AMD not abandoning socketed CPUs

Last month a rumor was going around that Intel, the world’s largest chipmaker, might abandon the removable CPU in favor of an integrated solution using a ball grid array (BGA) where the chip is soldered directly to the motherboard. Even though Intel never officially answered this rumor, it still caused some concerns, especially among computer enthusiasts that prefer to build their own rigs.

But now AMD is trying to ease our fears stating that they won’t abandon the socketed CPU in 2013 and 14 with their “Kaveri” APU and FX CPU lines. Their official statement clearly states this

We have no plans at this time to move to BGA only packaging and look forward to continuing to support this critical segment of the market.

AMD is trying to position itself as a brand for enthusiasts by saying that they “understand what matters to them and how we can continue to bring better value and a better experience”.

While it’s certainly reassuring to have at least one of the two major brands making this commitment, we can’t help but wonder if AMD will still be in the game a few years from now. Especially considering the most recent rumors.

Source: Techreport

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Nokia unveils budget Windows Phone 8 Lumia 620 handset [Update]

Next Story

Philips, LG, Samsung, others slapped with $1.92 billion in fines by EU

40 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Staying with AMD for sure here, been with AMD since 2003, Happy with my AMD systems, and I do like the fact if I wanted to I could upgrade the AMD CPU and stll use the same motherboard and case. AMD APU chips totally out class Intels built in GPU in my opinion, despite only used a friends laptop with Intels built in GPU once, not the same as AMD's APU Chip that I currently use on this Desktop...Shines in Gaming with this APU Chip and with ability to use Dual Graphics with AMD APU Chips, hands down winner

this is why I have always love AMD. I know they have been the underdog but their performance has been usually pretty good.

I'm staying with AMD for sure now

This probably sounds weird, but am I the only one that actually likes the feeling of putting a CPU into a system, its like you are going IT'S ALIVE! by putting its brain in *LOL*

neufuse said,
This probably sounds weird, but am I the only one that actually likes the feeling of putting a CPU into a system, its like you are going IT'S ALIVE! by putting its brain in *LOL*

Haha nah, i'm with you there. The feeling of sliding that lever down is akin to when Dr Frankenstein brings his monster to life. "It's AAALLIIIVVVEEEE"

This is precisely why we need to continue to support AMD ahead of Intel, regardless of whom has the best "performance".

If it wasn't for AMD, we'd all probably still be using the same old Netburst rubbish clocked up to some arbitrary value. No x64, no multicore. Just the bare minimum of advancement to maximise Intel's profits.

Enough with AMD bashing,its upto the individual whether they buy AMD or Intel ,personally Im a fan of both, Intel is great but very overpriced, they get away with it cos theres no really strong competition, my towers are AMD based cos I have had better luck with them ,my laptops are Intel based ,tried a AMD laptop and was not impressed by it.
What we need is a third cpu maker to get things competitive again

Have AMD moved the pins to the board yet?
I thought that was the best thing Intel ever did.
I like that AMD stays with a socket design longer than Intel. Never found Intel based systems to be worth a CPU only upgrade.

Does it make a difference? If warranty is good, it's the same RMA'ing a cpu or the whole thing. If it's old, chances are you have to change everything anyway. Try to find a new, decent socket 775 motherboard nowadays.

How many people will this truly affect? I build my own PCs; I am not at the screaming edge of technology, but who is (in numbers that count)?

By the time it is worth upgrading the CPU, the motherboard can't take the latest processors. I have never bought a new CPU for an existing PC in my life.

What other way can they figure out to make more money? Force users to replace motherboards and processors at the same time. All they see is $$$. I don't see how a built in solution like this would work. It severly limits the market. Only some boards would come with lower line cpus. How are you to build mini-itx solutions that are bar non top of the line, if the "market" wasn't large enough to produce a solution.

Seems insane.

