Go Back   AnandTech Forums > Hardware and Technology > CPUs and Overclocking

Forums
· Hardware and Technology
· CPUs and Overclocking
· Motherboards
· Video Cards and Graphics
· Memory and Storage
· Power Supplies
· Cases & Cooling
· SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones PCs
· Networking
· Peripherals
· General Hardware
· Highly Technical
· Computer Help
· Home Theater PCs
· Consumer Electronics
· Digital and Video Cameras
· Mobile Devices & Gadgets
· Audio/Video & Home Theater
· Software
· Software for Windows
· All Things Apple
· *nix Software
· Operating Systems
· Programming
· PC Gaming
· Console Gaming
· Distributed Computing
· Security
· Social
· Off Topic
· Politics and News
· Discussion Club
· Love and Relationships
· The Garage
· Health and Fitness
· Merchandise and Shopping
· For Sale/Trade
· Hot Deals with Free Stuff/Contests
· Black Friday 2014
· Forum Issues
· Technical Forum Issues
· Personal Forum Issues
· Suggestion Box
· Moderator Resources
· Moderator Discussions
   

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 12-01-2012, 02:22 PM   #26
ShintaiDK
Lifer
 
ShintaiDK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Copenhagen
Posts: 11,074
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cerb View Post
MiniITX and smaller aren't useful enough to make up for their shortcomings, outside of grandma's email box, and kiosk-style uses. Maybe one day, but not one day soon.
Besides overclocking and maybe 2 extra DIMM slots. My DH77DF board and system overall offers just the same as any bigger sized system. And overclocking you can get with another MiniITX board.
ShintaiDK is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2012, 02:32 PM   #27
Cerb
Elite Member
 
Cerb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 15,639
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShintaiDK View Post
Besides overclocking and maybe 2 extra DIMM slots. My DH77DF board and system overall offers just the same as any bigger sized system. And overclocking you can get with another MiniITX board.
Also only 1 PCI-e. Take away the PCI-e, and it can get smaller. Take away IO ports, and it can get smaller. And so on. Each reduction in board size loses some flexibility, and that's more what's keeping PCs bigger than an inability to make them physically smaller (noise/thermals as a close second, for higher performing parts).
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crono View Post
I'm 90% certain the hipster movement was started by aliens from another galaxy who have an exaggerated interpretation of earth culture(s).
Cerb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2012, 02:38 PM   #28
Concillian
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Dublin, CA
Posts: 3,658
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fjodor2001 View Post
1) Ok. But will it be cheaper for end users buying desktop PCs? Remember that there might be additional costs pushed to the motherboard manufacturers (e.g. for having to keep more SKUs), and then onwards to the consumers.
Who knows. This is not necessarily on the radar of anyone who is making these decisions. Very likely it will cost consumers the same initially, with any savings passed on as margin until price battles bring prices down to earth.

For an example of this see AMD Brazos platform. These were supposedly VERY cheap setups, but initial prices rivaled low end celeron + mobo prices... fast forward 9 months and the pricing was VERY different.

I don't expect BGA to do much to prices until at least a year after introduction. The landscape has changed. Companies used to price their way to volume. I think the market is less elastic than it's ever been and combined with less competition, the "race to the bottom" is very slow.

Quote:
2)
a) Well, the I/O connector block only has to be around 10-15x3x3 cm. And since Mini-ITX motherboards are 17x17xHeight cm there should be room for size reduction, right? After all, moving the VRM and PCH off the motherboard should enable smaller motherboards.
b) What components will actually be left on the motherboard if the VRM and PCH is integrated in the CPU?
You still likely need inductors off CPU... I suppose it depends on total capacity, but CPUs aren't all that need power regulated by the motherboard. It depends on the method of implementation how the VRM integration works out.

PCH integration will free up the chip itself, but you still need traces and such. The rest is all power connectors, memory slots, SATA ports, etc... I don't see the form factor getting any smaller without significant re-design of some standard connector interfaces (SATA, PCI-E, USB, Network, etc...)

I think you'll see the extra space used by adding some SATA ports or USB to current designs. It's not going to be a smooth transition to anything smaller than the standard I/O interface and 1 PCI-e slot that mini-ITX is now. Memory interface takes up lots of space, ATX connector + 4 pin takes up a lot of space, etc...

Eventually a smaller form factor will be released, but I think it will take a lot more than integration of the PCH & VRM. It requires a whole new set of standards on connectors. Standards that I don't think are likely to materialize given reduced consumer volume on building PCs from parts... It's a shrinking market and I don't think it will be catered to in the same way it has in the past. OEMs can build whatever custom setups they want, and I think you'll see that continue. Smaller than ITX form factor as a standard is going to give up a lot of flexibility... which further shrinks the pool of potential customers. Time will tell, but I'm not optimistic that it'll happen.

Quote:
3. True. But with 14 nm comes lower TDP. And moving the VRM and PCH on die will also lower TDP. So it's not really an effect of going BGA only...
That was my point. BGA doesn't do anything like that, but history is that things are moving towards fitting more powerful computers into smaller form factors through improved processes and reduced thermals. That's just what happens, so yes, the future will put something the power of a 3570k into a fanless form factor... eventually.

Fanless means about 10-15 watts (for the entire system) or a VERY expensive case. These are tablet power envelopes... So the question is whether or not you'll even care by the time something like that is available... because there'll be something that will run in mini ITX with a VERY quiet fan at 50 watts that will be MANY times faster... and it some cases cheaper or the same cost. Most people will opt for the more powerful option that has a fan that's inaudible at normal seating postion,

It really depends on the software and what CPU that requires by then. I mean if you compare current fanless options, they are probably about as powerful as top of the line 6 years ago athlon x2s... but the industry has moved beyond these being a minimum, so nobody really cares about those options except people who only do stuff that a tablet is sufficient for. Where the software is at the time will dictate whether people will care. I doubt gaming CPU requirements will remain that stangnant, but it's possible. Other types of consumer level programs will probably remain reasonably stagnant, but most of these need well under i5-3570 level performance.

Quote:
4. Yeah, probably correct. Is that the main driving force for Intel going BGA only? And if so, why didn't it happen earlier, before Broadwell?
When you're as big as Intel, you take as small a step as you NEED to. ATOM development took baby steps for years... and left the door open for ARM. Now ATOM is taking huge catch-up strides. The best operation mode is metered but continuous improvement. small steps mean less risk. But competition forces bigger risks.

You can also look at the chipset design as another example. 65nm for generation after generation after generation. Why are they moving now? Tablets are forcing their hand.

Why are they pushing integration harder now then ever? Tablets and to a lesser extent smartphones.

Last edited by Concillian; 12-01-2012 at 02:47 PM.
Concillian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2012, 02:49 PM   #29
biostud
Lifer
 
biostud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Aarhus, Denmark
Posts: 13,276
Default

Every PC maker (HP, Dell etc.) could at any time have used a laptop motherboard/CPU to make a tiny computer, but for some reason they have not. So why should it be the way forward suddenly?
__________________
i7-5820K@4.4Ghz + H100i| 16GB DDR4-2133Mhz | Asrock X99X Killer | Samsung EVO 750GB | 3TB HDD | Corsair AX860 | XFX 7990 | Corsair 550D | Achieva Shimian 2560x1440
Lappy: HP ProBook 6360B | i5-2410M | 256GB Crucial M4 | 4GB |
Sound: Cambridge Audio DacMagic | NAD-T750 | Dali Mentor Menuet | B&W ASW608
Camera: Nikon D5100 | Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 + Nikkor 35mm f/1.8 + 85mm f/1.8G | Nissin Di600 | Phone: Lumia 920
biostud is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2012, 03:05 PM   #30
cytg111
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,402
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fjodor2001 View Post
Hi,

So we all know Broadwell will be BGA only. And there's been a lot of discussions in other threads regarding the drawbacks that this will have for the enthusiast crowd.

But what are the benefits?

And what is the reason Intel is going down this route?

1. Will it be cheaper? In that case why?

2. Will it enable smaller motherboards (and computers)? Bear in mind that the VRM and PCH is likely to also be integrated, so what is actually left on the motherboard? Can we go below the Mini-ITX form factor? And in that case how small dimensions would be reasonable to expect?

3. Will it enable fanless Mac Mini type desktop computers, that still have 2500K/2600K/3570K/3770K levels of performance?

4. Any other benefits or reasons for Intel deciding to go BGA only?
I dont see the problem, since they're changing sockets left and right anyway, who cares... Its been forever since i've upgraded the cpu-only in one of my systems.. when its upgrade time it's the whole deal anyway, cpu+mobo+ram. I wont miss anything!
__________________
404
cytg111 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2012, 04:44 PM   #31
Fjodor2001
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,499
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cerb View Post
Yes, there is a need for RAM slots. That's a very common thing to upgrade, as a given density of RAM gets cheaper, and you start wishing you had more. CPUs are not commonly upgraded. RAM and nonvolatile storage are. Leave that crap to phones and tablets. It's not like we don't have small RAM slots, either (MiniDIMM and SODIMM).
Just solder 8/16 GB onto the motherboard and you're done. It's so cheap nowadays and 95% of the people will not upgrade to more RAM anyway before buying the next computer.

But sure, it could also be e.g. a two small SODIMM sockets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cerb View Post
Make that 8-12 and you're getting somewhere. I've actually had use for as many as 8 at once, and use 4-5 normally (discrepancy due to monitor hub).
Just because you have used 8 internal USB ports doesn't mean the average Joe will. Most people do not use more than 1-2 internal USB ports, the rest of their USB equipment is usually attached to USB ports on the rear I/O panel.

As an example, how many internal USB ports does the Mac Mini have by the way?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cerb View Post
PicoPSU uses the same connector as every other. Some way or another, much more power needs to be handles, for other devices.
I said "picoPSU-like", not pico-PSU. I.e. similar technology as picoPSU, but the actual connector could be made smaller.

The current picoPSU is able to handle 160 W, which should be plenty considering how little power the devices on such a small system are likely to consume. In fact it might be enough with just 30-80 W depending on what CPU and devices are selected.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cerb View Post
Meh. CPUs without integrated voltage regulation can be had on very small SBCs, already. It can drop the board maker's costs, but they can fit this stuff in tiny packages, already. The cost and thermals have been keeping it out of consumer devices, not inability to make them (would you want a 50dBA@1m book PC?).
Just add an external heat sink and you're done. Like this but smaller to match the smaller motherboard. But it could also be a very silent fan, as you said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cerb View Post
It can get about as small as a MicroATX SFF. Past that, it should have some major incentives, likely of the kinds Intel is not fond of, to be worth buying (in particular, it needs to very cheap, to offset the reduction in long-term flexibility). MiniITX and smaller aren't useful enough to make up for their shortcomings, outside of grandma's email box, and kiosk-style uses. Maybe one day, but not one day soon.

The size of the motherboard has to do with the standard, and a desire to not be stuck throwing the whole PC away, if it could have been improved upon. The ATX/BTX PC is the last platform with anywhere near its flexibility, and there are people that rely on that, and people that wish they had it when they get an uber-cheap PC and find they can't fix it or upgrade it.
I think you need to leave the whole idea of very flexible and upgradeable computers behind when evaluating the concept of a very tiny computer. It's a trade off.

Think Mac Mini style instead. That's what you'd be aiming at with a computer of the type I'm talking about.

Or even further down the line, think modern mobile phone PCBs. They are just perhaps 6x4 cm. And they have CPU, IGPU, RAM, HDMI, LED Display driver, Flash memory, USB, WLAN, BT, GSM/WCDMA/LTE radio, etc. Sure, they are not yet anywhere near as powerful as a desktop PC, but still. Just to get your imagination started!
Fjodor2001 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2012, 04:50 PM   #32
Aikouka
Lifer
 
Aikouka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 24,626
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Idontcare View Post
That said, on the topic of ASUS and Gigabyte - if the BGA thing was true, from their perspective how would be any different from how they currently manage their AIB business units which are responsible for the discrete video card products?
I believe the biggest difference between video cards and motherboards is the larger variance in products that the latter allows for. Video cards don't really have as many variations available to them. Ignoring how different model GPUs have different number of memory channels (this would make componentized video cards a mess), all you could really change is the GPU and the memory. You could probably also argue that the VRMs could be added to that list.

What I think makes the motherboard different is that it has more tasks associated to it. You can buy motherboards with varying numbers of I/O ports (SATA, USB, etc.), and you aren't saddled into some specific processor. I own an interesting example of this as my "server" uses an ASRock P67 Extreme6 (an enthusiast-level P67)... with an i3-2100t. Why did I do that? ...for the 10 built-in SATA ports.

Do I think a prepackaged motherboard + CPU could work for end users? Sure, but I guess I don't really see the point.

Since I'm more of a software person, I have to ask... is the CPU actually different in regard to BGA vs LGA? I realize that it's attached differently, but ever since we moved the pins to the motherboard, is there really a difference?
Aikouka is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2012, 04:56 PM   #33
ShintaiDK
Lifer
 
ShintaiDK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Copenhagen
Posts: 11,074
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cerb View Post
Also only 1 PCI-e. Take away the PCI-e, and it can get smaller. Take away IO ports, and it can get smaller. And so on. Each reduction in board size loses some flexibility, and that's more what's keeping PCs bigger than an inability to make them physically smaller (noise/thermals as a close second, for higher performing parts).
But we are still back to that the only thing you lose with MiniITX is 2 DIMMs and some extra PCIe slots you most likely will never use?

You said they aint useful for their shortcomings. I dont see those shortcomings being very dominant at all. Specially when you basicly put them in the grandma and kiosk category. I dont think grandmothers got GTX680+16GB DDR3-1600 and an i5 3570K just to check emails.
ShintaiDK is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2012, 06:05 PM   #34
Zodiark1593
Golden Member
 
Zodiark1593's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 1,024
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShintaiDK View Post
But we are still back to that the only thing you lose with MiniITX is 2 DIMMs and some extra PCIe slots you most likely will never use?

You said they aint useful for their shortcomings. I dont see those shortcomings being very dominant at all. Specially when you basicly put them in the grandma and kiosk category. I dont think grandmothers got GTX680+16GB DDR3-1600 and an i5 3570K just to check emails.
Enthusiasts have very different needs from the mainstream, and vice versa. So as long as there's choice between a smal form factor board with minimal expansion, and a large board with lots of expansion possibilities, then what's the problem?

However, if choice goes out the window, then I'd have to revolt.
Zodiark1593 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2012, 09:04 PM   #35
Cerb
Elite Member
 
Cerb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 15,639
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fjodor2001 View Post
Just because you have used 8 internal USB ports doesn't mean the average Joe will.
I don't care about the average Joe. I care about when/if my options become non-existent or too expensive. That's an issue of companies making computers having the power to tell users what they should want, to improve their own margins, rather than having to make what users want, to be able to get sales.

Quote:
Most people do not use more than 1-2 internal USB ports, the rest of their USB equipment is usually attached to USB ports on the rear I/O panel.
The only non-external USB port I've ever seen get used is 1 for a card reader. When I say 8-12, and I read your 1-4, I'm only considering externally-exposed ports to be used by hot-pluggable USB devices. The total ports is almost always 12 (for some reason I've never quite understood).

With enough available expansion, I'd actually consider such SFF boxes, but they tend to get rid of the most useful expansion options (such as USBs, which can't be very expensive) when they shrink them down, except for purpose-built devices (such as router boxes with several NICs).

Itty bitty computers exist, today, and have for quite some time, already. They'll keep existing, and get more popular as they become more affordable, and smaller as TDPs drop. That's not something a BGA package, or VRMs on the CPU, is going to greatly affect to some great degree. Other integration will drive it just as well. But, it needs to happen by clear user demand, rather than hand-waiving away expansion for the sake of selling a purely throw-away appliance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShintaiDK View Post
But we are still back to that the only thing you lose with MiniITX is 2 DIMMs and some extra PCIe slots you most likely will never use?
No, just the PCI-e, and other slots/ports. The DIMMs only get lost of RAM is on-package or on-board only, since we have suitably small slots for those. If such small form factors got to be the norm, they'd be fitting more DIMM slots in them.

