Intel 14th-gen Core desktop processors will likely require a new LGA 2551 socket

Status
Not open for further replies.

HardReset

Posts: 1,755   +1,435
Well, like I said, I don't think the 800+ extra pins are there for no reason. Doesn't the "Threadripper" socket have something like 4000 puns?

If I wanted to be a a**hole, (which I often do), I'd say AMD could have shoehorned that into an AM-5 board too.

In any case, "hate on". (y) (Y)
They are, for what? Let's see:

AM3 939 pins
AM4 1331 pins (+392 pins)
AM5 1718 "pins" (+387 pins)

LGA1151 1151 "pins"
LGA1700 1700 "pins" (+549 "pins")
LGA2251 2251 "pins (+551 "pins")

You may argue that LG1700 must support both DDR4 and DDR5. However LGA2251 will drop DDR4 support pretty sure so increasing pin count same amount that LGA1700 did, invalidates that claim. Most extra pins are most probably for no reason.

About Threadripper, that was side project for some AMD engineers. They actually put lot of spare time into that. That also explains why there was simply no time and effort to create new socket so Threadripper uses same socket Epyc does. Yes, there are a lot extra pins but simply there was no resources to create new socket so...

More https://www.forbes.com/sites/antony...g-story-behind-the-processor-that-beat-intel/
 

yRaz

Posts: 4,816   +6,004
They are, for what? Let's see:

AM3 939 pins
AM4 1331 pins (+392 pins)
AM5 1718 "pins" (+387 pins)

LGA1151 1151 "pins"
LGA1700 1700 "pins" (+549 "pins")
LGA2251 2251 "pins (+551 "pins")

You may argue that LG1700 must support both DDR4 and DDR5. However LGA2251 will drop DDR4 support pretty sure so increasing pin count same amount that LGA1700 did, invalidates that claim. Most extra pins are most probably for no reason.

About Threadripper, that was side project for some AMD engineers. They actually put lot of spare time into that. That also explains why there was simply no time and effort to create new socket so Threadripper uses same socket Epyc does. Yes, there are a lot extra pins but simply there was no resources to create new socket so...

More https://www.forbes.com/sites/antony...g-story-behind-the-processor-that-beat-intel/
Let's get 1 thing straight, LGA DOES have pins, they're just on the motherboard instead if the CPU.

But for the most part, the extra pins on the epyc/threaderripper socket are for PCI lanes and memory channels.

There is also the business of LGA sockets not being able to transfer as much power over a single pin so many of those pins are simply for power delivery.
 

Crinkles

Posts: 247   +220
They are, for what? Let's see:

AM3 939 pins
AM4 1331 pins (+392 pins)
AM5 1718 "pins" (+387 pins)

LGA1151 1151 "pins"
LGA1700 1700 "pins" (+549 "pins")
LGA2251 2251 "pins (+551 "pins")

God, many of the pins are electric that are not optional, they're required.
 

captaincranky

Posts: 19,166   +8,313
You may argue that LG1700 must support both DDR4 and DDR5. However LGA2251 will drop DDR4 support pretty sure so increasing pin count same amount that LGA1700 did, invalidates that claim. Most extra pins are most probably for no reason.
I actually don't want to argue about anything, (contrary to my screen name). Which highlights my own stupidity for joining this thread, with a bunch of rabid, Intel hating, AMD groupies in the first place.

So, have it your way. The extra 551 pins are there for no reason but to ripoff Intel buyers. They're not even connected.

Now if you'll enlighten me as to how many "pins to nowhere", does the LGA 1700 rig I just bought have? I wanna be "in with the in crowd", as well as enduring a persecution complex with regard to Intel, as a side "benefit"
About Threadripper, that was side project for some AMD engineers. They actually put lot of spare time into that.
So, you're saying that AMD engineers will work for nothing but the satisfaction of a job well done? Congrats to AMD, you've got your employees as brainwashed as everybody here at Techspot..

All "joking" aside though, I'm not an Intel fanboi. I just build computers with their slop because when I power it up, "it just works". (To pinch a phrase). Oh, and I understand their numbering and designation protocols as an added plus.

Additionally, I don't give a fu*k, if the CEO is banging the CFO, or if they're involved with a child sex trafficking cabal.. Or, for that matter, if they're working with the Israelis on space lasers to start forest fires either.

Intel isn't "out to get me", I willingly get into their flying saucers simply for the arousal I feel while being probed.

But, one question still remains . Why the fu*k are all of you bellyaching about what Intel does, when you're not going to buy their sh!t anyway?

I guess venting here is cheaper than paying for therapy. That's the only conclusion I can logically draw..
 
Last edited:

Puiu

Posts: 5,881   +4,889
TechSpot Elite
In reality, the percentage of customers who upgrade the CPU on an older motherboard is significantly under 1%, which makes the whole compatibility argument pointless.

I've been in the IT industry for 30 years, and neither me no anybody I know ever tried to upgrade the CPU. You buy MB + CPU together, don't care about some special cases.
Wild fake percentages. I disagree a lot with this statement. Given the option people will upgrade and I've done it a lot not just for me, but for people around me.

AMD users have a very high rate of "upgrades" and you might just be talking about Intel which forces you to upgrade your mobo if you want a new generation CPU.
 

HardReset

Posts: 1,755   +1,435
Let's get 1 thing straight, LGA DOES have pins, they're just on the motherboard instead if the CPU.

