
Intel 'preparing' to put an end to user-replaceable CPUs - KeepTalking
http://www.zdnet.com/intel-preparing-to-put-an-end-to-user-replaceable-cpus-7000008024/
======
smacktoward
As a build-your-own-box type guy myself, this doesn't particularly bother me,
for two reasons.

First, it's extremely rare (in my experience, anyway) to want to upgrade the
CPU of an existing machine without also upgrading the motherboard. Usually by
the time CPUs have advanced far enough to justify upgrading, there's also new
connectors, faster memory interfaces, etc. out as well that would require a
new mobo to take advantage of. If you skip the mobo upgrade and just buy the
CPU, you risk just moving the system's performance bottleneck around.

Second, installing the CPU onto the motherboard is easily the trickiest, most
delicate part of building your own PC. In an age when everything else plugs
together with idiot-proof plugs and sockets, CPUs still have a forest of
fragile pins on the bottom that can easily be bent or broken. You also have to
manually add thermal protections like fans, heat sinks, thermal paste, etc.,
which all require selection and installation; if the CPU came pre-installed on
the mobo, you could skip all that hassle completely.

~~~
ZoFreX
> CPUs still have a forest of fragile pins on the bottom that can easily be
> bent or broken

Not really - the pins have been on the socket for some time now (for Intel at
least - I haven't built anything AMD for some time I'm afraid) and are much,
much harder to damage. The levers on the sockets have gotten much better, as
have the HSF mountpoints, and inserting a CPU and attaching the HSF has not
made me feel like I'm going to break the motherboard for many years (let alone
actually broken it - I can remember boards where you had to jam a screwdriver
into the heatsink retention bracket and apply pressure towards the
motherboard... I'm getting cold sweats just thinking about it)

> You also have to manually add thermal protections like fans, heat sinks,
> thermal paste, etc., which all require selection and installation

Thermal paste is optional, if the CPU and heatsink make good contact it
doesn't make so much difference. You don't have to select if you buy retail
boxes instead of OEM, which come with HSFs already selected for you in the
box, and with thermal gunk pre-applied.

I do agree that it's rare to upgrade the CPU and not motherboard, but you
could say the same thing about most of the components in my PC (I tend to
upgrade all at once).

As for trickiest, most delicate part of building your own pc... honestly if
you're installing the CPU into the motherboard before putting into the case, I
would have to disagree with you there.

~~~
plaguuuuuu
>Thermal paste is optional, if the CPU and heatsink make good contact it
doesn't make so much difference.

Err... it makes a massive difference. Try running your brand new Xeon
workstation without TIM. Your PC will shut down or blow up within seconds of
doing anything. Try living in Australia, or I guess Texas and doing
CAD/rendering work or playing games in summer. If you don't have aircon you'll
need aftermarket cooling or your CPU will throttle.

Intel used cheap thermal paste to stick the CPU to its heatspreader on their
latest chip offerings instead of soldering it on. This is between CPU and
heatspreader, not between heatspreader and heatsink. That alone caused load
temperatures shot up by more than 10 degrees Celcius (18F). In addition to
that I've reduced some of my friends' load temps by 30 degrees just by
reapplying thermal paste properly and reseating the HSF.

~~~
ZoFreX
I have run computers without TIM, for extended periods of time, and it is
perfectly possible. In fact, most people put far, far too much TIM on which
gives you far worse thermal transfer than no TIM at all!

All the TIM is meant to do is fill in the microscopic gaps between the
heatsink base and the top of the CPU, so it fills in the gaps where air would
otherwise be. However, with a decently smooth HS and CPU, there should be a
lot of direct contact between the two surfaces, and metal <-> metal transfers
heat better than metal <-> thermal goo <-> metal.

If you were able to get a 30 degree drop then they probably either had far too
much TIM on, or the heatsink was not making good contact with the CPU.

However, this all said, I think I have now disproven my point that the CPU is
not the most complex part of building a system (not that it being integrated
into the motherboard will make heatsink selection & attachment any easier).

------
mindcrime
Well, what's AMD's stance on this? Hopefully they - at least - will continue
to make CPUs that the "modder" community can take advantage of. If not, that
would be a real shame. I've been an AMD fan since my 386DX/40, and would love
another reason to continue supporting them.

Otherwise, one has to feel that this is just another battle in the "War on
General Purpose Computing". Sure, PCs will - for now - remain "general
purpose" computing devices, but you have to consider this one more step down
the path of locking them down, and making them less accessible and hackable.

~~~
knowaveragejoe
Came here to say something along these lines - if Intel steps out of the ring
then it's basically handing AMD a monopoly on CPUs for the modding/custom-
built community is it not?

~~~
michaelt
If Intel's offering holds the performance crown (and/or the performance-per-$
crown) I'd have thought they'd hold onto a lot of the enthusiast market. A lot
of modding, after all, is oriented towards getting performance.

------
daeken
> A switch to BGA would mean that the processor could no longer be fitted into
> socket where it could be removed or replaced, and instead would be soldered
> to the motherboard much like processors for notebooks and tablets are
> nowadays.

This is completely incorrect. They _could_ solder all the CPUs, but you can
absolutely socket BGA chips. Are there any indications that they're going non-
upgradable outside of the switch to BGA?

