Intel LGA1851 to Succeed LGA1700, Probably Retain Cooler Compatibility

[ARF]

Absolute most people (over 98% I guess, yes, there are hundreds of millions of PCs other there) out there do not upgrade their CPUs every generation.

No one forces them to.
But after buying a simple B450 AMD board, you will be free to upgrade from Athlon 200GE to Ryzen 9 5950X which is pretty damn impressive.
Or from Ryzen 5 1600 launched back in 2017 to the latest and fastest Ryzen 9 5950X.

• Supports AMD AM4 Socket Ryzen™ 2000, 3000, 4000 G-Series, 5000 and 5000 G-Series Desktop Processors

ASRock > B450 Steel Legend
ASRock > B450 Steel Legend

 

[Deleted member 24505]

You don't necessarily dismiss an opinion by arguing against it, I think you and birdie are right in 96% of cases board swaps don't matter.
But that's not to say I don't prefer AMD's longevity of sockets.
Or that my opinion could be altered by yours.

And I DO detest a socket out one year through two short generations.

I honestly don't think it matters for me. It's upto the buyer to decide if it is worthwhile to them.

Is it not worth buying Intel because they change sockets every 2 gens? Or more worth buying AMD because they don't?

For ME it does not bother me and never has. For me new CPU means new board that's it. For others i guess it is different and that is upto them right or wrong upto them.

 

[Gica]

You do realize that games is NOT the only thing people run on their PCs.
But if you insist on games, you should compare with 5800X3D.
Then you will say "but people don't just play games on their PCs and 12900K is better than 5800X3D in encodings".......

You can't say it's the best if you lose in some tasks. Except for encodings and renderings, the 5950X loses to the rest in front of the 12900K. You buy the right processor for the tasks you want to perform faster, or you insist that the 5950X is the king of kings. Is not! And it's not just about gaming, but also about programs designed to work with a few cores, like CAD.

 

[Deleted member 24505]

AMD's Ryzen 7 5800X3D Draws Less than Half as Much Power than the Intel Core i9-12900KS and Yet Faster in Gaming Workloads | Hardware Times

AMD’s Ryzen 7 5800X3D Draws Less than Half as Much Power than the Intel Core i9-12900KS and Yet Faster in Gaming Workloads​

Well my 12700k uses less than 50 watts running my games at 1440p not sure about a 5800x

 

[ARF]

Well my 12700k uses less than 50 watts running my games at 1440p not sure about a 5800x

Less, probably 45 watts.

 

[Gica]

AMD's Ryzen 7 5800X3D Draws Less than Half as Much Power than the Intel Core i9-12900KS and Yet Faster in Gaming Workloads | Hardware Times

AMD’s Ryzen 7 5800X3D Draws Less than Half as Much Power than the Intel Core i9-12900KS and Yet Faster in Gaming Workloads​

Limited edition, only for Nasdak impresion. Buy 5800X3D (if you find it) or are you waiting for the new generation, available in a few months?

 

[john_]

Absolute most people (over 98% I guess, yes, there are hundreds of millions of PCs other there) out there do not upgrade their CPUs every generation. The don't do it every two generations either. Period. End of story. Nothing to discuss. Even the enlightenned tech enthusiasts from TPU do not do that. Those fewer than 2% who upgrade every generation and who are obsessed with the absolute best at all times? They will go buy a new motherboard as well because of better IO options and because they are enthusiasts.

None of my friends who are not tech enthusiasts don't even know about this whole "catastrophe", "Intel ripping people off", "Intel destroying the environment". Some run PCs built over a decade ago and they are 100% content with their PCs performance (the only thing I did was upgrading RAM from 4GB to 8GB, that's it).

While you base that 98% on probably thin air, over 90% of PCs are probably laptops or desktop systems from big OEMs that are difficult or impossible to be upgraded. And that's the ONLY reason that number is close to reality. Don't expect me to take your opinions as facts.
You are also kind of confused. You still seem to not realize that people who upgrade every generation are those who probably will replace the whole package (CPU+Mobo+RAM and probably +GPU). People who do NOT upgrade often would be extremely happy finding out that "You know that you can upgrade just the CPU and NOT the whole platform?". But most consumers out there, do not know that. You also say it in you post (oh man, you keep throwing arguments against your point of view and don't even realize it).