I switched to Intel years ago when the speed hit AMD, but if this were to ever happen they would loose the major segment of pc builders to AMD. Who cares if AMD is slower at this time. If they were the only option available, they are no longer "Slower".

If the rumor is true that intel is switching to a soldered cpu instead of one that goes in an LGA. I will switch to AMD. This coming from someone that has used an intel since the 8088.

Wasn't this Intel rumor debunked such that Intel is only planning on offering a mobo/CPU combo alongside their existing socketed CPUs?

I mean, it's good that AMD is trying to take advantage of this rumor to increase their market share, but I was pretty sure it was clarified already.

It's such a horrible choice to make. On one hand, sockets give you the control to swap out and upgrade as and when you feel you want to. Yet the integrated CPU could bring some great advancements in CPU technology... GAH!

Mikeffer said,
It's such a horrible choice to make. On one hand, sockets give you the control to swap out and upgrade as and when you feel you want to. Yet the integrated CPU could bring some great advancements in CPU technology... GAH!

OOk... and what kind of great advancements to be precise ??
Because I can't think of none... Well maybe except :
[Sarcasm : on]
- Internal Cost cuts (due to assembly/Socket costs) for Intel that the Customer won't feel at all,
- Possibility to milk the customer more on each and every upgrade / hardware failure,
- Maybe a possibility to introduce back the upgrade-scratch pads that Intel wanted to sell for software-locked CPUs ?
[/Sarcasm : off].

We haven't reached the pin nor electrical coverability limits, so except for the reasons I've mentioned above there are none for moving to BGA.

PrEzi said,
--snip--

We may not be as far from the limits as you assume but the fact is that the socket architecture is creaking with old age in technology terms and an integrated chip can give more power with less bottlenecks and less heat, all great benefits.
Don;t get me wrong, i'm an enthusiast, however i can see the benefits of an integrated chip. Of course i'm not saying Intel wouldn't benefit greatly from this too, but they are a business. If this happens sooner rather than later i will switch back to AMD products because we still have a little way to go with the current CPU architecture and i'd still prefer the modular approach.

P.S. Could you be a little less condescending in your replies from now on? A big <sarcasm> block wasn't really needed. If you're going to discuss the topic with me, do it in an adult and mature way. Cheers.

YAY! *Does my silly happy dance*
AMD FTW!, yes I know amd's chips are not in the same league as intel's but real time usage speeds aren't exactly heaven and earth apart

So essentially I'll need to replace board/processor and possibly memory in one if I decide I need an upgrade with (BGA scenario)? That makes no sense, where is the modular oc world we lived in? That's a costly venture, especially in a world where enthusiasts change hardware regularly to keep pace with technology. Instead of being able to grab the next refresh of processors, some folks may have to wait until a second or third refresh and replace their entire rigs.

DaMiEn said,
So essentially I'll need to replace board/processor and possibly memory in one if I decide I need an upgrade with (BGA scenario)? That makes no sense, where is the modular oc world we lived in? That's a costly venture, especially in a world where enthusiasts change hardware regularly to keep pace with technology. Instead of being able to grab the next refresh of processors, some folks may have to wait until a second or third refresh and replace their entire rigs.

Modular designs are bad for profits. Forcing a user to replace a $400 CPU/Mobo pair earns Intel more money than simply replacing a busted chip .

Majesticmerc said,

Modular designs are bad for profits. Forcing a user to replace a $400 CPU/Mobo pair earns Intel more money than simply replacing a busted chip .

Modular designs always make sacrifices, too. Size and electrical layout are the big ones.

Majesticmerc said,

Modular designs are bad for profits. Forcing a user to replace a $400 CPU/Mobo pair earns Intel more money than simply replacing a busted chip .


And that's why AMD needs to stay in the game. Intel will start abusing their pseudo-monopoly soon, and this move to all-in-one is just the beginning.

Been an AMD user all my life. Good processors, and both of my custom built AMD rigs are still chugging. Don't see any reason to switch.