Quote:
You said they aint useful for their shortcomings. I dont see those shortcomings being very dominant at all. Specially when you basicly put them in the grandma and kiosk category. I dont think grandmothers got GTX680+16GB DDR3-1600 and an i5 3570K just to check emails.
So now it's 10 years on, and you need more expansion...but oops! You can't have that, unless you buy a super-niche $5k workstation. I'd prefer a different future than that. I'm already using 2 slots, and one bad storm is all it will take for more (network jacks getting fried is fairly common in these parts). As long as it's another option, that's fine. But, Intel is very much a company that makes me worry about keeping user options, if they can restrict them.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crono View Post
I'm 90% certain the hipster movement was started by aliens from another galaxy who have an exaggerated interpretation of earth culture(s).

Last edited by Cerb; 12-01-2012 at 09:08 PM.
Cerb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2012, 10:24 PM   #36
VirtualLarry
Lifer
 
VirtualLarry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 26,009
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by biostud View Post
Every PC maker (HP, Dell etc.) could at any time have used a laptop motherboard/CPU to make a tiny computer, but for some reason they have not. So why should it be the way forward suddenly?
There was this HP with an AMD Brazos APU in it, in a full-sized mid-tower ATX case, and the way it was described in the forum was exactly that - a laptop mobo in a desktop case. It used a power brick instead of a normal ATX PSU.

It also garnered quite a bit of negative attention because of that, and the lack of the usual expansion options found in a normal ATX-compatible PC.
__________________
Rig(s) not listed, because I change computers, like some people change their socks.
ATX is for poor people. And 'gamers.' - phucheneh
haswell is bulldozer... - aigomorla
"DON'T BUY INTEL, they will send secret signals down the internet, which
will considerably slow down your computer". - SOFTengCOMPelec
VirtualLarry is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2012, 10:35 PM   #37
jpiniero
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,579
Default

Quote:
I don't care about the average Joe.
You should. For what the average Joe does on their computer, the vast majority of it isn't going to be any better on a faster processor than what's available. But they could use lower costs, lower power consumption and better convenience. That's what's driving this revolution. While the form factor won't go away, the desktop as we know it is because people don't need the extra cost.
jpiniero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2012, 06:40 AM   #38
Insert_Nickname
Golden Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,907
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jpiniero View Post
Well the ideas that came to me are:
- They are pessimistic about Broadwell's ability to hit the clock speeds high enough to be faster than Haswell.
IF (and that's a big IF) this rumour is true, I would expect Broadwell to be an "integration" release. Given the size (no idea of actual die-size) of Haswell's PCH, Intel could be spending the gains going from 22nm to 14nm, just getting the PCH on-die...

But that's pure speculation on my part...
Insert_Nickname is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2012, 08:56 AM   #39
Idontcare
Administrator
Elite Member
 
Idontcare's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: 台北市
Posts: 20,477
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jpiniero View Post
You should. For what the average Joe does on their computer, the vast majority of it isn't going to be any better on a faster processor than what's available. But they could use lower costs, lower power consumption and better convenience. That's what's driving this revolution. While the form factor won't go away, the desktop as we know it is because people don't need the extra cost.
It is true, you make a good point.

What made this whole enthusiast/hobbyist thing happen in the first place was the commoditization of the hobby once it took root back in the late 70's.

It was because of the average Joe buying a desktop or laptop for themselves that enabled the unit volumes for the market which enabled the economics of a Moore's Law scaling to be financially feasible in the first place.

As enthusiasts we all get to benefit from Commodity Off The Shelf (COTS) components (variety and pricing) in building our hobby PC's. We always have, but that hobby lives in a bubble because the bubble pops when the average Joe decides they aren't interested in buying those same COTS components anymore.

That means average Joe's collective buying power ceases to subsidize the niche market of enthusiasts, and the price per component for us starts to go up simply because the production volumes start to dry up and manufacturing expenses rise.

This is what happened to the record (LP) industry when the CD came out. And today you still have a vibrant audio-phile industry of enthusiasts and DIYers with record players and so forth, but it is a spendy hobby to get into that is nothing like the expense 30yrs ago when record players were COTS components.

As ubiquitous computing raises the performance bar to the point where the average Joe has all their computing needs met with a integrated BGA-enable NUC 2.0, the COTS market that we know and love is destined to dry up and shrivel the same as happened for the record LP enthusiast.

Seems kinda unavoidable IMO. But doubt the history books will say this started with Broadwell. The history books will probably say this started with rise in adoption of smartphones circa 2008.
Idontcare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2012, 10:46 AM   #40
Sheep221
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 1,172
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Idontcare View Post
...
The performance of low cost components is so high already that there is no use for the high end ones, because of software development being significantly slower than hardware development.

10 years ago, if you bought a budget rig - for example budged based average joe computer was able to play back-then games 20 FPS for example, it had Celeron 1GHz CPU, 256MB RAM, mATX board, Geforce 3 Ti or equivalent ATi Radeon 8500 and so on, CRT screen, the entire rig cost was about $700 and the rig felt sluggish for apparently everything except browsing internet.

To get FPS in games like 60+, and have multimedia and more professionally oriented rig, you were enthusiast rich enough to buy rig triple the cost, so you bought Athlon 64 FX OCed to hell, 512MB RAM, enthusiast board from DFI, extensive cooling, Geforce FX 5800 and so on, LCD screen, good, you paid for your computer about $2500 so you shall have it. You can play hi res videos, play games on high levels of detail and, doing more multitasking and so on, while the joe can't do that with his budget rig, or in very limited and annoying way.

But today, Average joe will buy i3, stock HSF, H61 mATX board, used 2 year old 6970 GPU, 4 gigs of RAM all for $500

You as enthusiast buy 3770K - 4.7 OC, liquid, 7970, Asus or Asrock extreme board, 750W PSU, SSD, 16 gigs of RAM and all that stuff for over $1500 and you have just slightly more FPS in games than average joe who spent 3 times less on his PC on same graphics detail and resolution.

Apart from virtually any hardcore video editing and rendering or multi-screen gaming, the joe's i3 will do everything else just same fast as your overclocked i7. So why someone who is not particularly interested in hobby computing will be paying for computer $1500 if he can get the job done same way with $500 computer.

So that's the reason the computers are going to soon utilize few types of CPUs and is no longer economically efficient to sell them separately(manufacturers will be freed from packaging and logistics around processors as they are going to be sold in trays and trays in containers), Although I don't like the idea either. It's electronics, and since the day 1 the electronics are developed to be more and better integrated.
__________________
i5-2550K/16GB HyperX/HD5670/P67 Pro3/Agility3
Sheep221 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2012, 03:52 PM   #41
biostud
Lifer
 
biostud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Aarhus, Denmark
Posts: 13,276
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VirtualLarry View Post
There was this HP with an AMD Brazos APU in it, in a full-sized mid-tower ATX case, and the way it was described in the forum was exactly that - a laptop mobo in a desktop case. It used a power brick instead of a normal ATX PSU.

It also garnered quite a bit of negative attention because of that, and the lack of the usual expansion options found in a normal ATX-compatible PC.
...it doesn't make any sense to put a laptop mboard in a desktop case.

Asrock has made some nice small computers, but the price is pretty high compared to a similar configured laptop.

You can only wonder why HP or Dell haven't a cheap slimline computer based on a laptop motherboard with a blue-ray slot drive and a wireless keyboard/trackpad. It would be an ideal HTPC.
__________________
i7-5820K@4.4Ghz + H100i| 16GB DDR4-2133Mhz | Asrock X99X Killer | Samsung EVO 750GB | 3TB HDD | Corsair AX860 | XFX 7990 | Corsair 550D | Achieva Shimian 2560x1440
Lappy: HP ProBook 6360B | i5-2410M | 256GB Crucial M4 | 4GB |
Sound: Cambridge Audio DacMagic | NAD-T750 | Dali Mentor Menuet | B&W ASW608
Camera: Nikon D5100 | Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 + Nikkor 35mm f/1.8 + 85mm f/1.8G | Nissin Di600 | Phone: Lumia 920
biostud is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2012, 04:47 PM   #42
Idontcare
Administrator
Elite Member
 
Idontcare's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: 台北市
Posts: 20,477
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheep221 View Post
Apart from virtually any hardcore video editing and rendering or multi-screen gaming, the joe's i3 will do everything else just same fast as your overclocked i7. So why someone who is not particularly interested in hobby computing will be paying for computer $1500 if he can get the job done same way with $500 computer.
I think we've seen similar price collapse and tier compression in other components as well. Look at laptops, or hard drives, or ram.

I'm spec'ing out a new desktop for my Aunt. I'm looking at ram kits on newegg and I'm thinking "who cares how cheap a 32GB (4x8GB) kit is at any speed, what on earth would she need 32GB of ram for?"

So I spec out 16GB, although I'm 99% certain 8GB would be equally ample, but at $30 vs. $50, I buy the 16GB just for the heck of it.

Same with speed - DDR3-1333 vs. DDR3-2400 - the entire range is nearly pointless at the end-user side of things. My Aunt won't know if her computer is powered by DDR3-1333 or DDR3-2400 ram, so why would I (or her) pay the price premium for it?

Hard-drives? How many average Joes need a 4TB drive at any price? I bought a nice 240GB SSD for her for $130 and it is ~3x the size of her current drive which she doesn't use all of.

Yes people exist that need 4TB drives, I happen to be one of them, but whether they cost $50 or $200 or $500 there just aren't that many people who actually need them.

Laptops - I use to buy the $3k tier for myself, now I'm typing this on a 17" $700 DELL with an SSD inside. Amazing performance per dollar, how many people out there are actually going to keep buying $2k laptops when $700 ones are available that do the same job?

The market is going the way that average Joe is taking it with their wallet. Plasma TV's may be technologically superior but we are inundated with lower quality (but vastly less expensive) LCD-based HDTVs because the average Joe buys the LCD-based TVs.

It is a trend that cannot be fought or controlled. At best we just draft behind it, riding its coattails.
Idontcare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2012, 04:54 PM   #43
kache
Senior Member
 
kache's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Travelling, from Italy
Posts: 486
Default

You'd be surprised how many average joes actually need big capacity drives. You know, warez and all that...
__________________
Ipsa scientia potestas est
kache is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2012, 06:04 PM   #44
Zodiark1593
Golden Member
 
Zodiark1593's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 1,024
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jpiniero View Post
You should. For what the average Joe does on their computer, the vast majority of it isn't going to be any better on a faster processor than what's available. But they could use lower costs, lower power consumption and better convenience. That's what's driving this revolution. While the form factor won't go away, the desktop as we know it is because people don't need the extra cost.
How bout the people that do need the extra power. If the desktop goes away, wouldn't that screw over those that want the expansion and power? Heck, I've had a PS2 emulator flay an i7-3770K alive. Video encoding also eats cpus. Basically, tasks that will take anything you throw at it.

My needs don't match average Joe's, so you wouldn't expect me to buy hardware made with average Joe in mind. And I hope that there will still be hardware for my needs at reasonable cost in the future.

Last edited by Zodiark1593; 12-02-2012 at 07:17 PM.
Zodiark1593 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2012, 07:10 PM   #45
Idontcare
Administrator
Elite Member
 
Idontcare's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: 台北市
Posts: 20,477
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zodiark1593 View Post
How bout the people that do need the extra power. If the desktop goes away, wouldn't that screw over those that want the expansion and power? Heck, I've had a PS2 emulator flay an i7-3770K alive.
It won't go away. Even today you can still go buy yourself a horse whip for use with your horse-drawn carriage. Or a record player for your vintage LPs.

What will decrease is the selection and option for components, and prices will naturally increase from the reduced market volume.

You can still buy black-and-white televisions if that is your fancy.

Most people though find out that change brings good things despite not being what we thought we wanted.

I thought I wanted a 24" CRT monitor for my computer, I found out I wanted a 24" LCD monitor I thought I wanted a 32GB Ramdrive, turned out what I really wanted was a 120GB SSD.

So many people here are convinced they want to continue choosing their CPU as a discrete component separate from the mobo. Who knows how many of them will still be singing that same tune in 5yrs time. Sure one or two will, and then they'll log off the forum, turn off their CRT monitor to avoid tube burn, and trundle on down to their basement to fire up the LP record player and wait for the vacuum tube powered amp to warm up...their world will never be the same and they'll be loath to that reality, our world will also never be the same but we will celebrate it as such.
Idontcare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2012, 10:12 PM   #46
dragantoe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 609
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenmitch View Post
They are already working on it



http://www.pcpro.co.uk/blogs/2012/09...ew-first-look/

Of course it's not gonna be expandable....But it's gonna be tiny.

