# Socket Pin Burnout Returns to Haunt LGA1155?



## btarunr (Jan 17, 2011)

Last year, credible reports of a design defect with LGA1156 sockets made by a certain component manufacturer in particular, made headlines. Reviewers found that extreme overclocking using increase voltages, in test cases, caused certain pins of the socket to burn out, damaging both the board and processor. The defect was found to be caused by shorting between the pins and the socket causing tiny electrical arcs. Motherboard reviewer from TechReaction.net discovered that his Gigabyte GA-P67A-UD4 and GA-P67A-UD7 samples showed signs of socket burn. The publication is yet to receive a reply from the board manufacturer.

LGA1155 and LGA1156 are very similar in physical pin layout, chip package, and retention clips, although the pin-maps are significantly different. TechReaction comments that while only "extreme conditions" cause such pin burnouts, 24/7-stable overclocked settings could, over a period of time, create similar conditions. Only time, and extensive testing will reveal if burnouts are a cause for concern to enthusiasts.



 

 

 



*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## Wile E (Jan 17, 2011)

Not many details. Only 2 individual boards so far? I wouldn't worry about this yet. Seems a bit soon to even make a blog post about.


----------



## cdawall (Jan 17, 2011)

no surprise here to much wattage to few pins


----------



## Wile E (Jan 17, 2011)

cdawall said:


> no surprise here to much wattage to few pins



Except that it wasn't number of pins that caused it the first time around, it was the manufacturer of the socket making it out of spec.

And it's still only been shown on 2 individual boards this time around, not even 2 model lines, just 2 boards some guy had. We don't even know if it's legit burnout.


----------



## btarunr (Jan 17, 2011)

Wile E said:


> Not many details. Only 2 individual boards so far? I wouldn't worry about this yet. Seems a bit soon to even make a blog post about.



Those were the same exact comments when the very first article about LGA1156 pin burnout surfaced.


----------



## Wile E (Jan 17, 2011)

btarunr said:


> Those were the same exact comments when the very first article about LGA1156 pin burnout surfaced.


Didn't those articles provide a bit more info in the process? And because it turned out to be a problem in 1156, that automatically means it is also a problem in 1155?

If they were posted with the same amount of facts as this was, they deserved that initial skepticism.


----------



## Link108 (Jan 17, 2011)

That is just the risk you take for overclocking. I'm not suprised. That is why I have limits as to how high I oc my system because you have to decide is the risk worth the gain. Overclocking is nothing but a gamble. If you want to do some insane ocing use liquid nitro, or phase change. Also every piece of hardware is different in terms of ocing.


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Jan 17, 2011)

A reasonable overclock taking consideration for the hardware is very far from a gamble, particularly if you're in any way competent at life. If this is anything at all, it's a defect that could have shown itself regardless of overclocking.


----------



## buggalugs (Jan 17, 2011)

It would be nice if the guy said something about how much voltage he was using.


----------



## pr0n Inspector (Jan 17, 2011)

I demand the socket for my 95W processor to provide over 9000W without breaking a sweat or I will sh-t bricks in your face, [motherboard maker]!




> I received two motherboards from Gigabyte recently for testing, one P67A-UD4 and one P67A-UD7. *Upon arrival*, I did a thorough visual inspection, and found the UD4 had obvious signs of “socket burn”…


----------



## Riou (Jan 17, 2011)

The reviewer did not even put the CPU in the board yet. The socket already had burned pins.

I repeat, the board came from Gigabyte with burnt pins.


----------



## buggalugs (Jan 17, 2011)

Riou said:


> The reviewer did not even put the CPU in the board yet. The socket already had burned pins.
> 
> I repeat, the board came from Gigabyte with burnt pins.



Oh, well that sucks then. Bad quality control from Gigabyte.


----------



## erixx (Jan 17, 2011)

Maybe because they -GB- are doing non stop overclocking contests?


----------



## BUCK NASTY (Jan 17, 2011)

Here we go again. Just limited to GigaByte so far? Looks like I may hold off on being an early adopter this round.:shadedshu


----------



## hat (Jan 17, 2011)

Ouch. This might give me a reason to avoid GB... however, they don't specify the voltage they were using. I wouldn't be surprised if this happened while pushing ridiculous power like 1.7v.

Take it from me, always look into your board's specs when you are going to overclock, and more importantly, push voltage. I had a Biostar board (same model I'm using now, it got RMA'd) blow up and kill my 9800GT I had at the time when I tried to overclock/overvolt a Phenom 9500. The P9500 is already at 95w stock, and my board is only rated to support up to 95w processors. That sucked, but it was my fault for not paying attention, but I'm much the wiser about such things now.

It doesn't surprise me that these pins would burn out, especially when overclocked. Fitting 1155 pins into such a small space... those pins got to be awful thin.


----------



## KieX (Jan 17, 2011)

Oh god, please no! 

To be honest I think that may just be the reviewer's fault or possibly just an unlucky board from GB. My UD4 didn't look like that, and so far so good. Feel like I'm a guinea pig now


----------



## buggalugs (Jan 17, 2011)

KieX said:


> Oh god, please no!
> 
> To be honest I think that may just be the reviewer's fault



We already established the reviewer didnt even use the board. Gigabyte sent it like that.

 Ya but because they were sample boards i'm guessing Gigabyte sent a couple of boards they were using and testing with and didnt realise the socket was burnt. I doubt a new board would have burnt sockets. Haha looks bad for Gigabyte though.


----------



## Tartaros (Jan 17, 2011)

> Ouch. This might give me a reason to avoid GB



Sometimes this things happens and everyone can fail. Quality controls are not perfect, that doesn't mean gb is a bad brand.


----------



## wahdangun (Jan 17, 2011)

Wile E said:


> Didn't those articles provide a bit more info in the process? And because it turned out to be a problem in 1156, that automatically means it is also a problem in 1155?
> 
> If they were posted with the same amount of facts as this was, they deserved that initial skepticism.



i don't think so because LGA 1155 have significantly different pin arrangement,


----------



## micropage7 (Jan 17, 2011)

Tartaros said:


> Sometimes this things happens and everyone can fail. Quality controls are not perfect, that doesn't mean gb is a bad brand.



agree, personally i think that the socket is not made by gigabyte, then the fault not only from gigabyte itself, any other brand could have that
when intel change the pin from the processor to the socket, any fault like that is possible, remember how many pins on the socket, any small thing err on manufacture or handling would give result like that


----------



## hat (Jan 17, 2011)

Tartaros said:


> Sometimes this things happens and everyone can fail. Quality controls are not perfect, that doesn't mean gb is a bad brand.



I know, but I keep seeing mixed views about GB...


----------



## bear jesus (Jan 17, 2011)

If it was a review sample is it possible another reviewer had pushed it too far? But also was not the issues with the LGA1156 sockets due to low quality ones from foxconn? anyone know what brand gigabyte uses on these boards?

Personally i dislike the pins being on the motherboard but that's mainly as my CPU's usually cost less than the board so that way around if a pin gets damaged it is the more costly replacement.


----------



## yogurt_21 (Jan 17, 2011)

bear jesus said:


> If it was a review sample is it possible another reviewer had pushed it too far?



that'd be my guess also.

I'd haver a guess that the cpu overheated as well. 

though i really do preser the pins on the mobo rather than the cpu, so many bent pins on cpus over the years and nada since I went to intel's lga style. So while I had an all too easy time beding a cpu pin while trying to be careful I've never bent one on a mobo even while not being careful. 

And typically my mobo's are cheaper than my cpu. It's just more stuff to remove when a mobo burns out but that's no biggie.


----------



## mechtech (Jan 17, 2011)

Doesn't FOXCONN make the cpu holder that goes on the motherboard??


----------



## bear jesus (Jan 17, 2011)

yogurt_21 said:


> that'd be my guess also.
> 
> I'd haver a guess that the cpu overheated as well.
> 
> ...



I totally agree that pins on a CPU are easy to bend and when the CPU is more expensive (even more so if it's something like a 980x) it makes much more sense to have them on the board also every CPU i have had in the past 10 years has outlasted the motherboard, i think apart from crazy high voltage the only way to kill a CPU is damage the pins so i totally see why Intel and AMD (on some server CPU's) have done this.



mechtech said:


> Doesn't FOXCONN make the cpu holder that goes on the motherboard??



foxconn makes the full socket, i don't know if it's their socket on that board but they do make them for many board makers.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 17, 2011)

Some things should be cleared up.

1.) We do not know that he received the board this way from Gigabyte.  He simply states that "upon arrival" there were burnt pins.  However, he could have recieved it from another reviewer that tested it first, and the reviewer screwed up the pins.  I know that when you review parts, they don't always come directly from the manufacturer.  The manufacturer sends out the part to one person for review, then tells the reviewer where to send it when they are done.

