bit-tech.net

Rumours point to an end for user-replaceable CPUs

Rumours point to an end for user-replaceable CPUs

Future Intel processors will be soldered directly to the motherboard, ending the practice of user replacement as an easy upgrade, rumours claim.

Intel is rumoured to be considering releasing its Broadwell processors in a single package type using a ball-grid array (BGA) layout - potentially putting an end to the days of user-replaceable processors on motherboards.

The claims were first raised by Japanese news site PC Watch, which pointed to leaked roadmaps for Intel's next-generation processors families that miss one particular aspect: land-grid array (LGA) packaging. Instead, the only packaging type listed in ball-grid array (BGA), a dramatically different system which requires that processors are soldered directly to the system board.

BGA, which gets its name from the grid of solder balls which sit on the underside of the semiconductor package, is in common use for memory chips and is often used in embedded systems. Smartphones and tablets, for example, typically have their processors soldered directly to the board. As a result, they're impossible for a user to replace - or, if not impossible, certainly extremely difficult and a process which involves attempting to heat the system to a level at which the solder melts without destroying the components themselves.

According to PC Watch, Intel is looking to ditch its current dual-package approach - in which it produces embedded processors using the BGA package and desktop processors using the LGA package - in favour of a BGA-only manufacturing system. The result: Broadwell-era motherboards will come with their CPUs permanently attached.

It's a move with precedent: ignoring the embedded market, both Intel and AMD sell motherboards with low-power BGA processors soldered directly onto them. In the high-end market, however, it's unheard of. Such a move would do away with easy upgradability - one of the key features of the PC ever since IBM created the AT bus that would later become the Industry Standard Architecture (ISA.) Should PC Watch's claims prove accurate, a future system upgrade would involve replacing the entire motherboard - not just the processor.

SemiAccurate's Charlie Demerjian claims that not only is PC Watch right about the lack of LGA Broadwell chips, but it's something that has been a long time coming. 'Two OEMs have confirmed to SemiAccurate that they have now been briefed that Broadwell is BGA only,' he states. 'This was done weeks after we first told them about the problem.'

Intel, naturally, has no comment to make on Broadwell, following its traditional refusal to talk about unannounced products. Should the rumours prove true, however, it would be a serious blow to the enthusiast market.

93 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
sniperdude 27th November 2012, 11:08 Quote
this would make me go AMD
steveo_mcg 27th November 2012, 11:16 Quote
I can't remember the last time I upgraded the CPU with out having to change the motherboard...

Actually I can it was going from a Athlon 3200 to an Athlon x2 4000 or something like that; S939 era any way.
hyperion 27th November 2012, 11:18 Quote
Intel changes the socket in every generation anyway.
RichCreedy 27th November 2012, 11:21 Quote
They aren't, I can't say more, but there is a new socket coming
SpAceman 27th November 2012, 11:25 Quote
This would be a terrible move. Hopefully this is just the mobile market and not desktop.
faxiij 27th November 2012, 11:30 Quote
well yea but this is silly somehow. how would this pan out? will intel only sell their cpu attached to their own motherboards? or will they continue selling to asus, gigabyte & co., but forcing them to solder the cpu on their boards? idk, it sounds weird.

if it were only for small systems, embedded systems, office systems - well, your average home user really. then i get it. those never change anything anyway, mostly. so if it were AMD, this might make sense. but as intel dominates the enthusiast-market, who frequently chance their hardware, i fail to see any logic in this.
SchizoFrog 27th November 2012, 11:31 Quote
I can see them doing it in conjunction with system builders but not on the retail front. It just doesn't make sense to alienate such a large portion of their market who spend a vast amount of money on upgrades or replacement CPUs and Motherboards due to burn outs caused from overclocking.
Guinevere 27th November 2012, 11:32 Quote
There's a broadwell roadmap that doesn't mention LGA packaging, but we don't know if it's complete or final.
There's a leak of the roadmap, but we don't know if it's genuine.
There's a translation of the leak, but we don't know if it's accurate.
There's other articles discussing the leak but lots of people talking about the rumour doesn't make said rumour any more accurate.

And even if it is? So what? The number of people on the planet who actually upgrade their computing devices by swapping out the CPUs is absolutely tiny compared to those who don't. As a percentage, very few people are going to be upset with this sort of evolution.

Even here on BT you'll find that many people will 'normally' follow a model of upgrading the MB + CPU together.

I for one have never upgraded the CPU without at the same time swapping out the mobo.

This doesn't mean that those of you with a tray full of CPUs and a cupboard full of mobos aren't going to be gutted though. It could be that your days of mix and match... sheesh even I'm buying into the rumour now.
Guinevere 27th November 2012, 11:40 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by SchizoFrog
It just doesn't make sense to alienate such a large portion of their market who spend a vast amount of money on upgrades or replacement CPUs and Motherboards due to burn outs caused from overclocking.

Where's your data that serial upgraders and overclockers make up a large portion of intels market?

Take a look at this:

http://todaysiphone.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/applesprofitiscrazy.jpg

Apple only sell systems with embedded CPUs and they make more profit than Microsoft, Ebay, Google, Yahoo, Facebook and Amazon combined.

Go down a row and you'll see Apple make double the profit than almost the entire PC industry (The enthusiast market is much smaller than the OEM market)

When it comes to shipping chips in the markets where the profit sits, Intel is getting their butt kicked by ARM, but admittedly Intel make more profit on a desktop CPU than ARM makes on licensing their designs to the likes of Samsung / Apple.

If this is all true, I think Intel (like everyone) is trying to push it's business into the areas where they can make the most profit.

Compared to the rest of their market, Intel make comparatively little profit from selling CPUs to enthusiasts, and I would wager (gut feeling) that if they loose 100% of the profit from enthusiasts it would easily be offset by a tiny (low single digit) increase in profit from the OEM / Embedded market.
GuilleAcoustic 27th November 2012, 11:42 Quote
Doesn't matter to me as I always upgrade everything since the socket change with each new gen. The only matter would be with warranty. Hope this would come with at least 3 years warranty to compensate a possible cpu or mobo failure (after a year or two), and prevent a full change while only one component is dead.

Nowadays the only efficient upgrade, if you don't want to change you mobo, is to switch from i3 to i5/i7, i5 to i7(even i5 -> i7 is not that much as HT doesn't bring much perf) ... diff among same family of cpu is negligible (read diff between i3s, diff between i5s, etc ...).

If you do not have an LGA1155 mobo, you have to change everything, and even not all LGA1155 supports IB (some H61, H67, etc doesn't support them). Thank you Intel for the segmentation you created.

The unlocked "K" processor are for a niche market. People who buy each components are niche compared to ready-to-use computer. Desktop computer are disappearing from houses, being replaced by tablets and notepad. The last desktop user are mainly enthousiast (but we are a negligible portion of their customers) and offices (who buy dell / hp / etc desktop by thousands).

I won't be suprised if it was the reality.

PS : If Intel could reduce the number of chipsets available that could be awesome. This is ridiculous what they did with current gen, only confusing and bringing segmentation. Same with mobo makers with their LE, LX, V, V-LX mobos version, all priced the same ... it's only confusing.
Panos 27th November 2012, 11:43 Quote
FYI During the early 90s, most of the CPUs were soldered on the motherboards. There were few motherboards though that had an 386/40 soldered on, with additional slot next to it for mathematical co-processor or 486 CPU.
However all the 386 models coming with that setup were AMD ones, surprise surprise.

