• 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.

Sandy Bridge to be blown out of the water by Ivy Bridge

Meh, ima wait for Bulldozer before i consider buying a Sandy/Ivy.

Although i'm yet to find anything my processor ATM can't do.....so i'll upgrade when that happens :)
 
JonJ678 said:
Seconded. There are reasons for implementing new sockets beyond selling more motherboards. Assuming you don't fancy trying to shoehorn a nehalem chip into a 478 socket.

Maintaining backwards compatibility slows down progress. *Cough* AMD *cough*
Click to expand...

Having said that though, companies like ASRock have managed to make a Socket 939 790GX board, and there's AM3 boards using the old Nvidia 7025 chipset from 2006. So it's not inconceivable that it's just a pure profit exercise.
 
Thank you Monkeynut, that's a thought provoking counter example. While I believe that changes to the cpu architecture can be significant enough to require a new board (e.g. amd3 includes both ddr2 and ddr3 controllers, whereas nehalem misses out the ddr2 one), I don't know how restrictive this is in practice.

Moving the memory controller onto the chip seems a significant move, but equally it's conceivable that you could include one on the motherboard anyway and override the built in one. I lack the electronics knowledge required to be sure.

Still, I believe it is simpler to drop backwards compatibility than it is to maintain it, and that the simplest solution is usually the better one to implement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom