Print
It's been recently rumored that Intel is taking steps towards a socket-less future, perhaps sooner than you think. The rumor originates from a Japanese website, which reported that Broadwell, the 14nm successor to next year's Haswell, would not come in an LGA package. Such a scenario would effectively neuter the enthusiast DIY market, and AMD wants no part of the castration process, at least not in the near future.
Let's back up a moment. According to PC Watch and a few other websites, Intel's Broadwell architecture is switching from a land grid array to a ball grid array (BGA), which could lead to soldering CPUs directly to the motherboard. Intel hasn't confirmed the rumor, so it could turn out to be a bunch of poppycock. It also hasn't denied the report.
AMD has spoken up, however, telling Nathan Kirsch at Legit Reviews that it understands the need for socketed processors in the desktop market and is fully committed to keeping it that way.
"AMD has a long history of supporting the DIY and enthusiast desktop market with socketed CPUs and APUs that are compatible with a wide range of motherboard products from our partners. That will continue through 2013 and 2014 with the 'Kaveri' APU and FX CPU lines," Gary Silcott, Corporate Communications of AMD Client Products, told Kirsch in an email. "We have no plans at this time to move to BGA only packaging and look forward to continuing to support this critical segment of the market."
The Sunnyvale chip designer went on to offer Intel a backhanded compliment of sorts, adding that "we [AMD] certainly understand Intel's enthusiasm" for BGA, and that AMD itself introduced new types of BGA packages in ultrahin platforms several years ago, "but for the desktop market, and the enthusiasts with whom AMD has built its brand, we understand what matters to them and how we can continue to bring better value and a better experience."
Let's hope AMD sticks around long enough to keep its promise.
Follow Paul on Google+, Twitter, and Facebook
Comments are closed on this article
truck87bp
December 06, 2012 at 9:40am
I been trying to Contact 2 people at AMD to show them how to stack CPU's thru the web site LinkedIn and can't get a reply. I am sure my design will change the desktop PC and server world for x86 computers. I guess they could care less about something new. Chekib Akrout, do you even care about AMD?
BMDC
December 06, 2012 at 5:07am
Its unbelievable how many people are misinformed in these comments.
AMD cannot and has not been able to keep up with Intel for quite some time now.
For example, in the aspect of gaming yes, an FX-8350 will deliver similar benchmarks to the similarly priced i5 3570k, but it is in very very few ways faster. Games today use very little CPU resources, because most of them are console ports.
That being said, even in most applications, such as synthetic benchmarks, and video editing the 3570k STILL beats AMD's counterpart in many tasks because of superior architecture. Intel based mid to low end motherboards also support features that many high end AMD boards wont even have for a while, such as PCI-E 3.0.
lordfirefox
December 07, 2012 at 2:16pm
Since when have synthetic benchmarks ever mattered? "Oh look I can run a synthetic benchmark program faster than you." Yeah? Who cares. What matters is real-world performance and in real-world performance It doesn't matter what chip you go with so long as it runs and you're happy.
Peanut Fox
December 05, 2012 at 4:53pm
Now that I think about it, maybe it'll be a focus for NUC type machines. Small form factor PCs.
andrewc513
December 05, 2012 at 4:38pm
Glad that we're sticking with what works. That said, if you look at current trends in computing, I'd bet almost everything will be SoC-based by 2020, save for high-end workstations. Heck, we're practically there now.
renodude18
December 05, 2012 at 3:08pm
I doubt that they will make it a standard, It will prob just be an alternative to LGA boards for those that don't plan to change the processor out at any time. Although I see that having that option is still good to have considering boards can die out at anytime. As for the Intel or AMD thing, It's stupid to say who is better. IT'S WHO IS BETTER FOR HOW YOU YOURSELF USE YOUR OWN SYSTEM. Just become product A is better for some purposes compared to Product B does not mean that it is better for how I use my system.
zeroibis
December 05, 2012 at 2:24pm
The real issue is when your motherboard breaks but your $1500 cpu is still good. I have used the same cpu on 3 boards. Two where DOA and one of them blew up. In all cases these boards alone were $400-500 but it I was replacing the cpu each time too it would be madness. Not to mention that I was able to prove it was the board by placing the cpu in another system and then trying that systems cpu in the test boards. Lastly we know they will likely not try this on the server market for the same reason.
The ability to easily replace broken parts quickly is what matters most.
Peanut Fox
December 05, 2012 at 1:53pm
We'd probably see fewer high end niche boards like those from EVGA, Asus, and Gigabyte as the cost of board manufacturing is going to include a CPU making it a riskier proposition.
Is the only benefit cost for Intel, or will there be significant performance gains in this design?
Warrior247
December 05, 2012 at 5:30pm
Think about it, you'd have to replace the whole board if something went wrong with the processor or...any part of it! Now who would benefit from something like that hmmmmm?
Peanut Fox
December 05, 2012 at 6:39pm
True, but as it is if something goes wrong with my motherboard or processor both components are worthless to me anyway. There's the partial option of swapping the CPU in the board or into another board to see if you can narrow down the problem area, but that relies on the owner having a spare unit to do so with, which if you're me isn't likely.
Turn around time for repair would only be faster in instances where you can replace the CPU, which is seldom (though it does happen) a point of failure.
As for who benefits it depends on who is making the motherboard. Though if you're sending out RMA's I'd imagine no one would benefit, as you've got a broken computer, and the manufacturer is in the hole for repair.