All Intel motherboards had no option for upgrade.

Shortly after that period, all motherboards had generic chipsets, that fit all AMD/INTEL/CYRIX processors on.
I still remember having one that fit on it, K5s, K6s, K6-2s, Cyrix and a Pentium 2. Overclocking them to their limits.

Few years afterwards, started coming out dedicated motherboards per CPU manufacturer.
mi1ez 27th November 2012, 11:52 Quote
I've said this elsewhere, and I'll say it again. Dell/HP etc. won't stand for this as it means either making a massive loss on every failed motherboard, or more hassle than it's worth to desolder/resolder CPUs.

Big box shifters will, I'm sure, prevent this.
Adnoctum 27th November 2012, 11:53 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveo_mcg
I can't remember the last time I upgraded the CPU with out having to change the motherboard...

Actually I can it was going from a Athlon 3200 to an Athlon x2 4000 or something like that; S939 era any way.

My last motherboard went through THREE CPUs during its five year life. I'm a cheap tinkerer, which means that when I find a good deal that provides me with more power I will make a change. In this way I went from a 2.0GHz dual to a 3.8GHz quad all on the same board.
It is the same with motherboards; when I'm in a position to upgrade on the bleeding edge I will cheap out on the motherboard (within reason, I'm not going ECS or anything!) and put the money saved into a higher CPU or GPU, and then 12 months later or so I'll find a great deal on a high end board. That is what I did with the board above. I got a great deal on it.

I also like to "cascade" my old parts downwards. Every CPU upgrade has let me pass the replaced CPU to my alternate box, and the CPU from there has gone on to other machines built for family. Socket stability/long life meant that was a viable strategy.

But that is just upgrading, what about maintenance? With the CPU thermal protection today, you are far more likely to have a motherboard die on you. I've only had a couple of post-A64/post-Prescott CPUs fail in the thousands of systems that I have looked after.
Motherboards are FAR more likely to fail and require replacement because they have FAR more components that can fail, and motherboards are more susceptible to damage to the PCB or traces. Networking (LAN and WLAN)? USB? RAM? PCI/PCIe? Fan headers? SATA? They all can fail. I currently have a S1155 board that has a dead LAN port and flakey PCIe slots causing crashes and blue screens. I replaced the board and the expensive CPU is fine, which I was worried about because the PCIe controller is on the CPU now.
So in the future, in addition to replacing a faulty or fried motherboard, you have to also replace a perfectly functioning CPU as well? I bet that does wonders for Intel's Executive bonus time.

This news means I'll be going all AMD, all the time from now on. F**k Intel, but I'll take user upgradeable and sacrifice the 10% performance I won't be missing. There is nothing I do that 5fps more or 20 fewer seconds of work makes a difference to my life.
sandys 27th November 2012, 11:54 Quote
Probably do one package and put it in a module of some sort.
TheDodoKiller 27th November 2012, 12:03 Quote
The board partners won't like it, and the system builders, as mentioned above, would break off relations with intel.

The thing is, now, you can balls up a CPU, and, at comparatively low expense, replace it, same as with a motherboard.

I see all of this stemming out from AMD moving out of the enthusiast market.
Adnoctum 27th November 2012, 12:10 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichCreedy
They aren't, I can't say more, but there is a new socket coming

You aren't keeping a state secret, you know? Everyone knows that for Haswell there will be a new LGA1150 on desktops, and new BGAs for laptops.

If you had read the linked Semi-Accurate article, it says that Broadwell is BGA only and that Haswell LGA will continue through that generation. Sky Lake (the generation after Broadwell) will be LGA again, but says that this may or may not be the last. There likely will be a new LGA again anyway if this is the case.

@ Everyone saying "I always buy a new motherboard with a new CPU"...

I think that is because you have gotten used to Intel making past sockets incompatible when introducing a new CPU generation. You have forgotten what it is like to have the option of a drop-in upgrade.
Blackshark 27th November 2012, 12:11 Quote
This will end up killing the Motherboard market - other than OEM. Retail will dry up. Are MB manufacturers going to produce 10 versions of each MB? Are scan going to want to hold 10 times more lines?

The EU will react - we can all bitch about waste and criminal accounting - but I doubt they will be happy with all the waste laws they have bought in being turned upside down by a company like Intel.
GuilleAcoustic 27th November 2012, 12:19 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adnoctum
@ Everyone saying "I always buy a new motherboard with a new CPU"...

I said this because I upgrade only every 5/6 years ... went from A64 3500+ with DDR1 and IDE drive to Q6600 with DDR2 and sata2 HDD .... so whole PC upgrade (even PSU).

Next upgrade will mean another full rig refresh. I'm not the kind of guy who waste money. I only change my rig when it's really to old to keep on with new softwares or OS (games are not an argument to throw 300€ into a new GPU every year or so) ... or a component that failed (happend with my LGA775 mobo, first time I had a component dying after a year).
greigaitken 27th November 2012, 12:51 Quote
It's not upgrading thats the biggest issue here, it's the initial purchase. Theres typically 5 choices of MB for each manufacturer on each socket, that would become 2 choices - low + high each with low + high cpus and a little overlap. Or AMD.
Intel is not going to watch the actual gaming market flow to AMD.
faugusztin 27th November 2012, 13:01 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adnoctum
My last motherboard went through THREE CPUs during its five year life

My current CPU went through THREE boards (P67A-UD4, Maximus IV GENE-Z, P8Z77-I Deluxe) during less than 2 years :p .

Anyway, my opinion is that this is simply just a partial roadmap, and we are making conclusions based on that.
V3ctor 27th November 2012, 13:13 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveo_mcg
I can't remember the last time I upgraded the CPU with out having to change the motherboard...

This... I can't remember either... I usually trade everything for something new, I can see advantages in the low price segments, like pc's for offices.
It could make those pc's ever cheaper.
SchizoFrog 27th November 2012, 13:21 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guinevere
Quote:
Originally Posted by SchizoFrog
It just doesn't make sense to alienate such a large portion of their market who spend a vast amount of money on upgrades or replacement CPUs and Motherboards due to burn outs caused from overclocking.

Where's your data that serial upgraders and overclockers make up a large portion of intels market?

Take a look at this:

http://todaysiphone.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/applesprofitiscrazy.jpg

Apple only sell systems with embedded CPUs and they make more profit than Microsoft, Ebay, Google, Yahoo, Facebook and Amazon combined.

Go down a row and you'll see Apple make double the profit than almost the entire PC industry (The enthusiast market is much smaller than the OEM market)

When it comes to shipping chips in the markets where the profit sits, Intel is getting their butt kicked by ARM, but admittedly Intel make more profit on a desktop CPU than ARM makes on licensing their designs to the likes of Samsung / Apple.

If this is all true, I think Intel (like everyone) is trying to push it's business into the areas where they can make the most profit.

Compared to the rest of their market, Intel make comparatively little profit from selling CPUs to enthusiasts, and I would wager (gut feeling) that if they loose 100% of the profit from enthusiasts it would easily be offset by a tiny (low single digit) increase in profit from the OEM / Embedded market.

OK, just to pull your neck in a little... I never mentioned 'profits', I said market. So all those figures and arguments are completely irrelevant.
Tyrmot 27th November 2012, 13:34 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by SchizoFrog
OK, just to pull your neck in a little... I never mentioned 'profits', I said market. So all those figures and arguments are completely irrelevant.

