In the end everything will go ARM, and then intel is screwed.

Nice. *projectile vomits*

i'll support for 'ARM for Desktop', if the 'SecureBoot' is not mandatory/forced by major OS makers.

or maybe AMD becomes the enthusiast's part, while Intel drops it all to stalk the big game...

Ive been buying intel for my last two computers, Might just go back to AMD...

Intel did make some epic CPUs, My Q6700 is almost 5 years old and still going strong with a slight system OC ( 3 ghz )

Before i replace this computer i plan to get an Unlocked Extreme Quad and pull all the juice i can out of this beast, hahaha!

How often do you change the CPU out on your motherboard anyway?

I've stuck with the same CPU\Motherboards since 1999....don't remember ever sticking a newer CPU in my old ass motherboards....and I usually use the same CPU\Motherboard for 5+ years.

I'd like to see how all my x86 software will work on ARM processors.....I guess these "enthusiasts" are not x86 guys.....

Personally, I think this sounds like a giant load of BS, but if it turns out to be the opposite, I hope the company loses big money to AMD when every enthusiast jumps ship.

This sounds more like an embedded or low-power envelope chip for mobile platforms and low-end consumer-grade desktops.

Going in this direction would be a major pain in terms of logistics as well.

What happens if your board takes a shit and the chip is fine? What if the chip takes a shit and the board is fine? You'd have to RMA the entire thing.

What if you want a set of features a higher end board has but have no need for an extremely powerful chip? How are they supposed to offer the feature range different people want? They're going to have to produce multitudes of different boards with different features. That's suicide.

Anything can happen, and I won't play the amateur analyst here, but I'm rooting for ARM, AMD and HSA group to counter-balance Intel's x86 dominance (and also NVIDIA's proprietary CUDA).

I pondered this for a while. I was miffed at first, but then I remembered something. I haven't upgraded a CPU on any given platform, ever.

Socket 7 with Pentium 166MMX
Slot-1 with Pentium III 450
Socket 478 i845 (SDR) with Pentium 4 1.6
Socket 478 i865PE (Dual channel DDR) with Pentium 4 2.8 HT
Socket A KT600 with Athlon XP 2800+
Socket 939 nForce4 with Athlon64 3500+
Socket 775 i965 with Core 2 Quad Q6600
Socket 1156 P55 with Core i7 860
Socket 1155 Z68 with Core i5 2400k

So retrospectively, if every single CPU had been soldered on, I wouldn't have noticed.

If Intel go this route, and they still have the better CPUs, I'll still buy em. I won't let a silly philosophical disagreement get in the way of having the better performing system.

My guess is that we shouldn't worry, though, there's a decent chance that Broadwell is targetting a specific market sector, much like how when Yonah was roadmapped, there was no desktop replacement for Prescott/Presler on the horizon yet.

When I read the article, I was somewhat disturbed. First of all, I tend to think "Lets wait and see what happens first", because things may still change in the future.

Personally, I've upgraded lots of motherboards, mainly motherboards that were gifted to me. Being able to change the CPU offers extra flexibility.

Perhaps this move (if they do it!) doesn't matter to much from an economical view (otherwise they wouldn't do it I guess) but it does matter to me personally.

I have 2 AM3 systems right now and I'll likely upgrade both of them down the road.

Let's see what happens. Intel may have the performance crown now but it's also quite pricey. I have both systems: several AMD Phenom/Phenom II and one i7 2700k on a Z68 chipset. The i7 performs quite well but so does the Phenom II, even given its age.

I don't upgrade all the time but often enough that this would be a pain.

I also tend to repurpose a mobo which in turn gets a faster CPU on some occasions so again this would be a pain for me.

I will however wait and see what happens here.

I do remember changing motherboard because of faulty, twice.

In both case, I was lucky enough that the CPU was alright, therefore I doesn't need to pay extra money to buy another CPUs.

But with incoming BGA 'slot/socket', I may be forced to spent more money should something happens to the motherboard(s).

Faulty mobo could be common occurence, especialy if it was designed with planned-obsoloscene in mind.

MaxWar wrote:

Ive been buying intel for my last two computers, Might just go back to AMD...

Intel did make some epic CPUs, My Q6700 is almost 5 years old and still going strong with a slight system OC ( 3 ghz )

Before i replace this computer i plan to get an Unlocked Extreme Quad and pull all the juice i can out of this beast, hahaha!

The Q6600 SLACR was the awesome stepping from that generation. Some people were getting them up to 3.8ghz on air and 4.0-4.2ghz with liquid cooling. There was more potential in that design than Intel realized.

eL_PuSHeR wrote:

Let's see what happens. Intel may have the performance crown now but it's also quite pricey. I have both systems: several AMD Phenom/Phenom II and one i7 2700k on a Z68 chipset. The i7 performs quite well but so does the Phenom II, even given its age.

Intel becomes even pricier when upgrading to a faster system mean replacing the entire motherboard because the CPU is soldered in place and can't be upgraded. AMD had better be looking at this situation as an opportunity to gain some of the ground back that they lost with the disastrous debut of Bulldozer and continue offering socketed CPU's.

Was the 386 DX40 the last common soldered desktop CPU? I'd assuming that was fine as the 386 wouldve been a budget chip on the those motherboards.

I dont think its such a big deal, CPUs are so powerful these days its not like in the past where you could save many hundreds of dollars within a year by not buying the top of the line chip and upgrading when a new platform comes out.

I admit Im not that clued up on modern CPU/motherboard/platforms but id assume the difference in price/performance between a $500 i5/i7 combo of 2 years ago compared to today would'nt be that dramatic.

Edit: My last desktop purchase was an AM2 system with a 2.6ghz dual core cpu, 2gm DDR2 as a budget purchase in early 2009, I could upgrade but whats the point? I'd have to buy more DDR2 ram & a new/2nd hand CPU, quick check on ebay says those 1090T chips are $200 for an obselete platform! The smart money again is too buy another cheap/midrange board/ram/cpu combo.

dirkmirk wrote:

Was the 386 DX40 the last common soldered desktop CPU? I'd assuming that was fine as the 386 wouldve been a budget chip on the those motherboards.

Iirc there was an ECS or pcchips board with a Duron 1400? they called the AMD 2000+. It was also soldered to the board.
Also there were some VIA s370 chips they soldered to boards, particularly the very small ATX type boards

There were quite a few 486SX-25s soldered to motherboards back in the 486 days. Those were mainly in OEM systems though.

I personally wouldn't want a soldered CPU. Not because I would upgrade, but more because I am very picky about my CPU and motherboard combos when I build. Let's just say intel doesn't exactly have a reputation for reasonable prices and features when it comes to motherboards.

Anonymous Coward wrote:

There were quite a few 486SX-25s soldered to motherboards back in the 486 days. Those were mainly in OEM systems though.

I personally wouldn't want a soldered CPU. Not because I would upgrade, but more because I am very picky about my CPU and motherboard combos when I build. Let's just say intel doesn't exactly have a reputation for reasonable prices and features when it comes to motherboards.

It wouldn't mean that motherboard makers suddenly disappeared. Gigabyte, Asus, Zotac, and many others make motherboards with soldered-on Atom CPUs.