Intel processor sockets. "Stone Age. Select the central processor chipsets. System logic sets

In 2011, the LGA 1155 processor socket successfully debuted on the computing system market. Socket This one was revolutionary at the time of its release and provided phenomenal levels of performance combined with excellent energy efficiency. It was he who laid the foundation on the basis of which Intel computing technologies continue to develop to this day.

Main technical specifications of the processor socket

Several important features were introduced into the world of computer technology by the LGA 1155 processor socket. Socket this was the first in which CPUs with an integrated graphics core could be installed. Moreover, the layout of the chip was reduced to the fact that both the computing part and the graphics subsystem were located on one silicon crystal. In addition to this, the north bridge of the system logic set was moved to the same crystal. As a result, the layout of the motherboard was significantly simplified, and its cost was reduced.

Chipsets. System logic sets

Two series of system logic sets were at the heart of Socket 1155. Motherboard could belong to the 6X or 7X series of chipsets. The release of the first of them was timed to coincide with the start of sales of Sandy Bridge chips, and the second - of Ivy Bridge. But they were compatible with each other, and any CPU for LGA could be installed in them 1155. Socket this one was unified in this regard.

Chips of the Sandy Bridge family

Sandy Bridge was the first generation of central processing units to fit into this chip socket from Intel. Socket 1155 , as noted earlier, debuted with these CPUs back in 2011. Processor solutions in this case were distributed as follows:

• Office processors are Celeron. The minimal characteristics and low cost were perfect for assembling a budget-level system unit. These PCs are greatsuitable for inexpensive office PCs. These chips were presented in 2 possible versions: G4XX (included 1 processor core) and G5XX (in this case there were already 2 code processing modules).
• One step higher in the hierarchy were the Pentium series CPUs. They already hadin obligatoryok2 cores are integrated and the cache is increased. Also, an additional factor that increased performance was an increase in clock frequency.All the previously listed nuances made it possible to create gaming computer systems based on this processor device.In this case, there were also two model series of processors: G6XX and G8XX.
• i3 processor solutions were even higher in speed and performance. They implemented NT technology, and this made it possible to obtain 4 logical code processing threads on 2 physical cores. These CPUs could handle any game without any problems at the time of release, and even now the most demanding games on such hardware resources will function quite successfully,but only with far from maximum settings.
• Even higher in the Intel hierarchy were the i5. In this case, the number of logical and physical blocks was the same and was equal to 4. Also, the cache of such CPUs was even larger (up to 6 MB). In addition to increasing the clock frequency, these processors supported TurboBust technology. With the help of the latter, the chip could dynamically adjust its frequency and turn off unused computing resources. Such processor devices were at the heart of the most powerful gaming PCs, workstations and graphics stations.
• The most productive processor solutions were Core i7. They, like the i3, implemented NT technology. With its help, real 4 code processing units could work in 8 logical threads. As a result, compared to the i5, there was a performance increase that could reach 15%. Most often, such chips were used in entry-level servers or PCs specializing in multimedia processing (for example, video encoding).

Platform update represented by “Ivy Bridge”

A year after the announcement of Sandy Bridge chips, Ivy Bridge processor solutions debuted in 2012. The structure of semiconductor crystals and their performance were almost identical. A slight increase in performance was provided by 100-200 MHz higher clock frequencies. But the technology for producing semiconductor crystals in this case has changed dramatically. If the predecessors were produced according to 32 nm tolerance standards, then the update was already manufactured at 22 nm, and this nuance significantly improved the energy efficiency of the computing platform, which was based on Socket 1155. Processors had a smaller thermal package, and this reduced the level of energy consumption.

Summary

A truly landmark event for the world of computer technology was the release of LGA 1155. Socket this set the vector of development for quite a long time not only for the desktop PC market, but also for laptops and servers. Its processors are still relevant today and still allow you to solve most problems. Well, proprietary technologies still continue to be actively used in modern processors. And not only in Intel solutions, but even AMD.

Sandy Bridge processors with LGA1155 first appeared in 2010, replacing not the most successful processors with the LGA1156 socket and Lynnfield core. The new processors had greater performance and at the same time ran noticeably less hot. Models with an unlocked multiplier made it possible to achieve record frequencies at the time of release. In 2012, processors with the Ivy Bridge core were released, using the same LGA1155 processor socket. These chips belong to the third generation and differ primarily in their support for PCI-E version 3.0. Thanks to this, those who support them gained popularity just as quickly as Sandy Bridge. Video card manufacturers also contributed to this by releasing top solutions with such an interface. For the sake of objectivity, it is worth noting that third-generation processors had less overclocking potential compared to the second generation.

Socket LGA1150

Socket LGA1155

Fourth generation processors, Haswell, replaced Ivy Bridge. They brought with them not only a new level of performance, but also a new processor socket. The graphics built into the processor have undergone serious modernization, and the performance has reached values ​​that allow you to play simple games quite comfortably. Almost simultaneously with the fourth generation, fifth-generation processors with the Broadwell core were released, which provide performance similar to Haswell with lower power consumption.

The table below allows you to compare the listed processors:

To compare chipsets that support these processors, let's take older models whose names begin with "Z"

To compare performance, consider 3 older processors of the second, third and fourth generations. The fifth generation does not make much sense to consider, since these CPUs are not created for high performance, but to improve performance per watt. Therefore, they are inferior in performance to fourth generation processors.

The test results show how processor performance has increased from generation to generation. The exception is a game test based on the game Crysis Warhead. This is due to the fact that this game uses only one processor core, and the main performance criterion is the clock speed. It can be seen that the Core i7-3770, as having the lowest clock frequency, showed minimal performance. All old games behave this way, so if you love World of Tanks or Crysis, then changing a second or third generation processor is pointless. For modern games such as GTA 5, The Witcher 3 or Project CARS, a newer processor will provide better performance. For tasks such as photo and video editing, mathematical calculations, etc., switching from to makes sense. Especially considering that modernization will require replacement only and. The remaining components can be used from the old system.

Let's turn to energy consumption. Let's consider the Core i7-2700K, Core i7-3770K, Core i7-4790K processors installed in a system where the second noticeable energy consumer is the Radeon HD 7970 video card. The load on the processor was provided by a performance test built into the 7z archiver and capable of loading all processor cores in system

The power consumption of the processor determines its heating. Those. The more the processor consumes, the better it needs to be cooled. Accordingly, the cooling system of a more economical processor, all other things being equal, will be quieter. The table with power consumption tests shows that the second generation Core processors have the highest power consumption. With third and fourth generation processors, things are a little more complicated. The tested processors showed a funny result: the Core i7-4790K was better at idle, and the Core i7-3770K was better under load. However, it is worth considering that modern processors rarely work at full load, so it is important that the CPU is able to effectively reduce power consumption. Based on this, it can be argued that in non-extreme operating modes the Core i7-4790K will have lower power consumption.

Finally, the long-awaited moment for many has arrived when you can get acquainted with the performance of Intel processors for the new LGA1155 platform! True, like last year, it fell right on the holidays, but nothing - having recovered from the holiday, it’s all the more interesting to go to the store :) By the way, it’s not only the date that today’s event has in common with the announcement of processors based on the Clarkdale core a year ago. The fact is that the story with LGA1156 is essentially repeating itself - the announcement of new processors will be extended over several stages. Today we will learn all the details about the quad-core models of the Sandy Bridge architecture, but we will have to wait almost another month and a half for more affordable dual-core models. “People’s” Pentiums don’t even make it into the first quarter.

