 Pentiums right now, each one with just a 100Mhz difference between them and some features disabled.

In that regard AMD is more focused. They have at most 2-3 CPUs per performance segment and that is very healthy for the consumer as he doesn't get lost in the myriad of offerings.

I'd say that intel needs to copy a page from AMD on this: ship all CPUs with unlocked multiplier, offer a low end and a high end (better binned) CPU for each performance segment and let the buyers thin the herd.







PGHammer said:


> The issue with LGA775 (or anything newer) isn't the CPU itself, but the improvements since in the rest of the periphery.
> 
> Do you *really* need anything newer than LGA775 to run even Windows 8?  Surprisingly, the answer is an absolute *no*, as there is a grand total of *one* feature in Windows 8 (Hyper-V) that absolutely positively is not supported in LGA775.  (The rather amusing part is that merely by changing to a *server* version of Windows (specifically, Windows Server 2008 or later, including Server 2008R2 or 2012), you CAN run Hyper-V on LGA775 - my Q6600 dual-boots Windows 8 Pro x64 and Server 2012; while Windows 8 can't run Hyper-V clients, Server 2012 does.)  You can add (or even boot from) an SSD with LGA775-based hardware, even hardware with chipsets such as the stumblebum that is the corporate-stable/consumer-stable G41.



I'm running W8 on a LGA775 *865PE* based board with DDR1 and AGP slot  It even has HPET.


----------



## Melvis (Nov 27, 2012)

If only consumers learned that when your computer becomes slow that they can in most cases just simply update the CPU and be done with it. Instead of thinking of buying a whole new system as most of the time its the Software or a lack of Memory that is slowing down a computer not the CPU its self, but if it was then a BIOS update, put in a new CPU and there good as gold, but most dont, sad realy.


----------



## Vlada011 (Nov 27, 2012)

Intel try to kill everybody, first motherboards section, than they cross on video cards segment with better graphics inside the CPU than on PSU because CPU will need 5W to work. And than we will pay 2000-2500$ for everything together but only to Intel. ...It's not possibile of course...


----------



## cdawall (Nov 27, 2012)

Mussels said:


> this makes sense for nettops and the mobile markets, but is bad news for desktop.



They already had this in the nettop/mobile market most low power chips from AMD and Intel are BGA. Atom chips as well as K8L have been soldered for a while. In those instances I have no issues with the move, but in a mainstream market it is kind of a bad deal. No more will people be binning chips for overclocking you are going to have stacks of motherboard/CPU combo's and that assumes Intel doesn't completely lock down these CPU's to prevent overclocking. It just seems odd considering Haswell brings back bus clocking in its revision, but the next batch of chips is attached to the board? WTF?

If I had to guess I would say Intel is forcing the enthusiast market off of the mainstream boards. They have been trying for years with Z77 lacking PCI-e lanes, limiting the upgradability (1156/1155/1150 short lifespan) overclocking locked to "K" series CPU's just more and more attempts to force users to blow money into an entusiast platform. Now I do not think Intel is going to force people over to Xeon's, but they will have an i7 3820 and LGA 2011 equal that they expect you to buy if you want to overclock and run SLi/Crossfire.


----------



## ensabrenoir (Nov 27, 2012)

Vlada011 said:


> Intel try to kill everybody, first motherboards section, than they cross on video cards segment with better graphics inside the CPU than on PSU because CPU will need 5W to work. And than we will pay 2000-2500$ for everything together but only to Intel. ...It's not possibile of course...






The pc world is evolving..... budget and bang for buckers' worlds will end & implode into the soc enviroment.  Enthusiasts will migrate to work stations .......YOU HEAR THAT..... ITS INEVITABLE........ MR ANDERSON.........


----------



## hardcore_gamer (Nov 27, 2012)

ensabrenoir said:


> Enthusiasts will migrate to work stations .



Overclockable xeons are a dying species. Enthusiasts will also end with budget and bang for buckers.


----------



## ensabrenoir (Nov 27, 2012)

hardcore_gamer said:


> Overclockable xeons are a dying species. Enthusiasts will also end with budget and bang for buckers.



For a price i think intel will leave a window open....if not... were enthusiast.... well figure something out... alot of interesting tech coming down the pipe, I think overclocking will evolve along with it.


----------



## Frick (Nov 27, 2012)

Melvis said:


> If only consumers learned that when your computer becomes slow that they can in most cases just simply update the CPU and be done with it. Instead of thinking of buying a whole new system as most of the time its the Software or a lack of Memory that is slowing down a computer not the CPU its self, but if it was then a BIOS update, put in a new CPU and there good as gold, but most dont, sad realy.