Imagine if it had an i5 or some quad core, if they can manage that and put a thunderbolt connector on it we could potentially have the future of pc gaming.
worth watching if you don't know what i'm talking about http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AYypyF1SRg
__________________
Rig; Xeon L5639 @ 4ghz
x58 Sabertooth
8gb 2000 mhz RAM
force gt ssd
GTX 660 ti sli (1 asus dcu2, 1 evga sc)
modded HAF XB
dragantoe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2012, 10:05 AM   #47
A5
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 4,730
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Idontcare View Post
It won't go away. Even today you can still go buy yourself a horse whip for use with your horse-drawn carriage. Or a record player for your vintage LPs.

What will decrease is the selection and option for components, and prices will naturally increase from the reduced market volume.

You can still buy black-and-white televisions if that is your fancy.

Most people though find out that change brings good things despite not being what we thought we wanted.

I thought I wanted a 24" CRT monitor for my computer, I found out I wanted a 24" LCD monitor I thought I wanted a 32GB Ramdrive, turned out what I really wanted was a 120GB SSD.

So many people here are convinced they want to continue choosing their CPU as a discrete component separate from the mobo. Who knows how many of them will still be singing that same tune in 5yrs time. Sure one or two will, and then they'll log off the forum, turn off their CRT monitor to avoid tube burn, and trundle on down to their basement to fire up the LP record player and wait for the vacuum tube powered amp to warm up...their world will never be the same and they'll be loath to that reality, our world will also never be the same but we will celebrate it as such.
Yeah. Remember when OC'ing was a way to increase the value of your PC build? Celeron/Duron overclocking was hot stuff back in the day...

Intel has already killed that and most enthusiasts are perfectly happy buying a K-series CPU now. This move (if it happens) will be like that.
A5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2012, 10:15 AM   #48
ShintaiDK
Lifer
 
ShintaiDK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Copenhagen
Posts: 11,074
Default

So what should Intel have done instead of K series? We already know BCLK OC aint working. So I am interested in hearing what people that complain actually expected.
ShintaiDK is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2012, 10:37 AM   #49
Idontcare
Administrator
Elite Member
 
Idontcare's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: 台北市
Posts: 20,477
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A5 View Post
Yeah. Remember when OC'ing was a way to increase the value of your PC build? Celeron/Duron overclocking was hot stuff back in the day...

Intel has already killed that and most enthusiasts are perfectly happy buying a K-series CPU now. This move (if it happens) will be like that.
Intel killed nothing. If people are so interested in OC'ing for the sake of increasing the value of their budget build then they will buy an AMD rig and OC to their delight.

The people get what the people want, they vote with their wallets and they voted that they want better value with stock processors that don't require OC'ing just to get performance.

If that wasn't the case then AMD would find themselves with far more customers than they have as of late. That isn't Intel's fault, that is the consumer steering the market to give it what it wants.

And if BGA desktops take off with volume ramps because consumers buy them up too then that will just be a repeat of the same.

Consumers did not want rambus ram, or netburst, and it showed. Consumers don't want to have to OC their budget CPUs to get the value out of their PC, they want the value to be there at stock clocks, and it shows by how they spend their money.

I have a hard time faulting the consumer, or Intel for the way the market is evolving. It just is what it is, whether I like it or not I am merely along for the ride.
Idontcare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2012, 12:36 PM   #50
Aikouka
Lifer
 
Aikouka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 24,626
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheep221 View Post
But today, Average joe will buy i3, stock HSF, H61 mATX board, used 2 year old 6970 GPU, 4 gigs of RAM all for $500

You as enthusiast buy 3770K - 4.7 OC, liquid, 7970, Asus or Asrock extreme board, 750W PSU, SSD, 16 gigs of RAM and all that stuff for over $1500 and you have just slightly more FPS in games than average joe who spent 3 times less on his PC on same graphics detail and resolution.
Are you sure about that?

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/509?vs=508
Aikouka is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:18 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.