That's all from me.
Be good.

You can't say it's the best if you lose in some tasks. Except for encodings and renderings, the 5950X loses to the rest in front of the 12900K. You buy the right processor for the tasks you want to perform faster, or you insist that the 5950X is the king of kings. Is not! And it's not just about gaming, but also about programs designed to work with a few cores, like CAD.

So, for AMD CPUs they have to WIN EVERY SINGLE TEST OUT THERE, to be called the best.
For Intel CPUs a few wins in some tests are enough.
OK.

 

[Deleted member 24505]

While you base that 98% on probably thin air, over 90% of PCs are probably laptops or desktop systems from big OEMs that are difficult or impossible to be upgraded. And that's the ONLY reason that number is close to reality. Don't expect me to take your opinions as facts.
You are also kind of confused. You still seem to not realize that people who upgrade every generation are those who probably will replace the whole package (CPU+Mobo+RAM and probably +GPU). People who do NOT upgrade often would be extremely happy finding out that "You know that you can upgrade just the CPU and NOT the whole platform?". But most consumers out there, do not know that. You also say it in you post (oh man, you keep throwing arguments against your point of view and don't even realize it).

That's all from me.
Be good.


So, for AMD CPUs they have to WIN EVERY SINGLE TEST OUT THERE, to be called the best.
For Intel CPUs a few wins in some tests are enough.
OK.

Lots of probablys which means-i don't know

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

You can't say it's the best if you lose in some tasks. Except for encodings and renderings, the 5950X loses to the rest in front of the 12900K. You buy the right processor for the tasks you want to perform faster, or you insist that the 5950X is the king of kings. Is not! And it's not just about gaming, but also about programs designed to work with a few cores, like CAD.

So by your logic, no chip is the best then ,all Intel offerings get trounced by a 5950 in some cases, and marginally by the 5800X3D in others, all on Am4 no less.
Meanwhile Intel also beats all AMD chips in some applications.

So none are the best then?!.

 

[john_]

Lots of probablys which means-i don't know

I wasn't quoting you. Did you replied to the wrong post?

 

[Nanochip]

11600K & Z490
10500 & B560
I don't feel the need to upgrade. If so, there is 11900K at the price of i7. For gaming and home use, changing processors every two years is stupid. Waste!

It's not every two years it's every two generations. If it takes longer than a year between generations then that time frame will be longer.

Secondly, the CPU landscape has shifted dramatically since the days of the 2500K and even 6700K days. Yes Intel is still dominating in terms of revenue per year, but now AMD is strong, especially in Server. Hell the 5800x3d, with slower IPC than the 12900K, toppled the 12900K in gaming, while consuming less power and having less IPC. Not good. And to drive the point home, the 5800x3d is drop-in compatible with x370 motherboards from years ago. Those users can upgrade to a very potent gaming champion CPU without needing to buy a new motherboard. The same is not true for Intel customers who bought say a 9990K on z390 from years ago. Also, the 12900K is likely being held back by not having more L3 cache.

Anyways, returning to the competitive landscape, Apple left and introduced its own M-series silicon that puts Intel's perf per watt to shame. Qualcomm is entering the market, and will offer a high performance ARM CPU to the market in 2H 2023 (Nuvia)... which could be a strong competitor in the thin and light Windows laptop space and could incent Dell, Lenovo and others to offer an ARM line of laptops, spending less money on Intel CPUs.

Intel recognizes this shift in the market place and will be offering IPC uplifts and increased core counts. Hopefully it also addresses performance per watt in the thin and light space. Intel of present is different than the Intel of past. Intel of past faced little competition and offered quad cores for years on mainstream platforms, with meager IPC updates each generation. I still have my old 6700K which was a very potent performer. The 7700K and even 8700K were not worth the money at all. But starting with Rocket Lake, continuing to Alder Lake, and will continue with Meteor Lake and Arrow Lake, Intel has and will continue to significantly increase IPC and core counts. This is different than we've seen over the past 10 years.

So a generational upgrade now is not the same as generational upgrades in the 14nm++++ days. You're getting more for your money if you upgrade. IPC uplifts and core count increases provide a compelling reason for upgrading. But Intel is making it more difficult than it otherwise needs to be for some users to upgrade because those users have to get rid of their perfectly capable motherboards in order to upgrade.

One point of good marketing is to make it as easy as possible for consumers to find, discover, and purchase your product. You want to be as frictionless as possible. Changing platforms so frequently serves as a disincentive for certain users (who don't want to throw away their perfectly working motherboards with BIOSes that have been debugged and are stable) to buy new Intel CPUs...

If your marketing strategy has an inherent disincentive for customers to purchase your product (compared to the competition) then it's a marketing strategy that needs to be called into question.

I'm not saying Intel needs to support a platform for 5 years like AM4. But with the beefy power delivery system of z690, why did Intel move from LGA1200 to LGA1700/1800 on Z690 instead of going straight to LGA1851 on z690, and let Z690 remain in market for 3 generations instead of only 2? 3 generations out of a motherboard is good use of that motherboard, and makes it much easier and less costly for users to continue to purchase new Intel CPUs.

 

[Gica]

So, for AMD CPUs they have to WIN EVERY SINGLE TEST OUT THERE, to be called the best.
For Intel CPUs a few wins in some tests are enough.
OK.

My little one (two years old) is the absolute winner in everything I ask of him. Consume tiny, cold, fast and cheap. Of course, it barely catches the top 50 in a hierarchy of processors, but I don't see a more suitable one. I don't need a Ferarri for a trip to the store, nor do I think this Ferarri would make a difference.
For www, multimedia, office, processing home videos and light games, the need for an upgrade is not expected in the foreseeable future. For games I have another system and only the video card will decide the need for a processor upgrade. Now the 11600K works perfectly with the 3070Ti.
As a price (Sept. 2020), 10500 + Z490 = 5600X without motherboard (Dec. 2020-2021)

 

[wahdangun]

God, I'm so f****** tired of hearing this from every orifice on the Internet specially from AMD fans. Now let's talk about reality, shall we?

1. Intel has had two CPUs generations per socket for over a decade now, this is not new, OK, amigo?
2. Intel is not a charity and their chipset business is their good source of income.
3. No one forces you to buy into the Intel platform.
4. Absolute most people out there do not upgrade their CPUs so often, nowadays people tend to stick to their PCs for at least 3-7 years if not longer. We are not at the end of the 90s, the early 00s when CPUs became twice as fast in fewer than 36 months. There's absolutely no need to upgrade your CPU so often. Most new AAA games, we are all CPU enthusiasts here, aren't we?, are heavily GPU bound, not CPU bound. You play competitive 1st person shooters? At 1080p CPUs from 3-5 years ago provide FPSs above 250. Again, no need to upgrade to anything new yet.
5. Almost all the screaming about Intel switching sockets comes from ... AMD fans who for some reasons don't even represent the majority of x86 users (Intel: 68.03% as of May, 2022). Are you OK? Need help?

In no way I vindicate what Intel does - I just do not care. They don't kill people, actively destroy/pollute the environment, don't start wars and don't employ slaves. And they are no longer a monopoly though I'm not a fan of a duopoly (which is not so different in terms of proper competition) in the x86 market but that's what there is. Cut them some slack, OK?

I'm agree on all you said except number 4, we are in CPU golden age, hell look even the zen 3D can have up to 30% faster than zen 3 in some application, so right now the cpu can be twice as fast in fewer than 36 moths, hell I'm upgrading more often these days, so i can work faster.

