• 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?

The way I see things it no different to S775

They've just split the Chipets across two sockets so your S775 X48 Chipset an Q series proccessors is your 1366 stepup while 1156 is say your G31 and E series step up all theyve done is split the budget chipset/processors and highend chipsets/processors across sockets, its no different to using different chipsets and proccessor lines of S775.

I hope i made sense there?
 
FilterFish said:
He said that 1156 is cheaper and 1366 is faster and you counter with no, 1156 has better power consumption. Well, that means it's cheaper to buy and cheaper to use; 1366 is still faster.

There is no elitist mentality in that comment, just cold hard facts.
Click to expand...

The inference, as I read it, was that cost was the sole reason for choosing LGA1156 over LGA1366, and it was this that I was disputing.

Oddly, I'm in a situation where, due to motherboard feature requirements and wanting the hyperthreading of the i7 over the i5, I'm potentially looking at spending just as much on a 1156 platform as I would on a 1366 one, yet I still vastly prefer the Lynnfield processors for their lower power consumption & improved turbo features :)
 
Jae-So said:
yeh like some1 said earlier, I think itz cos enthusiasts like to go for the faster platform, even though certain features like triple channel ram don't make much of an impact in most things
Click to expand...

assuming, which everyone seems to be doing, that EVERYONE on here uses their pc for gaming only, which they DONT.
i dont know which part, be it the ram, cpu or whatever, but since swapping out my Q8300 setup for my i7 920 the times to encode my videos has dropped dramaticallly.
maybe in gaming terms there is no benifit for having the triple channel ram, quad core i7 cpu, but whos to say in 2010 there isnt a batch of games that are optimized for quad cores? but more importantly, i think it would make a lot more sense for people to stop assuming that because this is a computer site, everyone is a heavy gamer and uses their pc for nothing else.
 
paradisiac said:
assuming, which everyone seems to be doing, that EVERYONE on here uses their pc for gaming only, which they DONT.
i dont know which part, be it the ram, cpu or whatever, but since swapping out my Q8300 setup for my i7 920 the times to encode my videos has dropped dramaticallly.
maybe in gaming terms there is no benifit for having the triple channel ram, quad core i7 cpu, but whos to say in 2010 there isnt a batch of games that are optimized for quad cores? but more importantly, i think it would make a lot more sense for people to stop assuming that because this is a computer site, everyone is a heavy gamer and uses their pc for nothing else.
Click to expand...

yeh but I was comparing 1366 to 1156, and the i7 860 is about as fast as a 920, I myself have an X58 build that I'm putting together soon, just saying I could have gotten away with using an 860 or even an i5 if I don't plan o encoding much
 
Jae-So said:
yeh but I was comparing 1366 to 1156, and the i7 860 is about as fast as a 920, I myself have an X58 build that I'm putting together soon, just saying I could have gotten away with using an 860 or even an i5 if I don't plan o encoding much
Click to expand...

yeah, which has been my point all along, there are advantage for all 4 sockets, 775, i3, i5 & i7, depending on the users needs. but as for the oringinal post about 1366 snobbery, i still stand by my statement that from this thread there seems to be more 1156 snobbery than the 1366 people.
just because it doesnt suit their gaming needs doesnt mean all of us that bought i7's wasted our money as its not the 'maintream' socket.
 
^ oh yes agreed, I've seen posts on many boards that basically go "haha all u suckers that bought i7 wasted ur money and should have waited for i5", I'm happy I decided to go X58
 
in theory, from the money aspect, i think we were all ripped off by buying intel chips, as the more and more i read about amds, the better they seem to be value for money wise, they are cheaper to build and seem to be very competitive performance wise. so i guess, the people that should really be laughing is all the amd users. but i still remember having bad experiences with amd so i think it would take a drastic 'amd is loads better than the intel equivilant for half the price' true statement to be released before i considered going back. im sure they are as good, maybe sometimes better than intel chips, but unfortunatly due to bad experience im put off them.
 
Vertigo1 said:
The inference, as I read it, was that cost was the sole reason for choosing LGA1156 over LGA1366, and it was this that I was disputing.
Click to expand...

Cost is the primary reason LGA1156 came about though as LGA1366 could never compete with AM3 on price and Intel were losing sales to AMD as a result. It's done its job as I would say the majority of the people who aren't buying LGA1366 are now buying LGA1156 instead of AM3.

LGA1156 is essentially just an LGA1366 with the X58 PCI-E hub, Quickpath Interconnect and one memory channel removed, all those changes were made with lower cost in mind and resulted in a lower TDP as a bonus which is always good for mainstream.
 
Owners tend to have to justify their purchase, so somebody who buys LGA1366 and is happy with it is going to shout out about it, same goes with an LGA1156 owner (such as the OP) and so forth. The exact same thing happens in the world of TV's 1080p Plasma V LCD/LED with people usually blindly bleating about how superior THEIR purchase is over the competition.

Personally I won't look at upgrading my Q6600 chip until Intel settle on ONE mainstream socket with a decent upgrade path ... if they don't do that and keep mucking around I will switch to AMD.:p
 
Oh yeah, there's no doubt the prime goal behind LGA1156 was to reduce costs and thus produce a more mainstream version, hence LGA1366 now being positioned as the enthusiast and server platform.

It just so happens that the Lynnfield processors also brought some other very desirable things to the party, in the form of reduced power consumption and improved turbo functionality.

It may well be that the next generation of LGA1366 processors will also have these features, further complicating the choice, but then it could also be that future LGA1366 processors will be the high-end, expensive ones to match Intel's target market for this platform.

Both platforms have their advantages and disadvantages and will suit different customers accordingly, it's just the "LGA1366 is superior in every way and buying LGA1156 is idiotic" attitude that seems prevalent which I have an issue with.
 
There is nothing wrong with the 1156 architecture and for going on the i5 route.
They perform similarly to the i7 on the 1366 boards until you start going into encode/decode/rendering or gaming with more than 1 gpu, quadfiring/quad sLi is definitely out of the question due to severe bottlenecking of the 2*x8 Pci x channels.
 
I've not seen this personally, but I would guess it shows lack of understanding in the marketing numbers. People see i7 1366 > i5 1156 which of course is not the case because of the different parameters.
 
I'm still on 775 (E6750@ 3.2Ghz) and it's good enough for me. To be honest I don't play as many games these days so it'll be a while before I need to upgrade.

My rig has plenty of life left in it yet :)
 
Seems like everyone here is trying to justify thier own purchases, whether it's i3, i5 or i7. I don't own an 'i' anything lol, but would have to support the argument that each processor brings certain advantgaes over other chips. For instance, I would imgine that a 4.6Ghz i3 on air would own a 4Ghz i7 in most games. i7 on the other hand would own the i3 in encoding etc. Happy to be proven wrong however i don't think it's 'black & white' that: i7 > i5 > i3.
 
Last edited:
Built a new rig from the ground up, got myself an i5 and I got a lot of crap with people telling me it was useless, never going to see anything come along for it etc etc.

What can i7 do that i5 can't? Hyperthread causes a slowdown in games (and I assume single threaded tasks) as shown by various review sites. It's good for encoding? I spend about 1x10^-10% of my time doing encoding, hardly worth the investment. 16x 16x instead of 8x 8x? Yeah I'm not willing to spend an extra hundred because of a 3FPS hit or so.

Overall, I think the whole 1156 is dead is nonsense, as said it's the mainstream socket now, mainstream being what most people go for, they're going to cater for 1156 as much if not more than 1366.

Loving my i5, and glad I didn't waste money on an i7 :p Also purchased before i3 so not sure of its comparisons but dual core isn't for me.
 
Auraomega said:
Built a new rig from the ground up, got myself an i5 and I got a lot of crap with people telling me it was useless, never going to see anything come along for it etc etc.

What can i7 do that i5 can't? Hyperthread causes a slowdown in games (and I assume single threaded tasks) as shown by various review sites. It's good for encoding? I spend about 1x10^-10% of my time doing encoding, hardly worth the investment. 16x 16x instead of 8x 8x? Yeah I'm not willing to spend an extra hundred because of a 3FPS hit or so.

Overall, I think the whole 1156 is dead is nonsense, as said it's the mainstream socket now, mainstream being what most people go for, they're going to cater for 1156 as much if not more than 1366.

Loving my i5, and glad I didn't waste money on an i7 :p Also purchased before i3 so not sure of its comparisons but dual core isn't for me.
Click to expand...

That's the type of post that makes YOU a snob towards 1366, why state loads of fiction and then say why you're glad you didn't waste money on an i7.
You are exactly as bad as the 1366 snobs. :rolleyes:
 
That's the thing though, anybody who thinks they are better than anyone else because of some hardware they own is a sad case, and any perceived problems are entirely theirs ;)

I love my i7 965, but I would never have gone and laid out the £900 it would have cost me at the time, I simply got lucky. Without the i7 965 dropping in my lap I would now be the proud owner of an overclocked 920 simply because I couldn't justify the outlay of more than an entire 920 based system on just the CPU alone.

Had i5 been available at the time I may have considered it, but I do a lot of video transcoding so I still reckon I would've gone the 920 route.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom