f



Constantly change CPU sockets.

We've had LGA1156, then LGA1155, then LGA1150 then LGA1151.

Can there have been a valid engineering reason for these changes? It can 
hardly have been to increase the number of pins.

What it does do is reduce my chance of replacing a faulty motherboard, 
without also having to replace the CPU, and possibly memory, because the 
motherboard is obsolete.

Was that the point?

Sylvia.
0
Sylvia
12/22/2016 6:20:29 AM
comp.misc 2506 articles. 1 followers. Post Follow

8 Replies
560 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 29

On Thu, 22 Dec 2016, Ian McCall wrote:

> On 2016-12-22 15:27:36 +0000, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> said:
>
>> Some people trade in every couple of years. What a wa$te.
>
> Well - no. This one is finely balanced. You get more for your resale if you 
> trade in every few years, so economically it may or may not make sense - it's 
> certainly not cut and dried.
>
It boggles my mind.  I bought a refurbished computer last month, and 
anything they had, there were stacks of the same model.  So they are 
getting them from business.  And this one was only 5 years old.  At this 
point in time,  there can't be more than an incrmental change between that 
and this year's equivalent.  The better specs they get, the harder it is 
to improve on, yet somebody decided to scrap those perfectly good 
computers and buy afresh.

   Michael
0
Michael
12/22/2016 1:01:01 AM
On Thu, 22 Dec 2016 17:20:29 +1100, Sylvia Else
<sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:

>We've had LGA1156, then LGA1155, then LGA1150 then LGA1151.
>
>Can there have been a valid engineering reason for these changes? It can 
>hardly have been to increase the number of pins.
>
>What it does do is reduce my chance of replacing a faulty motherboard, 
>without also having to replace the CPU, and possibly memory, because the 
>motherboard is obsolete.
>
>Was that the point?

	Yes.
	It's why so many will accept your old system as a trade-in on
a new one, even though they almost immediately destroy the "old" one.
	Some people trade in every couple of years. What a wa$te.
	[]'s
-- 
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy  - Google 2012
0
Shadow
12/22/2016 3:27:36 PM
On 2016-12-22 15:27:36 +0000, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> said:

> Some people trade in every couple of years. What a wa$te.

Well - no. This one is finely balanced. You get more for your resale if 
you trade in every few years, so economically it may or may not make 
sense - it's certainly not cut and dried.

In terms of wasting resources overall though - yeah, more difficult.


Cheers,
Ian

0
Ian
12/22/2016 5:29:48 PM
Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Dec 2016, Ian McCall wrote:
> 
>> On 2016-12-22 15:27:36 +0000, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> said:
>>
>>> Some people trade in every couple of years. What a wa$te.
>>
>> Well - no. This one is finely balanced. You get more for your resale if you 
>> trade in every few years, so economically it may or may not make sense - it's 
>> certainly not cut and dried.
>>
> It boggles my mind.  I bought a refurbished computer last month, and 
> anything they had, there were stacks of the same model.  So they are 
> getting them from business.  And this one was only 5 years old.  At this 
> point in time,  there can't be more than an incrmental change between that 
> and this year's equivalent.  The better specs they get, the harder it is 
> to improve on, yet somebody decided to scrap those perfectly good 
> computers and buy afresh.

That, sadly, is typical of corporate/government computer procurement. 
They buy "X" today, use it for Y time, and replace it with X2 after Y
time has expired, whether it needs to be replaced or not.

Of course, that means that those of use looking for bargains can find
lots of price depressed versions of system that cost 2k+ just 4-5 years
ago.  So there's a silver lining (if one is a bargan shopper).
0
Rich
12/22/2016 9:03:20 PM
On 2016-12-22, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Dec 2016, Ian McCall wrote:
>
>> On 2016-12-22 15:27:36 +0000, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> said:
>>
>>> Some people trade in every couple of years. What a wa$te.
>>
>> Well - no. This one is finely balanced. You get more for your resale
>> if you trade in every few years, so economically it may or may not
>> make sense - it's certainly not cut and dried.
>>
> It boggles my mind.  I bought a refurbished computer last month, and
> anything they had, there were stacks of the same model.  So they are
> getting them from business.  And this one was only 5 years old.  At
> this point in time,  there can't be more than an incrmental change
> between that and this year's equivalent.  The better specs they get,
> the harder it is to improve on, yet somebody decided to scrap those
> perfectly good computers and buy afresh.

There are at least 3 factors at work for businesses here.

* a hardware maintenance contract - these can go up a *lot*
  as the kit ages (and spares get harder to source)
* leasing terms and/or write-off of capital expenditure
* software licencing and software support contracts

It can get complicated.