2.) The reviewer posting about the problem has no idea what voltage was used, because he didn't burn the pins.

Now, as for my own observations from the pictures, it seems at least one of the pins is actually broken off.   So my guess would be that one of the previous reviewers were a little rough with removing and inserting the processor, and broke a few pins.  This was still enough to make contact, but caused the arcing situation.  Of course there is the other pin that isn't broken but is still burnt, but that can be caused by the extra stress of more power going through that one pin because the others are failing.


----------



## bear jesus (Jan 17, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> So my guess would be that one of the previous reviewers were a little rough with removing and inserting the processor, and broke a few pins.  This was still enough to make contact, but caused the arcing situation.  Of course there is the other pin that isn't broken but is still burnt, but that can be caused by the extra stress of more power going through that one pin because the others are failing.



I had just assumed that maybe the pin was stuck to the CPU after the burn out and was broke when removing it but surly that would be something you would not miss as i thought when the retention bracket was open there was nothing holding the CPU in the socket thus any resistance would be very noticeable.


----------



## Hayder_Master (Jan 17, 2011)

why they lame INTEL, i know gigabyte sockets made by FOXCONN, if have gigabyte p55 series u can see it written on the side, and i read something exactly like this when was searching on bad things on Gigabyte p55 mobos.
LOTES still best socket made manufacture.
also they say new gigabyte A series sockets made by LOTES


----------



## cadaveca (Jan 17, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> Some things should be cleared up.
> 
> 1.) We do not know that he received the board this way from Gigabyte.  He simply states that "upon arrival" there were burnt pins.  However, he could have recieved it from another reviewer that tested it first, and the reviewer screwed up the pins.  I know that when you review parts, they don't always come directly from the manufacturer.  The manufacturer sends out the part to one person for review, then tells the reviewer where to send it when they are done.



lots of reviewers are like "if I don't get to keep the parts, I'm not very likely to do the review. Keeping the parts sent for review is how reviewers, in the most part, get paid. Guys selling lots of "new" parts, on a regular basis...reviewer.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 17, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> lots of reviewers are like "if I don't get to keep the parts, I'm not very likely to do the review. Keeping the parts sent for review is how reviewers, in the most part, get paid. Guys selling lots of "new" parts, on a regular basis...reviewer.



Not how it works.  And reviewers get paid by ad revenue generated by their review, not by keeping the parts to resell.  Ask W1z if he gets to keep the cards he reviews and I bet he responds something like:



W1zzard said:


> whether the sample goes back or not depends on the company.
> 
> i have no problem sending stuff back as long as i can keep one card for rebenching (which i'm doing right now. 5 days of non-stop benching so far and not even done with nvidia)
> 
> no problem sharing the coke, hookers will be decided on a case by case basis



And in a lot of cases they won't tell you to ship the part back, instead they will tell you to ship it to the next reviewer.  Saves time and money on shipping the part back to the company only to have them ship it to the next reviewer themselves.  Of course the down side is situations like this where the part was damaged by a previous reviewer.


----------



## Link108 (Jan 17, 2011)

I would not assume that GB or intel are at fault when there isn't enough information in this blog. I've build two computers with GB mobos and have had nps. I'm also waiting on one for my new system. GB is top of the line quality just like Asus, MSI. There is not enough information here to make a logical choice as to what really happend.


----------



## overclocking101 (Jan 17, 2011)

ALL new 1155 mobo reviews I've seen ALL have the LOTES hold down at least and most whole LOTES socket, Personally I think this is a freak accident as there is only one report before big time benchers all over were getting it and that is not the case now. Besides the foxconn issues were sorted out VERY soon after initial reports. I am using a 2nd gen foxconn socket on my P55 and NEVER any sighns of any socket burning, this is with 6 diff cpu's from 2 to 8 cores, ALL benched hard.


----------



## erocker (Jan 17, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> Not how it works.  And reviewers get paid by ad revenue generated by their review, not by keeping the parts to resell.  Ask W1z if he gets to keep the cards he reviews and I bet he responds something like:



Not how it works. Speaking in terms of the actual reviewer, many reviewers get paid by being able to keep the product. Many other reviewers get paid per review, keep the product, etc.


----------



## Completely Bonkers (Jan 17, 2011)

I'm really surprised that a low-voltage contact can arc.  Yes, I would expect a higher-than-spec current through a small or bad contact could cause a "burnout" just like the way a fuse works, but I am really surprised that circa 1v can create an arc.

For anyone with a physics background, I have just learned about Paschen curves and field emission.  Here is an easy read for those interested: http://www.lorentzcenter.nl/lc/web/2010/424/PROBLEMS/NXP/OverviewWallashspie.pdf


----------



## Steevo (Jan 17, 2011)

This isn't in a vacum, however that looks more like the pins were carrying more than they could handle. Arcing should occur on the pads as they are physically closer than the pins.


----------



## HillBeast (Jan 18, 2011)

Glad I'm on 1366. That's all I have to say. Oh and 1156/1155 fanbois who flame me saying 'OH IT WAS JUST A FEW BOARDS THAT DID IT! 1156/1155 IS STILL GOOD!!1one'. STFU. Your socket is for mainstream. Stop trying to use it for high end. Get 1366 and stop being a cheapskate.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 18, 2011)

HillBeast said:


> Glad I'm on 1366. That's all I have to say. Oh and 1156/1155 fanbois who flame me saying 'OH IT WAS JUST A FEW BOARDS THAT DID IT! 1156/1155 IS STILL GOOD!!1one'. STFU. Your socket is for mainstream. Stop trying to use it for high end. Get 1366 and stop being a cheapskate.



You can go on about your 1366 being so much more extreme than my 1156, but when my 1156 is outperforming your 1366 for half the price it doesn't really hold up.


----------



## Deleted member 74752 (Jan 18, 2011)

My bud on the bot team has been banging his Gigabyte (GA-P67A-UD5) for a week now at 5.3GHz on water and reports no problems.


----------



## miahallen (Jan 18, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> Some things should be cleared up.
> 
> 1.) We do not know that he received the board this way from Gigabyte.  He simply states that "upon arrival" there were burnt pins.  However, he could have recieved it from another reviewer that tested it first, and the reviewer screwed up the pins.  I know that when you review parts, they don't always come directly from the manufacturer.  The manufacturer sends out the part to one person for review, then tells the reviewer where to send it when they are done.
> 
> ...



The board was sent to me directly from Gigabyte HQ in TW...but it appeared to have been used previously.


----------



## buggalugs (Jan 18, 2011)

miahallen said:


> The board was sent to me directly from Gigabyte HQ in TW...but it appeared to have been used previously.



 That makes sense, if they are loan/test boards they most likely have been tested by several people. Why give out brand new boards for you guys to wreck. Hahaha

 No doubt the first thing the testers do is push the board to its limits and someone went a little too far. When its not your board and you didnt pay for it who cares right?

 This publicity could be a little unfair to Gigabyte, if a tester pumped 1.8v into it, its hardly Gigabyte's fault its wrecked.


----------



## miahallen (Jan 18, 2011)

The boards I get from Gigabyte are mine for keeps....
I don't think the boards have been available long enough to have sent them to other reviewers before me....but I don't know that for fact.


----------



## HillBeast (Jan 18, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> You can go on about your 1366 being so much more extreme than my 1156, but when my 1156 is outperforming your 1366 for half the price it doesn't really hold up.



Pics or it didn't happen.


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Jan 18, 2011)

HillBeast said:


> Glad I'm on 1366. That's all I have to say. Oh and 1156/1155 fanbois who flame me saying 'OH IT WAS JUST A FEW BOARDS THAT DID IT! 1156/1155 IS STILL GOOD!!1one'. STFU. Your socket is for mainstream. Stop trying to use it for high end. Get 1366 and stop being a cheapskate.



Yeah, I'm sure all the 5Ghz sandybridge chips out there are trembling in their boots from fear of your old hot and hungry 1366.


----------



## HillBeast (Jan 18, 2011)

LAN_deRf_HA said:


> Yeah, I'm sure all the 5Ghz sandybridge chips out there are trembling in their boots from fear of your old hot and hungry 1366.



LGA2011. Durr.

EDIT: Also you're bashing 1366 when your system has a 1366 CPU.


----------



## DrPepper (Jan 18, 2011)

HillBeast said:


> LGA2011. Durr.
> 
> EDIT: Also you're bashing 1366 when your system has a 1366 CPU.



I think he's aware of the fact he has a 1366.


----------



## pr0n Inspector (Jan 18, 2011)

HillBeast said:


> LGA2011. Durr.
> 
> EDIT: Also you're bashing 1366 when your system has a 1366 CPU.



well duh, why can't he do that?