But for the most part, the extra pins on the epyc/threaderripper socket are for PCI lanes and memory channels.

There is also the business of LGA sockets not being able to transfer as much power over a single pin so many of those pins are simply for power delivery.
Of course, but since pins are on different places (and have different orientation), they are not similar.

AM5 has better connectivity than LGA1700 has, it also has pretty high TDP. Since LGA2551 will also drop DDR4 support, I doubt all those pins are just because LGA2551 will have much higher TDP than LGA1700 has.

It's very clear that Intel wastes pins because AMD can do better with less pins. That's for sure.
God, many of the pins are electric that are not optional, they're required.
Like stated above, AMD has more connectivity with less pins. Also remember that Intel raised core count from 4 to 6 without adding more pins into socket. Also from 6 to 10 cores they Only needed 49 extra pins. Not like 500. Therefore I cannot agree that they are required.

I actually don't want to argue about anything, (contrary to my screen name). Which highlights my own stupidity for joining this thread, with a bunch of rabid, Intel hating, AMD groupies in the first place.

So, have it your way. The extra 551 pins are there for no reason but to ripoff Intel buyers. They're not even connected.

Now if you'll enlighten me as to how many "pins to nowhere", does the LGA 1700 rig I just bought have? I wanna be "in with the in crowd", as well as enduring a persecution complex with regard to Intel, as a side "benefit"
According to reports, there are 100 pins already unused on LGA1700 socket, it actually has 1800 pins. 100 is reserved for, well, "something". At least with Alder Lake CPU 100 pins are totally wasted if that holds true (I won't bother to count pins to check actually).
So, you're saying that AMD engineers will work for nothing but the satisfaction of a job well done? Congrats to AMD, you've got your employees as brainwashed as everybody here at Techspot..
For Threadripper, yes. Source included.
All "joking" aside though, I'm not an Intel fanboi. I just build computers with their slop because when I power it up, "it just works". (To pinch a phrase). Oh, and I understand their numbering and designation protocols as an added plus.

Additionally, I don't give a fu*k, if the CEO is banging the CFO, or if they're involved with a child sex trafficking cabal.. Or, for that matter, if they're working with the Israelis on space lasers to start forest fires either.

Intel isn't "out to get me, I willingly get into their flying saucers simply for the arousal I feel while being probed.

But, one question still remains . Why the fu*k are all of you bellyaching about what Intel does, when you're not going to buy their sh!t anyway?

I guess venting here is cheaper than paying for therapy. That's the only conclusion I can logically draw..
Because I want much better products and supporting Intel won't give me them.
 

Strawman

Posts: 597   +299
If ppl won't keep buying more AMD CPUs, Intel will be happy to sell us 6C Cpus as high-end mainstream for the next 150 years
Good sir, you just freaking described AMD. They were the ones that released a 6 core cpu at 2020 pricing it at 300 euros. The cognitive dissonance is outstanding here, kudos sir, ive never seen anyone being more wrong in my life.
 

captaincranky

Posts: 19,166   +8,313
Because I want much better products and supporting Intel won't give me them.
Then instead of haranguing me about the virtues of AMD, and the sins and deficiencies of Intel, along with the ignoble fate that befalls Intel's customers, shouldn't you be window shopping at Newegg for that elusive "better product". I would think that by now, you should have well realized that you can't reason with me. :p
 

Strawman

Posts: 597   +299
I must be in your 1%. I upgraded my old 2700X to a 5600X on an aging 470 board and saw enormous performance boosts, even on the old board! AMD all the way.
Good freaking job. Alternatively you could have bought an 8700k back in 2017 and wouldnt need to upgrade at all. You just paid for 2 cpus to barely surpass where intel was 3 years ago, great decision sir.
 

HardReset

Posts: 1,755   +1,435
Good sir, you just freaking described AMD. They were the ones that released a 6 core cpu at 2020 pricing it at 300 euros. The cognitive dissonance is outstanding here, kudos sir, ive never seen anyone being more wrong in my life.
AMD did release Ryzen 3600X and 3600. MSRPs $249 and $199 respectively. I cannot see 300 euros there.
 

Crinkles

Posts: 247   +220
It's very clear that Intel wastes pins because AMD can do better with less pins. That's for sure.
Like stated above, AMD has more connectivity with less pins. Also remember that Intel raised core count from 4 to 6 without adding more pins into socket. Also from 6 to 10 cores they Only needed 49 extra pins. Not like 500. Therefore I cannot agree that they are required.

This isn't how cpu pins and sockets work, re-engineering in a comment box is werid to impossible. The pin wars are over.

Because I want much better products and supporting Intel won't give me them.

AMD is on it, hang on an indefinable amount of time. I'll just be over here clicking my 4000 threads connected to 600,000 pins.
 

Steve

Posts: 2,931   +3,082
Staff member
You have to wonder if AMD's ability to still heavily outsell Intel (from parts sellers) despite the fact that Intel has a technically superior product in Alder Lake right now isn't down to AM4's superior platform support (of course anyone with half a brain knows it is).

If you need evidence of this look no further than the Amazon Best Sellers CPU list: https://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Computer-CPU-Processors/zgbs/pc/229189

I've also spoken with major retailers and distributors, they all tell me Zen 3 is moving much faster than Alder Lake.

So again if no one upgrades their CPU on the same motherboard how are AM4 parts destroying LGA1700 parts when it comes to CPU sales?Image1.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.