-- 
"History does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme"    -- Mark Twain
0
Paul
12/22/2016 9:08:58 PM
On 22/12/2016 21:03, Rich wrote:
> Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:
>> On Thu, 22 Dec 2016, Ian McCall wrote:
>>
>>> On 2016-12-22 15:27:36 +0000, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> said:
>>>
>>>> Some people trade in every couple of years. What a wa$te.
>>>
>>> Well - no. This one is finely balanced. You get more for your resale if you
>>> trade in every few years, so economically it may or may not make sense - it's
>>> certainly not cut and dried.
>>>
>> It boggles my mind.  I bought a refurbished computer last month, and
>> anything they had, there were stacks of the same model.  So they are
>> getting them from business.  And this one was only 5 years old.  At this
>> point in time,  there can't be more than an incrmental change between that
>> and this year's equivalent.  The better specs they get, the harder it is
>> to improve on, yet somebody decided to scrap those perfectly good
>> computers and buy afresh.
>
> That, sadly, is typical of corporate/government computer procurement.
> They buy "X" today, use it for Y time, and replace it with X2 after Y
> time has expired, whether it needs to be replaced or not.
>
> Of course, that means that those of use looking for bargains can find
> lots of price depressed versions of system that cost 2k+ just 4-5 years
> ago.  So there's a silver lining (if one is a bargan shopper).
>
Where I work we replace all user machines when the warranty expires at 3 
years. Around 10000 staff and all have a laptop, most are now i7 based 
running Win7/10 Enterprise a few running Linux. Engineering (90% of 
staff) use them as X or RDP terminals onto the compute farms (80% Linux 
servers). From experience, high-end business laptops last 4 years before 
faults and issues start to develop. Batteries now last the 3 year period 
normally. Faults include intermittent docking station problems, blown up 
USB ports, broken keyboards, backlight issues. It works out 
significantly cheaper to replace when the warranty expires and when you 
buy 3k machines a year you can get a nicer price. Most old laptops spend 
6 months as "real world" test machines running our software before being 
given to charities.

Servers last longer as do desktops. They don't develop faults due to 
handling and use and are replaced less frequently.

0
mm0fmf
12/23/2016 8:21:49 AM
On 23/12/2016 2:27 AM, Shadow wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Dec 2016 17:20:29 +1100, Sylvia Else
> <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:
>
>> We've had LGA1156, then LGA1155, then LGA1150 then LGA1151.
>>
>> Can there have been a valid engineering reason for these changes? It can
>> hardly have been to increase the number of pins.
>>
>> What it does do is reduce my chance of replacing a faulty motherboard,
>> without also having to replace the CPU, and possibly memory, because the
>> motherboard is obsolete.
>>
>> Was that the point?
>
> 	Yes.

Cynical though I am by nature, I find it hard to believe it would be 
worth their while, given the small number of systems affected.

Sylvia.

0
Sylvia
12/24/2016 11:40:01 AM
Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:
> We've had LGA1156, then LGA1155, then LGA1150 then LGA1151.
> 
> Can there have been a valid engineering reason for these changes? It can 
> hardly have been to increase the number of pins.

It's to make it clear which CPUs and motherboards are incompatible.

CPUs and motherboards are finely matched - in terms of chipset, in terms of
memory standards, in terms of power supply voltages, in terms of BIOS
forward/backward compatibility, in terms of PCIe lanes coming from the CPU
(customers wouldn't like it if half of the onboard peripherals didn't work
because there were no lanes available).

Basically the motherboard is only relevant to a particular CPU generation,
or at most two generations.  Beyond that too much needs to change that it's
not worth it.  Because of the matching between CPU and PCH you can't
maintain forward/backward compatibility without constraining the primary
market which is people buying motherboards and CPUs together.  Replacing
CPUs is a relatively niche market after all - most machines live with the
same CPU and motherboard until they are too old to be useful.

> What it does do is reduce my chance of replacing a faulty motherboard, 
> without also having to replace the CPU, and possibly memory, because the 
> motherboard is obsolete.

Memory technology is moving on less quickly than CPU generations, so that
should be less of a problem.  DDR3 is still current, and that was released
2007. (give or take supply voltages, which a good motherboard should be able
to adjust)

Vendors do maintain back catalogues to some extent - for instance Supermicro
will sell you an LGA1155 motherboard suitable for Ivy Bridge, or indeed a
Socket 775 motherboard for a Pentium 4.

Theo
0
Theo
12/24/2016 3:39:58 PM
Reply: