Intel's Haswell May Be Last Interchangeable Desktop CPU?

[clonazepam]

So thanks to BGA, we might be able to breathe new life into our CPU/MOBO combo, by tossing it in the oven for a few?

 

[dmuir]

Xbit labs points out that because the Intel chips will be soldered into the motherboards, OEMs will be required to stockpile a large number of different mainboards with various features and dissimilar processors just to provide adequate choices for customers.

That's exactly what's wrong with OEM's these days. If the choices where reduced to 1/10th of what's on offer today it would be a huge improvement, both to their business and the customer.

 

[drenyx]

Who writes this crap? Soldering iron? You want solder fumes for fun? You'd have better luck with a spare toaster oven if you want to remount BGA at home, not that I'd suggest that would work either.

Even at that point having to replace a motherboard with an integrated cpu doesn't mean replacing the whole desktop.

Not that I couldn't see this happening, hopefully they will at least sell the chips to other manufacturers so we can get chip of choice on board of choice even if you can't upgrade later.

Tomorrow's news: slotted memory options is a problem. Make sure you buy your board with the correct RAM option at purchase time.

 

[cpucoolingfan]

[No message]

 

[jabarumba]

If I was CEO, I would leave because of this.... haha.

 

[leandrodafontoura]

Is Intel trying to become Apple here? This works for Apple, but wont for Intel, they are gonna screw up even further a business wich is already going downhill

Go AMD!

 

[yeesh]

[citation][nom]demonhorde665[/nom]amd is NOT ready to fold . to think that is to say "hey I'm stoo-pid". 1. amd's cpu's are competitive on the middle end (where most pc gamer's budget's falls) 2. AMD still owns ATI , even if they lose money in the cpu market they can soak those loses simply because of their GPU buisness , 2 outta 3 next gen consoles feature ATI/AMD gpu's that spells a ton of money and market penetration , especialy since those GPU's are gonna be older custom generation gpu's and not newer customs , in other word's amd will not lose money on them as the case with most console sales. 3. lastly keep in mind AMD HAS BEAT INTEL BEFORE, in the high end cpu market. to act like .. "umm who is gonna beat intel" . just makes you sound like a fanboy that is ready to eat and lick intel's stink ps i'm not an AMD fanboy , i use what ever gives me the best bang for the buck, some computers i go intel some i go amd on. I just couldn't sit by while you posted such a fanboy post yourself.[/citation]
Right, it's definitely rabid fanboyism to suggest that AMD is exiting the performance CPU market. You do understand that NONE OF US want AMD to fold, right? You do understand that whether one prefers AMD CPUs or Intel CPUs, AMD's continued existence as a viable competitor to Intel in the performance market is a good thing, right? Lower prices, more innovation, all that stuff every single person here likes? So even the staunchest Intel fanboy wants AMD to stick around and keep prodding Intel. And yet the sad fact is that this seems very, very unlikely as far as the performance CPU market is concerned. Or at least it seems that way to stupid people like me, investors, hardware reviewers, news reporters, departing AMD personnel, and everyone but yourself.

 

[stilldasolda]

unless they just decided to build the motherboards with intel processors, but the end result would be the same, no upgrade at decent price anymore, if one breaks, both are useless, not just one. i can't believe intel in their right mind would do this. I would definitely switch to amd if this were true. i own a pc, not a console. [citation][nom]billgatez[/nom]This is obvious BS. Intel would never do this. The revolt from the PC makers would be crazy.[/citation]

 

[stilldasolda]

nicely put[citation][nom]demonhorde665[/nom]more like intel is gonna go for a choke hold one them selves. you'd be amazed at what some cpu upgrades can do performance wise, i recently upgraded an old athy 64 X2 that was overclocked to 3 ghz , i upgarded to a phenom 9650 quad core that is at stock speed of 2.3 ghz , and i got a massive booste in most teh games i play saints row three went from an unplayable slide show at 5-12 fps up to a very playable 35-45 fps sky rim went from an avaerage frame rate of 22-35 up to an average frame rate of 45-55 crysis 1 i went from running in low spect at 24-32 fps , to runing it at high spec at 31 to 43 fps. you'd be amazed at what a little cpu upgrade can do , so this move makes NO sense assuming intel is really going to do this . what ever the case , i'll stick with AMD for the bang for buck unless they also decide to gimp their cpu production line, then maybe i'll give up on pcs as a gaming platform.[/citation]

 

[stilldasolda]

This cannot be true unless intel's ceo took a retard pill. I have a hard time believing that with the amount of custom builds there are out there, and the amount of people the choose intel over amd, how would they be losing money. because that is the only reason to change a business model so drastically, who would be stupid to change something that is working for something that isn't proven. if... i mean if this happened, most of us enthusiast and gamers would simply switch to amd, right?

 

[davewolfgang]

This cannot be true unless intel's ceo took a retard pill. I have a hard time believing that with the amount of custom builds there are out there, and the amount of people the choose intel over amd, how would they be losing money. because that is the only reason to change a business model so drastically, who would be stupid to change something that is working for something that isn't proven. if...(snip)?

You mean like forcing Metro when 90% of the Beta testers turned it off because they didn't like it......

Maybe Intel should FIRE the person who proposed this idea NOW, instead of waiting until after it's implemented and fails...like MS has had to do.

 

[TeraMedia]

This is what is going to happen across the Intel CPU space:

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/upgrade-card-Core-i3-sandy-bridge-Best-Buy-scratch-off,13225.html

MB makers won't need to stock the same MB with 25 (or even 10) different CPUs soldered onto them as an equally-high number of SKUs. They'll ship each MB with perhaps 3 variations (i3, i5, i7) and allow end-users to upgrade with these Intel CPU upgrade cards or something like them. I expect that the mainstream socket (e.g. 1155) will be only BGA, and to get a LGA socket you'll need to buy the extreme platform (e.g. 2011), at the corresponding astronomical price. If even that is an option anymore.

Given that the vast majority of all new computer hardware is either a tablet, a laptop, or a workplace desktop, I understand why this is happening. I don't like it, but I don't foresee anything happening that could prevent it. What is the additional COGS to Intel if they sell a 3570K configured as a 3330? The price difference is currently $30 (newegg). But if the buyers who wanted a 3570K to begin with can get one by buying an upgrade card for $50 (or more likely, $150... ugh), then who's to say that any mainstream consumers are worse off? Keep in mind that OEMs will be able to reduce costs by not having to put a CPU LGA latch mount on each MB, not having to deal with RMAs from bent pins etc., and not having to test, certify, and support a MB with each of 25 different CPUs that happen to fit in its socket. Also, they'll probably get a small cut of each upgrade option, since they will need to have tested it. The available upgrades for a given MB will be locked. The set of CPU / MB configurations will be locked. Upgrades will be expensive, and will be ROI/benefit-priced rather than cost-priced. Enthusiasts lose, Intel, OEMs and L-C-D consumers win. OEMs will make up marginally-higher prices on base CPUs by benefitting from lower MB costs and future upgrade profits.

Of course, upgrades will be constrained to whatever was the best feature set for the CPU model you got when you bought - which you may not even be able to determine in advance. And they will cost a pretty penny.

Only two things combined will change this:
1) AMD or ARM needs to be able to compete with Intel's best CPU performance, AND
2) Mainstream must-have software must have desirable and easily-discernible behavior benefits from faster CPUs. Whether that software is facial recognition, speech translation or whatever, it needs to require lots of CPU power, not be runnable on a GPGPU, and be something that no one can afford to do without.

 

[davemaster84]

If that's true Intel is killing itself at least for the kind of users that are like us, glad I've been always with AMD

 

[P0LYGL0T]

This will be bad for consumers in the long run. A soldered CPU with a mainboard = bad idea. Sure it has a lot of benefits, but not so great for those who want to change or fix their own hardware. We are already seeing this with laptops and tablets, where all the hardware is locked down, hard to remove or replace. Most laptops today already have a soldered CPU and GPU onto the logic board, which is of course what they need to operate efficiently. But laptops and tablets are really locked down, once something breaks or malfunctions, you most likely have to replace the entire thing.

