Intel Broadwell (2014, 14nm) - end of socketed chips?

This news is a few months or so old, but I only just noticed it. Talk of Haswell (ETA H1 2013) to be the last Intel socketed chipset. This means Broadwell in 2014 will all have soldered CPU's to the mainboard, and include the southbridge chipset also. So basically a "system on a chip". You'd have to basically change the motherboard if you wanted to change the CPU. This is so stupid IMHO. Even if you make it socketed you can still have it as a system on a chip. I hope that isn't true.

Lots of articles, just google "Intel Broadwell" and bam, but here's one:

Intel's Broadwell Goes BGA Only: Implications for Future Desktops | PC Perspective

 

The next question we need to ask is if this opens up a window for AMD?

 

Until Intel actually releases the platform, I highly doubt articles that can only right now "speculate". But given how the market is going, does it honestly matter? Thin laptops have had BGA implementation for years and years now. TBH unless you plan on upgrading your CPU every 6 months, there isn't a need really for PGA for most consumers anyway. In fact, BGA motherboards lower support costs because when you swap them out under warranty, just like Apple, you just swap out the whole system board. Does it suck for enthusiasts who always upgrade parts? Yup. But what is the percentage of consumers vs enthusiasts?

 

The percentage of laptops that ever have their CPUs replaced (at least by a different model) are a tiny majority. I would be willing to guess 1%. It sucks for the 1%, but that doesn't count for much on Intel's shareholder reports.

 

I used to be that 1% but now my situation does not allow me such luxury anymore

 

An Intel spokeshole told Maximum PC that they remain committed to socketed processors. Calm down.

 

Was HTWingnut's information confined to notebook processors or was it supposed to be a sea change for desktop processors as well? I just wonder if we're talking about two different things here.

 

It's a test generation, they are focusing on soldered chips with the intention of going socket on the next revision as far as I can see.

 

As I read it on SemiAccurate, it was to apply to desktops as well. However, I also saw what saturnotaku saw later on, so I'm skeptical about this being true. There's a reason SemiAccurate is called SemiAccurate, after all, and they realize that.

AMD did issue a press release confirming their commitment to PGA shortly after this initially broke. Even so, I'm not sure how much of an opportunity it really opens to them, even if this rumor is true. I bought a Core i5 2500k, an early 2011 model, in late 2011, at a time when Bulldozer was being steamrolled by Intel. AMD's Steamroller likely isn't coming out until 2014, and even then it might not be as good as my i5 2500k (outside of heavily-multithreaded workloads, which I don't practically care about). Excavator likely won't be until 2015, and it's only then that I'm confident it will equal my early-2011 CPU. By that time AMD may well not be on the same socket. With that much of a lag, I'd have a hard time choosing AMD and their friendliness over Intel's massive performance advantage.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see AMD be more competitive. But I couldn't justify supporting the underdog in late 2011 - if I had, I would've bought Phenom II instead of Bulldozer - and I don't see anything likely to change drastically in the near-to-medium term future.

 

Intel is committed to sockets in the sense that they will continue to sell socketed Haswell chips while they sell Broadwell chips, but Broadwell will not come with sockets in any of its flavors. And then Broadwell's successor will supposedly have sockets again.

How does that make any sense?

 

I hope so...

 

If this is the case, does that mean motherboard manufacturers will have to sell motherboards with the CPU already installed? That would cause serious manufacturing and logistical issues for the manufacturers and retailers, as well as limiting selection for customers. I imagine a BGA-exclusive generation of desktop processors would significantly reduce the amount of desktop CPU's sold, and severely damage the desktop market in general. Then again, maybe Intel's trying to force the market to abandon desktops.

Postulating further, a blow to desktop computing in the same year as the newer, much more-powerful gaming consoles are released would hurt PC gaming as well, since console ports - i.e. the majority of high-budget PC games - will require significantly more power when they're being ported from more powerful consoles, and for many that will mean desktop gaming will be the only way to go for a year or two. But if desktops are dying out thanks to a wacky move by Intel...

 

Instead of removing CPU, you literally replace the entire system board. CPU replacement is where mistakes can happen. If you've ever serviced any Mac computers, you should be well versed in this.

 

I'm not sure it does reduce costs. It means OEM's need to service and store a lot more motherboards if you consider systems with a CPU, CPU + GPU, and all the combinations of versions. So instead of just one or two motherboards, and then a third party chip (i.e. Intel or AMD) they now have to maintain any combination of those, it goes from two motherboards to 10-12 or more. I mean just 4 CPU options, with 3 GPU options (one with no GPU, one with low end GPU, one with higher end GPU) is not uncommon. Unless this means they will limit the choices. Which is not good for anyone.

This may be ok for the giant PC/laptop manufacturers like HP, Dell, Acer, and so forth who can manage this, but for the smaller brands like MSI and Clevo it's not good. That being said between MSI and Clevo they probably represent the size of Dell as far as laptop sales on a global basis. So curious what they'd have to say about it.

And then go with desktops, holy crap, what a nightmare. If you look at Intel's lineup they have at least a dozen desktop CPU's to choose from in any given generation. Imagine that nightmare of managing that material with the variations on desktop motherboards. I can't imagine desktop mobo manufacturers would want this at all.

Replacing a CPU is more prone to error than entire system board? Are you nuts?

So which is more prone to mistakes:
(a) turning a few screws and removing a heatsink, popping out a CPU ***OR***

(b) turning a few screws and removing a heatsink, PLUS removing a dozen cables with fragile zif connectors, and dozen screws, not to mention possibly fan and other stuff?

I don't see how this computes. Sure in some thin and light laptops it's a nightmare to begin with. But that's Mac for you. They're designed to look good and not care what's inside.

 

Ironically (just speaking from a Mac perspective), Apple logic boards (motherboards) are some of the easiest to service. I can change most unibody ones out in under 15 minutes.

HTWingNut, I work in a repair shop, and I can assure you our Apple tech is much more productive at doing hardware laptop repairs than PC technicians (BGA motherboards vs PGA motherboards). That and it is also easier diagnosing problems (if it was a bad CPU/MOBO, BGA soldered mobos you just replace the entire thing vs trying to diagnose bad CPU or motherboard, with PGA there are more parts. Cost isn't a huge issue with giant OEMs, they have thousands of boards in stock. If BGA motherboards are the downfall of PC OEMs, then I point you to Apple who has been using them for years.

 

It's a rebrand year for many computer manufacturers. They adjust previous models and slap a new number on them. 2015 will be a great time for mobile computing.

 

I don't disagree with respect to Apple. But while I don't work in a repair shop, I've managed my fair share of laptop troubleshooting, upgrading, and replacement of parts on a part time and "as needed" basis. I've also managed parts from the business end of things and more part numbers means more cost because of more inventory, requiring more storage, not to mention more chance for error in receiving the incorrect parts. Apple doesn't offer a lot of options in their line of laptops. You get your choice of one or two CPU's and with a dedicated GPU or not. Which comes back to my concern mentioned earlier, it will likely end up with less choice for the consumer, because companies won't want to manage dozens of variations that can be managed Lego style with a lot fewer parts.

 

Well I guess not troubleshooting anything and just replacing everything would be easier for the tech, but there is a lot more to support and repair than that.

Are you kidding me?

It would make life a lot more difficult. They have to keep more things in stock, and replacing a CPU+motherboard instead of one or the other adds up, especially when the CPU is the most expensive component in the computer. And for desktop motherboard manufacturers? Hahaha. I feel sorry for them.

Apple and other manufacturers that use BGA chips in laptops right now do so because they choose the tradeoffs of doing it. There is a tradeoff to using BGA vs PGA (or LGA for Intel desktops), and in some cases it makes sense, and in others it doesn't. For example, there is no way that some manufacturers could build such thin laptops without using BGA processors.