After the core 2 cpus that is often not the issue. A bogged down system ridled with crapware is.


----------



## Melvis (Nov 27, 2012)

Frick said:


> After the core 2 cpus that is often not the issue. A bogged down system ridled with crapware is.



Thats exactly my point!! Then IF the software isn't the issue, upgrade the CPU, and for a 775 Socket you could go a 9550 or something like that? For a basic home user that's more then enough.


----------



## HumanSmoke (Nov 27, 2012)

Frick said:


> After the core 2 cpus that is often not the issue. A bogged down system ridled with crapware is.


True enough. A gradual slow down and the gradual creep of momentary non-responsiveness in programs usually goes unnoticed by a lot a users...Clean install the OS and a good number of people would think that they were looking at a major hardware upgrade from the apparent speedup.


----------



## Mussels (Nov 27, 2012)

for the price of a 9550, you could get a mobo/cpu/ram combo on a more modern socket, with equal or greater performance. sell the old CPU + mobo + RAM combo, and its even cheaper.


----------



## Melvis (Nov 27, 2012)

Mussels said:


> for the price of a 9550, you could get a mobo/cpu/ram combo on a more modern socket, with equal or greater performance. sell the old CPU + mobo + RAM combo, and its even cheaper.



Thats true, but it was just an eg.

For me I have sold and built 99% AMD systems in the past 6yrs from 939 to AM3+ and only 1 ever agreed for a CPU upgrade, even though AMD CPU's are mega cheap, so


----------



## darkangel0504 (Nov 27, 2012)

guys 

http://wccftech.com/intel-broadwell...tel-focused-soc-mobile-chips-mainstream-cpus/


----------



## xenocide (Nov 27, 2012)

darkangel0504 said:


> guys
> 
> http://wccftech.com/intel-broadwell...tel-focused-soc-mobile-chips-mainstream-cpus/



Those charts look very professional indeed.


----------



## HumanSmoke (Nov 27, 2012)

xenocide said:


> Those charts look very professional indeed.


Indeed. Someone pulled out all the stops when they fired up Excel


----------



## Legacy-ZA (Nov 27, 2012)

This is a horrible idea. It will remove customization out of the picture. Of course people will stop buying your processors, you keep changing the damn sockets every year, what the hell did you expect? Intel, if and when you do this, I will move over to AMD, sure I might not see the same performance as with your current chips, but oh boy I do not like people screwing around with customization a.k.a peoples decision / choice!


----------



## Mussels (Nov 27, 2012)

they'll probably lock them down, and require software to enable the extra cores/cache. we've all heard of them trialling that tech before.


----------



## Nordic (Nov 27, 2012)

If they do actually do this with broadwell, as nothing is set in stone, then this leaves a big door open for amd. Intel might do it for a few generations but maybe it might be a mistake for them in some way.


----------



## cyneater (Nov 27, 2012)

I normally get a decent CPU and a crap mother board
OR a crap CPU and decent mother board.

I have had 4 socket 775 cpu's and 7 motherboards... Nvidia chipsets and intel cpus not the best combination. Although if you wanted to cook toast or replace the crappy cooler that came with the motherboard this might help.

If Intel solder everything in ill just go to amd. Or hopefully ARM.... 

I can't justify and upgrade there are any "fun" games that won't run on a Q6700 and a Geforce GTX 560 Ti. Most new games are steaming piles of crap anyway ... .

Besides the fact your Epean is bigger is there much point of upgrading if your current system is running fine...


----------



## HossHuge (Nov 27, 2012)

This could also be a nightmare for CPU cooling companies.


----------



## btarunr (Nov 27, 2012)

HossHuge said:


> This could also be a nightmare for CPU cooling companies.



Yup, each board vendor could have its own cooling solution, much like graphics cards. Maybe like GPUs, there could be common mount-hole spacing.


----------



## Shihab (Nov 27, 2012)

So, from all this talk I guess Otellini should stick around longer, eh?

'ny ways. I find it hard to believe that Intel would ditch the mainstream market so easily. Not when ARM's making a move in, and not where AMD APUs shine. 
I see this move applied to Celerons and maybe some higher powered Atoms for ultra small form factors. And perhaps releasing special featured BGA CPUs for MicroATX systems (HTPCs and such). But I doubt they would do all of the mainstream segment.


