Any benefits to going BGA only with Broadwell?

[Eureka]

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.

I think you've hit the nail on the head. The problem is, we're on an enthusiast board and most people here see themselves as the primary market (and when you're surrounded by like-minded people, it's hard to see otherwise). Simply put, the mainstream market doesn't care about customizability, or expansion. They will never open the case of their computer in its entire lifetime. They rather see cost-cutting efforts that end up in a cheaper, faster computer. The majority of people I know would rather see tiny cube desktops than hulking towers. If intel believes that's the best way to approach this requirement, they will do that.

I doubt custom gaming PCs will ever shoot up to a crazy price range. The fact is, the market's been here for nearly two decades now, and prices have been stable ever since. Top end PCs range from $1000-2000; any more and the market substantially disappears. There's always going to be an option in that range to fill that niche, and they're not going to suddenly drop the availability of that. If nothing else, I think we would be seeing more custom boards or pre-fabbed motherboard/cpu combos, if it ever came to solder-on chips. Quite honestly, even most enthusiasts never change the CPU, motherboard or RAM without changing out the other two.

That, or they'll release special socket-versions of the same chips for the small market who really wants it. Enthusiast-level parts are already made in such small volumes that it's already a niche product independent of the consumer level builds.

 

[cantholdanymore]

So if I'm understanding this correctly, whenever Intel offers BGA option for their PC parts that's the moment when we'll see part prices to start to go up?
Probably a good time to build the farewell hobbyist PC

 

[cantholdanymore]

double post

 

[sm625]

I'm probably in the minority but I think its a great thing to get rid of the socket. For one thing, when my motherboard goes bad I can just send it in; I dont have to worry about which component it is (well, except for RAM but hey that's surely next on the chopping block!)

Also, the cpu socket is just a nightmare for assembly and validation. Remember its not just the socket that can go, its also the interchangeable cooler that will be able to go. We may even be able to get rid of the IHS completely, which could eliminate cost or decibels from stock cooling solutions. We could see very significant cost reductions on desktops, perhaps as much as $20. Now if $20 is enough to take you from a socketed pentium G860 to a non-socketed i3-2100, then I'm all for it.

 

[ShintaiDK]

So if I'm understanding this correctly, whenever Intel offers BGA option for their PC parts that's the moment when we'll see part prices to start to go up?
Probably a good time to build the farewell hobbyist PC

Why would prices go up?

 

[taltamir]

Consumers did not want rambus ram, or netburst, and it showed.

To be fair, consumers did not want to pay double for rambus ram and that was later ruled in the court of law to have been due to illegal price fixing by the so called "ram cartel" who was trying to bankrupt rambus by selling their own competing tech at a loss until rambus went under. I fully agree with all the other statements though.

Of course, I partially agree with the "did not want rambus" statement since even though it was a price issue, they were still not willing to pay said price.
Although to be fair during the time I was not AWARE of said issue and ignorantly thought rambus was ridiculously overpriced

 

[Zodiark1593]

I think you've hit the nail on the head. The problem is, we're on an enthusiast board and most people here see themselves as the primary market (and when you're surrounded by like-minded people, it's hard to see otherwise). Simply put, the mainstream market doesn't care about customizability, or expansion. They will never open the case of their computer in its entire lifetime. They rather see cost-cutting efforts that end up in a cheaper, faster computer. The majority of people I know would rather see tiny cube desktops than hulking towers. If intel believes that's the best way to approach this requirement, they will do that.

I doubt custom gaming PCs will ever shoot up to a crazy price range. The fact is, the market's been here for nearly two decades now, and prices have been stable ever since. Top end PCs range from $1000-2000; any more and the market substantially disappears. There's always going to be an option in that range to fill that niche, and they're not going to suddenly drop the availability of that. If nothing else, I think we would be seeing more custom boards or pre-fabbed motherboard/cpu combos, if it ever came to solder-on chips. Quite honestly, even most enthusiasts never change the CPU, motherboard or RAM without changing out the other two.

That, or they'll release special socket-versions of the same chips for the small market who really wants it. Enthusiast-level parts are already made in such small volumes that it's already a niche product independent of the consumer level builds.

The coming years, I have two main concerns in the PC realm, and you probably may have well helped strike down one of those concerns for me. I'd like to think the enthusiast and gaming market is large enough where Intel won't suddenly disregard them. Among some of my hobbies I've had, PC gaming is actually pretty cheap in comparison, and it's like 2 hobbies in one, PCs and gaming.

My other concern pertains to software, so that isn't part of this topic.

 

[cbn]

(snip) the fact that the GPU AIB business actually works makes me think a CPU AIB business might be viable too.

Some information from Computex 2012:

http://www.theverge.com/2012/6/5/3064946/intel-21-9-all-in-one-concept-pc

Of particular interest is a board Intel is calling the plug-in compute module, which intends to extend the life of all-in-ones by enabling speedy upgrades. The concept is very similar to Samsung's Evolution Kit for its televisions. We were told that the module could potentially host CPUs, chipsets, memory, or components like an mSATA module, and would allow users to upgrade their all-in-one by swapping out the board.

:thumbsup:

Now Intel just needs to share more info on this.

EDIT: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=wkoir4k1qWk#t=37s <--- A Video (from Computex 2012) showing the Intel All-in-One Concept PC with CPU AIB.

 

[taltamir]

nice video. This is an amazingly small unit.

 

[Insert_Nickname]

Some information from Computex 2012:

http://www.theverge.com/2012/6/5/3064946/intel-21-9-all-in-one-concept-pc

:thumbsup:

Now Intel just needs to share more info on this.

EDIT: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=wkoir4k1qWk#t=37s <--- A Video (from Computex 2012) showing the Intel All-in-One Concept PC with CPU AIB.

This kind of reminds me of the old Slot1 Pentium2's...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_2

Interesting concept for sure...

 

[Idontcare]

I doubt custom gaming PCs will ever shoot up to a crazy price range. The fact is, the market's been here for nearly two decades now, and prices have been stable ever since. Top end PCs range from $1000-2000; any more and the market substantially disappears. There's always going to be an option in that range to fill that niche, and they're not going to suddenly drop the availability of that. If nothing else, I think we would be seeing more custom boards or pre-fabbed motherboard/cpu combos, if it ever came to solder-on chips. Quite honestly, even most enthusiasts never change the CPU, motherboard or RAM without changing out the other two.

That, or they'll release special socket-versions of the same chips for the small market who really wants it. Enthusiast-level parts are already made in such small volumes that it's already a niche product independent of the consumer level builds.

I agree, the market is price bound on the upper-end, even within the enthusiast market there is only so much that people will spend regardless the performance they could have if only they spent more money. (look at the ratio of 3570k vs. 3770k vs 3970X owners for example)

 

[wpcoe]

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?

It hardly seems possible it was six years ago, but I remember when a friend bought an Acer Aspire ASL310, it was basically a notebook computer in a desktop form factor. I would probably place it above a "Nettop" as those usually aren't using higher powered mainstream CPUs.

Here is a product link to the Aspire ASL310. It had six USB ports, dual video outputs, Gigabit LAN, WiFi -- even Firewire and a card reader. I remember thinking at the time: "Why doesn't anybody else market a mainstream form factor like this?" But, nobody did as I recall, and Acer obviously did not have a runaway money-maker with the Aspire ASL310.

image source: A Tom's Hardware forum post, but the source url was originally pacificgeek.com

 

[dma0991]

Like the concept but I can't help but be reminded of my Pentium 3. Looks similar to a Pentium 3 cartridge minus the bigger PCB of the new design and preinstalled heatsink of the old.

 

[taltamir]

This kind of reminds me of the old Slot1 Pentium2's...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_2

Interesting concept for sure...

its very different though. The slot pentiums were an CPU on a slot.

This is an entire PC on a slot. It is a mobo, CPU with integrated northbridge, southbridge, and ram. The only thing it doesn't have is any plugs (USB, power, DVI, etc) which are handled through the slot.

PS. I only remember P3s in slot form...

 

[Fjodor2001]

Interestingly, Anandtech just put up a review of a fanless small form factor desktop PC based like what has been discussed here, but based on a 4C Ivy Bridge CPU:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6494/...pc-review-ivy-bridge-q77-in-a-fanless-chassis

I guess it could be made even smaller with Broadwell, if more components integrated & soldered.

