LGA1200 and why I approve

[Sacredsock]

Currently in the process of watching the Gigabyte build stream and Linus's comment about LGA1200 struck a chord with me, I've noticed that other tech tubers have also been dismissive of Intel's new socket.

 

Personally, I think the new socket is good. For people that understand compatibilites it isn't a problem, but for the general population it is a good idea. Picture the scene a couple of years ago; someone decides to build a new team blue machine and buys a 9 series processor, the box says LGA1151 so off to the motherboard aisle and there is a LGA1151 motherboard, decent specs and good price. 

Is it compatible? will it work? a beginner won't know, and might not understand why.

Now picture the same circumstances today, the 10 series box says LGA1200. Straight forward, un-complicated. Walk past all those LGA115x motherboards and pick from the (small) selection of boards that will work when you get it home.

 

OK, for us enthusiasts it is less than ideal. My i5-6600K has almost nowhere to go without moving away from Z170 but lets be honest, there is a damn good chance that my new platform would be AM4

 

 

[AndreiArgeanu]

AMD managed to support 3 different generations of cpu's plus another one coming on the socket. Intel choosing not too support older 6th and 7th gen intel lga1151 boards and making a so called "new" socket seems a bit of a petty move. If AMD can why can't Intel, it's clearly not impossible.

[Fasauceome]

25 minutes ago, Sacredsock said:

Picture the scene a couple of years ago; someone decides to build a new team blue machine and buys a 9 series processor, the box says LGA1151 so off to the motherboard aisle and there is a LGA1151 motherboard, decent specs and good price. 

This is not why people are upset with the new socket. first of all, 1151 v2 should not have existed, but that and LGA 2011 were the only sockets that intel ever reused.

 

The main gripe is the need for yet another new motherboard for an incremental feature bump. Why can't Intel support more than two generations with a given socket/chipset combo?

[Sacredsock]

10 minutes ago, AndreiArgeanu said:

AMD managed to support 3 different generations of cpu's plus another one coming on the socket. Intel choosing not too support older 6th and 7th gen intel lga1151 boards and making a so called "new" socket seems a bit of a petty move. If AMD can why can't Intel, it's clearly not impossible.

I'm not defending intel, I'm just not into slating them the way that every tech tuber seems to be.

I just think that if a board can't support a chip, even with a BIOS, then it should have a different chipset and name.

[AndreiArgeanu]

22 minutes ago, Sacredsock said:

I'm not defending intel, I'm just not into slating them the way that every tech tuber seems to be.

I just think that if a board can't support a chip, even with a BIOS, then it should have a different chipset and name.

But it most likely could have supported 10th, since I've never heard of Intel boards reaching their limits, therefore requiring a new motherboard with a new socket. I may be wrong but I don't think adding hyper-threading to their cpu's and adding 2 cores to the i9, required a new socket. Originally, the best cpu on AM4 was the 1800x, 8 cores 16 threads, and the 1950X was a thread ripper, but then AMD managed, without changing the socket, to bring a 16 core 32 thread cpu to the AM4 socket, the 3950X. That's double the cores and threads, yet intel can't manage to add 2 cores to their chips without changing the socket. The reasons tech tubers dislike it, is because AMD clearly proved that it is possible to support more than 2 generations of cpus on a socket and it goes to show, that the change in socket every 2 generations, sometimes even 1 generation is perhaps unjustified.

[TwilightRavens]

1 hour ago, Fasauceome said:

This is not why people are upset with the new socket. first of all, 1151 v2 should not have existed, but that and LGA 2011 were the only sockets that intel ever reused.

 

The main gripe is the need for yet another new motherboard for an incremental feature bump. Why can't Intel support more than two generations with a given socket/chipset combo?

Because 1. Intel likes to make money, they don’t make money by supporting a chipset past a generation or two. 2. The mainboard manufacturers make more money because they are not having to keep adding CPUs to the support list, deal with RMA’s because the board doesn’t support the CPU without a bios flash. 3. Because they can, Intel has a majority of the marketshare, hardcore fans will still buy them regardless of a new socket or just an incremental upgrade, these are the same people that buy a Titan V and 9900K for a gaming rig, then turn around and buy a 10900K and Titan RTX. There will always be the people that just buy each generation, regardless if the upgrade makes sense or not and they know they can make money by doing that.

 

Not dismissing it as a bad thing or a good thing, just trickles down to economics, this method has made them plenty of money thus far, and continues to do so, why invest the money and manpower into it if it realistically won’t make them that much more money.

[Fasauceome]

3 minutes ago, TwilightRavens said:

Because 1. Intel likes to make money, they don’t make money by supporting a chipset past a generation or two. 2. The mainboard manufacturers make more money because they are not having to keep adding CPUs to the support list, deal with RMA’s because the board doesn’t support the CPU without a bios flash. 3. Because they can, Intel has a majority of the marketshare, hardcore fans will still buy them regardless of a new socket or just an incremental upgrade, these are the same people that buy a Titan V and 9900K for a gaming rig, then turn around and buy a 10900K and Titan RTX. There will always be the people that just buy each generation, regardless if the upgrade makes sense or not and they know they can make money by doing that.

yeah, the answers are obvious. It was more a rhetorical question, an "AMD does it, why can't you" sort of scenario

 

Maybe 1200 will be the one to change all that? but I think that's wishful thinking, at least while Intel dominates about 90% or more of the market share.

[TwilightRavens]

13 minutes ago, Fasauceome said:

yeah, the answers are obvious. It was more a rhetorical question, an "AMD does it, why can't you" sort of scenario

Yeah, basically they don’t feel they need to. Had Zen attracted hardcore gamers and cost them 80% of their marketshare they likely won’t. Plus they don’t really care about that market all that much, they make their money in the server segment where corporations are spending $50000+ on Xeons.

 

I doubt LGA 1200 will change much, while it technically supports PCI-E gen 4, Comet Lake does not, Rocket Lake will but I’m pretty sure the chip after that (Alder Lake most likely) will require a new socket.