Blues22475
December 06, 2012 at 2:51pm
And would save the customer money if you only had to replace the board. I've had instances where the motherboard was at fault, and the processor itself was fine as day. To throw out two parts just because one of the connected parts is bad is a waste of money, to me.
jason2393
December 05, 2012 at 2:01pm
The only difference (between identical chips) is that one is soldered, the other is not. This wouldn't make anything faster.
Dexter243
December 05, 2012 at 1:43pm
Every one knocks amd you have to understand that even buy todays system amb makes some damn fast cpu's that will with ease run any game you throw at it BUT intell maks some that are even faster but most people do not build cutting edg systems they build mid level or even budget systems and in that group amd and intell are a mader of choice and cost not who is the fastist because both give you full options in that category and for the best budget buck amd is the bigist bang
jumanisu
December 05, 2012 at 1:41pm
as Kelly responded I am in shock that people able to make $7493 in 1 month on the internet. did you look at this site link http://www.Cloud65.com
vrmlbasic
December 05, 2012 at 1:03pm
I like the flexibility of the current system as I can choose a motherboard that best fits my needs (AMD only) and combine it with the best processor I can get in it.
Having to buy the motherboard and CPU as one unit could really blow as I would lose the flexibility to get what I want on a motherboard, and lose the option to buy a board with eSata connectors, say. Or, if Intel were to revert to its proprietary ways and adopt BGA, I could be forced into buying a board with only Thunderbolt, no USB 3 and maybe even SATA II ports (!!) if I want to get their latest & greatest.
Feature choice is why I'm with AMD with my current build. Cost/performance is second. I like flexibility.
IMO we could stand to get a newer, better AMD chipset than the 990FX already. That could use some focus.
jason2393
December 05, 2012 at 12:37pm
Is BGA really that much worse than creating a new LGA socket every couple of years? I don't know about everybody else, but I generally use my computer as-is until the whole thing is ready for an upgrade, and then I just replace the whole computer.
cmasupra
December 05, 2012 at 1:00pm
There are many advantages to a socket. Here's a couple (1 of which you mentioned)
1) We can choose our motherboard independent of the CPU, and vice versa, giving us more motherboard options.
2) We can upgrade our CPU farther down the road for slightly more performance. I have many friends who do that because they can't afford a full upgrade very often. I've even been strongly considering upgrading my i7 920 to an i7 980X or such.
jason2393
December 05, 2012 at 1:42pm
From what I can tell, the 980X is still a very expensive processor. Wouldn't it be more cost effective to simply replace the proc and motherboard with 1155 or 2011 parts?
Maybe Intel's multiple socket strategy has been to get us used to the idea of replacing the motherboard when we need more performance?
Warrior247
December 05, 2012 at 12:35pm
It really doesn't matter. If AMD's CPUs are inferior to Intel's, then who would want them? That is the problem that they have now. Intel does not see AMD as competition and will do what it wants. This kinda makes sense with PC shrinking and all. You now have integrated graphics AND integrated CPUs.
Blues22475
December 05, 2012 at 1:23pm
Because people don't want to shell out 300+ dollars for a CPU. AMD CPU don't compare to Intel's in gaming standards (and some others), but there are people who will get by just fine with particular AMD CPU's. Some folks don't need the latest and greatest to get by.
It's not about AMD vs Intel: it's about flexibility of having a socketed cpu or one built into the board. As someone already said, it would be a pain the ass if you had to buy mobo+cpu unit if you really only need to upgrade your processor (which your current mobo supports the upgrade.
Warrior247
December 05, 2012 at 4:01pm
Sorry, but that line of thinking isn't helping AMD one bit right now. Being "cheap", is just that..."cheap"! You can get inexpensive Intel CPUs for the same price as AMD CPUs, and they'll STILL out perform their AMD counterpart! The value is when you have performance as well as price. AMD sucks, and has sucked for a loooong while now. Beside the VAST majority of PC gamers don't even build their own rigs anymore or never did, they just try and talk a good game. It's also not even cost effective to do so! You pay retail + tax on every-single-part!
lordfirefox
December 07, 2012 at 2:12pm
I'm sorry but a cheap I3 is not the same as a cheap FX-8350. Try again.
Blues22475
December 06, 2012 at 2:21pm
I thought the article addressed enthusiasts, not pc gamers who just bought pre-built systems...yes there is a difference. Chances are, if you're reading this on Maximum PC, you've passed the whole "pretender" phase and have actually built your own PC.
warptek2010
December 05, 2012 at 11:30pm
"You can get inexpensive Intel CPUs for the same price as AMD CPUs, and they'll STILL out perform their AMD counterpart!"
Bunch of BS. Bulldozers outperform the Intel equivalent on MANY benchmarks and sometimes even outperform the higher end Intel part on certain benchmarks. Please know what you're talking about before posting nonsense. Numbers don't lie.
"The value is when you have performance as well as price. AMD sucks, and has sucked for a loooong while now."
Well, lookeee here, Jed. Ah's got a sucky Bulldozer daht plays any of the latest titles I've thrown at it without a hiccup so far. I guesses either most of these new fangled titles are more GPU intensif den CPU
or the extra banwith and hedroom offered on the Intel side of things ain't needed and is there for prop'o ganda in most if not all cases.
Lets combine my FX-8150 with a nice Radeon HD 8950. Care to make yourself look like a fool and claim my setup couldn't possibly hang with an Intel equipped machine? You'd be wrong.
As for cost effective, wrong again. DIYers like yours truly, also have the uncanny knack of finding good deals and striking at the most opportune moments when building a rig or upgrading one. Combine sale prices, with no tax websites and free shipping, throw in rebates and you save hundreds of dollars so another of your points shot to shit.
I've built computers for people as a side business. I know what I'm saying.