One thing that I also wonder about. What cooling solution would likely be used for a BGA based Broadwell CPU in a desktop computer? Will it be e.g.:

* Heat pipes to the chassis as in the computer above
* Traditional heatsink? In that case, will it be pre-fitted and non-removable?
* Will a fan be needed?
* Any ideas?

 

[dma0991]

One thing that I also wonder about. What cooling solution would likely be used for a BGA based Broadwell CPU in a desktop computer? Will it be e.g.:

* Heat pipes to the chassis as in the computer above
* Traditional heatsink? In that case, will it be pre-fitted and non-removable?
* Will a fan be needed?
* Any ideas?

I'm guessing it would be a traditional heatsink with a fan, user serviceable. Its the most cost effective solution to the problem. Having heat pipes to the chassis would mean that you need a casing that is specially built to dissipate heat, increases cost. Without a fan, the size of the passive heatsink would have to be larger(increased cost), even if Broadwell CPUs less heat.

 

[cbn]

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6491/the-anandtech-podcast-episode-12

The topic of "CPU add in board" for BGA Broadwell was brought up several times in the above Anandtech Podcast.

(More on this later.)

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Any way this is sliced, I see Intel as being the only real beneficiary. It's tighter integration for the sake of forcing people to buy more hardware whenever they need to repair or upgrade.

It's planned obsolesence. Intel wants all PCs to become disposable appliances like Apple has done with their gear.

 

[Idontcare]

Any way this is sliced, I see Intel as being the only real beneficiary. It's tighter integration for the sake of forcing people to buy more hardware whenever they need to repair or upgrade.

It's planned obsolesence. Intel wants all PCs to become disposable appliances like Apple has done with their gear.

True, Intel wouldn't be doing it if it wasn't in their better financial interests versus doing something else.

But look at the mobile-phone/smartphone industry where everyone basically buys a disposable phone that gets replaced as part of a near-annual upgrade cycle anyways. That isn't so bad.

 

[cbn]

For anyone interested in hearing more about "CPU/SOC add-in-card" Anandtech Podcast number 12 (linked in post #67) has the information mentioned:

4:00 to about 4:13 into the Podcast

And again starting at 23:54 into the video extending to slightly beyond 30:00.

Really good stuff and very interesting.

It would be so great to get even more specific info. (Maybe Intel could be queried further on this?)

 

[taltamir]

Any way this is sliced, I see Intel as being the only real beneficiary. It's tighter integration for the sake of forcing people to buy more hardware whenever they need to repair or upgrade.

It's planned obsolesence. Intel wants all PCs to become disposable appliances like Apple has done with their gear.

people buy the macbook air and competing products because they are smaller and lighter then the competition. Intel demo unit is the smallest and lightest I have ever seen from intel.

Intel will discontinue it if it doesn't sell... but judging by the macbook air it will sell quite well...

Also, have you tried shipping a PC somewhere before? Its quite a PITA.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

People are buying Apple stuff for a whole lot of reasons, and IMO, at least partially in spite of some of the company's planned obsolescence design decisions. For example, is there anyone here who thinks Apple would sell fewer devices if they had user-replaceable batteries?

Sure, they like thin and light, but we're talking about the desktop here. And Intel has made and sold BGA processors for years, and could continue to do so in addition to LGA versions. That's my complaint here -- the removal of options and flexibility, solely to jack up profits.

"If it doesn't sell"? Of course it will sell -- Intel is basically a monopoly at this point. And they are doing what monopolies do, which is to make decisions that favor their interests over the interests of their customers. Sorry, IDC, I do think this is "so bad" when it comes to conventional PCs, where flexibility, upgradeability and repairability are some of the traditional strong suits.

 

[Idontcare]

Sorry, IDC, I do think this is "so bad" when it comes to conventional PCs, where flexibility, upgradeability and repairability are some of the traditional strong suits.

I had a grandfather who lamented the loss in his ability to service his own television when its 1960's components would overheat and die.

And yet I would not take one step backwards on the technology evolution ladder that television has taken in the past 30yrs. A highly integrated modern HDTV would not be possible without that integration, and yet reliability is improved, options have never been better, and the feature-suite has never been as rich.

