rumor control.. intel changing sockets for 2013 getting smaller by 5 pins

source on the inside @ intel's chinese division have revealed that intel is working on a smaller LGA socket for next year. currently dubbed the lga 1150 this will be the socket for haswell.

despite my mostly positive experiences with intel im still not going back to them.. i see no reason to shill out 100 bucks or more on a half decent board every year in order to stay current.

http://www.inpai.com.cn/doc/hard/166633.htm

despite my mostly positive experiences with intel im still not going back to them.. i see no reason to shill out 100 bucks or more on a half decent board every year in order to stay current.

ionusX

Yea, we know that.:P

[QUOTE="ionusX"]

despite my mostly positive experiences with intel im still not going back to them.. i see no reason to shill out 100 bucks or more on a half decent board every year in order to stay current.

humpdabump

Yea, we know that.:P

[QUOTE="humpdabump"]

[QUOTE="ionusX"]

despite my mostly positive experiences with intel im still not going back to them.. i see no reason to shill out 100 bucks or more on a half decent board every year in order to stay current.

ionusX

Yea, we know that.:P

Probably someone that is ban dodging.

[QUOTE="ionusX"]

[QUOTE="humpdabump"]

Yea, we know that.:P

NailedGR

Probably someone that is ban dodging.

[QUOTE="ionusX"]

[QUOTE="humpdabump"]

Yea, we know that.:P

NailedGR

Probably someone that is ban dodging.

I'm not ban dodging, I just got bored with my previous name. If anyone cares it's gamerns.

[QUOTE="NailedGR"]

[QUOTE="ionusX"] who are you again? i have no idea

humpdabump

Probably someone that is ban dodging.

I'm not ban dodging, I just got bored with my previous name. If anyone cares it's gamerns.

Who?

despite my mostly positive experiences with intel im still not going back to them.. i see no reason to shill out 100 bucks or more on a half decent board every year in order to stay current.

ionusX

So, uh, don't? Unless MS or Sony does something really radical next gen a k-series i5 is going to be good for 5+ years. If you're upgrading enough for Intel's socket strategy to be an issue, you're building your PC's wrong.

A new board every 2 years is the price of getting newer tech. You can't just expect them to keep the same socket after moving the CPU voltage regulators onto the die. red12355

[QUOTE="red12355"]A new board every 2 years is the price of getting newer tech. You can't just expect them to keep the same socket after moving the CPU voltage regulators onto the die. DevilMightCry

If that is what you think is causing the performance gap, you need to go read some history.

*hint intel monopolistic practices artificially holding amd back.

[QUOTE="DevilMightCry"][QUOTE="red12355"]A new board every 2 years is the price of getting newer tech. You can't just expect them to keep the same socket after moving the CPU voltage regulators onto the die. GummiRaccoon

If that is what you think is causing the performance gap, you need to go read some history.

*hint intel monopolistic practices artificially holding amd back.

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

[QUOTE="DevilMightCry"] AMD stuck fairly long with their sockets... look where they are. Everyone complains about AMD catering more to casual users and cheaper CPU's, and they love intel's performance. But at the same time hate advancements? Well, you have two choices. One that performs better... costs a bit more. What a concept.DevilMightCry

If that is what you think is causing the performance gap, you need to go read some history.

*hint intel monopolistic practices artificially holding amd back.

You say you know the history and then lay the blame on the wrong party. AMD was ahead techwise and they were unable to gain market share due to intel's monopoly (which it got fined big time for) then AMD tried to innovate and then intel started making bogus IP claims that prevented their new tech to roll out for a few years.

You clearly don't know what a monopoly is and you clearly don't know what happened.

[QUOTE="DevilMightCry"]

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

If that is what you think is causing the performance gap, you need to go read some history.

*hint intel monopolistic practices artificially holding amd back.

GummiRaccoon

You say you know the history and then lay the blame on the wrong party. AMD was ahead techwise and they were unable to gain market share due to intel's monopoly (which it got fined big time for) then AMD tried to innovate and then intel started making bogus IP claims that prevented their new tech to roll out for a few years.

You clearly don't know what a monopoly is and you clearly don't know what happened.

in short intel raged after a successful countertroll and then used hax to win arguement.. like discord

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfW6ym1QDvw

[QUOTE="DevilMightCry"]

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

If that is what you think is causing the performance gap, you need to go read some history.

*hint intel monopolistic practices artificially holding amd back.

GummiRaccoon

You say you know the history and then lay the blame on the wrong party. AMD was ahead techwise and they were unable to gain market share due to intel's monopoly (which it got fined big time for) then AMD tried to innovate and then intel started making bogus IP claims that prevented their new tech to roll out for a few years.

You clearly don't know what a monopoly is and you clearly don't know what happened.

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

[QUOTE="DevilMightCry"] I am well informed about the history of PC market. I am responding to the fact that people complain about both AMD and Intel on silly reasons. I wasn't writing an op-ed in the Wallstreet Journal. AMD is responsible for market share loss. Their failure on invention, and shoddy management, and a strong competitor. AMD was ahead and outperformed intel several times. That was then. Either you compete and outperform or get eaten by bigger fish.

red12355

You say you know the history and then lay the blame on the wrong party. AMD was ahead techwise and they were unable to gain market share due to intel's monopoly (which it got fined big time for) then AMD tried to innovate and then intel started making bogus IP claims that prevented their new tech to roll out for a few years.

You clearly don't know what a monopoly is and you clearly don't know what happened.

If it weren't for intel AMD would never have had to spin off global foundries.

If it weren't for intel AMD would have been able to spin off global foundries in a timely manner. (they needed to do this to cauterize the wound caused by intels anti competitive practices)

If it weren't for intel Bulldozer would have come out to compete against nahalem.

.... What? How did Intel force AMD to spin off GloFo? ... I don't even.... And I suppose it's Intel's fault that Bulldozer as an architecture is less suited for vast majority of consumer workloads than PII. red12355

Has your head been in the sand for the last 10 years?

gahdjkfhlkdjs red12355

How do I cause and effect