LGA 1366 vs LGA 2011

Discussion in 'PC Hardware' started by weaveR, Jun 6, 2011.

  1. weaveR

    weaveR MDL Member

    Nov 8, 2009
    104
    2
    10
    Hi I just wanted to ask if it is worth waiting until the 2011 socket is released at the end of this year, I had a look at motherboards just before and I can't seem to find a decently priced one that has both USB 3.0 and SATA 6Gb/s.

    Will 2011 socket motherboards be standardized with this? I find it weird that the latest available motherboards at the moment don't offer these things with every motherboard just like every computer these days has USB 2.0, why is this?
     
  2. acyuta

    acyuta MDL Expert

    Mar 8, 2010
    1,619
    365
    60
    I have a LGA 1366 CPU from June 2009 and plan to pass over on Sandybridge and get Ivy Bridge. Apart from performance, I look forward to native (not 3rd party controllers) SATA-III, USB 3.0, UEFI BIOS, and significant increase in number of storage ports.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  3. burfadel

    burfadel MDL EXE>MSP/CAB

    Aug 19, 2009
    2,628
    3,829
    90
    USB 3.0 isn't yet common on chipsets because most people can't make use of it yet. For SATA 3, you can mix any number of SATA 2 and SATA 3 drives and use existing cables. USB 3.0 on the other hand requires a USB 3.0 chipset (and port of course), a USb 3.0 cable, and a USB 3.0 device. If you use a non-USB 3.0 cable, the device will only run at USB 2.0 speeds. If you connect both a USB 2.0 and USB 3.0 device to the same USB hub (or mix the cables etc) you will only get USB 2.0 speeds. If you use USB ports built into a case, unless they are USB 3.0 you will only get USB 2.0 speed. Therefore, if you want to use USB 3.0 with say, a USB 3.0 stick that you move around, you have to run a USB 3.0 cable from a USB 3.0 port on the motherboard up the side of the cable/desk etc.

    When people say 'USB hub', people think of the external USB hub. However, the ports on the computer are tied to USB hubs (which are in turn connected to a USB controller). There are many USB controllers and hubs, which is why many are listed in the device manager.

    One of the ways motherboard manufacturers save money is running more than one port at the back of the computer to each USB controller. Therefore, if you have a USB 2.0 device or cable plugged into a separate port on the computer to a USB 3.0 device, it may actually be running off the same USB hub and as a result only run at USB 2.0 speed! With the third party USB ports this isn't so much of an issue, although its still likely that 2 ports are tied to a single controller. In this case, only use the USB 3.0 ports for USB 3.0 devices with USB 3.0 cables!

    One of the slowdown considerations using USB 2.0 devices is the fact that the ports (and therefore the bandwidth) is shared. Its best to balance out the USB devices in a fashion where devices that require speed (such as a USB flash drive that manages 30MB+/s aren't using the same port as say, a wireless USB dongle that you are torrenting through!

    As you can see, currently for most configurations its likely people would only ever run USB 3.0 devices at USB 2.0 speeds due to the cables and hub sharing. Having a separate (and marked) USB 3.0 controller people are more conscientious to only plug USB 3.0 devices etc into it. There's the possibility of a lot of complaints of people only getting USB 2.0 speeds with USB 3.0 devices due to the cable & hub issue. Since USB 3.0 devices aren't really common yet, AMD and Intel have decided its not worth implementing since most people would probably use them incorrectly anyway! (and then complain about the USB 3.0 sucking).

    In terms of LGA 2011, it probably won't be like LGA 1366 where the prices were similar to that of LGA 1156. In all likelihood both the motherboards and CPU's would be noticeably more expensive than socket 1155 to fill the ultra-high end niche.
     
  4. burfadel

    burfadel MDL EXE>MSP/CAB

    Aug 19, 2009
    2,628
    3,829
    90
    The future intel socket is Socket 2011 (LGA 2011), which is why Wikipedia shows no results for socket 2012. The future AMD socket to replace the Socket G34 on the server CPU's is currently called G2012.

    Funnily enough you wrote LGA 2012 isn't shown, and have actually linked to the correct LGA 2011 Wikipedia page!
     
  5. acyuta

    acyuta MDL Expert

    Mar 8, 2010
    1,619
    365
    60


    Yes very likely considering what Intel is specifying. By then around late-2011/2012, perhaps SB will be more populated.

    Regarding SATA-III or SATA-II, this is irrelevant for mechanical HDDs but I had a problem in a WD2002FAEX SATA-III but not in WD2001FASS SATA-II. using 2002Faex as a boot device on a June 2009 MSI x58m mobo with all SATA-II ports caused many BSODs for reasons I could not get at. 2001FASS SATA-II had no such problems.

    Recently my mobo got bad and is being repaired (my fault). So I bought an ASUS Sabertooth X58 to go with core i7-920. It has 2 SATA-III ports on a Marvell controller. I thought the above problem would go away. However, got 2 ultra ama crc error and bsods in 2 days of fitting WD2002FAEX on the Marvell SATA 3 port. Finally, I have put the wd2002faex on a sata ii port and used the marvell sata 3 for storage disks. Can you please help here. I even do not install Intel RST now if boot is on 2002FAEX. Even have to reduce OC an i7-920 from 170 bclk to 149 bclk. 2001fass really had no such issues.

    I really wonder why WDC/Seagate are going with SATA-III on mechanical hard disks except as a marketing tool.

    I look forward to intel's native sata-3 ports. Marvell has not been good for me. USB 3 is also presently on renesas controller but I do not use USB 2.0 hard disks except for smaller pen drives. Backups are anyway on esata. With that in mind, I do not even need USB 3 but would be useful if available natively on chipset.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  6. weaveR

    weaveR MDL Member

    Nov 8, 2009
    104
    2
    10
    I thought the LGA 2011 was coming out at the end of 2011 though, is that the Ivy Bridge socket or is there another socket coming out in 2012 called the LGA 2012?
     
  7. burfadel

    burfadel MDL EXE>MSP/CAB

    Aug 19, 2009
    2,628
    3,829
    90
    #9 burfadel, Jun 6, 2011
    Last edited: Jun 6, 2011
    LGA 2011 has nothing to do with the actual year being 2011 :) Ivy Bridge still uses LGA 1155, and is supposedly compatible with the current LGA 1155 chipsets (P6x, H6x, Z6x etc), although would benefit from the updated versions of these. Kind of like a P45 chipset vs a P35 I guess.

    The LGA 2011 is reserved for the high end 'Extreme' versions of Sandy Bridge/Ivy Bridge, and utilised quad-channel memory. It just happens that it has 2011 contacts/pins (or whatever they are called on a LGA type board). If it being LGA2011 is actually intentional, then it just means you are paying a little extra more for the 'coincidence'! Either way, going by the price of previous extreme CPU's, and considering special motherboards are required for it, its likely these will be priced considerably higher than LGA 1155 CPu's and motherboards.

    Since you pay so much for the CPU and special motherboard, you would also want to get the fastest memory possible to make the quad channel RAM worthwhile, and it would make no sense to be excessive with the CPU/motherboard and only utilise 4x2gb modules (you'd go for 4x4gb modules). Then, you wouldn't want to be slowed down by the drive so you'd get a fast SSD (at least 400MB read/write, not these slow 280MB/s ones currently around) and maybe even have it in RAID. If you want to play games no point having such a CPU and a weak card, so you'd get the top end from either Nvidia or AMD, and maybe even SLI / Crossfire it!

    Then, to make use of the gaming power, you'd get a much larger screen, and speakers to make it worthwhile.

    So may cost just a few dollars more to get the full benefit from it versus a socket 1155 system ;). Of course this is to the extreme, but afterall thats what the CPU's are called! (extreme edition). Most likely people would get average speed memory, an average video card, a typical 24 inch screen then brag about how they were much smarter than their socket 1155 counterparts who probably get higher framerates, better video quality and have a bigger screen with the money saved!

    The currently named G2012 socket is an AMD server socket which replaces the current G34 socket, and in this case the 2012 does stand for 2012, as thats when it is released. The specs aren't currently known for it, the final name would probably be something like say, G40.
     
  8. weaveR

    weaveR MDL Member

    Nov 8, 2009
    104
    2
    10
    Interesting how the LGA 2011 socket will be backward compatible with 1155 instead of the newer and currently newest LGA 1366, is the 1155 more popular?

    It will be good when the older sockets drop in price once the LGA 2011 is released I think it'd be more feasible to get an older socket then buy the LGA 2011 since I can guarantee that the LGA 2011 will get knocked off its pedestal unless it's going to be the best for a reasonable amount of time, I think I read somewhere that they're getting pretty close to shrinking all the little components on a CPU to the physical size limitation due to the size of an atom being not much bigger than the size that some of the components are being shrunk to so there may be hope that you'll be less likely to have to upgrade so it maybe worthwhile to buy the LGA 2011 who knows?

    SSD are far too expensive at the moment and don't offer much capacity compared to mechanical drives, also they're always 2.5" which would mean you would have to use an adapter to fit it in a regular PC case, it's 2.5" because it has no moving parts so most people prefer to use them in laptops since laptops tend get knocked around a lot.

    Are AMD CPUs good for anything anymore? It's funny how things change I remember in 2005 AMD CPUs were definitely the best if you were into gaming.