When pin density, electrical and thermal constraints make powerful processors problematic for sockets, we'll see.... Gotta plan for the long term.

I've been using Intel CPUs for the last 20 years. My next CPU will probably be an AMD cpu if Intel persists in its non-sense. I won't buy, never, a motherboard with a CPU soldered on. It won't happen

myxomatosis said,
I've been using Intel CPUs for the last 20 years. My next CPU will probably be an AMD cpu if Intel persists in its non-sense. I won't buy, never, a motherboard with a CPU soldered on. It won't happen

Even if you sacrifice performance?

ingramator said,

Even if you sacrifice performance?

Hahaha. Again with this perofrmance nonsense. Go read some credible reviews on 8350 and they'll show you exactly how capable the CPU is compared to 3770k. If you're too lazy to do it I'll tell you, it's 90% of the real time perf for 100 dollars less to spend.

ingramator said,

Even if you sacrifice performance?

I'm inclined to choose upgradability and repairability over performance yes.

I use my computer to do real-life tasks, I'm not a big 3dMark player

ingramator said,

Even if you sacrifice performance?

AMD is priced competitively. Example - The fastest Amd desktop processor atm performs on the level of the 2nd Gen Intel Core i5, yet it's priced a bit cheaper then an 2nd gen intel core i5. However, if you want an AMD that performs as a 2nd gen Core i7, it doesn't exit.

AMD also tries to keep the same socket as long as possible. A lot of the AM3 motherboards, with a simple bios update supported the newer AM3+ chips. I've also noticed feature rich AMD AM3+ motherboards are much cheaper then there intel equivalent.

alwaysonacoffebreak said,

Hahaha. Again with this perofrmance nonsense. Go read some credible reviews on 8350 and they'll show you exactly how capable the CPU is compared to 3770k. If you're too lazy to do it I'll tell you, it's 90% of the real time perf for 100 dollars less to spend.

What? Everywhere you look the 8350 is barely comparable to the 3770k, in terms of gaming performance and per single core basis, the 3770 eats the 8350 for breakfast:
Have a blast:
http://www.tomshardware.com/ch...012/-20-Crysis-II,3175.html

And that's only one benchmark...

Don't get me wrong i'm an AMD fan, but AMD has more than 2+ years of being unable to compete with Intel for performance.

Draconian Guppy said,

What? Everywhere you look the 8350 is barely comparable to the 3770k, in terms of gaming performance and per single core basis, the 3770 eats the 8350 for breakfast:
Have a blast:
http://www.tomshardware.com/ch...012/-20-Crysis-II,3175.html

And that's only one benchmark...

Don't get me wrong i'm an AMD fan, but AMD has more than 2+ years of being unable to compete with Intel for performance.

If i'm interpreting the scores exactly, it is 5% difference in favour of 3770k, and for these 5% You need to pay 115$ more, only for CPU...not to mention that Intel based motherboards are also more expensive than AMD's. In price performace ration the clear winner is AMD and by alot.

Draconian Guppy said,

What? Everywhere you look the 8350 is barely comparable to the 3770k, in terms of gaming performance and per single core basis, the 3770 eats the 8350 for breakfast:
Have a blast:
http://www.tomshardware.com/ch...012/-20-Crysis-II,3175.html

And that's only one benchmark...

Don't get me wrong i'm an AMD fan, but AMD has more than 2+ years of being unable to compete with Intel for performance.

Oh I'm sorry.

http://www.upload.ee/image/286...-relative-games-640x280.jpg

Doesn't seem to eat anything for breakfast (Only in Civ 5 which is really only running on 1 core but I find that to be the studios fault not AMD's that they can't or/and don't know how to optimze the game for todays standards).

Single-threaded sucks as much as Intel's multithreading other way around, ever thought of it that way?

