Sockets..What happen to the old days....

So my question/statement is what happened to when sockets stayed the same for awhile and not change every single year. You could legitimately upgrade your former cutting edge with the last cpu of that socket and get a difference. It wasn't oh look we got a new cpu....now i got to buy a whole new system. I remember when the x2 came out and then the AM2 models came out and all you had to do was a simple bios update and then you could run the AM2! Sometimes you just had to buy a special mount and upgrade bios. Is there honestly a real reason why they change the socket so much? Is it just laptops that get the biggest shaft? I haven't dabbled in desktops for several years since i am stuck in a barracks with Nazis ruling over every aspect of my miserable life....sorry off topic. But honestly can anyone explain this to me?

 

if you can just get the cpu, then no one else can make money selling you the mainboard, the chipset, etc.

and besides, more and more, not only the cpu needs an update, but the whole chipset gets much new things.

and btw, why supporting a feature that brings 0 money (actually people will lose money, see above) that most customers will not use anyways. normally, pc's get replaced as a whole. only enthusiasts, and not even all of those, replace cpu's. they are a minority that never was, and never will be important.

 

fair enough. All computers i built back in highschool and earlier got a cpu upgrade before i built a whole new system but whatever ^^

 

AMD is pretty decent for keeping sockets for a while, but Intel seems to change them all the time. It would be nice though, even if a new chipset brings new features, who cares if its gimped in an older tech mainboard, at least you could get the benefits of a faster chips and/or less power.

 

Speaking of Intel, does anyone know for sure if Ivy Bridge is going to have the same socket as Sandy Bridge? I have seen plenty of posts that say it probably will, but I have not seen a definite answer.

Honestly that would be one upgrade I would make.

 

A lot of it is the changes that are being made with the way that CPUs communicate with the rest of the chipset. Core-i needed a new socket because of the movement of the memory controller (northbridge) onto the CPU, which means you needed "new" pins that would handle the communication from the CPU to the RAM slots. I don't know that there's a reason like that for the change to Sandy Bridge, though.

Edit - If Intel sticks to past history, then yes, Ivy Bridge will have the same socket as Sandy Bridge (much like how Arrandale fits the same socket as Clarksfield).

 

Not an AMD expert myself but I don't think they are backwards compatible, maybe foward compatible but that begs the question why you would use an older processor in a newer laptop lol.

 

sandy bridge has the onboard gpu in the cpu now. i guess that (and the resulting new ring-bus) might have resulted in a new layout.

but in essense, yes, cpu's of today require a certain chipset to work. so one often has to replace everything anyways.

to htwingnut: well, if there's a new architecture, the old stuff gets cheaper => cheap upgrade to the max gets possible.


other than that, nowadays one doesn't upgrade the cpu. one gets more ram, and gets an ssd. more bang for the buck anyways.

 

Dell changed their laptop power connectors maybe five or six years ago or so, and hasn't changed them since. I can plug my old Precision M60 into the power supply of an M6500, and it will work just fine.

So, on that side, OEMs seem to be quite reasonable. Now, Intel/AMD changing their sockets, that's a different matter. But, as others have said, that is usually dictated by changes in functionality, so there's little that can be done about that.

 

Frequent changing of sockets is much more connected to making more profits in the long run compared to just keeping one socket for say 2 years.

I doubt that even architectural changes to cpu would warrant changes in sockets.
At least not in the case of current i7 series and Sandy bridge.

They will also probably make the socket change in case of Ivy Bridge even if it's a die shrink of Sandy Bridge and some increase in speeds.

Reason?
The manufacturers want more money out of you.

 

no no i was saying that my friend got an AM2 on an AM board silly

 

To be fair there HAVE been good reasons for most of the socket changes.

 

For desktops, Intel kept S775 alive for a rather long time. But this didn't help much for upgraders since chipsets have changed in the meantime, so newer CPUs didn't work properly due to their different FSB and voltage demands.
With such changes, it would have been better if Intel changed the socket either.

Michael

 

I'd say mostly for money but really i see no reason why sandy bridge couldn't be backwards compatible? All it has is 1 less pin than LGA1156.. intel could have certainly adjusted its design to take into account one pin.

Panther214

 

I should hope, at least, that we can upgrade to same series but faster processor? Like I did on my Gateway..provided a socket is even included for repair. I hope the CPU does not become soldered, like many laptop GPU's, but then how long before we see 3 or 4 chip throwaway motherboards in tomorows laptops?

 

The only time I can think AMD shafted people with a socket was with 754, but that wasn't really even intentional. Oops, forgot AMD's Slot A, but even then adapters allowed early socket A processors to work on there. With Intel it is easier to list the sockets that didn't get bushwacked: 7, 370, 478, 775, 1366.

 

478 i remembered had a good life span. that's the last desktop one i have used lol

 

I think we're still safe in that respect... at least until they start soldering CPUs as standard, as you mentioned.

LGA1366 is getting replaced by LGA2011, which is expected to be released in the second half of this year, so that'll probably have to get crossed off the list.

 

No, I don't think that's a significant reason, at least not for laptops. The percentage of laptop owners that go through the trouble of upgrading their CPU must be tiny; certainly too small to be of any particular interest.

 

Probably not any-more tinier than the ones who upgrade their desktop cpu's.
This board alone contains plenty of individuals interested in laptop cpu upgrades.

But in case of laptops, modularity was never the one thing in mind for manufacturers.
Heck, the manufacturers will outright tell you the mobo won't support a new cpu despite the physical connections and BIOS compatibility exist.
Why?
It's not in their interest.
First of all they will tell you the warranty will be voided (a scare tactic because removing a warranty for cpu replacement is hardly a viable option), or they will opt you into not doing it.

While granted, numerous incompatibilities could arise, a well informed individual will fly into a wall with manufacturers in terms of customer service and almost any sort of upgrade (unless it's RAM).

I tried it with Acer... and I never got a reply.

Nevermind the premise they CAN in fact make laptops entirely modular, but right now, laptops are still considered somewhat of a premium commodity, and as such they won't really include most support for personal user upgrades.

 

It will have been current for close to 3 years, so no, it should not be crossed off the list.

 

X58 is still overkill for...majority of the population. Look at all the people still using Pentium 4 in their Dells lol

I hope Intel doesn't supercede 2011 with another high end socket with Haswell/Rockwell...

 

I totally disagree on the whole "well theres not much they can do about it" crap.
Sure, there is no way to get an i7 to work on lga775, but that really was the decision of intel.
If they saw more of the market that does upgrade CPUs, they could have made it work for their benefit. But obviously we just aren't big enough.

 

Oh, you're going by straight chronology? Ok. I was going more by CPU generations.

 

Intel's decision was to replace the old and slow FSB with QPI/DMI. Once they decided on that, there was no way to get i7 working on LGA775. The need for a new chipset is generally motivated by some change in the processor to make it faster and Intel is not going to slow their CPUs for the sake of the relatively small number of people who want to upgrade.

 

Even if the newer equipment is pin compatable, it may not be enough. My Socket P 965 motherboard didn't play nice with Penryn processors even though they are supposed to work.

Designs change. I much rather have Intel adapt a new architecture than handicap new components.

 

generally how this works is:

new processor design compatible with old chipset?

yes: retain socket compatibility

no: remove socket compatibility to avoid confusion, create new socket with new chipset

It is usually not arbitrary. As mentioned above, performance and cost are their main considerations, and if a great design requires different chipset functionality (it very well may) then they will go for it and change the socket while they are it. Otherwise you get the situation where the processor fits and doesn't work, and that usually distresses people more than just changing the socket.

 

well said...that makes alot of sense + rep

EDIT:nm no plus rep....already plus reped you recently

 

This isn't exactly true. When socket 775 came out, Intel made the same processors available for socket 775 and socket 478. More pins means more power and ground pins though, so it can can scale better with greater power demands.

When Core 2 came out, they released them on socket 775, which had already been in use for a while. They had three generations of chipsets on the socket. First ones that were Netburst compatible, then ones that were compatible with both Netburst and Core, and finally ones that were just Core compatible.

I think their main considerations are how can they pump more money out of it.

On the mobile end things are pretty bad. The entire line from the mobile Northwood P4 to the mobile Core 2 Quad could have realistically been fit into the same socket. That time period encompasses socket 478, 479, M, and P. The physical socket remained practically unchanged, and they shared a compatible interface.

And now with SB, there is no practical reason why it cannot fit existing sockets other than planned obsolescence and the fact that Intel wants more control over what you do with your processor.

 

It's really not even that bad. Socket changes have been prevalent even in the days of old. Newer generations of chips required larger die sizes, more electrical connections, etc etc and mandated a socket change.

It's happened many times, and we revisit this discussion whenever a rapid socket change happens, but it's happened before:

-Socket 5 only lasted for a short while when the Pentium originally came out when it was replaced with Socket 7. I'm sure anyone using a Pentium 60-133 were none too happy to learn that they couldn't get those flashy new Pentiums with MMX built in. The poor newb with a P60 wanting a P233-MMX and 168pin EDO was crying foul all the same! And wait! He's like "what I need a new VRM too? laaaame".

-What about willamette P4 users? Oh socket 423 will be good...oh RAMBUS will be just fine...continuity modules for all!...and then socket 478 comes out with DDR support. Yeah not happy about that one I'm sure.

NOT TO MENTION all the insane chipset revisions on the same damn socket...fsb changes, memory architecture changes, "what do you mean AGP is the wave of the future?"

"And what do you mean this new 'ATX' motherboard won't fit in my baby AT minitower? I gotta get a new one of those too?"

In conclusion, it happens. Have a beer, and enjoy awesome technology.