We all benefit from today's state-of-the-art because change, rapid change, transpired in our industry of choice prior to our arrival on the scene. It is the very epitome of troglodyte to decide that innovation should stagnate (or conform to our limited vision of what form it should take) only once we've personally grown accustomed to whatever it was in a pseudo-static snapshot when we came to be aware of the industry itself.

You no doubt like the fact you can buy motherboards, themselves a product of integration of many discrete components. How would you feel if the modern motherboard had never come into existence because 30yrs ago folks in the industry despised the notion that their breadboards and individual resistor/capacitor/etc components from radio shack were going to no longer be needed because some company had decided it was time to integrate it all onto something called a "motherboard" that DIYers could no longer easily modify?

We benefit because the industry evolved before us, and there are 2yr olds walking around on this planet that are going to benefit from the same industry because it will evolve from what it is today. How selfish of us to decide for them that they have to live within a stagnate static non-evolving technological landscape? How would you feel if the previous generation of DIYers stood in the way of the creation of the modern integrated motherboard or integrated transistor radio?

My dad was the same way about automobiles. If he had his way the modern electronics-enabled vehicle would not exist because he was a self-trained grease-monkey and he did not like that he was not being able to service his own vehicle...and yet I fully enjoy my modern, reliable, high performing and highly integrated car.

I am very glad he did not get his way when it came to the evolution of cars, as I am glad my grandfather did not get his way with the evolution of non-serviceable TV's. And I am not worried at all about what the modern desktop PC will someday evolve into.

I am pretty sure my kids will look back on it in 10-15yrs time and extol "thank god its not like that anymore! computers are so much more convenient and user-friendly nowadays versus back in your day, dad " And I can be like my grandfather and lament that I can't upgrade and repair their broken computers, mumble under my breath that all their newfangled technology is no good, not like how it was back in my day and so on.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

IDC, I have no problem with integration when it serves a purpose. What is the purpose being served here? This is the desktop we're talking about -- saving a few mm on a socket is irrelevant. And as everyone is fond of discussing, we are hardly in a situation where most people do not need to squeeze every last ounce of performance out of systems, so the marginal performance benefit of getting rid of the socket is negligible.

So what is being gained here?

The benefits of integrated motherboards make perfect sense. Yet even there, many folks have disliked having certain features integrated because of the problem where one component going means the whole thing needs to be replaced.

How about all the complaining about the parade of sockets on motherboards lately? That is largely because of further and further integration of services and features into the CPU. But integrating video and memory controller functions actually has a purpose. What is the purpose of forcing people to buy CPUs and motherboards together?

A television set is a television set. It serves one function. Televisions were never sold on the basis of being user-assemblable and serviceable. Yet this is much of what the IBM-compatible PC market was founded upon.

It's not just being able to repair things that is at stake here. It's also being able to customize your machine. Right now if you need a lot of video power but not much CPU, or if you want a lot of CPU but don't need fancy motherboard features, or if you're okay with integrated video but want the latest motherboard gadgets, you can get any combination you want. The more that components are integrated, the more those possibilities go away. They are not going to pair a low-end processor with a high-end motherboard or vice-versa. It will all be uniformly, linearly scaled, and you'll have to take whatever they have on offer.

And I reject your vision of the future. What I see around me is people increasingly unhappy with the degree to which everything in our society has become disposable. People will accept that when there's a good reason for it, but like non-replaceable batteries, there is no good reason here. The only reason Intel wants to do away with LGA chips is to make more money.

 

[VirtualLarry]

How about all the complaining about the parade of sockets on motherboards lately? That is largely because of further and further integration of services and features into the CPU. But integrating video and memory controller functions actually has a purpose. What is the purpose of forcing people to buy CPUs and motherboards together?

A television set is a television set. It serves one function. Televisions were never sold on the basis of being user-assemblable and serviceable. Yet this is much of what the IBM-compatible PC market was founded upon.

To expound upon this - what if television sets, and encrypted cable boxes became integrated? And then you would have to replace your whole television set, if you changed cable tv providers?

That's the kind of rather pointless integration that we're talking about here.