Looks Like 1156 Socket is being superseded by a new socket

All about them.

Moderators: NeilBlanchard, Ralf Hutter, sthayashi, Lawrence Lee

Mats
Posts: 3044
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2003 6:54 am
Location: Sweden

Post by Mats » Tue Apr 06, 2010 9:28 am

lodestar wrote:
Mats wrote:I've never seen any indications that current boards will work with the next CPU's, and I don't think it will.
Yes, I think you're probably right. But if you look at the 775 evolution you had a series of chipsets, the newer ones supporting the new CPUs while continuing to support older CPUs. So you could use an older CPU in a newer board, but broadly not a newer CPU in an older board.
That's exactly what I wrote:
Mats wrote:The 775 happened to be reused, which gave the customers the option to use an old CPU with a newer board.
It's of course a good thing in short term if you want to upgrade, but most people want to do the opposite, to upgrade the CPU.
When 775 was designed, there were no plans for the Core CPU's.
lodestar wrote:Bearing in mind that the rumour mentions P67 and H67 chipsets, it looks to me that 1156 socket is going the same way. Sandy Bridge will only need a H67 chipset, since it combines the CPU and graphics on one die. The only logical reason for P67 is to continue to support the 1156 Core i5s and i7s, so that it seems that those CPUs and developments of them continue to have a future.
No, there's no logic in that, since all 1156 CPU's work with the H-series. The P-series isn't needed for the Lynnfield to work.
lodestar wrote:I don't see how any of this could possibly affect anyone contemplating buying socket 1156 CPUs and/or motherboards right now since it seems Sandy Bridge is at least a year away.
I'd say less than a year.

yuu
Posts: 132
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2007 5:03 pm
Location: eu

Post by yuu » Tue Apr 06, 2010 11:01 am

By the time of 32nm cpu + 45nm chipset availability we will be 1 year away from 22nm cpu and 32nm chipset, and by then there will be not much of a chipset left ~20mm2 and DDR4 1 year away, and why not shrink the ramaining chipset to 22nm ~ 10mm2 and integrate it in cpu, and change the socket again just for the hell of it.

~El~Jefe~
Friend of SPCR
Posts: 2887
Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 4:21 pm
Location: New York City zzzz
Contact:

Re: Looks Like 1156 Socket is being superseded by a new sock

Post by ~El~Jefe~ » Thu Apr 08, 2010 12:33 pm

ilovejedd wrote:
ces wrote:Seems like the 1156 Socket is being superseded by a new socket called the 1155 and a new set of support chips. But it looks like USB 2 will not be going anywhere quickly.
I believe this bit of info has been known since before the release of Clarkdale processors. Actually, I think I remember reading about this during Lynnfield's release. I think it's one of the reasons why people opt for the Core i7 920 (ergo LGA1366 socket) when the similarly priced Core i7 860 offers better performance while having lower power consumption.
1156 does not have better performance. it just does for things like gaming.

1366 is the real deal still.

ilovejedd
Posts: 676
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2008 4:14 pm
Location: in the depths of hell

Re: Looks Like 1156 Socket is being superseded by a new sock

Post by ilovejedd » Thu Apr 08, 2010 12:59 pm

~El~Jefe~ wrote:1156 does not have better performance. it just does for things like gaming.

1366 is the real deal still.
Hmm, guess I should've mentioned slightly better or on par performance for the price. The Core i7 860 ($284) runs at 2.80GHz while the similarly priced Core i7 920 runs at 2.66GHz which is pretty much where the difference stemmed from. Now that the i7 930 2.80GHz is available, that's a good incentive to go LGA1366.

Tzupy
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 1561
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 10:47 am
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Post by Tzupy » Wed Apr 14, 2010 8:48 am


ces
Posts: 3395
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 6:06 pm
Location: US

Post by ces » Wed Apr 14, 2010 10:22 am

yuu wrote: By the time of 32nm cpu + 45nm chipset availability we will be 1 year away from 22nm cpu and 32nm chipset,

and by then there will be not much of a chipset left ~20mm2 and DDR4 1 year away,

and why not shrink the ramaining chipset to 22nm ~ 10mm2 and integrate it in cpu,

and change the socket again just for the hell of it.
An interesting set of decision points. Would you consider elaborating on them.

derekva
Posts: 477
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 11:00 am
Location: Puget Sound, WA
Contact:

Post by derekva » Wed Apr 14, 2010 12:45 pm

psyopper wrote:It's true, and I'm pretty angry (as are a bunch of others) because Intel touted the 1156 to be the long term mainstream replacement for the 775. 1366 was supposed to be the high end gamer / Xeon socket.

I don't exactly call one generation "mainstream" or "long term".
Drive out Hwy 26 to Hillsboro and yell at them then. :D

-D

lodestar
Posts: 1683
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 3:29 am
Location: UK

Post by lodestar » Wed Apr 14, 2010 4:45 pm

There's actually a picture of a Sandy Bridge CPU here http://www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/News/De ... wsId=27319 and shock, horror it looks exactly like a LGA 1156 CPU. That's because it is an LGA 1156 CPU. As for LGA 1155? Who knows? It was being touted as a rumour long before Core i3 and Core i5 were introduced. There were variants such as LGA 1160, and some others.

How about this little gem from Fudzilla dated April 8 2010 "...."....The next generation chipset that Intel likes to call 6 series chipset, scheduled for Q1 2011 introduction, will support socket 1155. Intel also said the same for its 5 series of chipset and shortly before the launch it turned out that the real chip has 1156 pins. Intel wanted to keep it a secret and you can easily imagine that you will need a new motherboard for a Sandy Bridge 32nm new architecture, simply as the new chip will ask for a new chipset.....".

Frankly, I find this somewhat incomprehensible but there is a grain of truth in there somewhere. I think it is probably that Sandy Bridge CPUs may not work on older motherboards, but it is nothing to do with a socket change, it's about it needing a new chipset. This is nothing new with Intel. They retained socket 775 through a whole series of chipsets including at the end P45. The latest 775 CPUs would not work on the early motherboards, but virtually the whole range of 775 CPUs would work on a P45.

So it seems to me that anything put out by any web site should not be treated as fact unless it is linked to an official source. And of course although Intel, as the first link shows, have been issuing information about Sandy Bridge for some time, the rumour and speculation will continue until the hardware actually hits the retail channel.

ces
Posts: 3395
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 6:06 pm
Location: US

Post by ces » Wed Apr 14, 2010 5:15 pm

lodestar wrote:
So it seems to me that anything put out by any web site should not be treated as fact unless it is linked to an official source.
You have it half right. You can't trust anything you get from a web site PLUS you can't trust anything you get from "official sources".

You can only trust after the product is delivered, and only then if both the websites and the "official sources" are providing congruent information.

Has that not been your experience?

lodestar
Posts: 1683
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 3:29 am
Location: UK

Post by lodestar » Wed Apr 14, 2010 6:16 pm

No, it hasn't. What can't you trust anything you get from official sources? The only issue in this thread that I can see is that rumour should not be presented as fact. If Intel don't have an LGA 1155 form factor socket then they don't have one, and anyone who claims that they do should produce their evidence. But there is no evidence. As has been suggested, the true source of the 1155/1156 issue is probably that someone noticed that the land counts on Core i5/Core i7 CPUs for the 5 series chipset were different. So the idea was proposed that there were 1155 and 1156 CPUs that both fitted an LGA 1156 socket. Nothing wrong in that, photographs of the two CPUs were produced showing clearly the difference in land count. However, this is not the same as claiming that there is an LGA 1155 socket, or even an LGA 1155 form-factor. But some people seemed to have missed this point, and the LGA 1155 rumour continues.

ces
Posts: 3395
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 6:06 pm
Location: US

Post by ces » Wed Apr 14, 2010 6:40 pm

lodestar wrote:No, it hasn't. What can't you trust anything you get from official sources? The only issue in this thread that I can see is that rumour should not be presented as fact. If Intel don't have an LGA 1155 form factor socket then they don't have one, and anyone who claims that they do should produce their evidence. But there is no evidence. As has been suggested, the true source of the 1155/1156 issue is probably that someone noticed that the land counts on Core i5/Core i7 CPUs for the 5 series chipset were different. So the idea was proposed that there were 1155 and 1156 CPUs that both fitted an LGA 1156 socket. Nothing wrong in that, photographs of the two CPUs were produced showing clearly the difference in land count. However, this is not the same as claiming that there is an LGA 1155 socket, or even an LGA 1155 form-factor. But some people seemed to have missed this point, and the LGA 1155 rumour continues.
Seems like the problem was created by Intel. Seems like they could bring it to quick end. Just send out a clarifying press release explaining this. Why do you think they haven't done so?

My theory is that they don't think it is important. In particular they just don't care that we have accurate information in order to make good decisions about our purchases. My guess is that they provide that information to companies like Citicorp and the big consulting groups. They are important enough that Intel is willing to at least pretend providing them this information is important.

What do you think?

lodestar
Posts: 1683
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 3:29 am
Location: UK

Post by lodestar » Wed Apr 14, 2010 7:01 pm

I don't think like you think. What I do think is that deciding to buy hardware that isn't out yet and having to 'wait for it' for an extended period is a really bad idea. Is Sandy Bridge that big a deal anyway? For me, I would be entirely happy just to buy Core i5/Core 7 on the 5 series chipset now and fit a relatively inexpensive separate low power, passive AMD or nVidia graphics card. That way I can always upgrade the graphics card in the future, and there is the potential for upgrading the CPU although this is something that personally I have never done so far. So, wait for Sandy Bridge.... No, thanks.

ces
Posts: 3395
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 6:06 pm
Location: US

Post by ces » Fri Apr 16, 2010 8:27 pm

lodestar wrote:I don't think like you think. What I do think is that deciding to buy hardware that isn't out yet and having to 'wait for it' for an extended period is a really bad idea. Is Sandy Bridge that big a deal anyway? For me, I would be entirely happy just to buy Core i5/Core 7 on the 5 series chipset now and fit a relatively inexpensive separate low power, passive AMD or nVidia graphics card. That way I can always upgrade the graphics card in the future, and there is the potential for upgrading the CPU although this is something that personally I have never done so far. So, wait for Sandy Bridge.... No, thanks.
That seems like a reasonable proposition if you have to buy a system today. It is a system that will age gracefully for as along as anything.

If you have systems that you can live with for another year or two, and your are in no big hurry, it might be interesting to wait and see what Sandy Bridge has in store. I suspect within even 6 months, we will have a much better picture of what it is and what it isn't.

yoitsmeremember
Posts: 42
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 4:18 am
Location: earth

Post by yoitsmeremember » Thu Apr 29, 2010 2:28 am


psyopper
Friend of SPCR
Posts: 336
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2008 1:15 pm
Location: Portland, Oregon

Post by psyopper » Thu Apr 29, 2010 7:40 am

yoitsmeremember wrote:Am I the only one who would welcome some socket design change from Intel?
Only if you are seeing the same problems on your system that's drawing less than 160W to the processor trying to manage a 5.8GHZ over-clock on liquid nitrogen.

yuu
Posts: 132
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2007 5:03 pm
Location: eu

Post by yuu » Sat May 01, 2010 2:47 pm

Only if you like the VCC change 168 to 120A. The new socket is supposedly build to only survive 120A.

Post Reply