Yogurth said,

If i'm interpreting the scores exactly, it is 5% difference in favour of 3770k, and for these 5% You need to pay 115$ more, only for CPU...not to mention that Intel based motherboards are also more expensive than AMD's. In price performace ration the clear winner is AMD and by alot.

look at the other benchmarks... and if you pay for electricity, well your price/performance goes bye bye as 8350 consumes a lot more energy idle and active... You'll end up paying those extra $100 in electricity, so yes, i'd rather that bit more of performance for a much more efficient chip.

myxomatosis said,
I've been using Intel CPUs for the last 20 years. My next CPU will probably be an AMD cpu if Intel persists in its non-sense. I won't buy, never, a motherboard with a CPU soldered on. It won't happen
I've come to realize that if you build your computer right the first time and take into account all the bottlenecks you pretty much need to replace everything all at once anyways. I can see intel at least selling these motherboards to us so we can still choose graphics card, memory, hd, case, wires, power supply, and sound card.

alwaysonacoffebreak said,

Oh I'm sorry.

http://www.upload.ee/image/286...-relative-games-640x280.jpg

Doesn't seem to eat anything for breakfast (Only in Civ 5 which is really only running on 1 core but I find that to be the studios fault not AMD's that they can't or/and don't know how to optimze the game for todays standards).

Single-threaded sucks as much as Intel's multithreading other way around, ever thought of it that way?

Ok i'll take it back... BUT still i'd prefer the less heat dissipating more efficient CPU

Draconian Guppy said,

What? Everywhere you look the 8350 is barely comparable to the 3770k, in terms of gaming performance and per single core basis, the 3770 eats the 8350 for breakfast:
Have a blast:
http://www.tomshardware.com/ch...012/-20-Crysis-II,3175.html

And that's only one benchmark...

Don't get me wrong i'm an AMD fan, but AMD has more than 2+ years of being unable to compete with Intel for performance.


The first benchmarks and **** where wrong, due to not implementing the new bulldozer/piledriver technology. After the benchmarks (and Windows 8 has this too) implemented the new AMD technology. The benchmarks of the Piledrivers where similar to the i7's.
And this is what allot of Intel fanboys been crying about, that AMD needed MS to incooperate its techniques for it to be able to run faster.
While Intel has been doing this for decades already ~.~

Anyways, if those benchmarks are made on a Windows before Windows 8, then yeah, you're not getting the speed advantages you should get, due to the NT kernel in Win7 not fully supporting the new technologies.

Allot of Intel fanboys and Intel itself been putting down on AMD for many, many years now.
While AMD has Always been better at the price-perfomance ratio (what else matters? Bunch of idiotic Apple-like people, lets pay more for same performance?)
And now they're gaining up on Intel and barely anything behind.
AMD already kicks Intel's ass in the low-power segments, and are close to doing so in the high power segments.

ultimatescar said,
so those who want to assemble their pc will move from Intel to AMD... (if the rumor is true)

Actually since AMD is at-lest two years behind Intel interns of development, hence it will take AMD years to reach that stage where they too may feel the need like Intel to move to SOC design layouts for their processors and offerings.

Choto Cheeta said,

Actually since AMD is at-lest two years behind Intel interns of development, hence it will take AMD years to reach that stage where they too may feel the need like Intel to move to SOC design layouts for their processors and offerings.


It is behind? The new Piledriver CPU's rival the best i7's Intel has to offer mate.
And that for allot less money, I think AMD is actually starting to win the battle.

Shadowzz said,

It is behind? The new Piledriver CPU's rival the best i7's Intel has to offer mate.
And that for allot less money, I think AMD is actually starting to win the battle.

Intel is pricy for sure but it definitely number in performance compare to rival AMD offerings.

HoochieMamma said,
Good

Strange it needs an article, their 2013 line of products where anounced to be AM3+ compatible. Next to the FM2 socket chips
And their 2014 line of CPU's would also be FM2 sockets.

So this really worth noticing as a news article? It was known if anyone would just look at their lineup for 2013 and 2014.