But still, one and a half is not four, there will be much more than one Pentium, the prices for them are expected to be more humane than for the only processor (well, one and a half) of this family for LGA1156, and Celeron is also visible on the horizon: in a word, the company took into account experience “Extended start” of LGA1156 and similar mistakes will most likely not be made. Thus, LGA1155, starting somewhere in the second or third quarter of this year, will finally make it possible to abolish the well-worn LGA775 design, and by the end of the year it will do away with LGA1156. But for some time these three platforms will exist in parallel, which, coupled with the surviving LGA1366 (and it will definitely live until the end of the year), will only increase the confusion in the market. However, these are the harsh realities of the modern market and it is unlikely that we can change them in any way. All you have to do is study everything carefully and always make the right choice :)

There will be no theoretical part today. The fact is that we already had materials on this topic, and more detailed studies of microarchitecture are just around the corner. In general, let's not beat theorists' bread :) Also, for now, let's leave behind the scenes the issue of performance and functionality of the graphics core - this is also a separate and serious topic, which we will return to in the near future for a detailed study. At the moment, the main thing is to study the performance of the processor part itself and compare it with competing products from both Intel and AMD. What do we suggest and move on to?

Test bench configuration

In the family of processors for LGA1156, at first there were two processors from the Core i7 line and only one Core i5, but now the ratio is the opposite - one to three. The explanation is simple: older Core i7-800s are still on the market and have adequate performance, so you shouldn’t interfere with them too much. But Core i5 is too much of a motley bunch, which includes fast but graphics-less 700-series processors and graphics-equipped but rather weak (due to only two cores) Core i5-600. It was this imbalance that Intel decided to eliminate first. Note that now Core i5 is Always four cores, and the “old” version of “two cores/four threads” is present only in the cheaper Core i3 family. But these processors will come out a little later, fortunately now the Core i3-500 is not so bad.

What does a comparison of technical characteristics show? If previously the Core i5-700 and Core i7-800 differed only in the presence/absence of Hyper-Threading support and frequencies, now the differences have become a little deeper: the i5 also has less cache memory. Moreover, the line is constructed in an interesting way - the step of the starting clock frequencies is uneven, but in terms of the maximum frequency in the boost mode, “everything is as it should”: a hundred in the index is equal to 300 MHz clock frequency. A very serious difference, since both Intel and AMD have already accustomed us to the fact that neighboring processors in the line differ only by one multiplier. It’s difficult to say for now whether the concept will be preserved in the future or whether the company will begin to tighten its ranks, so we will postpone this issue for the future. In our opinion, “not partial” is very useful - there are already too many processors on the market, in which it is too easy to get confused. But there may be some progress - otherwise the Core i5-2300 looks a little strange, its price is only slightly lower than that of the 2400, but the lag in clock frequency is greater than the difference between the older models. Is that in one or two-threaded applications it is reduced, but there are fewer and fewer of them. Moreover, the presence of background processes, which sometimes require quite a bit of computing resources, also “votes” in favor of multithreading (and some of these background applications have also become multithreaded).

But somehow with the Turbo Boost mode itself... More was expected. And the maximum increase decreased to 400 MHz (do not forget that one “new” step is equal to 3/4 of the old one), and the dependence on the number of working cores has not gone away, although there were rumors that it was now possible to increase the frequency of all cores to the maximum. The only significant change is that now processors have the right to overclock “to the last”: the boost mode is allowed up to the TDP level (previously it was turned off at a lower limit), and, if necessary, for a short time - even higher. Thus, a certain increase in performance under heavy load should be observed. Let's check which one.

The main thing for overclocking enthusiasts is that Turbo Boost in its new incarnation also supports such a function as “Limited Unlocked Core” - the ability to set multipliers to the value “Max Turbo +4”. That is, in other words, according to Intel documentation, a completely ordinary Core i7-2500 will be able to operate at a frequency of 3.9 GHz when all cores are loaded, and when only one is loaded, it will even reach a frequency of 4.1 GHz! The reality turned out to be even more interesting - the Gigabyte board, on which we tested the new family, of course limited the multipliers, but... But for 2600, for example, the maximum value (namely 42) could be set for any number of active cores, i.e., with a slight movement of the hand, a processor with a clock frequency of 3.4 GHz turns into a model with a frequency of 4.2 GHz. And we have strong suspicions that other boards based on the P67 chipset (with the possible exception of those produced by Intel itself) will behave in the same way.

P67 boards also support “Fully Unlocked Core,” which allows you to use a multiplier of up to 57 in any mode. However, this requires a K-series processor. Note that they are of interest not only to overclocking enthusiasts (and maybe not so much to them: as shown above, you can add 700-800 MHz on conventional processors): the K-series uses an HD 3000 series video core, but in conventional models - only only HD 2000, in which half of the executive modules are disabled. Thus, these processors will also be extremely useful for fans of integrated graphics, who will use them on boards based on the H67 chipset. But on the P67 it will not be possible to use the built-in video core (since it does not have an FDI link), but it will be possible to fully “have fun” during overclocking, as mentioned above. Moreover, when overclocking not only cores, but also memory: despite the fact that the officially supported maximum mode is DDR3-1333, this is only true for H67. On the P67, higher multipliers are also available, which gives memory frequencies up to 2133 MHz. And the TDP level on these boards can be adjusted manually, increasing it during overclocking or, conversely, decreasing it to save energy (which was previously only available for extreme processors). In general, when developing processors and chipsets for LGA1155, Intel took into account all past experience, putting things in order in their comparative positioning :)

As is expected when testing a new family of processors, there will be more competitors than test subjects. Especially competitors produced in the same factories. The company of Intel processors we selected at first glance looks too diverse, but the selection logic is simple - the table (from left to right) shows:

1. The fastest LGA1156 processor equipped with a graphics core (by the way, it costs the same as Core i7-2600)
2. The fastest Core i5 of the previous generation (has the same starting frequency as the new Core i5-2300, and the selling price is the same as the Core i5-2500)
3. Fastest Core i7 for LGA1156
4. The fastest quad-core x86 processor
5. Generally the fastest x86 processor :)

The last two models, of course, we need mainly out of curiosity - any processor announced today for LGA1155 is not ashamed to lose to them :) However, there are serious suspicions that the Core i7-2600 will not be able to lose to the “extreme” i7-975 Extreme (how no matter how hard he tries), but a comparison with the i7-980X on a wide range of applications is of considerable interest.

Now let's move on to AMD. It is obvious that when the heavy equipment of the “blues” enters the battlefield, the “greens” are left only with guerrilla warfare and ambush operations. In any case, this situation will last until Superwaffe, codenamed “Bulldozer,” rolls out of the laboratories, but there is quite a lot of time left until that moment. Today we will not touch the “green partisans”, in the form of hordes of various Athlon IIs, but we will look at a couple of “tank ambushes”. The first will be the Phenom II X4 970, already familiar to our readers, a processor with the highest guaranteed clock frequency of the quad-core ones on the market (Core i7-2600 reaches 3.5 GHz only in boost mode, while others are not capable of this). The second one is the Phenom II X6 1090T. The entry of this line into the market last spring allowed the company to once again return to the “$200-300” market segment, since the processors very successfully occupied a niche between the older Core i5 and the younger Core i7 - let’s see if they will be able to maintain their positions taking into account the update of the product range Intel. To be fair, both the X4 and X6 families are expected to be replenished in the near future (more precisely, the 1100T appeared at the end of last year, and the 975 now), but since we are talking about only a slight increase in clock frequency, it is obvious that the qualitative picture is a little more productive than used, Phenom II will not change.

Testing

The performance testing methodology (list of software used and testing conditions) is described in detail in a separate article. For ease of perception, the results in the diagrams are presented as percentages (the result of the AMD Athlon II X4 620 in each test is taken as 100%). Detailed results in absolute values ​​are available as a table in Microsoft Excel format.

3D visualization

The very first group of programs - and the first discoveries. As we already know, these tasks do not require a large number of computation threads, so what comes first is the speed with which these same threads (two or three) are “run” through the processor. That is, in other words, this is exactly the area where architectural optimizations can have the best impact. And they had an effect - the Core i5-2300 (the youngest and cheapest) has already outperformed all the processors that we tested earlier. Including the extreme Core i7-975, which no one has ever managed to beat in this test. The rest of the representatives of the new architecture, for obvious reasons, are even faster, so they simply have no one to compete with.

3D rendering

It seems to us that Sandy Bridge will have the last word in these tasks when programs begin to support the new set of AVX vector instructions. In the meantime, this is “pure” mathematics, and it is very well parallelized, so the more computation threads, the better: strength breaks straw. However, the high efficiency of each computation thread is reflected here as well. In particular, the new Core i5 is faster than the old ones with the same number of cores and at a comparable clock frequency by 10 percent (looking at the diagram, do not forget that the i5-760 in boost mode operates at a frequency of 2.93 GHz, and the i5-2300 - only 2.9 GHz). But the transition to a thinner technical process allows the new processors to operate at higher frequencies, as a result of which they can compete with both the old Core i7 and the six-core Phenom II X6. Moreover, with the latter - even despite their higher frequency;) However, miracles do not happen in the world, so six-core Core i7s are out of reach, but they are much more expensive. Therefore, the second place of the Core i7-2600 is in fact not a defeat, but a brilliant victory.

Scientific and engineering computing

Another basically low-thread group with small multi-threaded inclusions, which distinguishes it from the first. But not much - the first two places were taken by processors for LGA1155 (the first was shared by as many as two, which once again shows that Hyper-Threading technology is still far from “free”), and the “penny” Core i5-2300 was second only to “multi-ruble” ones extreme processors of previous families.

Graphic editor

As we have written more than once, the applications included in this group have very different preferences: Adobe Photoshop “loves” many computation threads, but the three “amateur” programs do not need them (and even sometimes interfere). Well, since there are three of them for one, it is not surprising that previously the dual-core (but high-frequency) Core i5-600 showed very good overall results. Only extreme sports, where there are a lot of cores and high frequencies, produced more. “Family 2000” suits these programs even better, and its results in Photoshop are very good - here are the new leaders. I was especially shocked by the Core i7-2600, which in the Adobe software package almost caught up with the much more expensive six-core Core i7-970, and in the three remaining applications it simply has no competitors. The Core i5-2400 in them showed similar performance to the Core i5-680 (previously the leader), but outperformed it in Photoshop by almost one and a half times, which allowed this inexpensive model to take its place among the former leaders in terms of total results. The Core i5-2500 is understandably faster than them and is only behind the Core i7-2600. In general, only the youngest Core i5-2300 did not blow our minds. Although if you remember that its wholesale price is only $177, and it didn’t “shock” against the background of processors worth a whole hundred (or even all four - if you remember how much the Core i7-880 costs, to which the “baby” from the new line somewhat closer than the equivalent-frequency Core i5-760) dollars more expensive, this is also just a wonderful result.

Archivers

7-Zip is capable of using as many cores as it can find, all three subtests are very fond of a large amount of cache memory, and the latter seems to be only interested in it - in general, it’s not surprising that the new Core i5 performed not so perfectly here , as in previous groups: only four threads and a cache reduced to 6 MB make themselves felt. But “not ideal” does not mean bad - they easily outperformed all AMD processors and managed to reach approximately the level of the old Core i7, which cost about a hundred more. But the new Core i7-2600 has support for Hyper-Threading and an 8 MB cache, so its only competitor is the extreme Core i7-980X (even 975 is slower).

Compilation

Visual Studio turned out to be not the most friendly application to new processors - apparently due to the fact that the compilation task was already one of the best optimized ones. However, the Core i5-2300 slightly beats the Core i5-760: taking into account the smaller cache memory capacity (and it is of considerable importance in this test) of the new product, this deserves a positive assessment. The increase (albeit small) is actually of strategic importance - as we remember, earlier in this program the Phenom II X6 was very good, located above the Core i5 and with older models reaching up to the younger Core i7. And now? And now with the compilation quad core(and “honest” - without any Hyper-Threading) Core i5-2400 copes at exactly the same speed as six-core Phenom II X6 1055T (albeit the youngest in the family, but more expensive)! And the next model with the 1075T index is not far behind, beating the Core i5-2500 by only one point. The older models, as we see, are still faster than even the new Core i5 and can already be compared with the old Intel processor at $294, but the new one for the same money has jumped far ahead and is only behind six-core processors Intel itself. Moreover, it cannot be said that it is very noticeable - only 10% separates it from the current extreme Core i7-980X.

Java

But SPECjvm surprised me a little, since we are already accustomed to citing this test as a good example of multi-core optimization. However, apparently, its capabilities extend to an area with eight to ten threads, but no more. While processors with different numbers of cores, but based on similar architectures, were competing, this gave obvious priority to more multi-threaded models, but as soon as we started comparing models with different efficiency per thread... In general, the Core i7-980X is still the fastest, but the superiority over the Core i7-2600 has become purely formal. Well, the Core i5-2400 somehow “didn’t notice” that the Core i7-880 supports twice as many computation threads and has a similar clock frequency, and almost caught up with it :)

Such an increase turned into a complete defeat for AMD processors - previously the Phenom II X4 970 was faster than all Core i5s, and the Phenom II X6 1090T outperformed any Core i7-800. Now Phenom II X4 970 slower all Core i5 for LGA1155, and Phenom II X6 1090T lags behind Core i5-2500. And it’s not surprising that with the new Core i7 for LGA1155, AMD’s six-core processors, in principle, can no longer compete in performance.

Internet browsers

Previously, this group of applications was the most loyal to the Phenom II X4, since even the model with index 965 outperformed all Intel processors. Now, as we see, even the Core i5-2300 can repeat the results of the former tops, the Core i5-2400 outperforms the Phenom II X4 965 and is only slightly short of 970, and the 2500 and 2600 are simply the fastest on the market. Without any reservations :) However, as we have said more than once, from a practical point of view it makes no sense to attach great importance to the results of these tests on top processors, but from a research point of view, we tick off the fact that perhaps the last group has disappeared, where AMD processors held the lead.

Audio encoding

Another group of applications that over time could benefit a lot from the introduction of AVX, but for now operates only with “old” code. In addition, as has been said more than once, testing conditions most favor processors that can simultaneously perform a large number of computation threads. Therefore, at first glance, the new Core i5s are not that good here. But if you look closely, it becomes obvious that this is the level of the “old” Core i7 or Phenom II X6, i.e., more expensive CPUs. In any case, previously not a single quad-core crystal here scored 150 points, but now three at once score even more. The Core i7-2600, as one would expect, takes an honorable second place, behind only the six-core (and twelve-thread) Core i7-980X.

Video encoding

A similar picture to the previous one. Only now the gap between the 2600 and the 980X has become greater, but it is possible - after all, the devices are of completely different price classes. The main thing is that new devices are capable of defeating not only direct competitors, but also processors located one step higher.

Games

Even this group of applications has ended the stagnation. After which we began to run into a video card that was far from the slowest - for example, in Stalker and Resident Evil 5, all new processors showed the same results :) Which, it should be noted, turned out to be much higher than all the old ones. In general, the question of finding the best gaming processor should probably be considered resolved in all cases where you can spend more than $150 on a purchase - such is the Core i5-2300. Or, if finances are not so bad, then the Core i5-2400, which costs not much more, but “keeps up” at the level of former extreme sports enthusiasts. Top-end video cards or multi-GPUs remain behind the scenes, but here, it seems to us, the issue of processor price is not decisive. Moreover, even the Core i7-2600 is not too expensive. And you can overclock it to 400-800 MHz if desired... Or pay just a little extra for 2600K and overclock it even more. Or save a hundred and do the same procedure with the Core i5-2500K :) In general, the question of choice will only face those who need a fast processor for games for $100 or who, on principle, want to take something very expensive.

Total

There was a time when older Phenom II X4 models sold for about $300, but the emergence of the Core i5-750 “driven” all AMD processors into the “under $200” price niche. The company was able to get out of it only by releasing the Phenom II X6. Now, it seems, history is repeating itself: even six-core Phenom IIs need to be sold at prices not exceeding $200 - to the delight of some fans, but to the horror of shareholders. (It is obvious that quad-core processors produced using the 32 nm process technology are cheaper to manufacture than six-core processors at 45 nm, despite the fact that the former have a video core.) So it will be interesting to see how the “green” ones will get out of this situation - before the release of Bulldozer- there is still quite a lot of time left.

Another family of processors was much more unlucky. Yes, in fact, the Core i5-600 can be consigned to the dustbin of history in its entirety. While it was necessary to make a choice: “four cores or integrated graphics?”, there was something to talk about. However, now the choice is obvious - four cores (faster than the old ones) And integrated graphics (faster than old ones) simultaneously. The new Core i5s are definitely better than the old ones. The current pricing policy looks a little strange: the 2400 differs from the 2300 by as much as 300 MHz and only 7 dollars, and from the 2500 by only 200 MHz and as much as 20 dollars, but this is quite understandable due to the premium for steepness. Moreover, perhaps, after the release of the new i3 (which will finally write off all processors based on the Clarkdale core) the “ladder” will be converted into 155-177-204, which will be more logical.

If the new i5 turned out to be so good, then what can we say about the Core i7-2600? An excellent processor, the absolute triumph of which was spoiled only by the extreme Core i7-980X. But even then only in the overall standings - it’s easy to notice that in half of the test groups even this expensive device can now compete only with the new Core i5, significantly getting ahead only in a few cases. Yes, this is still the difficult share of six-core processors in a desktop environment: an extremely small percentage of software can make good use of their potential capabilities. Intel, it seems to us, very correctly decided that the time for multi-core processors on the desktop has already come, but “many” still means “four”. For extreme sports enthusiasts, more is possible, but only if they are willing to pay for it :) And pay regularly - previously the same 980X competed only with the same extreme models, but now it does not always outperform budget ones. And the previous extreme one lost miserably everywhere to the regular Core i7-2600. Top, but ordinary. In general, it is standard practice for Intel - the new family of processors is unconditionally better than the old one, and the older models in it are no worse than the old extreme ones. Moreover, what is gratifying is that even fans of overclocking and other optimizations now do not have to prepare another thousand dollars: there are not so expensive Core i5-2500K and i7-2600K. And even more versatile than their K-series predecessors, since they are interesting not only with fully unlocked multipliers, but also with a more powerful graphics core.

To summarize, should the release of new processors be considered a success? Yes, count. Even despite the changed design, which will once again force upgrade enthusiasts to change boards: the new processors are good enough that even owners of systems with LGA1366 will be tempted to do this procedure (if only because they can replace some i7-920 with The i7-970 will be more expensive and less interesting than taking the i7-2600K on a new board) or LGA1156. Not to mention those who are still clinging to LGA775 - the time has come to finally retire any Core 2 Duo, and Core 2 Quad too. Well, those who buy assembled computers simply receive a small gift from the company - for the same money as in December last year, they can buy about 20 percent more processor power :)

Intel with built-in DDR-III memory controllers (two channels) and PCI-E 2.0 bus (16 lanes), as well as support for processors with an integrated graphics adapter, replacing Socket LGA1156 and Socket LGA775. In the future, up to eight cores will be released for this socket.

What is Socket LGA1156?
Socket for Intel desktop processors with built-in DDR-III memory controllers (two channels) and PCI-E 2.0 bus (16 lanes), as well as support for processors with an integrated graphics adapter, replacing Socket LGA775. Currently, the Core i3, i5 and i7 8XX families, as well as cheap processors under the Pentium brand, are produced for this processor socket.

What is Socket LGA1366?
Socket for new desktop and server Intel processors, with built-in DDR-III memory controllers (three channels) and QPI bus (one channel for desktop processors and two for server processors), replacement for both Socket LGA775 (for high-performance single-processor systems) and Socket LGA771. Currently, processors of the Core i7 9XX and Xeon 55XX families are produced for this processor socket. The key difference between the latter is the support for dual-processor configurations.

What is the difference between Socket LGA1155 and Socket LGA1156 connectors and processors for them? Are they compatible with each other?
Despite the external similarity of the connectors, they are completely incompatible with each other, i.e. LGA1155 processor cannot be installed in LGA1156 board and vice versa, besides, this is mechanically prevented by a different arrangement of keys in the connector. Also, the main difference between LGA1155 processors and chipsets compared to LGA1156 analogues is a twice faster version of the DMI bus, which communicates with the chipset, which eliminates the bottleneck when using SATA 6Gb/s and USB3.0 controllers.

What is the difference between Socket LGA1156 and Socket LGA1366 connectors and processors for them? Are they compatible with each other?
An LGA1156 processor cannot physically be installed in an LGA1366 socket and vice versa, despite the similar processor names for both sockets.

The key differences between all three sockets are summarized in the table:

What memory can be used with Socket LGA1155, Socket LGA1156 and Socket LGA1366 processors?
Since the memory controller is integrated into the corresponding processors, support for various types of memory also depends on the type of memory installed. Currently, all boards and processors with these sockets are designed to work with DDR-III memory; the maximum officially supported module frequency depends on the specific processor model , however, some patterns are observed - all LGA1155 and LGA1156 processors (Core i5 and Core i7 8XX) and all LGA1366 Core i7 processors support only unbuffered (“regular”) DDR-III up to PC10600 (1333MHz), and Xeon processors for Socket1366, in combination with appropriate boards, also supports ECC and ECC+Registered modules, and unbuffered modules also work in them.
To achieve optimal performance, the number of memory modules in LGA1155 and LGA1156 systems should be a multiple of two, in a single-processor LGA1366 system - three, and in a dual-processor system - six.

What coolers can be used with Socket LGA1155, Socket LGA1156, and Socket LGA1366 processors?
The cooler mounts for LGA1155 and LGA1156 sockets are identical and are not compatible with LGA1366, and both of these types of mounts are not backward compatible with any of the previously released sockets. However, for some expensive coolers, sets of mounts have been released that allow them to be installed on such, and most new universal coolers already support such connectors.

The list of compatible coolers in the NICS range can be found here: , .

What power supplies can be used with Socket LGA1155, Socket LGA1156 and Socket LGA1366 processors?
Boards with these sockets do not impose any specific requirements on the power supply; the selection of the power supply is carried out according to the same principles as for Socket LGA775 and Socket LGA771 systems based on the requirements of a specific configuration.

How does the performance of processors with Nehalem architecture for Socket LGA1156 and Socket LGA1366 compare with each other and with processors with Intel Core architecture for SocketLGA775?
As a rule, with the same nominal clock frequency and number of cores, LGA1366 processors are slightly faster than LGA1156 processors, but both are significantly (up to 40%) superior to their LGA775 predecessors from the Core 2 Quad family.

How does the performance of processors with the Nehalem architecture for Socket LGA1156 compare with processors with the Sandy Bridge architecture for Socket LGA1155?
As a rule, with the same nominal clock frequency and number of cores, LGA1155 processors are approximately 15-17% faster than LGA1156 processors due to architectural differences themselves.