----------



## HillBeast (Jan 18, 2011)

DrPepper said:


> I think he's aware of the fact he has a 1366.





pr0n Inspector said:


> well duh, why can't he do that?



I'm not pointing out to him he has 1366, I'm pointing out it's stupid to be saying...



LAN_deRf_HA said:


> old hot and hungry 1366



...when you are running it yourself implying 1366 is a piece of garbage. 1366 is still the best platform for any CPU. Period. Until 2011 comes out, 1366 will remain the best. It has the best features, best performance, best overclocking, best reliability, best CPUs and most importantly: most pins meaning less chance for arcing because of people using mainstream to do high end stuff. Leave mainstream for mainstream. Buy 1366 if you want to overclock, and if you want to get bang for buck then why didn't you buy AMD? Lynnfield is only there to fill a market hole between Clarkdale and Bloomfield/Gulftown.


----------



## bear jesus (Jan 18, 2011)

HillBeast said:


> ...when you are running it yourself implying 1366 is a piece of garbage. 1366 is still the best platform for any CPU. Period. Until 2011 comes out, 1366 will remain the best. It has the best features, best performance, best overclocking, best reliability, best CPUs and most importantly: most pins meaning less chance for arcing because of people using mainstream to do high end stuff. Leave mainstream for mainstream. Buy 1366 if you want to overclock, and if you want to get bang for buck then why didn't you buy AMD? Lynnfield is only there to fill a market hole between Clarkdale and Bloomfield/Gulftown.



Just because something is old and runs hot does not mean it is garbage but when when new mid range single threaded quad cores can trade blows with the old dual threaded 6 core then it's not exactly the best thing out there meaning your assertion of it being the best performance is flawed, the new cores can overclock to around or over  5ghz on air so by far the current best overclockers, reliability wise is there a reason why you think the new CPU's would be less reliable? and why do you think more pins decreases the risk of arcing? surly the more pins you have the higher the risk one of them could arc due to a bad contact? even though it was just caused by low quality sockets because of a company's bad product so hardly something to effect all boards with sockets from all company's.

People buy mainstream parts and push them because they can and they can handle it otherwise there would be a lot of unhappy members on here.


----------



## HillBeast (Jan 18, 2011)

bear jesus said:


> Just because something is old and runs hot does not mean it is garbage but when when new mid range single threaded quad cores can trade blows with the old dual threaded 6 core then it's not exactly the best thing out there meaning your assertion of it being the best performance is flawed



http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/142?vs=192 <- Need I say more? It isn't trading blows. It's not even close. Also I never said old and hot = garbage, I said he implied it.



bear jesus said:


> the new cores can overclock to around or over  5ghz on air so by far the current best overclockers



http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showthread.php?t=118081 <- Um yeah. 5GHz...



bear jesus said:


> reliability wise is there a reason why you think the new CPU's would be less reliable?



 Socket Pin Burnout Returns to Haunt LGA1155? - Pa... <- You're looking at it.




bear jesus said:


> and why do you think more pins decreases the risk of arcing? surly the more pins you have the higher the risk one of them could arc due to a bad contact?



I am going to assume you never learnt about electronics before? The more contacts, the less resistance something has. It's common sense. If you have two pipes feeding a house with water, it's not going to be as good as three pipes. Two pipes will need to feed more water in and it is more strain on the pipes. Do I need to pull up Wikipedia to prove this?



bear jesus said:


> even though it was just caused by low quality sockets because of a company's bad product so hardly something to effect all boards with sockets from all company's.



But this is the bad press and bad press sticks. I don't recall seeing anywhere near as much bad press about 1366 arcing as 1156 or 1155 have, let alone at all. I'm probably wrong on that one though because Google can be unreliable.



bear jesus said:


> People buy mainstream parts and push them because they can and they can handle it otherwise there would be a lot of unhappy members on here.



Or people could stop being cheapskates, pay more and not whinge when it craps out because it is much higher quality.


----------



## Frick (Jan 18, 2011)

HillBeast said:


> Or people could stop being cheapskates, pay more and not whinge when it craps out because it is much higher quality.



Wow, have you been in contact with humanity lately?


----------



## bear jesus (Jan 18, 2011)

HillBeast said:


> I am going to assume you never learnt about electronics before? The more contacts, the less resistance something has. It's common sense. If you have two pipes feeding a house with water, it's not going to be as good as three pipes. Two pipes will need to feed more water in and it is more strain on the pipes. Do I need to pull up Wikipedia to prove this?
> 
> Or people could stop being cheapskates, pay more and not whinge when it craps out because it is much higher quality.



I forgot to say when overclocked the 2600k trades blows with the 980x in specific tests, a suicide run on a 980x is not exactly a good way to point out that it can hit 5ghz, I'm sure if i kept my 965 cool enough to push around 1.7v through it before v droop it could hit 5ghz.

I as far as i knew the sockets burning out was all to do with bad contacts on low quality sockets made by foxconn and nothing to do with resistance thus none of your example or anything you could pull from any site would apply.

As far as the comment on people being cheapskates just for going for mid range parts and then overclocking why have you not gone for a 980x and a better board with faster and more ram? obviously as you cheeped out you bought lower quality components, oh wait you did not. 
Just because you chose mid range parts does not mean you chose low quality parts.

With so many members here buying mid range parts and pushing them then surly there would be a lot more people complaining either that or people are not complaining when things die due to pushing them too far so really calling people cheapskates and whingers is uncalled for and inaccurate.

But this is starting to get off topic, so far a single board has been found to have a messed up socket and what caused it is still unknown so we shoudl be looking for more examples not arguing about random things


----------



## overclocking101 (Jan 18, 2011)

HillBeast said:


> But this is the bad press and bad press sticks. I don't recall seeing anywhere near as much bad press about 1366 arcing as 1156 or 1155 have, let alone at all. I'm probably wrong on that one though because Google can be unreliable.



they see you trollin they hatein! 1366 has the OLD 775 style HOLD DOWN plates. 1156/1155 DO NOT these sockets were more new tech then 1366 was, sure with real new tech there are always problems for early adopters ALWAYS. it has nothing to do with money dip shit because quite literally for high end on both platforms it costs about the same within $100 of each other, except cpu's. so before you buy something just to look like you have all kinds of money to spend, you should really think about going mainstreem


----------



## pr0n Inspector (Jan 18, 2011)

butthurt elitist.:shadedshu


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 18, 2011)

miahallen said:


> The board was sent to me directly from Gigabyte HQ in TW...but it appeared to have been used previously.



Ah, ok.  That makes sense, either way it is probably whoever used it before you that jacked it up, and not an issue with the hold down.

And, IIRC, the issue with 1156 was that Intel changed the design specs closely before launch because they realized the issue, and Foxconn shipped some parts that followed the old spec sheet.  I doubt that happened with 1155 since the hold down spec sheat was the same as 1156.



HillBeast said:


> Pics or it didn't happen.



Ok, post some screenshots of _your own_ rig doing some benchmarks at your 24/7 clocks, and I'll post mine with the same benchmarks, we'll see who gets the higher scores.  Then we can compare prices and see who paid less.



HillBeast said:


> http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showthread.php?t=118081 <- Um yeah. 5GHz...



So you think one suicide run, that wasn't even stable beyond getting a GPUz screenshot, is a valid come back to fact that a lot of SandyBridge chips can run 5.0GHz 24/7 totally stable on air?



HillBeast said:


> Socket Pin Burnout Returns to Haunt LGA1155? - Pa... <- You're looking at it.



Since LGA2011 is going to use the same hold downs as 1155/1156, the chances of having the same problem, by your logic, will be the same.  Of course, as we already went over this, the board was used and came to the reviewer like that, so we have no idea how much voltage was pushed through the stocket or even if the stocket was damaged prior to the pins being burnt.

Also, the problem with 1156 was fixed before it was even released, it was crappy Foxconn hold downs that caused the issue, not the socket or hold downs design themselves.




HillBeast said:


> I am going to assume you never learnt about electronics before? The more contacts, the less resistance something has. It's common sense. If you have two pipes feeding a house with water, it's not going to be as good as three pipes. Two pipes will need to feed more water in and it is more strain on the pipes. Do I need to pull up Wikipedia to prove this?



While that is a good example, the LGA1366 socket only really has about 25 more power contacts compare to LGA1156/1155.  And those pins are needed because 1366 processors consume more power.  So while 2 pipes will easily fead the water needs of a 2 bathroom house, 3 are needed to feed a 3 bathroom house, because the 3 bathroom house uses more water.




HillBeast said:


> But this is the bad press and bad press sticks. I don't recall seeing anywhere near as much bad press about 1366 arcing as 1156 or 1155 have, let alone at all. I'm probably wrong on that one though because Google can be unreliable.



You are correct, but press is nothing more than word, it doesn't matter in the real world use.  You can say OMG Toyota sucks all over the press, that doesn't mean they are actually bad, and it definitely doesn't mean I'm running to trade in my Camery with 200,000 miles on it that is still running perfectly(while my Chevy with 70,000 has done nothing but break down).




HillBeast said:


> Or people could stop being cheapskates, pay more and not whinge when it craps out because it is much higher quality.



I don't see many people whining about it crapping out.  The only people that whined were the extreme overclockers that were effected by the arcing problem, it didn't happen in normal enthusiast usage, and those people likely got the hardware for free.  So it is pretty hard to cheap out when you are getting the stuff for free.  And of course quality isn't what you are paying more for on 1366, there are some pretty shitty 1366 boards out there that are far below the quality of some 1156 boards, you are paying for the artifical sense of extra performance that x16/x16 and Tri-Channel RAM gives you.


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Jan 18, 2011)

Tartaros said:


> Sometimes this things happens and everyone can fail. Quality controls are not perfect, that doesn't mean gb is a bad brand.



My personal experience of GB is that their QC is the worst I have ever found, as I had to purchase no less than 6 motherboards to find one that worked straight out of the box (4 were DOA, and 1 had a faulty cmos that wouldn't keep bios settings).

If these were samples this is people making a mountain out of mole hill, if these were legit consumer boards, then GB may be at fault. But 2 boards for 1 person a well known fatal flaw does not make.


----------



## miahallen (Jan 19, 2011)

[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> If these were samples this is people making a mountain out of mole hill, if these were legit consumer boards, then GB may be at fault. But 2 boards for 1 person a well known fatal flaw does not make.



TPU mis-quoted me...it was only one board, not two....*go to the source*


----------



## cadaveca (Jan 19, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> So you think one suicide run, that wasn't even stable beyond getting a GPUz screenshot, is a valid come back to fact that a lot of SandyBridge chips can run 5.0GHz 24/7 totally stable on air?



5.0ghz on a single core only...keep that in mind. SandyBridge clocking is quite the interesting thing.


----------



## CBRworm (Jan 19, 2011)

HillBeast said:


> http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/142?vs=192 <- Need I say more? It isn't trading blows. It's not even close. Also I never said old and hot = garbage, I said he implied it.



Why would you compare 1366 to an 1156 CPU, isn't this discussion about 1155.  Here, try this one:


http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/142?vs=287


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Jan 19, 2011)

HillBeast said:


> LGA2011. Durr.
> 
> EDIT: Also you're bashing 1366 when your system has a 1366 CPU.



Hurg-derpa derrr derr. How is "LGA2011" a response to what I said? Never mind, I'm sure the logic will kill kittens.

For the record, I'm moving to 1155. It overclocks better and performs better clock for clock with nicer features and lower power consumption. Your whole mainstream el-cheapo shtick is a looney lie you tell yourself just so you don't have to feel inadequate about your rig for another year. As of right now there is no more mainstream vs highend sockets for intel. Just old and new and the less old but more unwanted (1156).

And here's your preferred comparison. Not that you want to see it in this case. http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/287?vs=142

Wins 67% of the time, and hits 5 GHz without spoiling like old milk. Going "mainstream" isn't "cheap", it's what you do if money doesn't grow on trees. Not that 1155 is really any cheaper than your normal 1366 rig to begin with so that entire aspect of your rage fit didn't make sense to begin with. Same with the durability crap, if anything SB can take more voltage than it's 1366 32nm counterparts.


----------



## Wile E (Jan 19, 2011)

[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> My personal experience of GB is that their QC is the worst I have ever found, as I had to purchase no less than 6 motherboards to find one that worked straight out of the box (4 were DOA, and 1 had a faulty cmos that wouldn't keep bios settings).
> 
> If these were samples this is people making a mountain out of mole hill, if these were legit consumer boards, then GB may be at fault. But 2 boards for 1 person a well known fatal flaw does not make.



I have the exact opposite with GB. At least a dozen between myself and client computers, and not a single DOA or failure. I have your luck with Asus products, however.

I do agree this is mountain out of molehill material.


