Intel is reportedly going to kill the CPU socket


Recommended Posts

Intel kills off the desktop, PCs go with it. What will we do if we can't upgrade our rigs?

Broadwell will not come in an LGA package, so no removable CPU. The most direct effect is that of Broadwell, the 14nm successor to next year?s Haswell CPU, will essentially shut out the enthusiast. Motherboards will still be available, but the CPUs that come with them will be soldered down. In addition to being a inventory management nightmare, OEMs won?t buy CPUs any more, the few remaining mobo vendors and ODMs will. As a side effect, it also cuts the enthusiast out of the picture for good, but more on that later.

http://semiaccurate....pcs-go-with-it/

I can't believe this is actually going to happen. The enthusiast market is very lucrative to Intel. Average consumers aren't buying K processors or Black edition CPUs.

If this actually did come around I can see AMD getting a lot of marketshare pretty quickly.

  • Like 3

If this is true i'm glad AMD is still around.

What a stupid idea... They should solder the memory too if they want to push the non-sense to the limit.

I can't wait to have to replace my motherboard AND my CPU because of a motherboard problem.

Why not the GPU too? It would make sense. Everything soldered to the MB without any PCI-E slot.

Since they nearly destroyed that nascent market with Nehalem, and have since progressively removed any features the enthusiast cares about while jacking the cost to buy them back to untenable levels, enthusiasts have become an endangered species.

Right, that i5 k series I bought for $150 was sooo expensive and locked down. :rolleyes:

I also a) don't believe this, as I don't think Intel can meet motherboard demand for that market, and b) don't really see it as a big deal if it's true. Intel has been socket crazy lately anyway, and except for overclocking the crap out of it, I've never seen a CPU die.

If this is true i'm glad AMD is still around.

Why not the GPU too? It would make sense. Everything soldered to the MB without any PCI-E slot.

GPU will be done via this too seeing as the mainstream CPU's currently have onboard graphics on them.

AFAIK this will not effect the top end CPU's, the successor to socket 2011 and such.

My guess is they want mainstream (current socket 1155 people) to move to SoC hardware, which is where this comes in. They know people with top end hardware based on socket 1366 and socket 2011 would NEVER move to SoC. Granted 1155 machines are damn powerful, but 2011 is really in another category when it comes to applications that require more cores etc...

When I read the title before coming into this thread I thought that Intel were going to introduce some sort of universal socket for all their future CPU's and was quite happy about that. Not only was i disapointed that this wasn't the case; I now find out that in the future I have buy a new MOBO for if I want a new CPU.

Double downer.

can you upgrade your phones processor? no, you buy a whole new phone. Disposable after 3 years or so...

That's what makes the desktop so powerful right now and why it won't go away for several years (or ever maybe). To a lesser extent you can upgrade a laptop too, but that's only up to the max memory and max CPU that the motherboard that it comes with will support.

  • Like 4

I really dont think this is gonna happen to all future CPUs offered by intel any time soon. The enthusiast market is too important for intel to drop. Something like this may happen in the low end/mid range market..but surely not across the entire spectrum.

As a side effect, it also cuts the enthusiast out of the picture for good, but more on that later.

It's inevitable and I've seen it coming ever since learning about the size of PCs in the not so distant future.

It's a side effect of progress and miniaturization if I may which isn't a side effect at all since we'll get faster and lighter PCs.

Those who are stuck in the old days can continue to tinker with their old full tower, full of noise and dust rigs, while the rest of us will enjoy more power in a much smaller form factor.

However, being an enthusiast myself, I understand the negative sentiments here. And as a marketer, I can say with certainty that this decision has been driven purely by profits to make the customers upgrade their stuff faster = more profits for the corporate world.

Ok then. While Semi-accurate spurts a lot of (anti-Intel) drivel (and going back to socket with Skylake absolutely makes no sense), exploitation of consumer stupidity truly knows no bounds. If that will prove to be remotely true, I'll probably be saving towards some many-socket server of the last generation, so that I can delay the glorious future for at least 10 years.

Seriously, how many people actually upgrade their CPUs? 1 x 10-12 %?

I am still happy with my Core 2. If that was soldered on, what difference would it make? None at all in my case.

Processors have got to a point where even low end models are powerful enough for what I do (and even for some serious gaming, of course when combined with a good GPU).

Well its crossing the point where all of the pins/balls are becoming a bigger factor as bottlenecks for performance. It seems like the next step for intel to cut out the adaptability to squeeze more performance.

I don't see how people possibly upgrade their CPUs these days. I want to think not many people upgrade their CPUs as sockets keep changing and upgrades within a certain socket line is quite minimal in day to day performance.

Having intel swallow up the mobo industry just makes things cheaper and more reliable in the end anyway.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • The quantum search for Time's origin had an equally mind-boggling conclusion by Sayan Sen Image by Steve Johnson via Pexels A theoretical study from researchers at the University of Surrey suggested that the direction of time may not be fundamentally fixed in certain quantum systems. The work, published in Scientific Reports, examined how the “arrow of time” could emerge from microscopic physics and found that time-reversal symmetry can remain intact even in models used to describe processes such as energy loss and thermalisation. The arrow of time refers to the observed one-way direction from past to future in everyday life. In macroscopic processes, this is easy to see. Spilled milk spreads across a table and does not gather back into a glass, and heat flows from hotter objects to colder ones. These processes shape the common sense idea that time moves in a single direction. However, at the level of fundamental physics, many equations do not prefer a direction of time. Time-reversal symmetry means that the same physical laws can describe a system whether time moves forward or backward. This has made it difficult to explain why irreversible behaviour appears in the large-scale world even when the underlying rules do not require it. Dr Andrea Rocco, Associate Professor in Physics and Mathematical Biology at the University of Surrey, described this contrast: "One way to explain this is when you look at a process like spilt milk spreading across a table, it's clear that time is moving forward. But if you were to play that in reverse, like a movie, you'd immediately know something was wrong – it would be hard to believe milk could just gather back into a glass. However, there are processes, such as the motion of a pendulum, that look just as believable in reverse. The puzzle is that, at the most fundamental level, the laws of physics resemble the pendulum; they do not account for irreversible processes. Our findings suggest that while our common experience tells us that time only moves one way, we are just unaware that the opposite direction would have been equally possible." The study focused on open quantum systems, which are quantum systems that interact with a surrounding environment. This environment, often described as a heat bath, can exchange energy and information with the system. The researchers used this framework to study how a direction of time might appear even when the underlying physics does not enforce one. A key part of the analysis involved the Markov approximation. This is a simplification used in many models where the system is assumed not to retain memory of its past states. The idea is that changes depend only on the current state, not on earlier history. This is commonly used when studying thermalisation, which is the process where a system settles into equilibrium with its environment. The study also used concepts such as master equations, including the Lindblad and Pauli equations, which describe how probabilities of different quantum states change over time. Another related model discussed was quantum Brownian motion, which describes the random-like movement of a quantum particle interacting continuously with its environment. In these descriptions, a “memory kernel” can appear, which is a mathematical term that accounts for how past states influence current behaviour. The researchers found that applying the Markov approximation did not break time-reversal symmetry. Even when the system interacted with an effectively infinite heat bath, the resulting equations of motion remained symmetric in time. This meant that the same mathematical description could, in principle, run forward or backward in time without contradiction. The study further showed that standard frameworks used in open quantum systems, including quantum Brownian motion and master equations like the Lindblad and Pauli forms, could be written in a time-symmetric way. These equations are typically used to describe processes that look irreversible, such as dissipation and thermalisation, but the results suggested they can also be interpreted as allowing evolution in both time directions. Thomas Guff, Research Fellow in Quantum Thermodynamics, said: "The surprising part of this project was that even after making the standard simplifying assumption to our equations describing open quantum systems, the equations still behaved the same way whether the system was moving forwards or backwards in time. When we carefully worked through the maths, we found that this behaviour had to be the case because a key part of the equation, the "memory kernel," is symmetrical in time. We also found a small but important detail which is usually overlooked – a time discontinuous factor emerged that kept the time-symmetry property intact. It’s unusual to see such a mathematical mechanism in a physics equation because it's not continuous, and it was very surprising to see it appear so naturally." The researchers also noted that deriving a one-way arrow of time from time-reversal symmetric microscopic dynamics remains an open problem across fields such as thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, particle physics, and cosmology. Their results suggested that some standard descriptions of irreversible behaviour in open quantum systems may be better understood using a time-symmetric formulation of Markovianity. According to the study, processes such as thermalisation, which are usually treated as irreversible, could in theory be described in a way that allows evolution in either time direction under the same rules. This does not imply that time reversal occurs in everyday life, but rather that the underlying equations do not strictly enforce a single direction. Overall, the findings suggested that the perceived direction of time may emerge from how physical systems are modelled and approximated, rather than from a fundamental asymmetry in the laws themselves. The researchers noted that this perspective could have implications for ongoing work in quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, and cosmology on the origin of time’s arrow. Source: University of Surrey, Nature This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing
    • A bit premature... 100% Marketing. Bizarre.
    • A $300 price hike is insane! No one is going to want to pay that much!
    • Since the 1st one flopped, there is really no reason to make another one. It's just losing money left and right.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      BizSAR earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      581
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      182
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      75
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      73
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!