~~~
beatgammit
I don't know too much about LGAs vs BGAs, but the Wikipedia article mentioned
that sockts are "less reliable". How does the reliability compare between BGAs
in a socket vs LGAs in a socket? The wikipedia article mentioned that BGAs can
move heat around better; is this lost when a socket is used?

I hope Intel doesn't go the socket-less route. This seems like it would
alienate the Linux server market for high-reliability servers that depend on
CPU hot-plugging. Perhaps this only applies to the consumer market?

~~~
aidenn0
BGAs in a socket fail after about 5 years of not being moved, or maybe a dozen
times you move things.

------
bcoates
This just seems like a crazy decision from Intel's point of view. Won't it
make them incredibly beholden to motherboard makers? The explanation that
they're jealous of, and trying to take over, a low-markup commodity market
strikes me as weird.

Right now, most computer users grab the cheapest motherboard that will work
for them, and one of the places they spend extra cash is splurging on more CPU
than they need. Now, motherboard makers will be able to pair the faster-
stepping CPUs with 'markup' motherboards and capture a lot of that windfall to
themselves, no? Doesn't this price-insensitive enthusiast market send a lot of
cash Intel's way?

Maybe Intel is worried about the health of x64 white box component makers and
is intentionally sending them a windfall?

~~~
Tuna-Fish
Intel has methodically integrated more of the system on the CPU package. With
the memory controllers, integrated gpu and pci-e controllers already on the
CPU, and VRM and rest of the north bridge following in Haswell, _there will be
nothing of value left on the motherboard_. Broadwell-era motherboards will be
dumb connector boards worth $50 at most. That's why they can be sold
integrated.

~~~
bcoates
Oh, that's not nearly as big a deal then.

Still, it's kind of an annoyance just because the form factor of the computer
is still so closely tied to the motherboard, even if the board itself is
trivial. Are they going to get a ton smaller and just be CPU+RAM with cable
ports for PCIe/USB busses?

~~~
Tuna-Fish
You cannot really do full-speed PCIe buses on cable ports.

I expect that Intel will do what AMD and Nvidia are doing presently with GPUs,
and what they used to do with their chipsets: Sell the CPUs into the various
motherboard manufacturers, and let them sell the complete package to the
consumer. They can implement any form factors they like.

Of course with a sufficiently punitive contract that Intel retains control of
everything.

~~~
zmonkeyz
Isn't that what Thunderbolt is? PCIe lanes with displayport?

~~~
acc00
not really. you aren't plugging a video card into a thunderbolt connector.

pci-e 2.0 x32 is 16gb/s. thunderbolt is 2.5gb/s

------
johnward
"As far as the PC OEMs are concerned, killing off the PC upgrade market would
be a good thing because it would push people to buy new PCs rather than
upgrade their existing hardware. The PC industry is currently stagnant, partly
because consumers and enterprise are making existing hardware last longer."

Maybe the market is stagnant because there really is no need to upgrade. I
have a 2009 macbook pro and it's fine. In the late 90's early 2000's I
wouldn't go more than 1-2 yeara without an upgrade. I still use an AMD Phenom
in my desktop, though I may build a new machine just because of gaming.
Nothing is really pushing the limits of modern hardware. Most software is
moving to the web and doesn't require the latest processor to run.

~~~
rogerbinns
If the stated claim is true (killing off upgrades) then their assumption that
people will buy new PCs needs to be substantiated. For example when having to
upgrade many will consider going for a tablet or similar form factor instead
which won't come from the PC OEM, and when it does will be a far lower margin
item.

As one example my parents upgraded from their Windows PC to an iPad.

------
marshray
Isn't this going to introduce lag into Intel's sales pipeline?

In this new model, Intel will be unable to simply new ship chips to
distributors to go to system builders. They'll have to ship all their CPUs to
"the land where things are soldered" (Asia, presumably) and ship everything
back again.

I think AMD may have just been given a gift of 6 weeks.

------
jugglinmike
Two points that I haven't seen covered yet:

1\. Waste. If some component on your motherboard goes, you're on the hook for
a new CPU (and vice versa). This seems tremendously wasteful. Maybe bigger
repair shops will support mail-in refurbishing? Will people take advantage of
that? Or just buy new for convenience?

2\. Competition. Smaller motherboard vendors won't be able to sell direct
anymore. I'm wondering if anyone can comment on how bad of a thing this is.

~~~
bcoates
I don't think I understand #2, wouldn't the small vendor just build and sell
their boards pre-populated with an intel CPU part? They'd have to carry more
inventory but not a crazy amount more.

~~~
jugglinmike
Yeah, that's a good point. This introduces a new inventory consideration,
namely CPU model demands (they'll have to determine the best distribution of
proc models across each product). Probably not too big a deal

------
debacle
This was pretty thoroughly debunked as an issue on Slashdot last week.

~~~
bcoates
I skimmed it at +5 and didn't see anything like that, care to be more
specific?

------
GFischer
One point that should worry Intel is, if enthusiasts move to ARM, and begin to
take their friends and family with them...

I've never upgraded a chip, but I've built plenty of computers, and mixing and
matching was important for me.

I worry if we'll have less options down the road.

~~~
guan
Most ARM chips are BGA.

~~~
zxcdw
Though as far as I'm aware there's no inherent reason for this - apart from
cost.

One of the things which has made PC so awesome since the early 90's has been
the vast array of hardware available - you can just plug something out, plug
something else in and boom, it runs faster, better and it's _easy_. You don't
have to wait 12 months for a "new version of _The PC_ ". It's an open
platform, we all love open platforms, don't we?

~~~
bunderbunder
> Though as far as I'm aware there's no inherent reason for this - apart from
> cost.

Cost and size. The bread-and-butter market for ARM is consumer electronic
devices, where size really matters. Other chip packaging that's easier for
hobbyists to work with would be a huge waste of space by comparison.

There are some ARM chips available in DIP packages, but I suspect that
selection will always be relatively limited, since demand will always be
relatively limited.

~~~
guan
The ARM chips available in DIP packages are microcontrollers that you are more
likely to see in a toy or gadget than a general purpose or multimedia
computer. In embedded systems where they are used, you probably can't swap
them out for another part anyway because of code changes needed, different
pinouts, etc.

------
Jgrubb
This whole thing has a faint whiff of DOJ anti-trust investigation on it.
Maybe it's wishful thinking.

~~~
bdcravens
How? There's nothing anti-competitive here. Just because we've been able to
swap CPUs for years doesn't make it a legal obligation. After all, I can't
upgrade the processor in my phone, tablet, or graphics card.

------
charonn0
Moving to non-replaceable CPUs seems unnecessarily hostile to Intel's biggest
fans.

------
agumonkey
The whole desktop/atx ecosystem is about to drown isn't it ?

------
lurker14
Who upgrades a CPU without upgrading their motherboard too?

The benefits are neglible, as next-gen RAM, next-gen peripheral bus, etc, all
require a next-gen motherboard.

More of a concern is custom-built _shopping_ , where it is harder for a small
vendor to stock a batch of mobos and a variety of chips, and some chips go
obsolete before sale (and so their mobos would be lost too...)

But hardware is really, really good these days (as the article notes). Runs
cooler, less stress, less failure, far overpowered for most use-cases, less
need to upgrade.

Enjoy our modern bounty and pay a bit extra for a new mobo every few years.

~~~
dendory
The problem is that when you pick a motherboard, you also pick the CPU you
want. Now, motherboard makers are unlikely to carry such a wide array of
upgrade choices. For example, when they introduce a new cheap motherboard,
they will offer a low performance CPU for it. A high end motherboard will
offer a high end CPU, and so on. You might have one or two CPU choices for the
motherboard you want to buy, as opposed to every possible choice like now.

~~~
bunderbunder
I think I can live with that. I like building my own PCs, but choosing a
motherboard is perhaps my least favorite part of the process. There are just
too many choices out there, and the number of variables to consider is
downright unholy. I might welcome anything that helps me cut down the list of
options more quickly, including being able to toss out every model that
doesn't have a CPU I'm interested in.

Alternatively, if there's serious demand for it I'm sure the market will come
up with a solution. Motherboards with BGA-compatible sockets, perhaps. Or PGA
sockets designed to accept adapters you can solder a BGA CPU into.

~~~
mokash
Well, it is already pretty easy to throw out any motherboards that don't
correspond to the processor you've chosen. On most PC part picker websites
such as ebuyer you can select only motherboards with the correct socket. I
don't like what Intel are planning to do as I absolutely love the flexibility
of desktop PCs. This move could end them a lot sooner.

~~~
bunderbunder
> Well, it is already pretty easy to throw out any motherboards that don't
> correspond to the processor you've chosen.

Not really. You can use it to throw out motherboards that aren't compatible
with the category to which your processor belongs. Which is probably a very
loose category - "Motherboards which support socket AM3 CPUs", for example.
That's just not a very fine filter - probably only vaguely more specific than
"Motherboards which were released in the past 48 months."

~~~
mhurron
No its pretty good as a first filter. Lets say I want a i5 or an i7 but I must
have a bunch PCI-e slots and 4 e-SATA. You start with a motherboard with the
right socket and go from there. Perhaps I can get away with getting the most
inexpensive processor right now but I must have these other features. This
will probably work out to an inexpensive processor on an expensive
motherboard. Right now, you can do that.

In the cheap processor is married to the low-end motherboard and the expensive
processor is married to the high end motherboard world you couldn't. To get
the higher end features you would have to buy the expensive processor, even if
you didn't need it.