 

[Nanochip]

I'm agree on all you said except number 4, we are in CPU golden age, hell look even the zen 3D can have up to 30% faster than zen 3 in some application, so right now the cpu can be twice as fast in fewer than 36 moths, hell I'm upgrading more often these days, so i can work faster.

And you don't have to buy a new motherboard to upgrade... making it an easier decision for you to upgrade, if you're so inclined.

 

[xBruce88x]

Honestly just keeping cooler compatibility will help a lot for many people.

 

[Dr_b_]

So contrary to certain rumors leaked MLID, MTL-s and ARL-s will use LGA 1851 instead of 2551 ?

2551 is supposed to be fishhawk falls, or the new non-HEDT HEDT, not the base consumer socket

 

[64K]

My next build will probably be Meteor Lake but I don't know very much about it right now. I will start doing my research when the release gets nearer. This will replace my aging Kaby Lake 7700K build and should be a very nice upgrade. I've been playing games from the 90s up to mid 2000s so my present rig isn't holding me back at all. Hopefully the PC gods will allow my present gaming rig to survive until Meteor Lake and then I will switch to newer games.

 

[MarsM4N]

Im sorry but this is just silly Birdie.....
You are sharing your opinion on how others should not share their opinion.....

I think @birdie is just a victim of the Choice-supportive bias (aka. post-purchase rationalization).

No hard feelings, our brain is just very complex. And o lot of our hehaviour is just simple Psychololgy101.

 

[hat]

I believe, and excuse me if I am wrong, you probably have much more money compared to the past, so today you value new features more than a cheaper, easier upgrade path.

That's quite a leap in logic. It has nothing to do with money and more to do with having personally experienced issues with hardware compatibility despite the socket being physically the same. When I was much younger, I got a fast Pentium 4 as a Christmas gift (after waiting so long for an upgrade as I had no money of my own yet), and I wound up waiting even longer because that chip wasn't compatible with my system despite being the same physical socket. LGA775 had similar problems, though I never had a 775 system in its heydey. I did, however, have an AM2 system, which turned into an AM2+ system and finally an AM3 system, and I remember how that was... kind of like how it is now with AM4. There were still multiple chipsets involved, some things would work on some boards while it wouldn't on others.

So, in short, it's not about money, but rather I'm pointing out that just because the socket may be physically the same doesn't mean the rest of the system is going to run its best with it... if at all. As far as my personal finances, sure, I have more money now then I did when I was a teenager and just getting into PCs, but I also have more responsibilities. Like bills, and a family to support. My 2600k is still working just fine, and the only reason my server is as new as it is, is because I kept running into issues with the AM3 system it used to be, so I got frustrated with it and rebuilt the whole thing, making payments over the course of some number of months to cover the cost.

 

[chrcoluk]

God, I'm so f****** tired of hearing this from every orifice on the Internet specially from AMD fans. Now let's talk about reality, shall we?

1. Intel has had two CPUs generations per socket for over a decade now, this is not new, OK, amigo?
2. Intel is not a charity and their chipset business is their good source of income.
3. No one forces you to buy into the Intel platform.
4. Absolute most people out there do not upgrade their CPUs so often, nowadays people tend to stick to their PCs for at least 3-7 years if not longer. We are not at the end of the 90s, the early 00s when CPUs became twice as fast in fewer than 36 months. There's absolutely no need to upgrade your CPU so often. Most new AAA games, we are all CPU enthusiasts here, aren't we?, are heavily GPU bound, not CPU bound. You play competitive 1st person shooters? At 1080p CPUs from 3-5 years ago provide FPSs above 250. Again, no need to upgrade to anything new yet.
5. Almost all the screaming about Intel switching sockets comes from ... AMD fans who for some reasons don't even represent the majority of x86 users (Intel: 68.03% as of May, 2022). Are you OK? Need help?

In no way I vindicate what Intel does - I just do not care. They don't kill people, actively destroy/pollute the environment, don't start wars and don't employ slaves. And they are no longer a monopoly though I'm not a fan of a duopoly (which is not so different in terms of proper competition) in the x86 market but that's what there is. Cut them some slack, OK?

I half agree but only half, I think the most valid part of your argument is most people do not upgrade more often than every 4-5 years. Enthusiasts more yes, mainstream no. However with all the cost of living stuff going on, waste etc. My view has changed recently and I dont like the practice of standards been changed simply because it is a means to sell more affiliated hardware. What opened my eyes is the recent thread on here with people running coffee lake chips on much older boards.

Whilst they gain chipset sales, they no doubt lose CPU sales, if I had to buy a new board for 5600G, I 100% would not have purchased the 5600G, and likewise if a 12xxx series intel chip worked on Z370 I would probably have upgraded to the model with no E cores by now, and indeed i did upgrade from 8600k to 9900k, which was able to as same socket.

 

[Gica]

It's not every two years it's every two generations. If it takes longer than a year between generations then that time frame will be longer.

There are two computers, each with its own target. Obviously I have something in me that would force me to upgrade, but it is stopped by memories and the motherboard. This upgrade would not help me at all, just curiosity, but we are seriously warned of a new major crisis and maybe we should keep our money for it.

It's not every two years it's every two generations. If it takes longer than a year between generations then that time frame will be longer.

Secondly, the CPU landscape has shifted dramatically since the days of the 2500K and even 6700K days. Yes Intel is still dominating in terms of revenue per year, but now AMD is strong, especially in Server. Hell the 5800x3d, with slower IPC than the 12900K, toppled the 12900K in gaming, while consuming less power and having less IPC. Not good. And to drive the point home, the 5800x3d is drop-in compatible with x370 motherboards from years ago. Those users can upgrade to a very potent gaming champion CPU without needing to buy a new motherboard. The same is not true for Intel customers who bought say a 9990K on z390 from years ago. Also, the 12900K is likely being held back by not having more L3 cache.

Anyways, returning to the competitive landscape, Apple left and introduced its own M-series silicon that puts Intel's perf per watt to shame. Qualcomm is entering the market, and will offer a high performance ARM CPU to the market in 2H 2023 (Nuvia)... which could be a strong competitor in the thin and light Windows laptop space and could incent Dell, Lenovo and others to offer an ARM line of laptops, spending less money on Intel CPUs.

Intel recognizes this shift in the market place and will be offering IPC uplifts and increased core counts. Hopefully it also addresses performance per watt in the thin and light space. Intel of present is different than the Intel of past. Intel of past faced little competition and offered quad cores for years on mainstream platforms, with meager IPC updates each generation. I still have my old 6700K which was a very potent performer. The 7700K and even 8700K were not worth the money at all. But starting with Rocket Lake, continuing to Alder Lake, and will continue with Meteor Lake and Arrow Lake, Intel has and will continue to significantly increase IPC and core counts. This is different than we've seen over the past 10 years.

So a generational upgrade now is not the same as generational upgrades in the 14nm++++ days. You're getting more for your money if you upgrade. IPC uplifts and core count increases provide a compelling reason for upgrading. But Intel is making it more difficult than it otherwise needs to be for some users to upgrade because those users have to get rid of their perfectly capable motherboards in order to upgrade.

One point of good marketing is to make it as easy as possible for consumers to find, discover, and purchase your product. You want to be as frictionless as possible. Changing platforms so frequently serves as a disincentive for certain users (who don't want to throw away their perfectly working motherboards with BIOSes that have been debugged and are stable) to buy new Intel CPUs...

If your marketing strategy has an inherent disincentive for customers to purchase your product (compared to the competition) then it's a marketing strategy that needs to be called into question.

I'm not saying Intel needs to support a platform for 5 years like AM4. But with the beefy power delivery system of z690, why did Intel move from LGA1200 to LGA1700/1800 on Z690 instead of going straight to LGA1851 on z690, and let Z690 remain in market for 3 generations instead of only 2? 3 generations out of a motherboard is good use of that motherboard, and makes it much easier and less costly for users to continue to purchase new Intel CPUs.

5800x3d more expensive than 5800X.
Better in gaming, but weaker in applications (lower frequencies). It's a big problem because it only shows its strength with a top video card and the weaknesses in all other tasks. If you don't have a super video card, you should be aware that you bought a more expensive processor with performance below 5800X. For the same money, better 5900X or 12700K.

 

[AusWolf]

Needs change bro. Intel motherboards are much more expensive than they used to be. Intel is rumored to be adding accelerators to its upcoming lakes. Needs that we’re not necessarily thinking about now could emerge as technology change.

As costs of Intel’s motherboards increase why isn’t platform longevity also increasing too? I would spend $500+ on an intel motherboard if I knew it’d last 3-4 generations. But 2 generations per socket (and one generation for the odd-numbered series like z590, z790) makes me a lot more selective. The increase in costs of Intel’s mobos is not commensurate with the short platform longevity. Intel can and should do better.

Then I'll buy AMD. Easy. It's nice when you're not bound to one manufacturer or another.

 

[john_]

My little one (two years old) is the absolute winner in everything I ask of him. Consume tiny, cold, fast and cheap. Of course, it barely catches the top 50 in a hierarchy of processors, but I don't see a more suitable one. I don't need a Ferarri for a trip to the store, nor do I think this Ferarri would make a difference.
For www, multimedia, office, processing home videos and light games, the need for an upgrade is not expected in the foreseeable future. For games I have another system and only the video card will decide the need for a processor upgrade. Now the 11600K works perfectly with the 3070Ti.
As a price (Sept. 2020), 10500 + Z490 = 5600X without motherboard (Dec. 2020-2021)

Oh my. All this time you advertise us how much better 12900K is over anything else, only to tell us now how happy you are with a 10th gen i5.

You know that this is an importand parameter in marketing and that's why companies try their best to get the best spots in benchmarks? The casual consumer sees the 12900K being on top of benchmarks while running under the best watercooling someone can buy and hitting occasionally 300W power consumption and is so super wow excited, that then goes and buys an i5 or an i3, even a Pentium, something with that little magic sause in it to enjoy an idea of that great tchnology. The same in GPUs. People where drooling looking at Titan numbers, then going and buying a GT 710!

Try inserting an Alder Lake in that Z490 mobo.

That's quite a leap in logic.

Yeah it was. I was thinking that someone who needs to be conservative in spending will appreciate a cheap way to upgrade. Years latter with better income and more money to spend, the same person would insist on not putting hard limits in spending, but buying the best for themselves.

Your experience with 775 and compatibility was probably a result of a bad choice. A CPU not yet supported for your motherboard was chosen as the new CPU for your system.
I had great experiences back then with AM2 790FX and 790GX. I gone from a dual core Athlon to quad core Phenom and then a Thuban before moving on an AM3 platform to utilize DDR3. And even then kept a motherboard with the 790GX a little longer as a second system. Didn't had any problem on AM2/3. Rock solid platforms. Still using an AM3+ mobo with an unlocked 645(free cores...yeah!!!). If I had problems with it, I would have sold it.

 

[Wirko]

The mysterious LGA 1800 socket will actually materialise as LGA 1851, meaning that it will be compatible with the LGA 1700. Backward and forward, of course. We can always dream, right?

Edit: Hey, it was also known as 17xx/18xx initially, so we can dream some more.

 

[AusWolf]

My little one (two years old) is the absolute winner in everything I ask of him. Consume tiny, cold, fast and cheap. Of course, it barely catches the top 50 in a hierarchy of processors, but I don't see a more suitable one. I don't need a Ferarri for a trip to the store, nor do I think this Ferarri would make a difference.
For www, multimedia, office, processing home videos and light games, the need for an upgrade is not expected in the foreseeable future. For games I have another system and only the video card will decide the need for a processor upgrade. Now the 11600K works perfectly with the 3070Ti.
As a price (Sept. 2020), 10500 + Z490 = 5600X without motherboard (Dec. 2020-2021)

How do you make it consume 0.7 Watts?