AvoK95
Hey guys, I like to hear your opinion on this.
So Intel has their new architecture coming up in 2014.
All desktop processors built for the mainstream market will reportedly cease using land grid array (LGA) and micro pin grid array (µPGA) packages, and be served up in ball grid array (BGA) packaging instead. That means these Broadwell chips will be just like Intel's Atom processors, soldered into the motherboard and not replaceable like the current Haswell processors and prior generations.
So what do you think about this ?
In my opinion, I think it would be good and bad at the same time.
Bright side:
- No bad motherboard and CPU configurations.
- Will be a lot cheaper
- Easier to pick by consumers
- There will be a model depending on your needs. For example, you can just pick up "Asus Sabertooth Gamer" or "Asus Professional"
- Just straightly simple.
Apple has been doing this for years. and it seems to be pretty good. For example, take the "iPhone" There's only 1 model, they say that this is this (The iPhone) is the only phone you need. You don't need anything higher end nor lower end... Get the idea ?
Down side:
- Not very geek friendly. When I build myself a computer, I like to choose every single part. I like to have options, to upgrade something.
- Some people upgrade their CPU to a better one when a new architecture comes out, So now they have to spend more money and replace the entire board.
- If the CPU dies or something, then you need to change the entire board as well.
- You can't swap any CPU from PC to PC to test a certain motherboard.
So what do you think ? Please post your opinions :)
reppinhighz
well you explained the positives and the negatives clearly. it might be interesting for someone like me who is into gaming and having the option of customizing things yet little experience in building and connecting the parts
but yea most fellow geeks on the board will probably not like the idea too much. i don't know like you said it has its upsides and downsides.
although i can think of another upside which you kind of mentioned first and that is the optimization between both motherboard and cpu. i believe that's an important aspect to consider.
riqmarmes
To be honest I think that I will like it more this way. I have a core i7 first gen on my PC and I want to upgrade it, but I don't think that my motherboard will support the i7s from the 3rd gen, and so I will have to upgrade both, the motherboard and cpu, which will cost more to upgrade both parts, than a combined motherboard with cpu. So in other words what I mean is that when you feel that it is time to upgrade, new sizes and requirements must have come out and most probably it is best to upgrade both parts motherboard and cpu (when it comes to cpu).
I am a lot into gaming, and all you need is a good graphic card (and you can change it whenever you want), this is what makes a huge difference. You can play most games smoothly and in very high graphics with a good card, dual-core cpu and 4gb of ram.
AvoK95
Yes I completely agree on the optimization thing. I mean, why is iOS or Mac OS so smooth ? It's optimized. Why is Android not as smooth as iOS ? Because there is just too much hardware to optimize them. So I guess this will make software manufactures have better software since they will have the options to optimize them on specific hardware (Depending on the software they make).
I also agree on your second post, but lots of people such as this client I have (He has a Pentium 2.8GHz 4GB RAM and runs a 9800GT) For example, his CPU is bottlenecking his 9800GT making games lag on his small 1366x768 resolution. What he can do is just upgrade to a C2D or a C2Q and he'll be up and running. But with Haswell, he had to change the entire motherboard, which means new drivers have to be loaded, Windows might need to be re-installed etc. It's too much of a hassle than just swapping a processor.
Also for world record overclockers, this is a very bad thing. Because what they do is that they get like 20 processors, and 2 or 3 beast motherboards, and overclock the life out of the processor. If this was Haswell, they had to trash a perfectly running motherboard that has a bad CPU, which is just wasteful.
On the other hand, it might be great for novice enthusiasts to build a PC with more simplicity.
Motherboard not too long ago were so much more complicated, when they had their own memory controllers and integrated GPUs etc. Nowadays most motherboards come with no logic at all, because everything is build into the CPU itself. Making hardware so much easier to choose. Now with Haswell in the way, it would be a lot more easier. But far less customizable.
riqmarmes
No offense, but who the hell needs to overclock if it isn't done for fun, intel does not care if you do it for fun or not, but you're just burning hardware when overclocking (what intel thinks if they want to use Haswell, so they don't care about overclockers), and new generations processors are so powerful that overclocking isn't necessary at all since the i7s came out. As a gamer all I need to customize is the graphic card, so I'm not bothered by Haswell.
AvoK95
Overclocking is not only used for fun. Sometimes for example, I ran an i3 540 with a 560Ti. It bottlenecked at first, but after I overclocked it from 3GHz to 3.5GHz, it gave me a lot of performance in games. So it's not necessary to overclock your CPU right away, but after some time it will be necessary. Some people are running a Q6600 with a 460 or even a 580, and they NEED to overclock in order to make the graphics cards run their full potential.
Intel DOES care about overclocking. Why do you think we have the K series of processors ?
riqmarmes
Then why will they introduce the new build-in processors ? (except if they give you the option of overclocking then that's something else.)
riqmarmes wroteand new generations processors are so powerful that overclocking isn't necessary at all since the i7s came out.
The core i3 540 is enough for games with a 560Ti except if you're trying to run battlefield 3 in ultra graphics or something, and the same goes for the Q6660. I was talking about overclocking the i7 from the first generation and stronger processors.
The K series are just there for your freedom, and safety of the processors. Someone who doesn't care about overclocking might not want a K series. It's just unlocked processors.
And people won't be happy if they can't overclock the processor they want, otherwise they might go for an AMD overclockable processor ?
Speaking of overclocking, when I had a celeron D @ 2.60Ghz on my desktop, I was still a kid, I overclocked it to 4.00Ghz and that made a difference xD
shant
where is the news source from?
this sucks completely! it will destroy all the fun you can have with a cpu such as lapping, removing ihs,ln2,etc
specially the part where you get to hold the processor in your hands! :I
i think i will loose a part of my love for building computers because installing the processor is 75% of the awesomeness in it
AvoK95
@riqmarmes
The i3 540 and Q6600 is not good enough to run such GPU's. Everything will bottleneck. My i3 ran BF3 at 25FPS at on stock and ran 30- 45 FPS when overclocked to 3.5GHz. It DOES make a difference.
@shant
Source is from Tom's Hardware, and LinusTechTips YouTube Channel Live stream.
riqmarmes
@AvoK95
I know that it does make a difference, I said overclocking i7s wont make that difference, but for the i3, doesn't lowering the graphic configurations help ? (Instead of overclocking I mean)
AvoK95
Why would I buy a 300$ graphics card if I want to lower the graphic configuration ?
Also, try running dual 680s on an i7 920, and see if it doesn't bottleneck.
riqmarmes
@AvoK95
To be honest I never knew that you would need a stronger processor for a stronger graphic card ;) Don't really have the possibility or the means of testing such things sadly.
AvoK95
Why do you think people don't use their Pentium 4's with a just a GTX690 ? :D
riqmarmes
Because Pentium 4s motherboards didn't have PCI :P
Khaled
riqmarmes wroteBecause Pentium 4s motherboards didn't have PCI :P
http://www.asus.com/Motherboards/Intel_Socket_775/P5LD2VM/
just saying
AvoK95
I have a Pentium 4 with PCIE right in front of me.
I have even seen PCIE on Socket 478.
riqmarmes
It was supposed to be a joke......
Khaled
riqmarmes wrote
It was supposed to be a joke......
It failed :P miserably :P
riqmarmes
Khaled wroteriqmarmes wrote
It was supposed to be a joke......
It failed :P miserably :P
AvoK95 wroteI have a Pentium 4 with PCIE right in front of me.
I have even seen PCIE on Socket 478.
Sadly yes....
Edit: quoting ftw! (actually I'm still new to BBCode, you can ask why but I don't think you would care :P )