----------



## PGHammer (Nov 27, 2012)

*You're Missing The Point*



Shihabyooo said:


> So, from all this talk I guess Otellini should stick around longer, eh?
> 
> 'ny ways. I find it hard to believe that Intel would ditch the mainstream market so easily. Not when ARM's making a move in, and not where AMD APUs shine.
> I see this move applied to Celerons and maybe some higher powered Atoms for ultra small form factors. And perhaps releasing special featured BGA CPUs for MicroATX systems (HTPCs and such). But I doubt they would do all of the mainstream segment.



Broadwell is NOT a Haswell replacement - it's not even a mainstream CPU.

If anything, Broadwell is "Son of Haswell", but an Atom/Clover Trail replacement (SoC).

Haswell will have three different sets of progeny - 

1.  Broadwell (the current subject of discussion) in the SoC space (this segment is now occupied by Atom, and eventually Clover Trail, which is now starting to arrive) - these CPUs *already* use BGA packing primarily - does Atom even SHIP in LGA packaging?
2.  Haswell-MS/Lynx Point - this will succeed Ivy Bridge and be a *tock*; it also may or may not use a new socket.  (I'm talking specifically about LGA1155 or direct successor socket.)
3.  Haswell-EX - This will replace Sandy-E and/or LGA2011, a variant will be a XEON for the WS/server space.

Mountain out of molehill.


----------



## cyneater (Nov 27, 2012)

Maybe the article is wrong.... 

I do know a few laptops have soldiered in CPU's mainly celerons. 
In over 15 years building computers I have only ever once upgraded a laptop CPU.

So... maybe everyone is wound around the axles for no reason.


----------



## PGHammer (Nov 27, 2012)

*Re-read the Article!*



cyneater said:


> Maybe the article is wrong....
> 
> I do know a few laptops have soldiered in CPU's mainly celerons.
> In over 15 years building computers I have only ever once upgraded a laptop CPU.
> ...



The article itself points to Broadwell being an SoC (Atom successor).  The concern is more outbound; post-2015 and the successor to Lynx Point (which is the mainstream Haswell CPU) - Intel China/RoC is worried that devices will replace the mainstream as where the action is.  (This is also the concern of investors - and why Intel/AMD/everyone else in the PC space took a shellacking last week in the financial markets; even Apple (OS X) and Google (advertising) didn't escape that.)  Whether that actually happens depends on the economy - not anything necessarily that Intel does, or doesn't do.


----------



## cyneater (Nov 28, 2012)

So in other words a sort of planned obsolescence?

No wonder the world is f&*ked all people are worried about is money.
What is wrong with old tech if it still works.
Wouldn't it be alot cooler for intel to say we have 30 year old machines still running?
Maybe Intel should start some sort of recycling industry to combat intel processors boards etc.

I despise the markets and all those sort of business people. That are only worried about the now and the future. 

In the real world post 2005 you don't need to upgrade your processor every 2 years.
Back in the 1990's you could just run windows 95 on a 486 and maybe windows 98.
There was a huge performance jump from a 486 to a Pentium then a big jump to a Pentium 2 and to Pentium 3 and 4 .... 
If you where a PC gamer you needed to upgrade every 2 or so years other wise you couldn't play the newest games.

No one writes software to take full advantage of CPU's anymore.
And more and more people don't us pc's or laptops anymore.
Its not like you need 40GHZ to get on the internet.

So either program something that is good that takes advantage of current tech or die.

I jumped ship to Intel because socket 478 was used for ever. 
Then went to socket 775 because of the upgrade path from dual to quad core.
Most people I know have 3+ year old desktops because they have no need to upgrade there CPU.

Also if intel didn't make 20+ cores per a CPU they might not shot themselves in the foot.
Most servers now days are run in an ESX or hypervisor box. With either 1 or more multicore CPU's running heaps of servers.
I saw a whole server room condensed to 1 Xen box with 4 Xeon CPU's Which replaced 30+ xeon CPU's.

If intel do this someone from the ARM camp just needs to make a decent board with 6+ sata ports....


----------



## PGHammer (Nov 28, 2012)

*Planned? Hardly.*



cyneater said:


> So in other words a sort of planned obsolescence?
> 
> No wonder the world is f&*ked all people are worried about is money.
> What is wrong with old tech if it still works.
> ...



Planned?  Hardly.

However, as much as we despise the business markets, Intel is a publicly-traded company (I own stock in Intel, in fact), and needs to satisfy those investors.  Multicore is ubiquitous - and is everywhere (those selfsame ARM CPUs are quad-core); however, those ARM CPUs are, in fact, reduced-instruction-set (RISC), as opposed to complex-instruction-set (CISC), therefore they aren't as complex to manufacture.  ARM Holdings itself has no fabs - they are basically a licensing and development company.  Intel, however, is vertically integrated and has fab capacity out the wazoo; that is what they have been leveraging to drive AMD to the point of destruction as a going concern.  ARM isn't vulnerable because they have concentrated entirely where their design is strongest (and where any CISC design - including Intel's - is weakest - low-power and ultra-low power; even we have to admit, Atom, which is based on Core/CISC, is not exactly efficient in terms of power compared to ARM).  ARM (and RISC) is not coming head-on at CISC, but coming from underneath.  The lack of complexity, and the cost of manufacture, is playing right into the strengths of ARM; throw in the poor economy, and the needs (or lack thereof) of the computing masses, and it is a Very Bad Harbinger for the future of CISC, and Intel in particular.


----------



## xenocide (Nov 28, 2012)

There is only 1 Atom CPU that is intended to compete with ARM offerings--Medfield and its successors.  And it is actually just as good as ARM CPU's when it comes to power consumption, and it's an x86-based CISC CPU, that offered comperable performance.  That was Intel's first attempt, imagine how good the newer versions will be once Intel really starts working at it...


----------



## NeoXF (Nov 28, 2012)

LOLWUT...

BTW, why is Intel talked up so much in this context as if AMD doesn't even exist. I suspect even if this is the case, there's still AMD to capitalize in this segment. But all in all, seriously, WTF. Might as well rename every x86 PC to Apple iSomething.


----------



## Mussels (Nov 28, 2012)

NeoXF said:


> LOLWUT...
> 
> BTW, why is Intel talked up so much in this context as if AMD doesn't even exist. I suspect even if this is the case, there's still AMD to capitalize in this segment. But all in all, seriously, WTF. Might as well rename every x86 PC to Apple iSomething.



you mean like i3/i5/i7?


----------



## Shihab (Nov 28, 2012)

PGHammer said:


> Broadwell is NOT a Haswell replacement - it's not even a mainstream CPU.
> 
> If anything, Broadwell is "Son of Haswell", but an Atom/Clover Trail replacement (SoC)



Err, AFAIK, Broadwell is Haswell's planned successor as a die Shrink, same as Ivy Bridge was to Sandy. And I think the Article did mention that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Tick-Tock#Roadmap




PGHammer said:


> 1.  Broadwell (the current subject of discussion) in the SoC space (this segment is now occupied by Atom, and eventually Clover Trail, which is now starting to arrive) - these CPUs *already* use BGA packing primarily - does Atom even SHIP in LGA packaging?



Hence the _*"higher powered*_ Atoms" part. And I did mention Celerons along, didn't I?
In case I'm poorly translating my thoughts, what I'm saying is that Intel might add in another segment between the low power entry level Atoms and the low end Celerons and Pentiums.



PGHammer said:


> 2. Haswell-MS/Lynx Point - this will succeed Ivy Bridge and be a *tock*; it also may or may not use a new socket. (I'm talking specifically about LGA1155 or direct successor socket.)
> 3. Haswell-EX - This will replace Sandy-E and/or LGA2011, a variant will be a XEON for the WS/server space.





PGHammer said:


> Mountain out of molehill.


----------



## de.das.dude (Nov 28, 2012)

Sasqui said:


> Death of the motherboard industry?



AMD! AMD!

in AMD we trust.


(they seem to be the only ones who listen to what the consumers want)


----------



## Vlada011 (Nov 30, 2012)

Now chance to cross on AMD. No way.
I only hope Extreme will stay like now and than upgrade later but on Extreme.
If you buy platform for 1000$ and use that 5 years for gaming that is OK.
Intel i7 CPU can hold one or two graphic 4-5 years.
i7-860 is OK and today and next year.

Bad situation is if you buy motherboard together with CPU(example in future) and you get wonderfull overclocker, amazing, one in 1.000 samples... 
but little things on motherboard die and you need to change everything and next CPU is crap...
If they decide to leave overclocking...


----------



## Frick (Nov 30, 2012)

de.das.dude said:


> (they seem to be the only ones who listen to what the consumers want)



Like performance?


----------



## PGHammer (Nov 30, 2012)

*Pretty Much*



Mussels said:


> you mean like i3/i5/i7?



AMD's APU marketplace is almost a subniche - it fits in that small (and getting smaller) space between tablets/slates powered by ARM and full-fledged portables (Ultrabooks) - powered largely by i5 (not i3). All too often, if the full power of Sandy Bridge/Ivy isn't needed, but portability is, consumers will buy a tablet or slate running Android or WindowsRT (price issue - not even AMD APUs can compete here based on price) - otherwise, the APU is too underpowered, even compared to i3, let alone i5.


----------



## cdawall (Nov 30, 2012)

Frick said:


> Like performance?



Last time I checked AMD delivered a CPU that does awesome in multitasking for roughly half the price. (FX8350 vs 3770K) Are they the fastest single core on the market NOPE, but that being said who cares? For what I do it's faster than a Phenom II in the single core market and faster than Intel's offerings in multitasking. Sounds like a good performance/value CPU to me.



PGHammer said:


> AMD's APU marketplace is almost a subniche - it fits in that small (and getting smaller) space between tablets/slates powered by ARM and full-fledged portables (Ultrabooks) - powered largely by i5 (not i3). All too often, if the full power of Sandy Bridge/Ivy isn't needed, but portability is, consumers will buy a tablet or slate running Android or WindowsRT (price issue - not even AMD APUs can compete here based on price) - otherwise, the APU is too underpowered, even compared to i3, let alone i5.



The A8/A10 compete just fine with the i3 series that they are priced against. If you are going to compare them to the i5 may as well compare them to the i7 not even in the same class.


----------



## Frick (Nov 30, 2012)

cdawall said:


> Last time I checked AMD delivered a CPU that does awesome in multitasking for roughly half the price. (FX8350 vs 3770K) Are they the fastest single core on the market NOPE, but that being said who cares? For what I do it's faster than a Phenom II in the single core market and faster than Intel's offerings in multitasking. Sounds like a good performance/value CPU to me.



Yeah I know it was mostly to pull DDD's strings. He's such an AMD fanboy.


----------



## bmaverick (Dec 4, 2012)

*Slot-1 & Slot-A days will come back as Slot-2 and Slot-B*

Slot-1 & Slot-A days will come back as Slot-2 and Slot-B

So what if BGA is here to stay.  CPU's can still be placed on CPU PCBs and then mounted onto the Motherboard.  That's how Apple did it for years. 

Wait ... Maybe Apple is pushing Intel to go this route.


----------



## SaltyFish (Dec 4, 2012)

There's a lot to read into about this.

The System-on-a-Chip (SoC) concept is spreading. In the early days of computers, we had specialized discrete cards (sound cards, video cards, etc.) because CPUs weren't powerful enough to do everything expected of a general-purpose machine. CPUs these days are so powerful that things are being dumped onto the CPU. There was a time when discrete sound cards were a necessity for gaming because sound processing ate up a significant amount of CPU cycles. Nowadays, on-board sound is standard because the load is practically trivial for modern CPUs. Graphics follows something similar as well. Of course, the progressive concentration means less choices. Remember the days when motherboards could use both AMD and Intel CPUs? Or when the CPU, GPU, and chipset markets _weren't_ duopolies? They'll likely still have expansion slots for things like TV tuners, RAID cards, and other less general stuff... at least until all that gets slapped onto the CPU as well.

The big question is whether Skylake will follow the Haswell model or the Broadwell model. "Ticks" bring smaller improvements than "tocks" and is mostly just power reduction due to die shrinking. Soldering the die-shrink generation isn't that bad unless you're a chronic upgrader (e.g. going from Sandy to Ivy). But either way, there's always the enthusiast market being absorbed into the server market. With DDR4 RAM debuting on the server variants of Haswell (mainstream doesn't get it until two years later with Skylake), maybe it's time to consider picking up a Haswell Xeon processor or two and brandish the 20+ MB cache e-peen?


----------



## johnspack (Dec 4, 2012)

Bah,  sb-e will prob be my last upgrade.  Judging by my family's history of cancer,  both father and mother,  and grandmother.  Honestly,  I'd rather be dead before I see cpus soldered to mobos again.  Only the worst proprietary prebuilt makers ever did that before.  I've thrown out many.  God help us all.


----------



## TRWOV (Dec 4, 2012)

I think that this wouldn't present a problem for 90% of users if done right but first intel needs to reduce its product portfolio to 10 or so CPUs (2 per segment). As most of the chipset would be inside the CPU by then, a single SB could be used for every board. And ship everything unlocked. Leave the workstation/server platform open for enthusiasts.


----------

