The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
So is Socket 1366 dead?
Ryna
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
I've been planning on an upgrade for a while now, and have noticed the gradual increase of Triple channel memory kits for Socket 1366 mobos. Does this mean this socket is dead and I should go Socket 1156, or is memory up all round?
Ryna on
0
Posts
The general consensus is that 1366 will live longer than 1156.
Then again, IMO if you got something like a i5 750, that would last for so long as a gaming CPU that it's impossible to plan to upgrade using the same mobo anyway.
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
I wonder if people would be noticing the 6 gigs of triple channel mem, over 4 of double, in gaming applications..
Memory performance doesn't man anything for gaming performance. 4 gigs is considered enough memory, I think.
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
Steam ID: slashx000______Twitter: @bill_at_zeboyd______ Facebook: Zeboyd Games
Not really. Nobody's building games to run in 64-bit mode right now, with a handful of exceptions like Crysis, so things are going to plateau at 3 gigs for a while until they see that everyone's upgraded, and then it'll shoot up. And that'll be relatively soon; Microsoft has been pushing the 64-bit version of Win7 onto OEMs.
Intel 6 core CPUs will only be LGA 1366 compatible.
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Intel-Gulftown-Nehalem-CPU,7579.html
Disclaimer: Keep your machine clean or you might need more than 3GB.
OK.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/memory-module-upgrade,2264-3.html
That's what I saw.
Draw your own conclusions.
Steam ID: slashx000______Twitter: @bill_at_zeboyd______ Facebook: Zeboyd Games
The only one of those that can even adress more than 2 GB of memory is Crysis, the rest are 32-bit programs. That's what I was saying. Once game developers start programming with 64-bit in mind, the RAM barrier won't be there anymore.
I guess what I'm saying is load it up with 4 GB, but keep slots open for another 4 later.
But even then, when talking about the amount of memory your machine has, it's pretty polarizing; you either have enough, or not enough, depending on the game in question.
As in, either your hard disk is thrashing trying to page data from RAM, causing inconvenient hickups and sudden pauses in gameplay, or your machine has enough ram to keep the entire environment in memory.
It's really the Memory speed that would make an actual difference in comparitive performance. But the difference in memory speed is negligible at best with games.
Sorry to bring this back from forever ago, but how is that contradictory to what I'm saying? Future Core i3 and i5 processors will most likely be LGA 1156 only, which means that if you don't need heavily multithreaded performance (e.g. games) you could well be better of with an LGA 1156 motherboard. Again, the two sockets coexist for segmentation purposes, there's not one that can be considered better or more new, as performance must be considered relative to the use of the processor.
That's a silly chart.
If all your hardware was the same except you changed how much RAM was in your system, of course your game is going to have the same frames per second. FPS is pretty much all based on your GPU and video RAM.
The difference you would see in changing system RAM for games would be things like load times and what not. Although that still would be a negligible change in most cases, as long as your comparisons all met the recommended hardware requirements for the game.
Either way, gaming is no longer as taxing a thing to do on a computer as it used to be. You don't need the biggest, most expensive CPU out there to build a great gaming system.
Now, if you had some HD video editing and high-end CG animation to do, it'd be a different story.
PSN: Beltaine-77 | Steam: beltane77 | Battle.net BadHaggis#1433
PSN: TheScrublet
Does that make it clearer for you? The new high end processors are all going to be 1366, not likely, WILL. Intel has stated this from the beginning. The 1156 is a short term chipset, while the 1366 chipset is going to continue to be supported for quite some time.
Yes, you are right that upcoming six core processors will be LGA 1366 only. So what? My point still stands, LGA 1156 is definately not a temporary platform, not more than LGA 1366 is. A six core processor is only a performance upgrade if you can utilize the cores, which means that there's plenty of room for new LGA 1156 processors in Intel's lineup. Why do you seem to have the idea that six-core processors is the only way forward for Intel?
There's nothing indicating that Intel will drop LGA 1156 before they drop LGA 1366, the fact that they're only releasing six-core processors for one socket is a matter of segmentation, not a sign of future support. LGA 1366 has always been the platform for those who need heavily multithreaded performance (sometimes at the cost of clockspeed), while LGA 1156 is there for those who need higher single- or dual-threaded performance.
Does the average person need a Hexa-core CPU yet? No. But guess what, programs are becoming threaded. Just read up on what IE9 will be doing for web browsing, IE8 was the first browser to use multi threads, as well as Chrome being threaded per tab. Adobe is threading their software as well as gaming companies. Soon other software types/vendors will follow.
Not to mention the fact that people tend to run several programs at once. Browser (IE8 & Chrome are both multi-threaded now), some sort of IM type program, & music software usually iTunes. iTunes is bloated to hell and likes to run in the background 24/7.
More cores is the future with better performance. And when less cores are needed we have turbo boost to improve performance for the few current tasks in use.
PSN: TheScrublet
First I'd like to make it clear what I'm arguing. I think that it's silly to believe that either socket will be discontinued before the other, as we have seen no evidence to support this belief. That doesn't mean I think it's impossible for Intel to ditch LGA 1156 before LGA 1366, just that we currently have no evidence to support that theory.
By arguing that LGA 1366 is the future just because it supports six-core processors you are missing a lot of important details that affects Intel's decision to keep or drop one of the sockets.
Your argument is that more cores is always better (= performance) and is therefore more "future proof". Intel currently segment their platforms and CPUs by a combination of clockspeed, cores and features. Those performance measurements must be considered in relation to cost.
There are niche markets that benefit from offerings with more cores and features (e.g. video encoding, virtualization, quad-SLI setups etc.). LGA 1366 is generally a better choice for that market, and has better future upgrade options (e.g. six-core processors). LGA 1366 as a platform is generally more expensive than LGA 1156, but the performance/cost ratio is good if you can use the cores and features it provides.
For the rest clockspeed and cost are more important, and that market is currently served by LGA 1156. LGA 1156 is a cheaper platform, and sacrifices some features, but has a much better performance/cost ratio than LGA 1366 for most users.
Now, the only reason for Intel to discontinue LGA 1156 would be if mainstream users somehow started benefiting more from many cores or special features that are lacking from LGA 1156. A big shift in the market is required for this to happen. Most likely, this would mean something that makes more users benefit from more cores. Perhaps a new version of Windows with superior multi-threaded performance?
When this eventually happens, we have no idea what socket Intel will go with for their CPUs. It could happen within a year, and LGA 1366 could be the primary socket, but that's pure speculation. It could just as well not happen until 2012 or later, when there might be an entirely new socket (or sockets) that has replaced both LGA 1156 and LGA 1366.
Claiming that one socket is more future proof than the other is pure opinion, there's currently no evidence to support that claim. Advocating LGA 1366 for mainstream users today is therefore silly, as the technology might be outdated when it's eventually needed anyway.
In short, there is PLENTY of evidence that one socket will stop getting new CPUs before the other. If someone asks like the OP did "Is socket 1366 dead" that is the answer. Now if you want to debate whether future 1366 improvements are relevant or necessary or not your post was spot on to that end.
PSN: TheScrublet
Yes, I'm well aware of Intels roadmaps, and you are right that we don't know of any more LGA 1156 CPUs (probably since the most recent ones were released in January?). It's just the whole "LGA 1366 is the future!" thing that got me, since we know exactly nothing about which socket any future mainstream processors (e.g. Sandy Bridge) will use. Claiming LGA 1366 is the future when we don't know what socket processors will use one year from now is ridiculous.
Actually, as I just said, we know that Sandy Bridge will NOT use LGA 1366 as announced at this point. That is not likely to change. All we know is that there is MORE of a defined future for 1366 than 1156. I suspect the general opinion that 90% of people will be fine with either of the current sockets is correct.
PSN: TheScrublet
The majority of my rant wasn't aimed at you, but rather at Dark Shroud who thought I needed to "educate myself".
Do we actually? I've seen the roadmaps list a 1365 socket B2 and a 1155 socket H2, but I figured those were placeholders.
Edit: Actually maybe I have no idea what I'm fucking talking about:
Naturally I would assume he's referring to the H2 socket, and that the later-scheduled B2 socket is the same story.
PSN: TheScrublet
However, almost counter-intuitively, I personally wouldn't hold off buying a 1366 MOBO because the latest and best revision of motherboards in any given socket type hold their value extremely well.
People will be looking to maximize their older equipment down the road, and if you pick up a high-end, well specc'd MOBO it will be worth far more on the used market than even a newer (and presumably less-perfected) socket type that is in the first round of next-gen boards.
A more accurate statement would be "hardly any mainstream applications require sustained threaded performance." Lots of rendering software, compression/extraction software, etc., thread. However, very few people are rendering or compressing large enough files to matter...they blaze through stuff with two cores just as fast as four + hyperthreading. And speaking in a game sense, the only game that truly shows a difference under threading is Dragon's Age.
PSN: TheScrublet
So my CPU is good to go for the next 3 years? What reason in there to upgrade to an i7?
I chose my i7 for the following reasons:
#1 - I had my last computer 4 years and it wasn't near as good as my new one last month is. I anticipate a 5 year life on the fundamental parts of this build. Maybe I'll be glad for the hyperthreading maybe I won't, but now I have it. The extra abilities of the i7 may also show themselves if down the line I decide to add a second 5870 for extra life.
#2 - The i7 has an insane overhead. I'm not typically an overclocker but there is plenty of material out there suggesting that with my $30 heatsink I will be able to hit 3.2-3.6 (I'm stopping at DDR3-1600) without even upping the voltage. The i5 cannot match the overhead of the i7.
#3 - I have a complex against voluntarily ignoring new technologies, and could not let hyperthreading and triple channel go no matter how much information there is about the lack of real or perceived benefit to these features. This is an irrational reason and should not be construed as justification for normal people.
#4 - I got my i7-920 for $230, and could have gotten it for $200 if I'd bought on a different sale. My 6GB of DDR3 was like $125. The only thing price wise I really bit it on was the motherboard, and I could have gone a lot cheaper than I did on that...see #3 above. The cost difference really wasn't that much and again, I anticipate this lasting 4-5 years.
#5 - I wasn't sure how far LGA1366 would go and wanted the ability to add a CPU with more cores later if I wanted to. Not necessarily a strong reason either.
You might see an improvement over your core 2 duo based on the i5/i7 architecture improvements, but it's probably not enough to worry about upgrading. You'd be better off doing it in 2011 I would think.
PSN: TheScrublet
This for me as well. I also spent the additional $$ on a badass motherboard, got the 920 for $200 and dropped 6gigs in it. Overclocking will cover me until the 6-core HT processors come down dramatically in price.
Also keep in mind that while the game or app you are using may only use a single core, the OS, A/V, spyware, encryption, or other background processes can all make use of the other cores whenever they want. Or you can just go the Distributed Computing route and crank out more WUs in a month on one of these systems than you did in a year on your old computer.
I would do this more if I lived alone...I don't want to make my roommates pay extra for the draw of my computer to be on 24/7. My impact on the bill with that plasma is bad enough.
PSN: TheScrublet
http://news.bigdownload.com/2010/03/31/pax-east-civilization-v-eyes-on-impressions/
AI's can pretty much chew up an infinite amount of processing power, it is just a matter of how many moves are possible on a given turn and how far into the future you ask them to plan.