Intel is reportedly going to kill the CPU socket


Recommended Posts

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).

I have just upgraded my parents PC i built them years ago, at the time it was upgraded on the cheap so had a Dual Core Pentium @1.8ghz with 2gigs of ram. I recently purchased them a Core2Duo E8400 @ 3ghz and another 2gigs of ram for about ?50.

The difference is night and day, yes i could have spent a lot more on a new PC for them, however whats the point when they can upgrade a perfectly working PC?

Choice is never bad.

I have just upgraded my parents PC i built them years ago, at the time it was upgraded on the cheap so had a Dual Core Pentium @1.8ghz with 2gigs of ram. I recently purchased them a Core2Duo E8400 @ 3ghz and another 2gigs of ram for about ?50.

The difference is night and day, yes i could have spent a lot more on a new PC for them, however whats the point when they can upgrade a perfectly working PC?

Choice is never bad.

When you upgraded to the Core 2, didn't you have to also change the motherboard (different CPU socket)?

Upgrade is not the point. The ability to do so is. See, motherboards arrive dead or fail, I'd say, three orders of magnitude more than processors do. How it will be more reliable and cheaper to change the whole thing? For example: if my big huge motherboard with all bells and whistles dies, I can buy some entry level crap for 30 $/? and still stuff 3770K in it and enjoy most if not all its capabilities. If my CPU dies, I can buy 30 $/? worth Celeron G to get my system going.

Now, as some have already said, it will not end with CPU sockets. Systems will become integrated to teeth, just like smartshytes and schmablets have - unopenable, with no swappable batteries, no removable storage etc. What one has to do when they fail in the slightest? Send them to the nearest RMA center, and in most cases after a month (30 days being in the consumer law here) of couldn't-be-arsed-to-look-at-it they'll exchange it for a new device because nothing can be repaired regardless of the damage. If you were lucky enough to get the data out or keep a copy, that's it. I could just have my disk attached to another machine and keep going all the time. With a proper machine, if big huge RAM dies, I can put 10 $/? ValueRAM 2 GB stick and keep going. If a discrete GPU dies, I can put the oldest PCI-E crap that barely moves bits around, but keep going.

Or welcome to the out-of-control generation...

Who cares.

As long as people can buy something that works better and faster.

Haha not really what I expect to hear on a tech site... who cares. Well I think most people on here would, its a very stupid idea and AMD are springing to mind.

  • Like 1

I knew when I first heard about this two weeks ago that someone would manage to skew the details in this way.

They're not looking to close off the desktop CPU market. They're looking at moving into embedded solutions as well as the LGA system that we have now.

They're not going to do away with LGA.

There are several places reporting this news as though Intel will stop selling CPUs to the general public, motherboard manufacturers are doomed, and only large OEMs can build computers. If this is false, they should debunk this as soon as possible before it escalates. Lots of people appear to be ****ed.

  • Like 2

This is FUD, intel has a commitment to make it's products with sockets because they have a responsibility to make devices upgradable for X amount of time so it's more environmentally friendly. They wouldn't suddenly do away with CPU sockets that'd go against that and have many governments up in arms sueing them and banning their products.

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.

Funny. That's Intel for you.

AM3 is still rocking and AM3+ is getting at least 1 more gen of CPU's (That's 3 for you). I'm not even going to count how many lines of CPU's work on AM3.

  • Like 1

Can't see them phasing out socketed CPU's completely. Maybe they'll package some SoC stuff for OEM manufacturers but the enthusiast market is a big part of Intel's business, can't see them wanting to p*** that segment of the market off.

[...]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...

I, personally, wouldn't mind going to SoC, as long as it is not soldered and allows me to upgrade the CPU. I'm currently using an ASUS Rampage III Extreme with a i7 980 and have no desire to upgrade in the next few years. My next upgrade will be when Intel move the southbridge on-die.

That's a load of BS, imo. Intel did made CPU that needed to be soldered to the motherboard, in the past. In the 286-386 era. The market is a completely different beast right now....

Haha not really what I expect to hear on a tech site... who cares. Well I think most people on here would, its a very stupid idea and AMD are springing to mind.

I am a enthusiast myself but I am not in a denial that we are the minority (<1%?). Also, pushing hardware just to get 1% extra juice is not worth it most of the times. If integrating things bring better performance, lower power requirements etc, I'd take those over 1-2% extra juice any day.

Even if they did kill of the upgradable socket - there hasn't been a time in the last 5 years when I've been able to just replace the CPU without bothering about the motherboard. That started when I upgraded my old AMD to an Athlon X2 6000, then when I went from that to a core 2 duo, and then from that to my i7.

If they have to bundle the chip and motherboard together it'll probably be cheaper, but it might be a bit harder trying to find motherboard features that you want.

Still, I highly doubt they will just stop making LGA processors.

Well someone on another forum pointed out that this article appears to be a mistranslation and that only Broadway won't be receiving a socket-version, the generation afterwards will however^^ Apparently this was mentioned in the comments of the Semi-Accurate article and I would look for it but I have to go out soon^^

That's a load of BS, imo. Intel did made CPU that needed to be soldered to the motherboard, in the past. In the 286-386 era. The market is a completely different beast right now....

Sadly, this idea indeed appears to have resurfaced:

http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/motherboards/desktop-motherboards/next-unit-computing-introduction.html

Next Unit of Computing my lower back. IT'S A NETTOP! And pretty lame one at that. I can see it being a reasonable HTPC, among others, what with the (dual) HDMI or the 'Bolt (no one really cares about), but no USB 3.0, no analog audio, no S/PDIF, either. While we're at it, BY model (at the very least) suffers from WiFi card overheating the SSD. Intel promises to fix it, but it's more or less a design defect - they're simply too close to each other. What one's going to do about it? Nothing! Because it isn't possible to do anything else than pray that Intel indeed fixes it, or go exchange it. Or cry for your money.

Note that SODIMMs, mSATA SSD and half-size WiFi card must be bought separately - I guess that's good, except that the price of the little crap alone is $300.

I wrote two articles for the local site about this, compiling a lot of sources. Unfortunately, a lot of people seem to be genuinely impressed with it, for some reason. :|

...no there is another...

Nobody but Intel and AMD produce CPUs based on the x86 architecture, so no.

And if you think ARM is a viable alternative right now, I'm sorry to have to disagree very very strongly here.

Upgrade is not the point. The ability to do so is. See, motherboards arrive dead or fail, I'd say, three orders of magnitude more than processors do. How it will be more reliable and cheaper to change the whole thing? For example: if my big huge motherboard with all bells and whistles dies, I can buy some entry level crap for 30 $/? and still stuff 3770K in it and enjoy most if not all its capabilities. If my CPU dies, I can buy 30 $/? worth Celeron G to get my system going.

Now, as some have already said, it will not end with CPU sockets. Systems will become integrated to teeth, just like smartshytes and schmablets have - unopenable, with no swappable batteries, no removable storage etc. What one has to do when they fail in the slightest? Send them to the nearest RMA center, and in most cases after a month (30 days being in the consumer law here) of couldn't-be-arsed-to-look-at-it they'll exchange it for a new device because nothing can be repaired regardless of the damage. If you were lucky enough to get the data out or keep a copy, that's it. I could just have my disk attached to another machine and keep going all the time. With a proper machine, if big huge RAM dies, I can put 10 $/? ValueRAM 2 GB stick and keep going. If a discrete GPU dies, I can put the oldest PCI-E crap that barely moves bits around, but keep going.

Or welcome to the out-of-control generation...

Post of the day.

Fu** it, post of the month! (Y)

I think I'll create a couple of dupe accounts to give this the amount of likes it deserves... :shifty:

edit: / addition:

Sorry guys, read page 3 now and apparently it's not what it seemed to be.

Apart from that, I still think Phouchg's post is excellent, as it is a nice take on how some people would be totally careless about it happening and the message is true with other things going on in the tech industry where many people downplay the importance of repairability, maintaining your gear yourself and so forth.

I often feel alienated with my sentiments around some people, so yeah, nice read!

Glassed Silver:ios

Nobody but Intel and AMD produce CPUs based on the x86 architecture, so no.

And if you think ARM is a viable alternative right now, I'm sorry to have to disagree very very strongly here.

Wrong. VIA and cyrix both produce/produced x86 architecture.

Transmeta does too.

Upgrade is not the point. The ability to do so is. See, motherboards arrive dead or fail, I'd say, three orders of magnitude more than processors do. How it will be more reliable and cheaper to change the whole thing? For example: if my big huge motherboard with all bells and whistles dies, I can buy some entry level crap for 30 $/? and still stuff 3770K in it and enjoy most if not all its capabilities. If my CPU dies, I can buy 30 $/? worth Celeron G to get my system going.

Now, as some have already said, it will not end with CPU sockets. Systems will become integrated to teeth, just like smartshytes and schmablets have - unopenable, with no swappable batteries, no removable storage etc. What one has to do when they fail in the slightest? Send them to the nearest RMA center, and in most cases after a month (30 days being in the consumer law here) of couldn't-be-arsed-to-look-at-it they'll exchange it for a new device because nothing can be repaired regardless of the damage. If you were lucky enough to get the data out or keep a copy, that's it. I could just have my disk attached to another machine and keep going all the time. With a proper machine, if big huge RAM dies, I can put 10 $/? ValueRAM 2 GB stick and keep going. If a discrete GPU dies, I can put the oldest PCI-E crap that barely moves bits around, but keep going.

Or welcome to the out-of-control generation...

Agreed, I can't believe anyone in their right mind thinks this is a good thing for desktop pc's.

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!