CPU/Mobo Intel's Tick -Tock Torture! New Sockets, Chipsets etc. etc.

Icon_211

Icon_211

Disciple
Intel plans a pair of new sockets for launch with its new processor architecture that succeeds Westmere, codenamed "Sandy Bridge", which are due for 2011. As part of its "tick-tock" product launch strategy, the company is currently transitioning between the 45 nm "tock" (Nehalem architecture), and 32 nm "tick" (Westmere architecture). In 2011, it will transition from the 32 nm "tick" (Westmere architecture), to the 32 nm "tock" (Sandy Bridge architecture). The company uses a "tick-tock" model of process development, where each processor architecture gets to be made in two successive manufacturing processes, while each process gets to build two succeeding architectures. It seems to have become clear that with Sandy Bridge, Intel will also switch to new socket designs, making existing motherboards obsolete then. Architecturally, Sandy Bridge will introduce new feature-sets that make the CPU more powerful, clock-to-clock, such as AVX - Advanced Vector Extensions, an evolution of the SSE instruction set, native AES engine which has been introduced with Westmere, and so on.

The present LGA-1156 package on which Intel builds value-through-performance processors including a bulk of mainstream processors, will be succeeded with the LGA-1155 package. Though similar, LGA-1155 and LGA-1156 are not inter-compatible, meaning that LGA-1155 processors will not work on existing LGA-1156 motherboards, and LGA-1156 processors will not work on LGA-1155 motherboards, either. For these processors, the arrangement of vital components is similar to the LGA-1156 package, except that every LGA-1155 processor - dual-core or quad-core - will feature an on-die display controller.
Click to expand...

The next big platform to succeed the LGA-1366, which caters to processors in the upper performance-though-enthusiast segments is the "Patsburg" platform, succeeding the existing "Tylersburg" based Intel X58, 5000 series chipsets. Here, Intel will introduce a massive new socket, the LGA-2011. The pin count is drastically increased for two reasons: the processor will have a 256-bit wide memory interface (quad-channel DDR3), and the northbridge component (currently X58 PCH) will be integrated completely into the processor package, upping the pin count with the PCI-Express and DMI pins. The on-die PCI-Express 2.0 root-complex will give out 32 lanes for graphics (unlike 16 lanes on the LGA-1155), and a DMI link to the so-called "Intel X68" chipset, which is relegated to being a Platform Controller Hub, just like the P55, or P67. The X68 could have a feature-set similar to the P67.
Click to expand...
The pin count is drastically increased for two reasons: the processor will have a 256-bit wide memory interface (quad-channel DDR3):S

More Details here: techPowerUp! News :: Intel Sandy Bridge to Introduce New Sockets, Chipsets, Reorganize Platform Further

LGA 1366-> LGA 1156-> LGA 1155-> LGA 2011:S, its really annoying to see every end of the year Intel introducing new sockets to the market and making the existing looks obsolete (not 100% though):mad:, if not for all but definitely would affect enthusiast comm pushing them to upgrade the mobo (to new socket) completely or to buy a high-end procy for their existing socket. This is not fair and their stupid tick-tock strategy sucks. On the other hand AMD doing really good job keeping the old and new sockets compatible for new procys to make the upgradation easier for all:)

what u think? i'm sure advancements is much necessary for future tech in computing but i feel this is rather a perfect business.
 
Thanks for sharing, some of it has already been posted here:-
http://www.techenclave.com/cpu-mobo-corner/new-top-tier-socket-intel-2011-a-164242.html

While AMD's commitment to backward compatibility is admirable, AM2+ is more the exception rather than the rule. LGA 775 enjoyed a long reign as well. Now, Intel wants to maximise profits, and that will continue to work as long as they keep throwing down the high-performance gauntlet.
It would be nice if current 1156 processors could at-least be used in the newer boards. That would bring some stability to Intel's mainstream (?) socket. AMD on the other hand will probably make their next compatible to AM3 as well, just with small disabilities like how it is running AM3 on 2+.

In other news, Intel announced the E5500's release. Its a cheap, value oriented chip, but it sends a clear signal that Intel hasn't stopped looking at LGA 775 yet. Another new arrival is the i5 680(clarkdale) dual core. Both should be on sale shortly. An E8700 is probably on the cards as well, as I see a few OEM samples floating around every now and then.
 
Icon_211 said:
This is not fair and their stupid tick-tock strategy sucks. On the other hand AMD doing really good job keeping the old and new sockets compatible for new procys to make the upgradation easier for all:)

what u think? i'm sure advancements is much necessary for future tech in computing but i feel this is rather a perfect business.
Click to expand...

Well, its working out for Intel and thats what matters to them. Intel has established itself in the market to earn money, not to be wallet friendly for the end users. Don't forget AMD too had their own version of socket chaos before AM2/AM3 and although AMD may have given up their version of Socket chaos for a while, but at the end of the day none of the processors made on those platfroms made sense for the enthusiast segement and they are still going for one of those Core 2's or Core i7's. By the time AMD totally catches up to the best from Intel, they too would probably have a new socket on their hands. So better to have a new socket if you cant make fast processors for the old one.
 
damn said:
I'm glad I stayed on 775, performance is the same in games, improvements only in synthetic benchmarks.
Click to expand...

If you had invested in an 8400/8600 already then fine otherwise it makes a lot of sense to upgrade to i3 rather than to 8400/8600.
 
The pin count is drastically increased for two reasons: the processor will have a 256-bit wide memory interface (quad-channel DDR3)
Click to expand...

triple channel alone doesn't show much gain in real world apps except WPrime etc etc shit....

quad channel???
 
comp@ddict said:
shit....

quad channel???
Click to expand...

shi$$ = ????

Quad channel - what is so surprising about this. They have increased the memory bandwidth, so more data flows between the CPU and RAM via the controller. The controller will see the DIMMS as one large chunk (which probably the Quad Channel architecture will do), and data flow rate shall increase. Large code will have to be broken up less (and lessen the storage space). Theoretically, cumulative bandwith will go up.
 
Vandal said:
Really? You obviously have no idea...
Click to expand...
Sure, do fill me in.

I've specifically mentioned "games". Only notable performance increase is multi GPU setups on i7.
Arun1 said:
If you had invested in an 8400/8600 already then fine otherwise it makes a lot of sense to upgrade to i3 rather than to 8400/8600.
Click to expand...
Bleh, pretty much all the 45nms can do 4.0 easily, not that anyone would even need as much for a 24/7 setup. The extra cache on the E8xxx is again noticed only in synthetic benchmarks, the difference at clock to clock is less than 2 fps.
 
Lord Nemesis said:
Well, its working out for Intel and thats what matters to them. Intel has established itself in the market to earn money, not to be wallet friendly for the end users. Don't forget AMD too had their own version of socket chaos before AM2/AM3 and although AMD may have given up their version of Socket chaos for a while, but at the end of the day none of the processors made on those platfroms made sense for the enthusiast segement and they are still going for one of those Core 2's or Core i7's. By the time AMD totally catches up to the best from Intel, they too would probably have a new socket on their hands. So better to have a new socket if you cant make fast processors for the old one.
Click to expand...

Okay, but see just a single pin (also procy orientation) goin to make incompatible for both LGA1156/5 procy<->mobo, vice versa. I'm sure they could have done it on LGA1156 easily to support the sandybridge procy which has low-thermal and less powerc cons' and also improved IGP. See the high-end Lineup X58 LGA1366 and upcoming LGA2011 has some reasonable time-gap of 3 years or more, but for the distance between LGA1156 and LGA1155 is not even crossed 2 years and the owners of LGA1156 will def' feel the heat of new release:mad:. This again made me to delay the purchase of X58s and thinking of AMD X6 setup:D
 
Udit said:
hey Mr. Smarty Pants

Intel Core i5 750 Processor Review > Gaming Performhttp://www.techenclave.com/images/smilies/happy55.gifance - TechSpot

guys look at 1920x1200 OMG :O i7 is 4fps higher my games fly now

P.S. Before you start of about why did I buy i7 if I saw that review I'll answer it beforehand, I got i7 because I had 45k extra & wanted to Show-Off.
Click to expand...

@1920*1080 resolution its completely GPU bottleneck so pointing/judging the procy performance is not fair imo (few exceptions, hhm it depends). But other applications like 2D&3D, Video editing etc. can benefit from i7s architecture:D
 
damn said:
Bleh, pretty much all the 45nms can do 4.0 easily,
Click to expand...
Nope.Going 4Ghz+ on the duals is like going 4.6Ghz+ on the i3,not easy let alone have it for 24/7.
Of course if you feel that 4Ghz itself is not worth it then that's a whole different thing altogether.
 
Icon_211 said:
@1920*1080 resolution its completely GPU bottleneck so pointing/judging the procy performance is not fair imo (few exceptions, hhm it depends). But other applications like 2D&3D, Video editing etc. can benefit from i7s architecture:D
Click to expand...

I was being sarcastic dude
did you read what "damn" said & what "vandy" replied with?
 
damn said:
Sure, do fill me in.
I've specifically mentioned "games". Only notable performance increase is multi GPU setups on i7.Bleh, pretty much all the 45nms can do 4.0 easily, not that anyone would even need as much for a 24/7 setup. The extra cache on the E8xxx is again noticed only in synthetic benchmarks, the difference at clock to clock is less than 2 fps.
Click to expand...

I'm talking about games fool. Why don't you read up some benchmarks comparing a C2D with a Core i7 for games, you'll notice at times, on certain games there is a difference of more than 70% - I think that's very significant, no? You ought to be banned for making a ridiculous statement like that :p

^yeah, they can make quad core 32nm CPUs, but sadly all we're getting are dual and six cores, while they nicely finish old stocks of Core i7/i5 45nm chips. Sucks - 4 cores is still the magic figure...

@ Udit: check out Far Cry 2 scores: http://www.anandtech.com/show/2960/12
All upcoming games will use quad cores better - a gradual trend that we'll see. There are so many benchmarks out there, Some show a great affinity for Core i7 CPUs. As for being smarty pants, at least I can still wear mine :p
 
Vandal said:
You ought to be banned for making a ridiculous statement like that :p
Click to expand...

you should be banned too

because you don't make ridiculous statements but are ridi****** yourself

fill in the blanks
 
Udit said:
you should be banned too

because you don't make ridiculous statements but are ridi****** yourself

fill in the blanks
Click to expand...

Why don't we put up mug shots as our avatars and have TE vote as to who is more ridiculous? :p
 
Back
Top