1. TechSpot is dedicated to computer enthusiasts and power users. Ask a question and give support. Join the community here.
    TechSpot is dedicated to computer enthusiasts and power users.
    Ask a question and give support.
    Join the community here, it only takes a minute.
    Dismiss Notice

Intel to discontinue LGA 1366 and LGA 1156 processors in 2012

By Shawn Knight ยท 20 replies
Dec 8, 2011
Post New Reply
  1. Intel is reportedly set to discontinue their LGA 1366 and LGA 1156 line of processors in 2012 to make way for new CPUs set to launch next year.

    Read the whole story
  2. amstech

    amstech IT Overlord Posts: 2,238   +1,439

    I was going up upgrade from my i7 930 (OC'd to 4.0Ghz) to a 2600k/2700k, but once I saw the performance benchmarks and overall difference (next to nothing) I am glad I didn't.

    Then I was interested in Ivy Bridge until recent articles showed it's just a bump in the frequency and some new additions to the line-up.

    What comes after Ivy Bridge? :)
  3. captainawesome

    captainawesome TS Guru Posts: 428   +44

    Dude iRate Ivy Bridge is gonna be epic! I'm finally gonna ditch my core 2 quad for one when they out! :)
  4. slh28

    slh28 TechSpot Paladin Posts: 1,703   +171

    My thoughts exactly. If Intel had kept the 1366 platform for SB and IB I would have at least thought about upgrading the chip. But who needs quad channel memory anyway?
  5. princeton

    princeton TS Addict Posts: 1,674

    Meanwhile Intel still makes the E7xxx CPUs running on LGA 775.
  6. Cota

    Cota TS Enthusiast Posts: 512   +8

    Already? It has only been 3 years since this came.

    My i7 930 at stock speeds does the job pretty well and more likely will keep it doing well for some 2-3 years since so far i haven't found something that uses full load besides Video encoding, file compressors and such apps.

    When i bought it i was thinking on Overclocking it, but i saw it very capable of doing the job at stock speeds, so i tough on saving the overclocking for the future...
    But this changes a lot of things, maybe ill just sell my PC and buy a new one...
  7. So what's going to happen to the price of the 1366 chips over time, particularly the high end ones?
    Anyone have an informed opinion about this?
  8. dividebyzero

    dividebyzero trainee n00b Posts: 4,840   +1,268

    You can probably extrapolate from the LGA 775 pricing. Official retail pricing will likely stay at the same levels for the most part, there will just be less availability. You will probably find 920 -960 models will likely become much more affordable in the resell market (920/930/950/965XE already are) as people sell off their quad cores and upgrade to the hex-cores. I'd still expect 980X/990X and their Xeon equivalents to still be pretty pricy for a while yet. The top SKU's of the LGA 775 line -QX9770 and 9650- still garner a good price in comparison to Sandy Bridge even though they were EOL'ed almost two years ago.
  9. Adhmuz

    Adhmuz TechSpot Paladin Posts: 1,924   +712

    As a gaming platform my X58 board has served me very well, purchased a 920 middle of 2009 ran overclocked at 4 GHz for almost 2 full years before I got my current 960 through Intel Retail Edge for $100. Running at 4.25 GHz since I got it, I see no need to upgrade my setup (Mobo, CPU, RAM) until it dies or I start having issues in games. Overall one of the best investments PC wise I have ever made. The next thing I will upgrade will be my video cards, but even two 5870's can get the job done on any of the current tittles.
  10. inventix1136

    inventix1136 TS Rookie Posts: 85   +14

    I have a core i7-920 running stock and so far I haven't had anything come close to max it for too long with the exception of occasional video render. Used it as a Hyper-V server as well for about 6 months with 15 VM's and the processor did not even flinch. Given that I have nothing that taxes my current processor, it is hard to justify updating everything to gain a 5-10% increase in speed.

    Used to remember when a 3 yr old processor couldn't keep up and thus you upgraded because of some dramatic improvement (286 --> 486), but with the current crop of processors you won't notice a difference...
  11. Cota

    Cota TS Enthusiast Posts: 512   +8

    @inventix1136 well more than a 5-10% the benchmarks show around 3 times the power of the 1366 CPU's (~250% of your 920) but still i agree on not needing to move for a while since so far the only thing that holds me down is my Video Card and my non SSD's QQ
  12. LNCPapa

    LNCPapa TS Special Forces Posts: 4,281   +527

    There was 8 years between the release of the 286 and the 486. Also, the 486 line went up quite a bit as it was becoming common to include a math coprocessor with it. They went from the 486/16 (without a coprocessor) to a 486/100 DX4. There was a considerable difference in speed between just those chips...
  13. Seriously if you think a 920 to a 2600k is not a major upgrade then you must be blind. It's 20-30% faster not including the fact you can oc most 2600k to 4.6 with no voltage change.
  14. ---agissi---

    ---agissi--- TechSpot Paladin Posts: 1,929   +15

    Im trusting that Ivy Bridge's overclocking head room will be phenomenal, with 5GHz easily in sight. Hopefully it can be done on air, but if not water cooling should get the job done. The 22nm process should be wonderful :)
  15. Cota

    Cota TS Enthusiast Posts: 512   +8

    Its an update, but do you really need that 30% increase, in my case if i buy a 2600k i get twice the power of my i7 930 (@stock speeds), but is it worth it? no! my 930 is very capable of managing any game/software that comes out there in the market, the only time i really wish for more power is when im encoding media or compressing Disk images.

    Go raid Naxxramas troll!
  16. Julio Franco

    Julio Franco TechSpot Editor Posts: 8,248   +1,268

    Sandy Bridge is awesome, even more so in laptops. But to be honest my i7-870 equipped workstation still keeps me happy.
  17. slamscaper

    slamscaper TS Addict Posts: 247   +68

    There isn't quite that much of a difference. Clock for clock, SB offers a 17% performance advantage (on average) when compared to the older Bloomfield\Lynnfield chips. In real-world scenarios, most end-users won't even notice this difference.

    It doesn't make much sense to upgrade from an X58 system to a p67\h67\z68 system. In some respects you'd be taking a step backwards, as you'd lose hexa-core CPU support, triple-channel memory, and 24 native PCIe lanes.

    Ivy Bridge-E should be a worthy upgrade for X58 owners. SB-E is impressive in some respects, but the current SB-E CPU's are power hungry and expensive. Waiting for the die-shrink is the best bet.
  18. amstech and slh28,

    There is a significant performance difference between a previous generation i5/i7 CPUs (Socket 1366/LGA1156) and the new Sandy Bridge chips. On a clock-per-clock basis, on average the performance difference is about 14-16% in favor of SNB:

    Clock for clock analysis:

    1) http://ixbtlabs.com/articles3/cpu/sandybridge-core-vs-lynnfield-p1.html

    2) An i7-2600k @ 2.8ghz is 16% faster than i7-930 at the same clocks, while 2500k at 2.8ghz is 15% faster than i5-760 at the same clocks:


    For those of you running overclocked i7 @ 4.0ghz, the proper comparison would be to compare it to an overclocked i5/i7 SNB. In this case, SB's performance grows even more - see this review:


    And then there is the amazing power consumption advantage in overclocked states:


    You add this all up, a 2600k @ 4.7ghz will be 35% faster than an i7 @ 4.0ghz. (4.7 * 1.15 IPC advantage / 4.0ghz), while at the same time consuming 90-150W less (depending if you have an LGA1156 i7 or an LGA1366 one).

    So while it might not be worthwhile to upgrade for a 35% performance increase in speed, to say that SNB offers no performance improvement / next to nothing is incorrect. In other words, upgrading from a Core 2 Quad @ 3.4ghz to Core i7 @ 4.0ghz is the same as upgrading from Core i7 @ 4.0ghz to SNB @ 4.7ghz. You get a similar 35% performance increase in each case. This is because 1st generation i7 also had about a 15-16% IPC improvement (so 4.0ghz * 1.16 IPC / 3.4)

    IVB is going to provide approximately a 6% IPC improvement over SNB. If we assume IVB can overclock to say 5.2ghz, then it'll be 58% faster than a Core i7-920/930/960, etc. @ 4.0ghz (because 5.2 * 1.15 IPC SNB * 1.06 IPC IVB / 4.0ghz = 58% faster).

    The next huge generational leap will be Haswell in 2013 and require a new socket. Those who are only playing games with a single GPU, then there isn't much use to upgrade to SNB or IVB. If you are running more than 1 powerful GPU (especially if planning to upgrade to 2 HD7970s or something), then previous generation i7 will not give you the best performance:


    Hope this shed more light that there is a performance difference between SNB and 1st generation i5/i7 processors. There would also be a huge difference in performance in games like Starcraft 2 and WOW since they are very IPC/frequency dependent, and not core dependent.
  19. Lionvibez

    Lionvibez TS Evangelist Posts: 1,466   +637

    You need to wait for Haswell and skip SB and IVB
  20. Lionvibez

    Lionvibez TS Evangelist Posts: 1,466   +637

    That is correct.

    What the troll doesn't understand is other than looking at benchmarks you won't see a difference and a highly overclocked Bloomfield chip puts up comparable numbers to SB. SB is just a minor update with an IPC increase. We are not talking AMD vs intel here, and if you play games there is no difference as they gpu is often the bottleneck.

    As i've said many times before going from 1366 to 1155 is a sidegrade.
  21. That's just great!!! I have the LGA 1156 socket with a core i5 750 and now I'm gonna have to buy a new motherboard if I want to get a better processor :mad:

Add your comment to this article

You need to be a member to leave a comment. Join thousands of tech enthusiasts and participate.
TechSpot Account You may also...