Apple is really well know for locking down their hardware. Their latest MacBooks have no flexibility. This is what manufacturers like Apple and Intel really want, they don't want people replacing their own hardware -- they want YOU to go to them (and pay of course) to do the repairs. It's all part of the plan fellas.

 

[apache_lives]

[citation][nom]demonhorde665[/nom]you just sound like an A--hole here ... not every one has money to buy a whole new computer , that is the point of interchangable parts. as for "old crappy" mainboards , in most upgrade situations where teh cpu is involved the cpu it's self aint that much newer than the main board . i upgraded my athy x2 5000+ to a phenom 9650 , the phenom 9650 is technically only a few month's newer than the main board i put it on , but it made a huge impact in performance for that system , and it only cost me 50 bucks instead of 600-800 bucks for a whole new system .. plus i don't have to jsut chunk this old computer and can use it as a fairly deccent back up system .[/citation]

lol you still have a rubbish pc

not everyone is poor like you

99% of people DONT ever replace their cpu live with it

 

[f-14]

is this an april fools, but not in april? this sounds like the worst load of b.s. i have ever heard.
it would be asinine and insane for intel to do this, did bobby kotick become CEO of intel?
i just can't believe this, it's just that moronic to the point the entire executive officers who went along with this would get themselves fired.

as long as AMD doesn't do this they will be poised to take over the cpu market.

 

[TeraMedia]

I completely get why they're doing this.

Benefits to Intel:
- lower mb cost vs. AMD sockets = additional baked-in profit for Intel
- reduced CPU inventory (fewer models, supplemented by upgrade cards) = better bottom-line profit
- better impedance consistency for signal pins = better performance and lower power
- better power transfer and RF noise management for power pins = better stability and lower power
- smaller CPU package size = lower manuf cost
- better system reliability for MB makers (marketing and price benefit) = additional baked-in profit
- higher pricing on "high-end" features = additional profit

Drawbacks for Intel:
- Enthusiasts will not purchase a second CPU for a given MB = very small loss. Instead, those enthusiasts will purchase a whole new MB with more frequency. Keep in mind that a decreasing portion of system features will depend on MB add-on chips with each generation, so eventually the CPU is the MB, and is the chief driver of total MB cost.
- Ability to segment chips based on disabled features and/or performance binning is reduced. Instead, chips will have to be binned into just a few lowest-common-denominator buckets and priced accordingly. But given where AMD is, small existing price differences between products and the above benefits, the reduced profit from price differences on chips will be outweighed by the benefits several times over.
- MB component failure will force CPU returns. I think this is a cost that MB makers will pass on to component makers. If the audio chip on a MB is faulty, then the MB maker will either replace the audio chip, or charge the audio chip maker for the full cost of the populated MB. Or they will bake the failure rate into the product price.

 

[hannibal]

I completely get why they're doing this.

Benefits to Intel:
- ...profit for Intel
- ...better bottom-line profit
- ...lower manuf cost
- ...additional baked-in profit
- ...additional profit

Drawbacks for Intel:
- Enthusiasts will not purchase a second CPU for a given MB = very small loss.

From Intell perspective this seems to be perfectly sensible thing to do... Thats why it is guite easy to believe this, but I will still wait for Intel to announce this.

I also agree that LGA1xxx versions are more likely in this "not swappable" system category and 2xxx versions may stay in normal LGA style. It allso helps Intel to ingrease the difference between their professional vs. normal products. Now there is very little reason to buy LGA2xxx motherboards and CPU (for the bang for the buck) after this the price difference will be even greater, but so will be allso features.

 

[shafe88]

This:
A) makes sense from
1) A business perspective
2) A technology perspective
B) will not affect enthusiasts

This does not make sense from a business or technology perspective. This will affect enthusiasts especially ones with a limited budget, who count on buying a lower end processor till they can afford to get the better processor. It's also bad from a business perspective too, as people will not be as willing to buy a whole new computer or motherboard just to get a faster processor especially if it's not much faster than the one they already have.

 

[Redblade8]

..We should start a petition..or possibly boycott them..?
AMD might get more business later on too, with Intel's decision to switch to the cpu being embedded on the motherboard..it'd be interesting if intel bought AMD though..I'm guessing that there'd be no option to upgrade your cpu in that situation then. ;D

Intel, you make more business/money by providing upgrade-able parts in actuality, so why go the non-upgrade-able route? It doesn't make sense.

And here I was hoping that the future of laptops was that it'd be easier to upgrade and switch out parts.
..I suppose that this won't be happening because Intel now has made the decision to make the cpu embedded on the motherboard of desktops for 2014,,So since intel has made this decision for the mainstream desktops, I see no hope at all for laptops. Horrible. ._.

 

[Guest]

The commenters here seem to be making a big and possibly wrong assumption. If Intel ships a BGA processor, that doesn't mean that it gets soldered onto the motherboard.

GPUs are shipped as BGAs. Is this a problem? No. They get soldered onto a board along with some DRAM and DC/DC power converters, and that gets shipped as an SKU. CPU board manufacturers can do the same thing.

Your motherboard will get somewhat simpler. It will lose the connectors for memory and the LGA CPU. Those will be replaced by something like a PCIe slot. It'll have to be a bit more dense, because it will support 40 to 100 diff pairs. Intel can have fewer of these than it has LGA interfaces.

Getting the wires out from under a 2011 pin LGA and over to the DRAM requires a thick multilayer circuit board, which isn't needed elsewhere. So the CPU board can be 10 layers with a 0.4mm BGA pitch, which makes the CPU package something like 20mm x 20mm -- nice and small.

Most systems ship with 8GB of memory, which is just 32 2Gb chips. These too can be soldered directly to the same board as the CPU. No need for DIMMs and sockets. This will reduce the capacitance on the data lines and let them switch at GDDR speeds. Point-to-point DRAM data lines are also far more power efficient... your PC memory subsystem burns more power terminating the stub to the idle DRAM than it burns transmitting the data on the line.

As another poster pointed out, not all the DRAM vs CPU combinations will be stocked. Any given CPU might have just one or perhaps two memory options.

Just as with GPUs, you'll be able to have a single socket that supports CPUs with a 128b, 256b, and 512b memory interfaces. They may need multi-board sandwiches for really large memory configurations. A double sided 36mm x 167mm half-height CPU board should be able to fit around 90 4Gb DDR3 packages, or 40GB of ECC memory.

I've been expecting this for a while. However, I expected AMD to be the innovator, since they have a better structural position. If AMD sells GPUs for GPU cards and CPUs for CPU cards, people will be willing to buy both (less so CPUs of course). If Intel tries the same thing, people will ignore their GPU cards, because they don't have the brand recognition.

-Iain McClatchie

 

[Guest]

just a bunch of crap, intel would be just like windows 8, crap.

 

[xzendor]

If This Is True It's Very Bad News, But It Opens A Window For AMD To Take The Lead If It Doesn't Go The Same Route.

Though This Makes Little Sense To Me As An End User, I Guess It's All About How Much More Money Intel Can Put Into It's Pocket.

 

[Guest]

Broadwell is not the first CPU that would be soldered onto the motherboard of a desktop computer. The 386SX CPU, which was a 32-bit x86 CPU manufactured by Intel, was actually soldered onto the motherboard, even on desktop computers. In addition, Intel has also made versions of its Atom, Core 2, Arrandale, Sandy Bridge, and Ivy Bridge CPUs that are designed to be soldered onto mobile computers (although Intel also made socketed versions of Arrandale, Sandy Bridge, and Ivy Bridge CPUs for mobile platforms as well as desktops and servers).

 

[Guest]

It's supposed to be called Ponywell, not Broadwell. Why they changed it is beyond me, but Ponywell sounds 10x better.