Actually, if you are talking about market share, of course profit is relevant. Profit is the only thing that leads companies like Intel to make decisions like these - they couldn't care less about alientating any part of their market if it means more money in the long term... that is what business (for a publicly-traded company) is.

We'll have to see if this is true or not, but I could believe it - as many have pointed out, the fact that Intel obsolete every socket with a new generation has kind of made this the norm anyway - now they are just cutting out the middleman (and of course, if they are making the mobos too then that is another nice little revenue stream isn't it....)

Proabably this would drive me over to AMD (probably...)
littlepuppi 27th November 2012, 13:40 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guinevere
Where's your data that serial upgraders and overclockers make up a large portion of intels market?

Take a look at this:

http://todaysiphone.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/applesprofitiscrazy.jpg

Apple only sell systems with embedded CPUs and they make more profit than Microsoft, Ebay, Google, Yahoo, Facebook and Amazon combined.

Go down a row and you'll see Apple make double the profit than almost the entire PC industry (The enthusiast market is much smaller than the OEM market)

When it comes to shipping chips in the markets where the profit sits, Intel is getting their butt kicked by ARM, but admittedly Intel make more profit on a desktop CPU than ARM makes on licensing their designs to the likes of Samsung / Apple.

If this is all true, I think Intel (like everyone) is trying to push it's business into the areas where they can make the most profit.

Compared to the rest of their market, Intel make comparatively little profit from selling CPUs to enthusiasts, and I would wager (gut feeling) that if they loose 100% of the profit from enthusiasts it would easily be offset by a tiny (low single digit) increase in profit from the OEM / Embedded market.

Im calling BS on that graphic, no way are dell making 19 billion net income a year, or asus... In fact, other than apple and IBM, I think its pretty much total carp. Amazon 34.4 B net income! They will have made 1 - 2 if they were lucky!
GeorgeStorm 27th November 2012, 13:45 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by littlepuppi
Im calling BS on that graphic, no way are dell making 19 billion net income a year, or asus... In fact, other than apple and IBM, I think its pretty much total carp. Amazon 34.4 B net income! They will have made 1 - 2 if they were lucky!

Those numbers are the total for all of those companies combined, not each.
faugusztin 27th November 2012, 13:52 Quote
Yeah, that graphic is a total BS.

2011 :

MSFT - $57.13 billion
Apple - $45.63 billion
Gareth Halfacree 27th November 2012, 14:04 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by faugusztin
Yeah, that graphic is a total BS.
2011 :
MSFT - $57.13 billion
Apple - $45.63 billion
Those figures are gross profit; the infographic is comparing net income. Microsoft's net income for 2011 was $23.15 billion, and Apple's for the same period was over $41 billion. In other words: exactly as the infographic shows.
azazel1024 27th November 2012, 14:07 Quote
I doubt it. It would create WAY too many SKUs for most motherboard manufacturers. Now I might see Intel going BGA + motherboard for their own SKUs instead of offering processor and motherboard seperately. That might make a certain amount of sense.

However, if they offer, say, 15 different processors and a motherboard manufacturer offers, say, 10 different motherboards, it is going to make it awfully expensive for the motherboard manufacturers. First of all, if they actually wanted to offer every combination, they'd have to offer 250 different SKUs. Or they'd have to limit it and, say, have their low end boards with only a couple of low end processor options, mid grade with only a few mid grade processors and high end with high end processors.

However, there are plenty of people who want to buy a high end processor, but a low end board, or vice versa. I ended up with a fairly nice uATX motherboard, but an entry level celeron processor in my server just because I don't need much compute power, I need max power savings, but I needed a fairly full featured board to support a number of PCI-e slots for RAID cards and network cards.

Now I can see Intel offering most of the lineup of processors as BGA in addition to LGA. For OEMs it isn't much skin off their teeth to make their offerings non-upgradable. In fact it might buy them planned obselesence upgrades. User built systems, either enthusiast, non-enthusiast or SOHO/large business/server markets I don't see this flying.
faugusztin 27th November 2012, 14:08 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree
Those figures are gross profit; the infographic is comparing net income.
Well then the infographic has a retarded title. Title talks about profit, subtitle talks about the net income. They should make up their mind :).
GuilleAcoustic 27th November 2012, 14:09 Quote
When you think that Apple was near bankruptcy before Uncle Steeve came and saved them :D
Gareth Halfacree 27th November 2012, 14:10 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by faugusztin
Well then the infographic has a retarded title. Title talks about profit, subtitle talks about the net income. They should make up their mind :).
Net income is net profit. It's just another way of saying the same thing.
fellix_bg 27th November 2012, 14:10 Quote
No one is complaining when the graphics board have to be upgraded where everything is soldered on the PCB -- GPU, memory, VRM, etc. With the steady advancements on the system integration front, the out-phasing of modularity is bound to happen. By the end of the decade, consumer systems probably won't need a discrete GPU board, as much as the dedicated sound is now nothing more than a relic within a tiny niche market. System memory could follow the trend also -- the DDR4 spec's already limit the amount of DIMM modules per channel to just one, upping the chip density sky high. The current smart-phone, tablet and ultra-portable market is just an indication of where the things are going, but at much smaller scale. Once the TSV die-stacking tech is perfected there will a boom of new SoC applications all over the products range reaching new performance and power levels, unthinkable now.
faugusztin 27th November 2012, 14:11 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuilleAcoustic
When you think that Apple was near bankruptcy before Uncle Steeve came and saved them :D

You mean Uncle Bill, right ? Right ?

Anyway, as i said before i highly doubt this information and i think it is just a partial roadmap, if valid at all.
GuilleAcoustic 27th November 2012, 14:17 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by faugusztin
You mean Uncle Bill, right ? Right ?

Steeve Jobs :) ... it's him who saved Apple. Just look at Apple product now that he's gone (rest in peace) ... no real evolution / creativity. I'm really not a fan of Apple, but Jobs sure did bring a lot to the computing / smartphone industry.
faugusztin 27th November 2012, 14:29 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuilleAcoustic
Steeve Jobs :) ... it's him who saved Apple. Just look at Apple product now that he's gone (rest in peace) ... no real evolution / creativity. I'm really not a fan of Apple, but Jobs sure did bring a lot to the computing / smartphone industry.

Well, Steve wouldn't do much with Apple without those 150 million dollars from Bill :).
Jimbob 27th November 2012, 14:43 Quote
Perhaps, Intel have made a socket that will take BGA CPUs. That would actually be brilliant, use mobile CPUs for HTPCs etc or high powered desktop version when you need the performance all on the same board.
Queelis 27th November 2012, 14:44 Quote
No one seems to point out that it would mean that a specific CPU would come with specific motherboard features, e.g. you can't make all the combinations of mobos and CPUs, the amount will shrink considerably.
GuilleAcoustic 27th November 2012, 15:23 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Queelis
No one seems to point out that it would mean that a specific CPU would come with specific motherboard features, e.g. you can't make all the combinations of mobos and CPUs, the amount will shrink considerably.

I'm not sure that it is a bad point ... the offer is really to vast and confusing for the consumer. A friend of mine had to change it's aging athlon x2 ... and was completly lost as he didn't pay attention to hardware for years.

He asked me to build him a computer because he was completly confused by the amount of possibilities .... and he's a software developper. Many dev around me are in the same situation. They are aware of new langages ... but regarding hardware evolution specificities of this, this or this chipset .... :(.

This one has RAID, but only 1 sata 6, this one has virtu, this one allow OC, this one ....

It would be bette with :

- A : common use
- B : Enthousiast

and nothing more. Right now Intel offers, for LGA1155 only :

- B75
- P67, P75
- H61, H67, H77
- Q77
- Z68, Z75, Z77, Z78

it's far too many chipsets ... if you add the specific features that mobos maker will add ... it's a nightmare for non-informed user (and even informed ones can get lost).
Quote:
Originally Posted by faugusztin
Well, Steve wouldn't do much with Apple without those 150 million dollars from Bill :).

I didn't know that, thanks for the information :D
Spaniard 27th November 2012, 15:30 Quote
This may or not having anything to do with this, but when my PS3 died, I then found out that the Cell chip was BGA soldered onto the board and went around fixing it with the heating method to reflow the solder. I assume this happened due to heat that the early PS3's put out. Does this mean that due to heat that failures will be more common for the CPU?

Either way I dont like it if its true, I also hate how intel commonly changes sockets for new gen cpu's.
RichCreedy 27th November 2012, 15:32 Quote
I thought the new 1150 socket was still under wraps, and only spoken about at partner briefings, oh well, lol
littlepuppi 27th November 2012, 15:37 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeorgeStorm
Those numbers are the total for all of those companies combined, not each.

If it is then its still wrong, IBM will make circa 16 billion + on its own this year... Intel will do similar, so its wayyyyy off the mark

Its a pointless reference point as the errors are just so glaring.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree
Those figures are gross profit; the infographic is comparing net income. Microsoft's net income for 2011 was $23.15 billion, and Apple's for the same period was over $41 billion. In other words: exactly as the infographic shows.

You show me where Dell made 19 billion net income in the last 4 quarters - you can pick any consecutive 4 and Ill fall off my chair, in fact, anything over 15 would be astounding!

I think you will find they are lucky if they come in close to 3 ;)
Gareth Halfacree 27th November 2012, 15:52 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by littlepuppi
You show me where Dell made 19 billion net income in the last 4 quarters - you can pick any consecutive 4 and Ill fall off my chair, in fact, anything over 15 would be astounding!
As has been pointed out to you, the chart shows combined net income. You can read the details here, including the period to which the chart applies - note that it *isn't* a financial year, but October 2011 to September 2012.

Feel free to bring the chart's calculations into question, but please do so by actually doing the calculation yourself rather than by guesswork. I'm by no means saying the chart is totally accurate, as I haven't done so myself - I'd be interested in your results.
rollo 27th November 2012, 16:27 Quote
People are blind

Dells figures are combined with every other pc manufacture

Only apples figures are alone in that entire article that you linked.

Dell has not made 19bil in the last 4 quarters, intel and IBM are contributing 80% of that total

Even in the mobile one Samsung is 80% of the total. Similar to movies with Walt Disney been the large contributer.

In the Microsoft one Microsoft and google are the 2 main contributors.

This is so off topic it's funny though, will this happen most likely will anyone complain about it unlikely, the enthusiast market is less than 1% of the total pc hardware sales.( sorry to burst anyone's bubble)

Windows 8 downloads were only 4 million there is a rumoured total of 700million compatible pcs out there. 4 of 700 is alot less than 1%.
aramil 27th November 2012, 16:31 Quote
Lies. Dam lies and statistics lol.

While agree that apple will be top. It has more to do with how these companies report. Apple never includes capital investment in its revinue figures as it classes it as internal spending. Where as Microsoft does. (Even says so on your linked site (if you hunt your way through it))

Also if you where an investor you would have to correct out the fact that these figure where collected just before MS released a new OS (which has been known to be coming over this period). And including a whole new range of IOS products that have been releases as well.

So I agree Apple will be top. But not so big as shown there.

Statistics is the art of trying to tell you something in a clear way. But most of the time it is either misread/used or the data used is not standard across all the inputs.

Hense the Internet is full of wrong or misleading graphics.....

Sent on my CM10 JB powered i9100 by TapaTalk 2
mi1ez 27th November 2012, 16:54 Quote
So, anyway. CPUs?...
LordPyrinc 27th November 2012, 17:41 Quote
I've never swapped out a CPU. Usually just build a new machine with a new MOBO and CPU and hand down the old machine to a family member. However, for those that overclock heavily, I can see the desire to have the option of swapping out the CPU in case it gets cooked. It would also be a pain if the CPU goes bad for any reason. Depending on the case the MOBO is in, you might have to nearly gut everything out just to get the MOBO out. Unless there is a significant performance reason for hard soldering the chip to the board, this sounds like a big step backwards.

It would be like going to the auto shop and finding out your car's transmission is bad. Sorry pal, we gotta replace the engine too since they are attached. :|
VaLkyR-Assassin 27th November 2012, 17:43 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by sniperdude
this would make me go AMD

Same for me for sure.



What happens if your motherboard dies within a couple of months then? Do you have to replace both that AND cpu? That would cost a fortune.
Harlequin 27th November 2012, 17:55 Quote
OEM`s are begging for this - keeping costs down , and with a fix or return from intel they have a win-win.

OEM`s will lap this up
faugusztin 27th November 2012, 18:12 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by VaLkyR-Assassin
What happens if your motherboard dies within a couple of months then? Do you have to replace both that AND cpu? That would cost a fortune.

1) there is a warranty for that.
2) there won't be motherboard AND CPU. Only motherboard. CPU will be part of it. It is like Raspberry Pi. You are not talking about the Broadcom SoC on it, but about the whole thing.
play_boy_2000 27th November 2012, 18:14 Quote
I can see this moving up from the atom into the celeron range and possibly low end pentium dual core parts to create sff/embedded parts. Intel's entire mobile range has shipped with both BGA and socket parts as far back as i remember.

Ultimately, I think intel would be tied up in partner and classaction lawsuits for years if they went BGA only.
GuilleAcoustic 27th November 2012, 18:25 Quote
The Intel NUC with BGA i3 is the first step in this direction. i5 and i7 version are plannned
Harlequin 27th November 2012, 18:36 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by play_boy_2000
I can see this moving up from the atom into the celeron range and possibly low end pentium dual core parts to create sff/embedded parts. Intel's entire mobile range has shipped with both BGA and socket parts as far back as i remember.

Ultimately, I think intel would be tied up in partner and classaction lawsuits for years if they went BGA only.

no law suit at all - intel offers the entire parts cheaper than current products as do board IHV`s = means OEM`s get to sell the kit for MORE profit = pure win for them
faugusztin 27th November 2012, 18:52 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by play_boy_2000
Ultimately, I think intel would be tied up in partner and classaction lawsuits for years if they went BGA only.

Uh, why ?

Intel will provide a BGA SoC, which will have everything current CPU and chipsets have. And instead of ASUS P8Z97 you will have ASUS P8Z97/i5-5570, ASUS P8Z97/i5-5770 etc. More sales for motherboard makers.

Or did you see a class action lawsuit about not being able to swap the chipset on the board ? Or the sound card ? Ethernet controller ?
rollo 27th November 2012, 19:38 Quote
People assume intel cares for enthusaist market when they have said time after time they dont. Intel knows where there profits are ( Servers for reference 60% of all there profit is from server hardware now, and its still rising.) and most servers are all in one boxed solutions that intel supplys to the companies that then sell the hardware.

If you replace the cpus in a server enviroment you replace everything with it.

As for this mystical thing of we will all go to AMD ( Assuming they even still exist ), We just wont sorry, Id never install a chip that is half the performance of a chip i could buy elsewhere just so i get a choice of a motherboard.
Harlequin 27th November 2012, 19:51 Quote
Intel Xeon E3 and *some* E5 (recently released , allready have embedded options for server market
Guinevere 27th November 2012, 20:12 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by aramil
While agree that apple will be top. It has more to do with how these companies report. Apple never includes capital investment in its revinue figures as it classes it as internal spending. Where as Microsoft does.

But Apple are notorious for spending far less on this sort of thing than the likes of MS... although maybe all those server farms and solar plants will have denting things this year!

Everyone knows that Apple make huge profits compared to anyone else. Not just compared to their competition (EG MS) but to whole groups of their competitors added together.

Microsoft stock went up 9.2% in the decade up to May 2012.
Apple went up over 4500% in the same period and they were already on the rise in 2002.

Think of it this way. If you'd have invested £10,000 in 1997, you'd be sitting on somewhere around £1,700,000 now.

Ouch!
longweight 27th November 2012, 20:20 Quote
I wouldn't be too fussed about this becoming the norm.

Sent from my RM-821_eu_euro1_342 using Board Express
grimerking 27th November 2012, 22:06 Quote
I think some people are missing the implications this will have on 'bang per buck' users. We currently have the option of buying a midrange MB and affordable CPU to overclock. Then, when the socket type is a couple of generations old and previously top range CPUs become available on ebay for £30, we can do a cheap upgrade, overclock it and get a 'pretty decent' system that should last a couple more years.

Not everybody in the 'enthusiast' market has, or is willing to spend, large sums of money to spend on kit.

I think this makes perfect sense for Intel, because they can abuse their monopoly and squeeze consumers for every last penny. However, it is an awful development for those people willing to get their hands dirty overclocking budget systems in search of premium performance.
faugusztin 27th November 2012, 22:13 Quote
That market is long gone grimerking. i5-3570K and likes are anything but "affordable CPU", they are higher mainstream. "Midrange" and lowend (Celeron, Pentium, Core i3, non-K Core i5) doesn't have overclock abilities since Sandy Bridge.
leslie 27th November 2012, 22:36 Quote
You may not change the CPU without changing motherboards...
But how many of you have changed boards without changing CPU?


With so much being built onto boards these days, you are probably more likely to change your board before changing your processor. In the last 7 years I went through 2 processors, but several boards. O those, one had bad pci-e slots, another had bad memory slots. I also decided to go down to matx instead of ATX. At another point I wanted more ram, USB3 and Sata3, this is what prompted the cpu change.

And does no one remember the big capacitor disaster? I still see boards with bad caps on them.
And what is next? Non-replacable cooling systems?


Granted, unless Intel does something, their market share is going to drop to a mere fraction in the next decade anyhow, but this seems premature.
maverik-sg1 27th November 2012, 23:32 Quote
I've actually changed motherboards during the life of a cpu, once for higher Overclockability, one for more features (SLI and additional SATA ports) and also to go from ATX to MATX.

Also as others have said I have more often than not replaced motherboards before because they're simply broken (or I've broken them).

Point is one of the major selling points of the PC versus the laptop or tablet is the easy hardware upgrade path.

Sooner or later we're going to have to come to terms with a complete merger of smartphone/tablet and PC technologies and formats.....thats just evolution.

Intel shareholders have to consider the view that were Intel to make CPU's in 2014 BGA only would be less than popular amongst enthusiasts and business customers, at a time when it's got a "less than healthy market share" beyond the PC market (Tablets, smartphones etc...) and during this technological convergence of phones, tablets, consoles and PC's, the risk is that by doing so, you create an issue for users, and issues for Intel will be opportuinities to the competition.....there's a real risk that a decision such as this at a time when people are not ready to embrace it could prove (when we look back at it in 10years time) to be the undoing of Intel, possibly x86 and the ascension of ARM and re-emergence of AMD and VIA.
Gradius 28th November 2012, 00:09 Quote
This is a totally anti-ECO moving! Showing profits from ARGHpple, only means how many Appletards are out there.
.//TuNdRa 28th November 2012, 01:54 Quote
I'm not sure what to think of this move. On one hand; It'll mean much less in the way of hassle when building a system, buy motherboard, drop in Memory, heatsink, HDD, possibly GPU, connect, play.

On the other hand; I don't want to have to bin what could possibly be a high-clocking processor just because the motherboard is duff. I'd've lost my FX 8120 with my 990FX-UD3 when the second PCI-E 16x socket crapped out on me last year, rather than simply dropping it into a new motherboard and carrying on.

I wouldn't complain too loudly if the market remained open, but if prices suddenly shot higher for what would, arguably, be the cheaper solution; I'd be more than slightly miffed.

On a side note; Does this mean we're going to see a global emergence of people running into Xbox 360 RRoD-like problems, where the heat has caused the solder on the BGA to crack/otherwise loose contact.
wafflesomd 28th November 2012, 03:44 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by fellix_bg
No one is complaining when the graphics board have to be upgraded where everything is soldered on the PCB -- GPU, memory, VRM, etc.

Due to the role that a GPU and CPU play in a computer those things are hardly comparable.
dolphie 28th November 2012, 04:06 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuilleAcoustic
Doesn't matter to me as I always upgrade everything since the socket change with each new gen like this.

Same here, you would still be able to upgrade the RAM and graphic, disks, soundcard, and whatever else.

I always intend to "future proof" myself but it just never happens. I bought the E6600 C2D Conroe when it was brand new and bought a posh motherboard with it. My intention was to last a few years and then move to some quad core in the same slot, but it never happened. The C2D lasted years without showing its age, especially with overclocking, and by the time it was really starting to age, everything had moved on like 5 whole generations anyway. So then I did the same thing again early last year with a 2500k, which again is lasting forever, especially seeing as it's OC'd to 4.8ghz on air.

I often upgrade RAM though, and graphics card and disks, and soundcard I did once.
Nicodemus_MM 28th November 2012, 06:13 Quote
I can't help wondering what OEMs think about this. Currently they'll practically throw motherboards at a problem, but it takes an act of Congress and at least 2 major deities to get them to send out a processor. If all of the CPU's are BGA, then they have to sent it out with every motherboard issue... even something as simple as a damaged RJ-45 or broken USB port.
fluxtatic 28th November 2012, 07:43 Quote
This won't happen...or it will extend Haswell's life. As others pointed out, there will be mass rebellion if suddenly Asus and the like go from 10s of motherboards to 100s. ATM, Asus has 65 LGA1155 boards on Newegg. Now multiply that by even half the available IB procs and...Newegg doesn't have that much room to stock the product. Either that or they cut their offerings...losing them market share. The boutiques might be all right, since they tend to skew high-end. As long as there's a 3770-class and a...whatever number Intel stuck on the hex-core, highest-end proc, they'd get by.

Actually, it might help Dell and HP do what they refuse to do themselves - pare down their offerings. One thing people like about Apple, counterintuitively, is the lack of choice. For laptops, you've got 2 lines in three sizes each, give or take. Desktops, you've got what, two? (iMac, at least, leaving the MP aside.) Dell has something like 15-20 just slightly different desktops in the consumer line alone. Too much choice creates confusion, especially when you're talking about a product the average person barely understands to begin with. (Incidentally, Guinevere, you're slightly wrong - Mac Pros still have discrete processors, although I think Cook is full of it when he promised something 'big' come 2013.)

I won't believe until Intel speaks on it, though - too much speculation, but as I typed this out, it does seem more plausible...although I question Intel's motivation if it is true. But, it'd be better for Dell and HP, whose fortunes are falling rather quickly. At the same time, it would massively piss off Asus, Gigabyte, ECS, et al, who seem to be doing rather well. Not to mention every computer retailer on the planet.

Maybe this is the mis-step AMD fans have been waiting for?
Sni9er 28th November 2012, 07:44 Quote
don't believe it will happen changing a chip from BGA to LGA, I'm sure isn't the hardest engineering task in the world haha
GuilleAcoustic 28th November 2012, 09:12 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by leslie
At another point I wanted more ram, USB3 and Sata3, this is what prompted the cpu change.

There are PCIe expension card for that purpose ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by leslie
In the last 7 years I went through 2 processors, but several boards. O those, one had bad pci-e slots, another had bad memory slots. I also decided to go down to matx instead of ATX. At another point I wanted more ram, USB3 and Sata3, this is what prompted the cpu change.

And does no one remember the big capacitor disaster? I still see boards with bad caps on them.

and about dying hardware ... I prefer to pay a small premium and get stuff with at least 3 years of warranty.

Going for cheap and upgrade a few parts 6month / 1 year later is not always the best move to save money. IMHO, unless you need it right away, it's better to wait 6 more month to save more money (1 less pint at the pub, less cigarettes, etc.) and buy something better that will last longer. Plus you will always resell your old hadware less than you paid it, and thus loose money, even if it is only 6 month old.
SpAceman 28th November 2012, 09:16 Quote
After thinking about it for a while I wouldn't be surprised if Broadwell was mobile only and Haswell was given a longer life cycle than usual. There is also the high end CPU line to consider. Broadwell-E perhaps. I would think that Intel would keep LGA for the high end workstation and server markets which is the sort of area us enthusiasts will be targeted with.
Platinum 28th November 2012, 09:23 Quote
To all the people that say "Im going AMD"

Check this :
http://semiaccurate.com/2012/11/19/amd-kills-off-big-cores-kaveri-steamroller-and-excavator/

Looks like AMD is killing off the X86 line, so your stuck with Intel if you want a powerful X86 system.

Also you can be sure that you wont be able to overclock these, lets just hope they still have a PCI-E 16x slot.

Still the high end will still be there, i.e cut down Xeons for enthusiasts and workstations.
Mighty Yoshimi 28th November 2012, 09:29 Quote
If intel were to do this I'd move to the much more adaptable AMD sockets. Besides AMD sockets are a dream to fit heat sinks to compared to the awful intel fittings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Platinum
To all the people that say "Im going AMD"

Check this :
http://semiaccurate.com/2012/11/19/amd-kills-off-big-cores-kaveri-steamroller-and-excavator/

Looks like AMD is killing off the X86 line, so your stuck with Intel if you want a powerful X86 system.

From Semiaccurate.com seems accurate!
faugusztin 28th November 2012, 10:03 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Platinum
Looks like AMD is killing off the X86 line, so your stuck with Intel if you want a powerful X86 system.

AMD killing off X86 ? No. AM3+ "highend" platform ? Probably yes. Will they kill FM2 ? No.
Platinum 28th November 2012, 10:36 Quote
Time will tell, if they are right the current core is the last, I haven't seen any roadmaps from them but ill keep my eye out.
Guinevere 28th November 2012, 11:18 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by SchizoFrog
OK, just to pull your neck in a little... I never mentioned 'profits', I said market. So all those figures and arguments are completely irrelevant.

Do you think businesses like Intel make their decisions based on the number of units they sell and the classifications of their customers rather than the profit they make?

If you do then you're deluded my friend.

It's ALL about the bottom line. If you increase that without hurting future earnings then everything else is irrelevant. ( I don't like this BTW, but it's true )

I'm not saying that surface mounted CPUs will definitely increase the bottom line, but I'm confident there's more profit being made from devices with hard wired chips vs those that are user upgradable, and this could sway Intel's future direction.
rollo 28th November 2012, 12:40 Quote
AMD are not killing off the high end they just are not making it anymore, They have changed there targets to the low and mid range.

You will never see a AMD chip compete with Intels true high end the x79 systems.

As for the market comment.

All companies care about 1 thing and 1 thing only its called Profit. If you dont make Profit you can not survive even if you own 100% of said market if your loosing money doing so you will go out of business.

Apple for example owns less than 20% of the smartphone market but gets something like 80% of all profits, i think they will be delighted dont you?

Andriod owns around 75% but every company except samsung is loosing money.

HTC and its ilk are fighting a loosing battle they are fighting for survival in a market that samsung effectively dominates. samsung is basically getting 100% of all andriod profits on hardware sales.

Market share is irelivent if you dont make a profit.

This is the world we live in today.
wafflesomd 28th November 2012, 12:57 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Platinum
To all the people that say "Im going AMD"

Check this :
http://semiaccurate.com/2012/11/19/amd-kills-off-big-cores-kaveri-steamroller-and-excavator/

Looks like AMD is killing off the X86 line, so your stuck with Intel if you want a powerful X86 system.

Also you can be sure that you wont be able to overclock these, lets just hope they still have a PCI-E 16x slot.

Still the high end will still be there, i.e cut down Xeons for enthusiasts and workstations.

Dude it says right in the article that you linked that AMD denied that they are killing off their x86 line.
BLC 28th November 2012, 13:12 Quote
Personally, this would be a bit of a kick in the nuts for me. I'm still using 775 and my current CPU has already seen one board replacement due to a failure. I'm even looking to upgrade to another 775 CPU (preferably quad-core, but they're rare as rocking horse poop), because I still think there's life in the old girl yet (I'm usually so far behind the current generation kit that most of you will think it's laughable). Losing the ability to drop a better chip into the current board would be a bit of a PITA.

I can see how this would make sense from a mass-market consumer point of view though. Increasingly computers are seen as appliances to get stuff done: web, emails, crappy games, wasting one's life on BookFace, etc. You only have to look at how far tablets/slates have come - in technology and sales - in the last few years to see what people really want out of a "computer". Even the average owner of a "traditional" desktop won't give a hoot what's inside the box or what to do when things go wrong; the bit-tech audience is sadly a very tiny part of the number of people who own a "traditional" computer. Moving to integrated CPUs and a more SoC/SBC-like approach makes sense from a commercial point of view: you can build smaller systems, rely less on third parties, potentially have lower power requirements and, more crucially, get vendor lock-in on upgrades, replacements or add-on parts.

In the grand scheme of things, the average consumer doesn't give a crap if he can upgrade his processor or not - he wants it to work out of the box, and if he wants better performance then he'll buy a whole new system.

Which in theory makes it a great time for some brave manufacturer out there to put their family jewels on the line and make a big push towards ARM-based desktop computing. As long as it's a modern/current ARM version, the software is already there: plenty of big name Linux distros have ARM variants. You might need to tidy/polish up the UI/UX here and there, but it's essentially ready to go. All we need is reasonably-priced hardware, and a manufacturer who is prepared to steer clear of Android and offer official Linux support (that means driver support). There is hardware out there but it's either: poorly supported in Linux, not supported at all in Linux, has low processing power, is very rare or seriously expensive. I'd love a Tegra 3 desktop board at a reasonable price which has good driver support. Yes, I've heard of the Kontron KTT30: no word on price or availability, only 900MHz and Kontron are not renowned for being cheap. I have also heard of the VIA APC8750 (not really that much better spec'ed than the Pi and only officially supports Android) and the ODRIOD-X (again, only official support seems to be for Android - are all features supported under Linux? Does it have accelerated X drivers? although this one at least warrants further investigation).

Of course mainstream ARM-based systems are pure pie in the sky: the only ARM support you'll get in Windows is Windows RT, and you'll only get Windows RT if you're a Microsoft partner producing Microsoft-certified hardware. Even then, WinRT is hopelessly crippled as a desktop OS. The only option for ARM systems is Linux, and if it doesn't have a little Windows or Apple logo somewhere then Mr Joe Public will steer clear.
theshadow2001 28th November 2012, 13:31 Quote
Meh,I'll believe it when I see it. It'll probably end up as an OEM thing for dell and the likes.
play_boy_2000 28th November 2012, 21:35 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by faugusztin
Quote:
Originally Posted by play_boy_2000

Ultimately, I think intel would be tied up in partner and classaction lawsuits for years if they went BGA only.
Uh, why ?



Intel will provide a BGA SoC, which will have everything current CPU and chipsets have. And instead of ASUS P8Z97 you will have ASUS P8Z97/i5-5570, ASUS P8Z97/i5-5770 etc. More sales for motherboard makers.

Or did you see a class action lawsuit about not being able to swap the chipset on the board ? Or the sound card ? Ethernet controller ?

Anti-trust.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tying_(commerce)

On a mobo, you are free to add in your own Ethernet controller or sound card (even on a mini-ITX board, you can still add sound/ethernet via USB dongles). The cheap onboard stuff adds only a few bucks to the overall sell price, and is overwhelmingly considered usefull. With regards to chipsets, they are too reliant on specific slots and ports (PCI-e, USB3, SATA, IDE, etc) to support upgrades.

Taking it to the extreme: could you imagine dropping a BGA1567 8 way server mobo (read: you broke it, so no warranty) and having $36000 worth of CPU's sitting there, utterly usless?
faugusztin 28th November 2012, 21:57 Quote
First, the only thing class action lawsuit and antitrust cases have in common is that they are lawsuits.

Secondly, this is meant for customer market. That is even with the CPU with are talking about items at 600 euro tops. Did you complain that you cannot swap your Cell CPU in PS3 ?

Fact is, there is only a very slim chance these lawsuits would stand a chance. Especially beacuse you can count on having the most sensible options available. Just look at Atom or E350/E450 market where you have your CPU soldered in. You got the same boards with all Atom CPU from specific generation, and it's up to you to choose. You got multiple board variants including ITX and mATX for E350/E450. Same will happen with the mainstream market IF the removal of LGA option happens (and that is a huge IF).
Sub-particle 0.76 29th November 2012, 01:56 Quote
I am pretty sure most PC manufacturers wouldn't mind this approach. There are sure segments of their customers who are not bothered with upgrading (mostly because the lifespan isn't as long) their PC especially the like of the all-in-ones or consumer market PCs so they will gladly adopt these strategy. Quicker and more integrated. Intel knows to compete with the like of Apple, (I am sure you know one of the reason you don't like Apple products is the upgradability), a similar approach is needed. HW-SW integration. One way to start is this, a complete motherboard/processor package - fast turnaround and manageable esp. with Intel's integrated graphics.
play_boy_2000 29th November 2012, 07:04 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sub-particle 0.76
I am pretty sure most PC manufacturers wouldn't mind this approach

The last company I worked for had Dell machines, and over the course of my 6 month contract, we needed to have 8-10 motherboards swapped due to faulty NIC's (around 225 desktops in the company). Dell never admited to us that it was a systemic problem, but in any case they were required to replace the entire motherboard, rather than add in a bandaid NIC. The point is, the cost of replacing a mobo and CPU, adds up pretty quick for a large OEM like dell.
GuilleAcoustic 29th November 2012, 09:59 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by play_boy_2000
The last company I worked for had Dell machines, and over the course of my 6 month contract, we needed to have 8-10 motherboards swapped due to faulty NIC's (around 225 desktops in the company). Dell never admited to us that it was a systemic problem, but in any case they were required to replace the entire motherboard, rather than add in a bandaid NIC. The point is, the cost of replacing a mobo and CPU, adds up pretty quick for a large OEM like dell.

To be honest, I whish we could still find mobo with no NIC, no wireless, no sound, no IGP .... only USB and PS/2 (PS/2 is better for key rollover). I'd like to be able to choose my NIC card, my sound card, etc.. instead of disabling the embedded ones (would free space on the IO shield for more USB ports).
l3v1ck 29th November 2012, 21:09 Quote
Is Intel trying to get motherboard manufacturers to cover the cost of RMA-ing faulty CPU's? If it's built into the motherboard, it's their problem, not Intel's.
That was one of the reasons behind the move from PGA to LGA wasn't it? Bent pins became the motherboard's problem rather than the CPU's.
leslie 29th November 2012, 22:44 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuilleAcoustic
There are PCIe expension card for that purpose ...

I have never seen a DDR3 adapter card that increased a boards ram capacity, care to share that one? And tell me exactly how I can put a Sata3, USB 3, AND DDR3 expansion cards into my MATX board along side my Graphics card, I seem to be a slot or two short.

Not to mention, you can flood out the PCI-e bus, with too many cards and data. Ever put a Gigabit card into a Pci slot? It works, but you will NEVER see gigabit speeds.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GuilleAcoustic
and about dying hardware ... I prefer to pay a small premium and get stuff with at least 3 years of warranty.

Warranties suck and can be almost useless.

On one of my current high end boards, the pci-e slots failed 3 months in, it took 6 weeks for a replacement and the replacement had bad memory slots. This was not some $80 board, it was an extremely high end board. In fact, it was even recommended by Bit-Tech for their high end build.

I don't know about you, but being without a board for 12 weeks isn't possible for me. Luckily, I had a spare, but had I not, I could have bought a cheap one to hold me over. I did not however have a spare processor.

If they are combined, you can't go out and buy a cheap board to hold you over, it will be a board/chip combo. I'm not spending hundreds just to hold me over.
Quote:
Going for cheap and upgrade a few parts 6month / 1 year later is not always the best move to save money. IMHO, unless you need it right away, it's better to wait 6 more month to save more money (1 less pint at the pub, less cigarettes, etc.) and buy something better that will last longer. Plus you will always resell your old hadware less than you paid it, and thus loose money, even if it is only 6 month old.
The reason we now have solid caps is because of that big capacitor disaster, and it wasn't relegated to low end boards which I think you are implying.

Also, many manufacturers did all they could to avoid repairing the damaged boards, just like Nvidia did when they had sold a bunch of bad 8400's. Ask high end laptop owners how they fared in that deal (they were offered a $250 HP computer) or better yet, ask Sony SZ series ($2000 laptop) owners how they were treated... I'll give you a hint, they were offered NOTHING for their failed video cards.


Bottom line, keep your warranty and high end ideals, I'll keep my modularity.
GuilleAcoustic 30th November 2012, 08:49 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by leslie
I have never seen a DDR3 adapter card that increased a boards ram capacity, care to share that one? And tell me exactly how I can put a Sata3, USB 3, AND DDR3 expansion cards into my MATX board along side my Graphics card, I seem to be a slot or two short.

Not to mention, you can flood out the PCI-e bus, with too many cards and data. Ever put a Gigabit card into a Pci slot? It works, but you will NEVER see gigabit speeds.




Warranties suck and can be almost useless.

On one of my current high end boards, the pci-e slots failed 3 months in, it took 6 weeks for a replacement and the replacement had bad memory slots. This was not some $80 board, it was an extremely high end board. In fact, it was even recommended by Bit-Tech for their high end build.

I don't know about you, but being without a board for 12 weeks isn't possible for me. Luckily, I had a spare, but had I not, I could have bought a cheap one to hold me over. I did not however have a spare processor.

If they are combined, you can't go out and buy a cheap board to hold you over, it will be a board/chip combo. I'm not spending hundreds just to hold me over.


The reason we now have solid caps is because of that big capacitor disaster, and it wasn't relegated to low end boards which I think you are implying.

Also, many manufacturers did all they could to avoid repairing the damaged boards, just like Nvidia did when they had sold a bunch of bad 8400's. Ask high end laptop owners how they fared in that deal (they were offered a $250 HP computer) or better yet, ask Sony SZ series ($2000 laptop) owners how they were treated... I'll give you a hint, they were offered NOTHING for their failed video cards.


Bottom line, keep your warranty and high end ideals, I'll keep my modularity.

No need to be that arsh, I was just giving an opinion :) .... and no need to extrapolate my words, where did I mentioned Ram bank expension card ?

My approach is more : "I get what I'll need for the 5 coming year". This includes free ram slots or PCIe connectors.

Warranty ..... I had faultry hardwares that all got replaced in less than 3 days .... Just choose the manufacturers carefully, they do not all provide the same quality of services. I also take warranty extension to cover that kind of risk. It sure adds to the overall cost, but then you are well covered. Had a screen dying after almost 3 years, got a new one delivered at home the next day ...

I agree on the bus saturation .... But why taking the mATX example ? Even my entry 775 mATX has 8 sata, 4 ram slots and 12 usb ... Isn't that enough ? Except for more 3 way sli and above, why does atx still exists ?

I don't want to see CPU sockets, but I also think that the whole atx format should be redesigned.

Edit : when I was mentioning the "going for cheap" or "I get what I'll need for the 5 coming year", I mean : "If my board has 4 ram slot and can take up to 32 GB .... if I actually need 16 GB, then I get 2x 8GB over 4x 4GB" ... 8GB modules cost a little more, but that won't populate all available slots. I alsso pay great attention to board layout when going mATX. I prefer board with (from top position to bottom) x1 --> x16 --> whatever (x1 or legacy pci) --> x16 ... this also sound card and 2x dual slot GPU if I need SLI / xFire.

If you need more than 1 VGA card and some other expension, then you should take a board with an NF200 additional chip, cause even an i7 won't provide enough PCIe lanes

http://aphnetworks.com/review/intel_desktop_board_dz77ga_70k/z77.jpg

I think BGA is good for HP and alikes ... because people bying that kind of computer generally never upgrade it, not event the hdd or memory. Servers .... companies generally just swap the faultry blades and put in a new one. So for high density server, BGA is suitable aswell.

About enthousiast ... well, we all like to build our rig, it's like a lego game for us .... :D. But as I said, the ATX standard is no more suitable ... just look at GPU size oO. They could do them more squarish, a little wider, but shorter ... our cases are wide enough to accomodate heatsinks like DarkRocks :D.
leslie 30th November 2012, 21:38 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuilleAcoustic

About enthousiast ... well, we all like to build our rig, it's like a lego game for us .... :D. But as I said, the ATX standard is no more suitable
Form factor wasn't my complaint, the inability to cheaply change/replace motherboards is. The fact that I will be forced to replace a $500 part (board/processor) instead of a $100 part (motherboard) is my problem. I mentioned matx and the memory card because your advice was to throw add-in cards at it to upgrade it. It simply isn't always practical, or even possible in many cases.

Intel isn't proposing this for HP and Dell, they are proposing this for all of us. You won't be able to build your "Lego" computer, at least not to extent you can now.
VaLkyR-Assassin 2nd December 2012, 13:39 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by faugusztin
1) there is a warranty for that.
2) there won't be motherboard AND CPU. Only motherboard. CPU will be part of it. It is like Raspberry Pi. You are not talking about the Broadcom SoC on it, but about the whole thing.

I know that! But I had to change a motherboard a couple of years ago, and decided to get a new one as the company I had bought the original parts off were a pain to deal with, taking over a month to deal with a previous issue. I'd also noticed alot of reviews since then complaining of major issues with the board, so I definately wanted a completely different board as a replacement, because there was a high chance that any replacement board would have the exact same issues. With that in mind, I just bought a new one cheaply, and got it delivered within a couple of days. A lot less hassle then sending it back and hoping they test it right and don't try and send the faulty one back, which is a possibility. Sending off things to the motherbord manufacturer would take even longer, and through carriage charges, it wouldn't be that much cheaper for a bog standard bottom of the range board. If returns were simple and always worked out, that'd be fine.

Plus what happens when their inventory starts to run out a couple of years down the line? They can't hold loads of older boards forever? They'll start sending you back equivalents, so if you had an overclocking gem of a CPU before, that'd be gone too, and if they give you a different socket replacemnt, you might find yourself needed to buy a new CPU cooler as well, costing more money. Either way, I want a choice in what I want to do and not having a choice is not good.
Horizon 3rd December 2012, 01:25 Quote
As someone pointed out earlier, Intel isn't looking in soldered on CPU direction because it's a step forward but because it's a chance to simultaneously cut costs and increase profit margins in one fell swoop. They're probably going to do this since a) AMD is in position to give them trouble and b) # of people that matter that this change would anger << everyone else.
.//TuNdRa 3rd December 2012, 02:43 Quote
I can understand why this change is taking place, but that doesn't mean I have to like it. Locking everything onto the Motherboard just means that replacements are going to be more expensive, the more complicated you make something; the more likely it is to go wrong. Permanently tying the motherboard and processor together sounds like you're asking for trouble (And killing off Overclocking.)

I would be curious to see who would take the blame should one of these "All-in-one" boards fail, however. Would it be Intel? The Motherboard Manufacturer? Some other party? The User? I'm betting that Intel would start selling the BGA CPU's "As is" so they could dramatically up profits, but that may lead to less motherboard manufacturers actually wanting to deal with them

Who wants to buy potentially buggy parts, then resell at considerable extra development time and costs, when you may be shafted with the costs should the parts you have very little control over fail?
Nexxo 3rd December 2012, 07:22 Quote
Before we all get heart attacks, check out the latest motherboards and CPUs on the market. How many of these have features that are squarely aimed at the modder and overclocker? Exactly: almost all of them. Pretty colours, overclocking features, easy BIOS tinkering features, LEDs all over the place. If manufacturers do all that just to entice the home builder, do you think that they'll dispense with interchangeable CPUs? Nope. That may work for generic cheap office machines, which still have green PCB mobos, but not for the home builder market. So it isn't going to happen. Relax.
theshadow2001 3rd December 2012, 11:48 Quote
I agree with nexxo.

Also this article is just another sensationalist click generator.
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums