As a build-your-own-box type guy myself, this doesn't particularly bother me, for two reasons.<p>First, it's extremely rare (in my experience, anyway) to want to upgrade the CPU of an existing machine without also upgrading the motherboard. Usually by the time CPUs have advanced far enough to justify upgrading, there's also new connectors, faster memory interfaces, etc. out as well that would require a new mobo to take advantage of. If you skip the mobo upgrade and just buy the CPU, you risk just moving the system's performance bottleneck around.<p>Second, installing the CPU onto the motherboard is easily the trickiest, most delicate part of building your own PC. In an age when everything else plugs together with idiot-proof plugs and sockets, CPUs still have a forest of fragile pins on the bottom that can easily be bent or broken. You also have to manually add thermal protections like fans, heat sinks, thermal paste, etc., which all require selection and installation; if the CPU came pre-installed on the mobo, you could skip all that hassle completely.
Well, what's AMD's stance on this? Hopefully they - at least - will continue to make CPUs that the "modder" community can take advantage of. If not, that would be a real shame. I've been an AMD fan since my 386DX/40, and would love another reason to continue supporting them.<p>Otherwise, one has to feel that this is just another battle in the "War on General Purpose Computing". Sure, PCs will - for now - remain "general purpose" computing devices, but you have to consider this one more step down the path of locking them down, and making them less accessible and hackable.
> A switch to BGA would mean that the processor could no longer be fitted into socket where it could be removed or replaced, and instead would be soldered to the motherboard much like processors for notebooks and tablets are nowadays.<p>This is completely incorrect. They <i>could</i> solder all the CPUs, but you can absolutely socket BGA chips. Are there any indications that they're going non-upgradable outside of the switch to BGA?
This just seems like a crazy decision from Intel's point of view. Won't it make them incredibly beholden to motherboard makers? The explanation that they're jealous of, and trying to take over, a low-markup commodity market strikes me as weird.<p>Right now, most computer users grab the cheapest motherboard that will work for them, and one of the places they spend extra cash is splurging on more CPU than they need. Now, motherboard makers will be able to pair the faster-stepping CPUs with 'markup' motherboards and capture a lot of that windfall to themselves, no? Doesn't this price-insensitive enthusiast market send a lot of cash Intel's way?<p>Maybe Intel is worried about the health of x64 white box component makers and is intentionally sending them a windfall?
"As far as the PC OEMs are concerned, killing off the PC upgrade market would be a good thing because it would push people to buy new PCs rather than upgrade their existing hardware. The PC industry is currently stagnant, partly because consumers and enterprise are making existing hardware last longer."<p>Maybe the market is stagnant because there really is no need to upgrade. I have a 2009 macbook pro and it's fine. In the late 90's early 2000's I wouldn't go more than 1-2 yeara without an upgrade. I still use an AMD Phenom in my desktop, though I may build a new machine just because of gaming. Nothing is really pushing the limits of modern hardware. Most software is moving to the web and doesn't require the latest processor to run.
Isn't this going to introduce lag into Intel's sales pipeline?<p>In this new model, Intel will be unable to simply new ship chips to distributors to go to system builders. They'll have to ship all their CPUs to "the land where things are soldered" (Asia, presumably) and ship everything back again.<p>I think AMD may have just been given a gift of 6 weeks.
Two points that I haven't seen covered yet:<p>1. Waste. If some component on your motherboard goes, you're on the hook for a new CPU (and vice versa). This seems tremendously wasteful. Maybe bigger repair shops will support mail-in refurbishing? Will people take advantage of that? Or just buy new for convenience?<p>2. Competition. Smaller motherboard vendors won't be able to sell direct anymore. I'm wondering if anyone can comment on how bad of a thing this is.
One point that should worry Intel is, if enthusiasts move to ARM, and begin to take their friends and family with them...<p>I've never upgraded a chip, but I've built plenty of computers, and mixing and matching was important for me.<p>I worry if we'll have less options down the road.
Who upgrades a CPU without upgrading their motherboard too?<p>The benefits are neglible, as next-gen RAM, next-gen peripheral bus, etc, all require a next-gen motherboard.<p>More of a concern is custom-built <i>shopping</i>, where it is harder for a small vendor to stock a batch of mobos and a variety of chips, and some chips go obsolete before sale (and so their mobos would be lost too...)<p>But hardware is really, really good these days (as the article notes). Runs cooler, less stress, less failure, far overpowered for most use-cases, less need to upgrade.<p>Enjoy our modern bounty and pay a bit extra for a new mobo every few years.