BGA Venting Thread ;)

@Papusan @Mr. Fox - this is really a question for you guys.

I have to ask because I am not sure - what makes BGA a bad thing?

Have prior generations of gaming laptops generally had socketed CPUs?

 

Terrible bad binned processors. Forget serious overclocking and easy replacement for a faulty cpu. (Socket processors can normaly be upgraded one generation up). New motherboard due component failures throw you into a new silicon lottery. Inferior/Bad binned processors means all too high voltage with higher clockspeed than stock. Low entry BGA can't be overclocked at all(see 6700BGA). Often inferior cooling due thin flimsy laptop design(BGA is designed for CrApple thin laptop design). CPU Heatsink is often shared with gpu. Normally difficult maintenance inside. +++ TRASH!!

 

@Papusan - do (prior to skylake) Dell Latitudes typically have a socketed processor? I just assumed they were all surface mount but I never checked.

If there is a valid niche for surface mount processors I'm guessing it would be the Ultrabook. Looking at it from one end it is the logical progression going from smart phone -> tablet -> something with a big screen and keyboard. I can see not being surprised at all these being surface mount components given the design constraints.

Perhaps I have grown to accustom to this with my smartphones and Ultrabook that I didn't really flinch at a BGA gaming laptop.

 

With a BGA laptop, at most you win what? 5 mm in height ? I don't even want to phantom the losses producers are incurring. For every faulty GPU or motherboard Intel sells a CPU.

 

I can't help but think this is the new norm. The industry already has to deal with expensive surface mount components for cellphones and tablets (and ultrabooks). Maybe this has lead to some innovations on the chip production side? Or maybe they just have to do more testing...

 

Only 3 Clevo and one MSI barbones have proper socket hardware today. The damn Ultrabook design is all over the place now

The new norm is thinner, thinner and thinner... You can't fit proper socket hardware in CrApple designed laptops. They haven't the cooling you need for high performance processors.

 

That's it. Give them half a chance and next gen they'd sooner move to passive cooling and have a throttling GPU with 3 generations old performance just to save a further 2mm.

I can actually appreciate the form of a fanless thin design.. but let's leave that on a business machines' that's sole purpose is displaying PowerPoint presentations.

I've noticed its mainly college kiddies and gamerboys who care about battery life and thinness on a gaming machine, Usually placing aesthetics before anything else. Gotta impress the ladies with them headshots at lunch time lol.. good luck with that

 

I get very sad when people defends trash as in the link http://forum.notebookreview.com/thr...e-pascal-edition.796958/page-23#post-10399453 An unlocked BGA is not like other unlocked LGA processors. They are supplied pre binned as spam. Aka Intel pushes out so many of this junk, that they have no control on the quality.
@Mr. Fox We are the .0001% →→→ http://forum.notebookreview.com/thr...e-pascal-edition.796958/page-25#post-10399538

 

@Papusan @TBoneSan - I was wondering why there was so much throttling built into my BGA i7-6820HK, but now I think I understand. In the best case scenario, this will reduce the number or complaints from naive owners with poor thermal paste jobs since the CPU will still function. In the worst case scenario this compensates for poor quality control by trying to reduce stress on the chip and keep it running.

But I can't completely dismiss the Ultrabook - they have their place. I carried one around for 3 years and really liked it. I wanted to upgrade to a better gaming laptop and honestly the best compromise I could find was the P650RS-G and that just about stresses the mobility angle for me. Still, maybe they could have put a socketed CPU in there.

I would be interested to see what the production statistics are like on the BGA processors. I can't help but think they must have improved over prior socketed generations since the whole industry has shifted towards thin surface mount solutions.

 

To be fair, very little of that has anything to do with BGA itself being a bad technology. Almost all of the "problems" are design or implementation related. You don't see anybody kicking up a stink about GPUs or DRAM or PCH/Northbridge/Southbridge being BGA since...forever...

Here's some of my other thoughts in no particular order:

• A $700 GPU blows up and replacing that is fine, yet replacing a motherboard and CPU for a similar cost, which arguably does more, is suddenly a huge problem?
  A GPU has a core, ram, I/O, power delivery, some accessory chips. Hell, it's practically an entire computer in complexity (and in cost for some high end stuff), so why isn't the GPU core replaceable?
  People seem too attached to the thought that replacing a motherboard is "too much". In a laptop it's almost trivial.
  
  
• How many people have actually replaced the CPU in their laptops compared to those that don't? Even when we had socketed MQ processors (and a large range to choose from) I think I read about maybe 2-3 people purposely upgrading the CPU. These were usually people who bought an i5 skew and upgraded to an i7. Often it wasn't even financially practical, it was due to lack of performance, feature-set or outright failure.
  
  
• Same point, how many people actually replace their MXM GPU? How many people have their MXM GPU die on them and just end up buying a new laptop because it presents better value for money anyway?
  
  
• Every GPU ever made has been surface-mount to a PCB in some fashion. Almost all modern GPUs are implemented BGA for the last 10 years or so. On a purely technical level BGA is a superior implementation method.
  
  
• People REALLY underestimate just how much cheaper it is to manufacture a board with integrated components. I can get some entire refurbished i7-6700HQ+GTX960M motherboards for anywhere between $500-700 AUD. Just a desktop i7-6700 costs $400 AUD where I am. Just imagine how much cheaper it is in the manufacturing stage.
  
  
• BGA CPUs can be replaced assuming you have the correct equipment. But it's usually too cost-prohibitive. Not because of the cost of replacing just the CPU, but because you usually can buy an entire bloody motherboard+CPU and replace it for less total cost.
  
  
• CPUs could theoretically be put back onto their own board (like an MXM GPU) and therefore remain swappable/replaceable. The old Pentium 2/3 slot based processors were exactly this. Kind of pointless though as it introduces a lot more cost.
  
  
• Hardware is very cheap to manufacture. As a general rule, if something costs more than 50% of it's value to repair, then most people would replace it. Replacing a CPU often costs significantly in time/labour (even if it's your own).
  
  
• Really high CPU performance in a notebook is almost pointless from a practical perspective. Any truly high performance CPU tasks are done more effectively in highly threaded CPUs and if it gets REALLY big, offloaded to server/s where noise/power are not an issue. There's a reason Nvidia's Data Center market revenue grew by 193%.
  
  
• Lastly, fact is, it all comes down to money. Hardware is cheap, time and people are expensive. Replacing an entire board requires minimal human intervention or debugging.

I've got both a P650RP BGA machine and a P750DM. The P750DM is currently sitting in pieces, it's CPU and SSDs powering my new desktop PC. The 10 series GPUs just made the P750DM utterly redundant since it's non-upgradeable really.

 

@Stooj - Excellent count perspective with some very good points. I was thinking that surface mount components have been a reality for quite some time. But I do get that traditionally CPUs have always been socketed. I have to admit that I have never replaced a CPU in a desktop machine - I usually end up upgrading mobo/gpu/cpu. I have been able to keep the PSU and the case so far.

Now now.. =)

I've been following the overclocker's thread and those guys have been doing some insane things with the new P870DM3. I'm not sure this is something I would purchase myself (were talking over $4K which I can't currently imagine), but the beast has 2 x 1080 SLI and a desktop i7-6700K CPU. The benchmarks are impressive. But this is for a different breed of enthusiast than me =)

 

[*]Not, it's not fine and has never been fine. It's why people who buy laptops with expensive GPUs and know a thing or two about computers search for laptops with MXM cards. There used to be a time in 2009-2010 when even mid-tier laptops had MXM cards. But those days are gone.

There are quite a few, I myself know 3 non-tech knowledgeable people that did it. They didn't do it themselves, there are laptop shops which provide the CPUs and do the replacement. But replacement is only part of the problem, the problem is that when something gets broken on your motherboard, now you basically need a new laptop, not an $100 new motherboard.

Many people actually replace their MXM GPUs and this forum is a testimony to that. In fact my laptop has lasted this long because it has an MXM video card, otherwise I would have thrown it away 3 years ago. If you plan to keep a laptop for more than 3 years I encourage people to buy a laptop with a separate video card. Doesn't need to be MXM. My old Dell had a dedicated video card which was non-MXM, thanx to that I was able to keep my laptop going for longer since I had 2 video card failures in that machine.

It's normal to be that way because the GPU is only part of the video card solution, a socketable GPU on a video card PCB makes no sense.

I don't have enough information to know how much cheaper it is. But I can tell you this: if you are a big company that sells configurable models, let's say like Dell or HP where users can choose from various CPUs, you either have to make a large stock of motherboards + cpus based on predicted market demand or you have to solder the CPU on the motherboard at the assembly stage based on what the consumer has opted for. In either scenario, that is going to increase your production costs.

You can replace it, problem is you can seriously damage the CPU during the process unless you have very good equipment which is very expensive. The same applies to GPUs, I had one GPU replacement failure, because the re-soldering process damaged the GPU. I don't know where you can find a cheap motherboard+cpu ... and why buy a new motherboard when I only need the CPU? Plus the pain of replacing a laptop motherboard, replacing a CPU on a socket is significantly easier than on a whole motherboard replacement.

This is basically the only solution right now, but it would make laptops too complicated and thick. It might make sense for some producers like Clevo for whom the models are basically built on demand.

Depends on a lot of factors. This is generally true for lower and mid-tier laptops, not so much for gaming laptops.

This is true. But if you want to keep your laptop for more than 2-3 years, high performance CPUs in notebooks start to make sense.

To sum up, the three reasons my laptop has lasted 8 years and I can still play Dota 2 on it :
1. Socketable CPU which I was able to upgrade
2. MXM video card which I was able to replace when it failed
3. Good motherboard build quality

Without these elements I would have replaced my laptop probably 5 years ago. I guess that's why producers decided to drop all of the above . It doesn't help them earn money.

???? Last time when I replaced a motherboard it took me 3 hours, CPU replacement takes me 20 minutes. I cannot image how it is easier to replace a motherboard vs a CPU unless you simply throw away the laptop and give the customer a new one.

 

I need to travel with my laptop. This impacts the laptop form factor (size and weight) and the laptop lifespan (wear and tear).

I got 3+ years out of a $1200 commodity Ultrabook. I hope to get 5+ years out of my $2400 gaming Clevo but I expect that to be a stretch. I would never expect to get 8 years out of a laptop.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

I may be in the minority here in subscribing to the school of thought that BGA is not the technological dreg that many PGA patrons make it out to be, even though I understand the disdain. A system's overall design seems more important.

 

Just like a building on a poor foundation will fail, a computer system based on a poor foundation is destined for problems.

 

It really comes down to what you after, weight, size and maintenance wise. Hating the fact that most people have different priorities that yourself never made sense to me.

 

It sounds to me like the criticism is leveled against surface mount CPUs and GPUs in general and not specifically against BGA which is just a surface mount technology.

For cell phones and tablets we've grown used to monolithic devices and again I think the Ultrabooks have evolved from this.

But even with the Ultrabooks some things are sacred. If the RAM and primary SSD were surface mount in an Ultrabook it would draw a lot of criticism. The cellphone companies on the other hand have forced us to accept fixed memory and storage on our cellphones.

I certainly expect to be able to upgrade RAM and disk space on my laptops. The disk is especially important because I just keep installing more stuff, but RAM usage also tends to creep up over time (system wipes definitely help with this). I often wait and upgrade the disk size by a factor of 2 when I can. Every now and then I do this for RAM as well.

Someone else can perhaps enlighten me, but I more dubious of getting a huge gain from upgrading my CPU. It would be interesting to know if in a double-blind test you could see any difference in user experience (outside of benchmarking) running programs on the P650RS with the i7-6700HQ vs the i7-6820HK. Even with a newer generation upgrade the difference may not be that big.

If I could only choose on socketed component between the two, I think I would choose a socketed GPU over a socketed CPU simply because I will be able to run newer games. I don't believe a 30% boost in CPU performance is going to make a huge difference to me in my day to day laptop usage.

If I cared a lot about OCing it would matter to me though (especially for a very high end laptop!).

 

I have to agree with this. I don't think there is "one laptop to rule them all"

Right now the right laptop is largely determined by requirements (weight, size, battery life, usage).

I liked my Ultrabook's form factor so much I initially considered getting a Razor. With adjusted expectations that might have been okay (that is running old games or new games on low settings). But I have to thank @Galm for helping me see the light. The P650RS-G has so far worked out very well. I get to test drive it on travel in a few weeks

 

I think there is a healthy place for both kinds, I would not remove either.

 

Honestly with the Skylake series soldered chips not throttling horribly like the Haswell ones I don't care that much. I had a 4710mq, and it was pretty bad compared to my 6820hk.

I'm glad you like your machine, I still love my P650RS. I can't see a reason why I would want to sacrifice how portable it is. The P750 and Eurocom and so much bigger. The Clevo doesn't bother me but my old MSI GT60 was a pain to lug around.

The real difference for me is that only socketed has the desktop cpus. If the 6700k was offered as a soldered chip I wonder how the dynamic would change around here with socketed no longer be "way" (like 10% OC vs OC) higher performing.

 

I didn't realize the difference was that big from Haswell to Skylake. I did notice my old Ultrabook seems horribly sluggish at times. It's funny what you get used to

I've also been wondering about this. It first happened with cars - over time you couldn't do much with them. Now there are cars for enthusiasts and it is a niche market.

I still build my own PCs as I'm sure a lot of folks on NBR do, but our days for doing that may be numbered. It will probably become another enthusiast niche.

As an outsider I really like following what other enthusiasts do and I want them to be able to keep doing their thing. So I applaud @Phoenix @Papusan @Mr. Fox @Johnksss@iBUYPOWER and several others for their enthusiasm and dedication. It is really neat to see what they are doing with the new P870DM3. That thing is a beast. @Prema has done wonders with it and they are all in unlocked heaven =D

But I do not see myself entering into their elite ranks. I am not the right demographic. I need to be able to travel and game on the road.

In short, I am a fan of enthusiasts and I guess I am a gaming laptop enthusiast.

 

I don't doubt or belittle what the guys in the OC lounge are doing. They are pulling extremely good numbers from those machines. I just mean in a practical sense, if you actually need that performance for practical use (not just a benchmark) it's easily farmed out.

I totally get the OC bug. I've overclocked almost all of my machines in some form, creeping the GPU clock every little bit to get more points in Firestrike is fun. I pushed the 970M in my P750DM until the VRMs couldn't give any more, not because the core couldn't take it (ended up faster than a 980M in fact).
But that is a separate pursuit to actually getting things done. It's kind of like how you can drop a big V8 motor in 4-door saloon car just to get a 10 second quarter mile. But if you want to race around a track and win medals you need a proper race car.

3 people, out of how many people you know that have laptops? It's an exceedingly small number.

For people in their warranty periods, most manufacturers actually replace motherboards quite a lot. Dell/HP do this on a very regular basis and they ship a LOT of units. They wouldn't do it if it wasn't practical.

People who get here are usually technically inclined anyway and either seeking help or seeking to do more with their machines. Be careful not to echo-chamber yourself by equating the numbers here as any kind of majority. For every 1 person here who gets into overclocking or hardware replacement there are probably dozens of other users who just use their machines without issues so you never hear from them.

But why is it "normal" to you? A CPU is only part of a computer system. The GPU core is just a processor skewed for certain workloads. It used to be all done on the CPU anyway. From a purely technical perspective it's no different. In fact, it's precisely what a dedicated Xeon Phi server looks like.

One thing to consider, is that the large variety of CPU models was due to cost and also binning procedure. As manufacturing reliability grows you start having "fewer" bins anyway and the cost is effectively the same for all of them. This is why you see far fewer models to choose from now and I suspect the numbers would suggest a large number of buyers gravitate to a few "key" skews and largely ignore everything in between. So in reality, taking something like the Dell XPS 15 for example, they just offer the i5 version and i7 version and that's it. They sell thousands of these and would know very well which ones they need to stock.

I've worked in enterprise hardware replacement for a couple of years now. Replacing a motherboard in a laptop takes 30 minutes once you've read the procedure and understand how the majority of connectors work. I'm not saying it's easier, just not that hard. Ask anybody with an enterprise on-site parts warranty. Techs are often sent out to replace motherboards because it really isn't that hard and you've already lost the time/money in sending somebody on-site anyway. Many enterprise laptops are even designed with that in mind.

Good lord man, 8 YEARS. I'm all for sticking it to the man but that's just insanity. There is a perfectly fine point (of around 3-4 years I reckon) where something can be replaced just because of new features/performance/efficiency. In the case of laptops, efficiency is a big one which increases almost every hardware generation.

Technically, my old [email protected] desktop was "fine". But I'll be damned if I'm using that monster in another Australian summer with 40C temps.

 

I think the throttling and poor binning were one of the major reasons for all the complaints and hate.. If Intel weren't selling all the junk as BGA, the hate around it would had been much less..

Sent from my LG-H850 using Tapatalk

 

Do you think the story changed at all from Haswell to Skylake for their BGA version? I was not too impressed with my Haswell BGA Ultrabook, but it is a lower end low power version so I don't know if I can compare it to my new awesomeness (which is the Skylake BGA Clevo).

I would really like to think that the manufacturing standards have improved. I mean this makes economic sense that it would (HP and Dell do not like returned units). I'm not sure if they deal with this by just throttling down the chips, but maybe it's a combination of the two...?

 

Most Haswell cpus throttled that were soldered. For example like the Razer Blade really couldn't hold it's clock speeds, but it can with the 6700HQ for the most part.

However the U series ones didn't make that much of a difference.

 

Here are a few horror stories you can read about BGA. This is food for thought!! One of many reasons Hardcore performance enthusiasts would not touch BGA JOKEBOOK*s with a ten-foot pole.
http://forum.notebookreview.com/threads/why-is-my-alienware-15-cpu-throttling-to-800-mhz.777144/
http://forum.notebookreview.com/threads/alienware-15-r1-cpu-issue-warning.788446/

 

@Papusan I think you nailed it.
There is a market for BGA CPUs and soldered GPUs undoubtedly, but that market is not the highend market. Bare in mind that Intel has been making BGA CPUs for many years, in fact most of their CPUs were offered in both BGA and PGA packages, but producers opted for the PGA version. It was Intel's decision to force everyone to use BGA. For them it makes sense, for every dead mobo or GPU they sell a CPU.
ex: http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Core_i7/Intel-Core i7-3840QM Mobile processor - AV8063801104100.html - it's BGA

Truth is, no one will mind much if ultrabooks are all soldered or cheap laptops are soldered, at the end of the day, they have components cheap enough that you won't win or lose much if you replace the whole motherboard.
When it comes to high-end laptops, things change, video cards are worth $300-$700, processors $200-$400 and the mobo is still $100-$150, having all 3 tied together will reduced the life span of notebooks and increase service costs. The ability to upgrade your CPU or video card down the road is more of an enthusiast thing, but enthusiasts are usually the main purchasers of gaming laptops.

I feel we are back at the 16:10 vs 16:9 debate. I have been using my laptop for so long because I refuse to give up my 120 vertical pixels, I am a practical person and as long as I can do my work well on it, there is no need to gimp myself.
On my desktop I have moved to 16:9, but using 4K and 2.5K resolutions with proper scaling and you actually gain some vertical space!

At the end of the day I will buy a Clevo with a soldered CPU once they provide a P670 with 2.5K screens.

 

Yeah looks like the Haswell HQ BGA processors were a disaster.

I haven't seen any throttling issues with my i7-6820HK. I think the big difference between and the prior generation is power consumption.

But I understand. Trusting Intel after that saga would be tough.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

I would be more concerned about surface mount GPU. Especially a pair of 1080s. Are they socketed on the P870DM3?

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

Call it what it is.., BGA
Of course they are socketed socket hardware all around. If not would that machine be a Jokebook like all other!!

 

Damn, suddenly after reading this, the 5mm benefit don't seem much...

You can! My machine just reached its 5th year! And yeap, fully socketed!

 

Well would you be any happier if Intel used a different surface mount technology other than BGA? I think it's surface mounted CPUs in general you object to

I agree with the prior comment that price factors into this. At the price point of the P870DM3 (especially with 2 1080s) I would expect sockets. Replacing the whole board if one 1080 fails would be a non starter for me.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

Sockets take up more real estate in general. The PCB in my P650RS-G is surpringly small. Socketing both CPU and GPU would make the laptop wider and thicker. For me this is a non-starter since mobility is key and the P650RS is already pushing that limit.

If I could handle only one socket I would pick the GPU. An upgrade there would be more noticeable.

Now if I was stuck with a Haswell throttling down to 800MHz it would be a different story. My curremt BGA CPU runs steady at 3.6GHz undervolted with low temps under full load.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

Try 4.3 GHz on core. Same with cashe Or even higher JK And if you had 6700hq... Fullly locked @3.1 GHz all 4 cores

MB for P870DM1. Maybe a bit bigger than yours

 

Yeah, I learnt that the hard way; my laptop was really heavy and hard (not impossible thankfully) to squeeze into my backpack due to the thickness (45mm)

And yep, upgrading the GPU is a better option; apparently there are tech reviews that indicate that CPU upgrades don't do much to performance improvements but GPU upgrades do that

 

Woo-hoo! Yeah, I will be lucky to squeeze out more than 4.0GHz without really messing with stuff (maybe even having to overvolt which is not the direction I want to go in). The main thing is that I think I fared better with the skylake generation of BGA CPUs.

But the i7-6700HQ ... I think maybe it is quite close to the 6820HK but I'm not sure. Probably not more than 10-15% slower.

This is from the service manual for the P650RS-G. "4" is the GPU and "6" is the CPU. They are definitely packing a lot onto this PCB.

 

All good points the BGA Kool-Aid drinkers gloss over with lame excuses like "nobody upgrades CPU or GPU in laptop" or "it's not cost effective" blah, blah. Those are false impressions and erroneous statements made by silly people that really don't know what the hell they're talking about.

I think it's safe to say the hate is for being pushed into a corner with unacceptable options and limited alternative choices. BGA has been around for years and I never cared because it did not interfere to the extent it does now. There were always multiple good options available, now there are only two Clevos (only one of which is actually good enough to consider buying IMHO) and the Tornado F5, with all other options among all brands everywhere being totally unacceptable. That's very sad.

You don't have to look very hard to see the performance deficit that is associated with mobile BGA garbage. In almost every case the BGA CPU is either locked, cursed with inadequate TDP, or both. Those that are unlocked are almost always poorly binned compared to the same generation LGA options. In some ways it is similar to being molested and hearing your attacker say, " Oh c'mon now, you know you really liked it" which adds insult to injury.

 

I agree that this is unfortunate. I am surprised to see Clevo marginalize folks who want this - desktop components in a desktop replacement laptop. This is a good chunk of their user base.

Putting that together with the Haswell BGA fiasco and I get it. I would be out there with my torch and pitch fork if my CPU was throttling down to 800MHz while playing Witcher 3 at 15 fps...

But I don't think there is a one-size-fits-all solution here.

For those of us who value portability over all else, BGA components are a logical outcome that we may have to accept. It's harder to meet the same mobility requirements with socketed components.

Or maybe it's the case that the Ultrabook craze has lead to the usual leakage of technologies further up the chain where they are suboptimal but cheaper.

You would think that with smartphones, tablets and ultrabooks being insanely popular the various surface mount technologies would improve. But then smart phones in particular are not designed to last more than a few years. So maybe not. Maybe the industry had succeeded in lowering our expectations to the point where we will by new systems every 2-3 years (or less...).

 

Actually, Clevo is our hero. It's all of their competitors that have marginalized enthusiasts with the highest standards and demands and offer absolutely nothing worthy of consideration. Clevo is the only one, apart from the Tornado F5, that sells a high performance laptop I would actually consider paying money for. (Albeit a very desirable 15-inch option, the Tornado F5 is a fluke one-off MSI whitebook that is inconsistent with MSI's modus operandi of selling only BGA filth.)

 

Ah, okay, thank you! I thought Clevo was on the right side of the performance gaming laptop enthusiasts! That is what I wanted to believe

Wow, the Eurocom MSI Tornado F5 is really nice. If I had to start over again I would be comparing that very closely to the P650RS-G. It's only a little heavier and the price is not crazy considering the components. The only real issue is that it is about 0.5" thicker, but I'd be tempted to make it work.

I hope HID ( n.b. @Donald@HIDevolution ) gets a version of this one soon =)

 

Hmm, not sure if my sensing is right, I think BGA is fine if implemented right rather than being shoved down on everyone's throats just like that

In other words, BGA is merely a scapegoat; the main issue we have here is how companies are using it in an user- unfriendly way

 

There we go... My post below cover every post from you in my reply http://forum.notebookreview.com/thr...-uneven-heatsink.797477/page-58#post-10401188

http://forum.notebookreview.com/thr...-uneven-heatsink.797477/page-58#post-10401198

 

Unfortunately I have already made my choice. However I believe I could have done much worse.

If I had to do it again, given two systems with similar size, weight, battery life, thermals, build quality and cost, I would probably take the socketed laptop over the surface mount one. Maybe next time around Clevo will offer a nice 15" option.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

Agreed, but the BGA model is precisely that, and the lack of acceptable LGA options screams one size fits all. The very concept is flawed and makes freedom of choice effectively impossible. The freedom to select something superior is not even an option with BGA. Good luck getting an RMA if you draw a shorter than average straw in the silicon lottery. You're screwed before you even open the box.

 

Yes, I can definitely see that. I don't think there are too many valid arguments for why a system with expensive surface mount components is better than a system with the same cost socketed components that are as good or better, but I guess there are a few including the need for mobility.

The insane thing is when you reach a certain price point. From typical cellphone to tablet to ultrabook your are probably talking something like $600 to $800 to $1200 or so and the monolothic system model may hold up to there. At $2400 and more I think I agree with you guys that it is really questionable (unless you really need thin and don't mind buying new boards...).

 

Ah! So I have a similar peeve to vent: smartphone RAM.

Every since buying my first smartphone I couldn't understand why the RAM was no upgradeable. I'm not sure there is any good technical reason why this should be, but of course I can think of many good marketing reasons: "If you buy the 8Gig version - you can't upgrade. Get the 64Gig version or you're hosed!"

Or maybe it really costs more to add a socketed RAM chip? Maybe any change in phone width is a non-starter? But if that is the case why am I allowed to have an SD card slot on my Android?

It is a bit easier to take with smartphones since the cost and life expectancy of the hardware is lower and the SD card (on some models...) does alleviate the problem a little bit. However, holding aside for a moment the people who are willing to pay a premium for higher performance ultraslim laptops while accepting the inevitable performance tradeoffs with open eyes, I don't see an excuse for manufacturers to propagate surface mount approaches to high end laptops other than through shear inertial or perhaps greed.

EDIT: so yes, I join the BGA (or any kind of CPU/GPU surface mount approach) hatred group when it comes to high end laptops. I'm happy with my P650RS-G, but if I had to do it again I would try for socketed with all other things being equal.

 

Welcome to the dark side!

 

Here's some cannon fodder - marketing material from a (let's not point fingers) vendor website:

"The on-board, surface-mount design of the CPU and GPU keeps these laptops’ weight down, and allows us to pack more features into a slimmer form factor. The onboard components also minimize power consumption, which means less heat when you’re gaming on the go!"

 

Does this mean only the rebels use BGA? I think Darth Vader could be socketed, but it's hard to tell:

 

Which is not entirely false:
- does it keep the weight down: yes, by 50 grams probably
- does it help pack more features: no, the size it occupies on the Mobo is very similar, indeed a bit of size is won, something like 1 sq cm, but it's not like mobo size is a limiting factor in laptops, most laptops have plenty of free space on their mobo
- does it make the laptop slimmer: yes , by removing the height of the socket mounting which is roughly 5 mm at most
- does it minimize power consumption: no, technically it might be possible, by removing the intermediary socket mechanism between the mobo and the CPU, the signal between the mobo and the CPU is stronger so in theory we could save an infinite small amount of power, something like 0.0000001% maybe ? I have no clue, but it's insignificant.