dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
1586
share rss forum feed

Aranarth

join:2011-11-04
Stanwood, MI
Reviews:
·Frontier Communi..
reply to Octavean

Re: Is Haswell the Last Interchangeable Intel Client Processor?

Some of you probably don't remember this but BGA and other similar surface mount packages have been used in the past by both intel and AMD.

Back in the 486 and late 386 era they were taking cpu's meant for laptops which were surface mount and then mating them with a board to give you a pins and using that in regular main boards. The reason for this was that the laptop cpu's were lower power and cheaper than the regular desktop processors. Companies that were making laptops and desktops could then place a single order for cpu's and get a nice discount.

While timing are much closer these days than back then there is really nothing to say they could not do this again. You would of course need an adapter to make sure that heat sinks mated properly with it but that is just a bit of design and enginering.



norwegian
Premium
join:2005-02-15
Outback
reply to Octavean


Wouldn't a cpu attached to the motherboard allow for more growth?
To me there would be more benefit from soldered cpu's instead of plug-in. Sure it stops you having options you want to some extent, but there would have to be a general 'low, 'medium' and 'high end' type builds available surely.

To me a good analogy is like the points version of car to electronic fuel injection? Sure the points have benefits for me if I'm a mechanic and if I break down, but the EFI just plain blows away the points in power, efficiency etc. Wouldn't this be a similar trend?

The only concern I can see is it airs that concern for enthusiasts whereby every companies trend is towards tablet type computers - not everyone wants that, me included.
--
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing - Edmund Burke



Octavean
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-31
New York, NY
kudos:1

1 recommendation

reply to Octavean

I suspect that Intel heard the rampant complaints about their frequent socket changes and they decided to put an end to it once and for all,….

Just kidding,…

However, if I evaluate my past 4 or 5 builds I can say with complete honesty that I haven’t wanted or haven’t bothered to upgrade the CPU. This is one of the reasons I haven’t had an issue with Intel’s sock changes:

Core i7 3930K / Asus P9X79 Deluxe LGA2011
Core i5 2500K / Asus P8P67 Pro LGA1155
Core i7 860 / Asus P7P55D Pro LGA1156
Core i7 920 / Asus P6T Deluxe LGA1366

I have an Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 that had a Gigabyte motherboard that started to malfunction so I replaced it with a cheap Asus LGA775 board.

Statistically I suspect that the vast majority of computers will never receive such an upgrade and for the most part it simply wouldn’t matter.

For what its worth I was considering buying an Intel Next Unit of Computing barebones,..

Still I would like to see Intel keep the LGA socket or something similar around for quite some time.



pnjunction
Teksavvy Extreme
Premium
join:2008-01-24
Toronto, ON
kudos:1

Agree although we could still be upgrading CPUs if chipsets were sticking around for a while, the reality (for now) is that each new chipset is bringing architecture changes and features that make a decent case for dropping the old ones.

I was a bit miffed at the fast abandonment of LGA1156 but LGA1155 did have changes to the clocking that removed the ~4 GHz ceiling.

I think the main downside to losing sockets would be repair ability. Our desktops would start looking like laptops were you chuck the whole 'logic board' and replace it if anything goes wrong with either mobo or CPU.

However this would be offset somewhat by the savings from removing the socket, those things are pretty expensive. They can also be a failure point, as we saw a few years with some of them having poor contact and burning out under high load.

My gut feeling is that if this was analyzed with a simple formula like (solder benefit) = (cost of socket)-(prob of failure)*(extra cost of repair)+(prob of socket failure)*(cost of socket failure) the soldered solution might easily come out ahead of the socket on a large scale.

Of course this ignores some things like the the cost of extra SKUs for mobo+CPU combos. In theory if we have M mobos and N CPUs we would have to go from M+N SKUs to M*N SKUs, with the manufacturing to support them). That is assuming we keep the same amount of choices, which is unlikely. Chances are we would lose some, such as the option to stick a higher end CPU in a cheaper motherboard (often a good value choice if you don't need the high end features or overclocking), because companies typically don't see the value in such choices (ie. if they take them away we'll still have to buy whatever they have left...).



El Quintron
Resident Mouth Breather
Premium
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON
kudos:4
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·TekSavvy DSL

Your analysis is right on the money... my biggest issue with this is that I feel it'll take away motherboard choice (I'm assuming most people will be shopping for a CPU in this case and not a mobo) because I'm assuming the lower end choices won't have extra features that the manufacturer feels a "value" customer would be looking for.
--
Support Bacteria -- It's the Only Culture Some People Have



Octavean
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-31
New York, NY
kudos:1
reply to pnjunction

I think the LGA socket design put the burden of failure on the socket and thus on the motherboard. I suspect motherboard manufacturers disliked this approach but had no real effect on the consumer. For Intel it meant no more bent pins so it was a win-win for them.

This BGA proposition adds a considerable increase in cost with respect to the bill of material (BOM) necessary for any given desktop motherboard.

I agree it would probably effect the variety of motherboards which could make it somewhat difficult for manufacturers to differentiate their products and would limit choice.



pnjunction
Teksavvy Extreme
Premium
join:2008-01-24
Toronto, ON
kudos:1
reply to El Quintron

said by El Quintron:

Your analysis is right on the money... my biggest issue with this is that I feel it'll take away motherboard choice (I'm assuming most people will be shopping for a CPU in this case and not a mobo) because I'm assuming the lower end choices won't have extra features that the manufacturer feels a "value" customer would be looking for.

Yeah the sad thing is that some choices that have value to the consumer have negative value to the suppliers.

For example sticking a $250 CPU in to a decent quality $100 mobo (because you don't need the features of the $200 mobo) might serve many people well. However if you don't have a choice you might be forced to buy a $450 combo. Actually a win for the seller...


norwegian
Premium
join:2005-02-15
Outback
reply to pnjunction

said by pnjunction:

That is assuming we keep the same amount of choices, which is unlikely. Chances are we would lose some, such as the option to stick a higher end CPU in a cheaper motherboard (often a good value choice if you don't need the high end features or overclocking), because companies typically don't see the value in such choices (ie. if they take them away we'll still have to buy whatever they have left...).

After reading this and subsequent replies it seems the value in present selections will be affected in the new format. Very good point you have made. If there is a low end board matched to a high end cpu it will be more because of the seller skimping on a quality board to hope make some extra profit.

said by pnjunction:

For example sticking a $250 CPU in to a decent quality $100 mobo (because you don't need the features of the $200 mobo) might serve many people well. However if you don't have a choice you might be forced to buy a $450 combo. Actually a win for the seller...

That sort of estimate on the value, dollar wise, does help put a perspective on the subject. You can almost envisage the cpu's that over clock will not be on a general purpose build unless via OEM. You could almost see the same motherboard for mid and high range and just a simple bios difference to enable extra features of the motherboard (except for the really serious high end options). They are doing this to some extent already.

Having 3 x motherboards instead of 5 to select from with a manufacturer will bring down costs for the supply and theory would suggest we end up with better quality selections due to the extra cash from manufacture for R&D; however you rarely see this bonus from a deal like this end up in the buyers hands, it is sucked up in covering share holders.

--
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing - Edmund Burke



Anonymous_
Anonymous
Premium
join:2004-06-21
127.0.0.1
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
reply to Octavean

said by Octavean:

quote:
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.
»www.techpowerup.com/176133/Is-Ha···or-.html

BGA sucks

just ask any owner with a Nvidia GPU, ATI GPU, PS3 ,xbox 360.

We can only hope the the BGA is made WITH REAL LEAD solder
--
Well, does your car at least turn into something else? Sometimes I turn it into a trashcan. Hmm...


pnjunction
Teksavvy Extreme
Premium
join:2008-01-24
Toronto, ON
kudos:1

said by Anonymous_:

BGA sucks

just ask any owner with a Nvidia GPU, ATI GPU, PS3 ,xbox 360.

This is an interesting opinion. You've listed some failures, but just what alternatives do you think there are for packaging and soldering chips with 500+ pins?

There are billions of properly designed and mounted BGA chips in the wild right now working perfectly. It is also great for smaller chips such as RAM and NAND, they use it almost exclusively these days.


ccallana
Huh?
Premium,VIP
join:2000-08-03
Folsom, CA
reply to Anonymous_

You won't see solder with lead in most of devices like this. All sorts of laws and such making everything lead free.

BGA has been around for a long time, and works just fine when done properly.
--
"We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us.... We are far too easily pleased." C.S. Lewis



Anonymous_
Anonymous
Premium
join:2004-06-21
127.0.0.1
kudos:2

Still a HIGH amount of failures with BGA lead free solder.
PS3 cell chip and the xbox 360 has a high Failure rate because of the crappy lead free solder