Nehalem's new CPU socket is bigger and more robust

JPB

Diamond Member
Jul 4, 2005
4,064
89
91
Nehalem's new CPU socket is bigger and more robust


Pic 1

Pic 2


THE NEW, LARGE LGA1366 socket for uni-CPU (Bloomfield) and dual-CPU (Gainestown) 2008 Nehalems is not just 20 per cent bigger on each side than the LGA775 for the current Penryns. It contains nearly 600 extra pins for those QPI links, three 64-bit DDR3 memory channels and, obviously, a lot of power.

It is also seemingly far more robust when it comes to keeping it tight to the mobo.

Take a look at this LGA1366 test board for the Bloomfield. While the front CPU socket insertion seems the same as right now, the back portion has a proper metal back plate which, via four screw holes, holds the CPU socket firmly without banding under, say, heavy fans.

But, hold on, at a second glance, even the front isn't really the same - there's an independent loading mechanism - ILM - instead of the direct socket loading used right now. Take a look at the mounting process from these slides.

Pic 3

And the socket difference summary:

Pic 4

Talking about the summary, it seems Intel did give serious thought to improving the socket a bit, and implemented it in the end. Also, the larger die will be cooled by a larger heat spreader on the larger package here as well.

However, forget using any your current coolers on these new babies - all mounting holes have changed and, after all, the (extra) size does matter. µ
 

Idontcare

Elite Member
Oct 10, 1999
21,110
64
91
Originally posted by: firewolfsm
this architecture won't transition to notebooks easily.

I'm entirely baffled by this statement. Are you saying Nehalems won't transition to notebooks? Or that the desktop/sever hardware needed to bolt down a Bloomfield won't transfer?
 

bryanW1995

Lifer
May 22, 2007
11,144
32
91
I take his statement to mean that such a power-hungry architecture will not do as well as current intel cpu's in a notebook environment. I think that it's all about power required to do X amount of work, and nehalem will, barring a phenom-sized mistake, be a more efficient cpu than current 45nm c2d's and c2q's.
 

firewolfsm

Golden Member
Oct 16, 2005
1,848
29
91
No, the extra pins and the larger socket will take up more space and make the motherboards bigger. I know laptops have different sockets, but to bring in QPI they'll still need than there are now.
 

dmens

Platinum Member
Mar 18, 2005
2,275
965
136
Originally posted by: firewolfsm
No, the extra pins and the larger socket will take up more space and make the motherboards bigger. I know laptops have different sockets, but to bring in QPI they'll still need than there are now.

laptops will have fewer links.
 

Foxery

Golden Member
Jan 24, 2008
1,709
0
0
It's 1 centimeter longer (1/3rd inch). I think they'll mange somehow. :)

As far as power/heat go, hey, if they could cram Pentium 4s in there, they can do anything. This time around, they also have the option of putting fewer cores in laptops than the current max seen in dekstops to cut down on power/heat.
 

aigomorla

CPU, Cases&Cooling Mod PC Gaming Mod Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 28, 2005
21,131
3,667
126
that looks like a server board hsf mount.

*sigh*

Skulltrail 2 anyone?
 

Rubycon

Madame President
Aug 10, 2005
17,768
485
126
Server mounts = good! Should've gone this way a long time ago. And for crying out loud please abolish the cheesy push pin mounting system yesterday! :|
 

Idontcare

Elite Member
Oct 10, 1999
21,110
64
91
Originally posted by: firewolfsm
No, the extra pins and the larger socket will take up more space and make the motherboards bigger. I know laptops have different sockets, but to bring in QPI they'll still need than there are now.

Yeah presumably they'd spin a reticle for low-power laptops with dual-core nehalem (4 threads) with possibly less L3$ and zero QPI's.
 

bryanW1995

Lifer
May 22, 2007
11,144
32
91
Originally posted by: Rubycon
Server mounts = good! Should've gone this way a long time ago. And for crying out loud please abolish the cheesy push pin mounting system yesterday! :|

please tell me that you're not planning to use stock cooling in that dfi x48 mobo!!!
 

Rubycon

Madame President
Aug 10, 2005
17,768
485
126
Originally posted by: bryanW1995
Originally posted by: Rubycon
Server mounts = good! Should've gone this way a long time ago. And for crying out loud please abolish the cheesy push pin mounting system yesterday! :|

please tell me that you're not planning to use stock cooling in that dfi x48 mobo!!!

I will be using a TRUE with a remachined base.
 

aigomorla

CPU, Cases&Cooling Mod PC Gaming Mod Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 28, 2005
21,131
3,667
126
Originally posted by: Rubycon
Originally posted by: bryanW1995
Originally posted by: Rubycon
Server mounts = good! Should've gone this way a long time ago. And for crying out loud please abolish the cheesy push pin mounting system yesterday! :|

please tell me that you're not planning to use stock cooling in that dfi x48 mobo!!!

I will be using a TRUE with a remachined base.

try not to spank my oc too hard ruby. i told you i think im cap'd at 4.6ghz and that was a 15 min prime. :T <your right about the scary heat factor>