Monday, November 26th 2012
Is Haswell the Last Interchangeable Intel Client Processor?
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.
Source:
X-bit Labs
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.
89 Comments on Is Haswell the Last Interchangeable Intel Client Processor?
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.
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.........
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 :ohwell:
wccftech.com/intel-broadwell-skylake-bga-package-intel-focused-soc-mobile-chips-mainstream-cpus/
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.... :D
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...
'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.
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.
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.
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....
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.