----------



## 1BadMoJoe (Jan 19, 2011)

buggalugs said:


> We already established the reviewer didnt even use the board. Gigabyte sent it like that.
> 
> Ya but because they were sample boards i'm guessing Gigabyte sent a couple of boards they were using and testing with and didnt realise the socket was burnt. I doubt a new board would have burnt sockets. Haha looks bad for Gigabyte though.





WELL...I haven't received a sample product from a manufacture...YET, I can only imagine if I did receive one I would treat it like a Ferrari, built to be driven HARD and FAST. 
I am sure the fortunate few whom do receive an "engineering sample" have developed the skills necessary to create the identifiers to problems that should be addressed to revisions necessary prior to production. 
Going from 1366 pin to 1156...well and trying to get more energy saving features and trying to interface video with higher performance than 1366 is a challenge. 

Last time I checked, pin count always risen in count with new architecture not the other way around, looks like another Intel dead end product line.


----------



## Wile E (Jan 19, 2011)

1BadMoJoe said:


> WELL...I haven't received a sample product from a manufacture...YET, I can only imagine if I did receive one I would treat it like a Ferrari, built to be driven HARD and FAST.
> I am sure the fortunate few whom do receive an "engineering sample" have developed the skills necessary to create the identifiers to problems that should be addressed to revisions necessary prior to production.
> Going from 1366 pin to 1156...well and trying to get more energy saving features and trying to interface video with higher performance than 1366 is a challenge.
> 
> Last time I checked, pin count always risen in count with new architecture not the other way around, *looks like another Intel dead end product line.*



Based on a single bad board?

Little extreme, don't you think?


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Jan 19, 2011)

For all we know gigabyte was using it to try and kill chips, dumping asinine volts into it. Could have just been your run of the mill suicide run. And even after killing a chip your first impulse may not be to go grab a magnifying glass and look at the socket pins. Hell maybe they had a hundred chips in there at 1.7-1.9 volts trying to find the limits. I'd bet they cracked 6 GHz for sure. Maybe they even went out of their way to screw up a socket and sent it out by mistake!

It's just absurd for anyone to assume this has any bearing on P67 durability.


----------



## 1BadMoJoe (Jan 19, 2011)

Tick in the tack Intel release cycle, Sandy Bridge has excellent architecture features to build upon further product developments, I'm just not excited to hop in an soon to be unsupported 11xx CPU architecture migrating to 20xx pin.

 How many years did socket seven and 775 last? 1366 didn't come out to long ago, now 1155/1156, soon to introduced 20xx pin? 

Intel Dead End products lines based on more than a single board architecture, so disposable money minded end-users can upgrade continuously in the wash cycle.



miahallen said:


> The board was sent to me directly from Gigabyte HQ in TW...but it appeared to have been used previously.



I'll try to stay on topic and go to the source, the lucky few whom have the skills to identify problems that need to be addressed prior to mainstream production. As it may appear that the Foxconn supplier may have had a new socket product interface error than may needed to looked into and revised for what ever reasoning dreamed necessary.

I do not see a fewer than 1155/1156 pin count in the next pin cycle and I also dought the majority of big business that still using reliable proven 775 hardware migrating to 1366 last year to 1156 this month only to repurchase next month to 1155 to anticipate for-site upon revamping to 20xx next year realizing the dead end architecture so to be abandoned?


----------



## Wile E (Jan 19, 2011)

1BadMoJoe said:


> Tick in the tack Intel release cycle, Sandy Bridge has excellent architecture features to build upon further product developments, I'm just not excited to hop in an soon to be unsupported 11xx CPU architecture migrating to 20xx pin.
> 
> How many years did socket seven and 775 last? 1366 didn't come out to long ago, now 1155/1156, soon to introduced 20xx pin?
> 
> ...


And what does any of that have to do with a single faulty board, not even a faulty model, just a faulty board?

PS: I'm fine with buying both a new board and cpu if it provides the advances I'm looking for. If I have the money for LGA2011, and it does what I want, I'll buy it. I'll not limit myself over some false sense of wrong doing on Intel's part. Nobody FORCES you to upgrade at all. I simply buy the best performing product for the money I am willing to spend.


----------



## R_1 (Jan 19, 2011)

I had similar experience with GA965 board. After removing CPU from the socket, few pins in different locations don't rise themselfs to the upper position and stay bended, but there was no burnout and can be mechanically fixed. What I think is that pins were made from bad high-temperature copper alloy, that looses spring properties at high temperatures. It is easy to imagine how sparks can appear when lots of amps went through this bad electrical connection.


----------

