• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

What's with all the LGA1366 snobbery?

Vertigo

Vertigo

Vertigo

Soldato
Joined
28 Dec 2003
Posts
16,589
What on earth is with the snobbery that seems to surround the 1366 platform compared to the 1156?

I seem to encounter it everywhere amongst 1366 owners - the moment you mention even contemplating a 1156 solution rather than a 1366 one, you're met with condescending comments or just abuse. It seems there's a section of 1366 owners out there who either simply refuse to concede that 1156 offers advantages over their platform, or that anyone would consider buying anything less than the "top of the range" that their platform represents.

I've never encountered this sort of thing before with processors, so why does it seem to happen with these two platforms? Is it just me that's noticed this?

I do find it rather funny sometimes that these self-professed experts are declaring the 1156 platform to be universally useless when it's going to be Intel mainstream platform for the next few years and has be pretty much universally praised in reviews I've read.
 
not noticed it myself anymore than what was about when the 775 had dual and quad core options. i can see pros and cons for both and personally, would say to anyone that isnt doing any form of video editing, rendering etc then the i3 and i5 range is probably more than adequate. as fir snobbery, i think that comes with everything, everyone on here wants to get the best with their budget, and at the moment a lot of people see the i7 as the best for home users. although i myself dont agree, i can see why others do.
 
Thats nothing compared to the way the Q9550 performance has dropped off the edge of a cliff overnight and is now an outcast.
It's OK not to reccomend a build round it but not to make out that it's older than the Dinosaurs....:D
Give it a few months and the 1156 will also be called "Old tech" .
 
The vast majority of us don't need anything faster than a fast dual core anyway, it's all a bit mad, but doesn't stop me craving more. I'm sticking with my Q9550 for now, I don't like how intel have split across multiple sockets, it might be AMD next for me, atleast they try to keep some compatibility.
 
LGA1156 is cheaper. LGA1366 is faster.

There are counterarguments, but almost all of them are based around budget.
 
LEUVEN said:
Give it a few months and the 1156 will also be called "Old tech" .
Click to expand...
Err, it's their newest platform, hardly going to be "old tech" any time soon.

Lynnfield has definite advantages over Bloomfield. It's cheaper, has better turbo-boost & consumes less power. Personally all of these are valuable to me as I want low power consumption when not hammering the machine and don't plan on overclocking to any huge degree and leaving the turbo to effectively do it for me on demand so I can use quieter cooling solutions.

There's a also a distinct possibility that, as LGA1366 is being positioned as the high-end platform, only the higher-end processors will be released on this platform in future, whilst most are released for the more mainstream LGA1156. Great if you want hexa-core, not much use if you want good value CPUs down the road.

Basically both platforms have advantages and disadvantages and it's a case of priorities. LGA1366 zealots hurling abuse and derision at anyone who dares to contemplate an LGA1156 system need to grow the hell up tbh.
 
Bigger number aint it.

Ive got a Q9550 and it performs well and is enough for all my gaming needs, my house mate has got an i7 and load times etc are virtually the same.

Some people need the best money can buy, others keep their pc untill an upgarde is worth doing and will give a bigger performance increase for the money.
 
JonJ678 said:
LGA1156 is cheaper. LGA1366 is faster.

There are counterarguments, but almost all of them are based around budget.
Click to expand...
Nope. As I just said, Lynnfield is arguably far better if power consumption is important and/or you're not planning to overclock much or at all.

With all due respect, it's this "you only buy 1156 if you can't afford 1366" elitist mentality which seems far too prevalent.
 
Vertigo1 said:
Basically both platforms have advantages and disadvantages and it's a case of priorities. LGA1366 zealots hurling abuse and derision at anyone who dares to contemplate an LGA1156 system need to grow the hell up tbh.
Click to expand...

dont seem to of noticed anyone saying anything any different to this, maybe i have missed something, but pretty much everything i have read on here has stated the pros and cons for each and then spec'd up systems to meet the original posters needs.
maybe there is a little bit of snobbery, but i would say is in the minority.
 
I hate to stereotype myself (as a 1366 user) but what advantages does 1156 have other than cost and lower power consumption? X58 is where the performance is.

P55 is a good choice though - I specced and built a P55 system for a mate last week and would have no hesitation recommending it to anyone. If you need to save the cash, it gives you 90% of the performance of 1366 for quite a lot less cash. I've actually considered moving down for the better power consumption (and for some new kit to play with :D) but I've been put off by the lack of RAM.

I guess we can probably trace this back to being AMD's fault for being so uncompetitive in the CPU market and allowing Intel to create a dual socket monopoly.
 
Last edited:
reflux said:
I hate to stereotype myself (as a 1366 user) but what advantages does 1156 have other than cost and lower power consumption? X58 is where the performance is.
Click to expand...
Well lower power consumption also equates to less heat, which is important to me. Combine this with the far superior turbo function in the Lynnfield processors and it makes an interesting comparison...

Basically, I'm ditching water to go back to air and am also fed up with overclocking in general. If I went for an i7 920 then I'd have to clock it up to 3.2/3.4Ghz to get the performance I want/need for games and so on. The problem is this means that, the other 90% of the time, all four cores are sitting there, overclocked, sucking power and producing heat, which I need to cool without spending a fortune and/or making loads of noise.

Contrast with a Lynnfield solution where I can leave the processor at stock settings and allow the turbo-boost to overclock as necessary when only one or two cores are in use. Combine this with far better power efficiency due to its improved ability to shut down inactive cores and it becomes more attractive to me.

Ironically it transpires that, to get the features I want, the 1156 motherboard will probably end up costing just as much as a 1366 one would. If I ended up going with an i7 860 over an i5 750 in order to get the hyper threading functionality then I'd wind up spending pretty much the same as I would on a 1366 platform, yet I'd still choose the 1156 for the reasons given above :)

One final question mark hangs over what processors will be available on these platforms in the future. If 1366 is being positioned as the high-end/server platform then it's entirely possibly that only the very top end processors will be released on this platform, with all the maintream ones being on 1156. Remember the processors are very different on these platform, with Bloomfield having a triple-channel memory controller whilst Lynnfield has on-board PCI-e. Simply making every processor available for both sockets isn't going to be financially viable so they'll have to make some choices. The LGA1366 platform looks attractive now solely because of the i7 920, which is an overclockers dream, but there's no guarantee there'll be any more bargain chips like this for LGA1366 in the future. Only time will tell.
 
Last edited:
Vertigo1 said:
Lynnfield is arguably far better if power consumption is important and/or you're not planning to overclock much or at all.
Click to expand...

The differences I can remember offhand between the platforms:

1/ X58 gets triple channel ram, P55 dual channel. P55 can probably clock the ram marginally higher as it only has to deal with two channels.
2/ X58 has two x16 pci-e lanes, P55 has one. I believe the P55 one lane is better as it's on die instead of on the motherboard.
3/ X58 boards cost more
4/ P55 gets more extensive turbo boost
5/ P55 uses less power
6/ P55/H55 likely to get cheaper processors, have got 32nm first

In terms of reasons for P55, 1,2,3 are only good if on a budget, not for performance. Ditto 5,6. Turbo boost is irrelevant to me as for various reasons I won't use it, so tend to forget that one. (Don't use speed step yet either).

Accepting that "more turbo" as a good thing for most people, what else am I missing which makes the lga1156 better?

edit: Just realised that low heat => low noise, which is brilliant in itself. X58 has never tried to sell itself as a quiet system though. i3 on H55 is excellent for low noise, sufficient performance applications, but it can't match x58 for performance. Fastest is not synonymous with best, but overclockers.co.uk is likely to equate them regardless. Apologies for doing so myself.
 
Last edited:
surely different pc uses means different choices. why people try to compare the 2, is it not a case of, right now there is no games that will use the i7 to its full, but there are plenty of video/graphics apps that will. whereas the i3/i5 will probably be near full performance in games, but struggle with the video/graphics side in comparrison?
 
i like to know if its worth "downgrading" but i need the raw performance of the i7.

Id love an itx system, but theres no x58 ones except shuttle.

I spose most people with i7 require an i7..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom