processor with no pins?

drowd

this looks very interesting. i HATE dealing with bent pins on a proc.

check it out

http://www.pinoypc.net/tehboard/viewthread.php?thread=25694

Mackanz

That's how the new Intel Granny's/Springdale will look like. The pins will be on the board instead, making the board more expensive instead. They also implemented a 10% overclock limit on the new cpu's =/
If i had intel stocks, i would sell them right away since they canned the Tejas cpu's. They have basically nothing to offer against A64/FX53 for at least a year even if they try to optimize the Prescotts so that they doesn't give out that much heat (new precott stepping out any week now). If AMD also could release their new budget series S754 fast, well...imagine yourself. Time to buy Amd stocks.

Zuntar

Another Intel Wacked idea.

rapture

getting rid of pins is a good idea and I suppose moving them onto the mobo is a step in the right direction. Cant see why you would do this with a current/old CPU though, would have thought they would have saved it for a new CPU.

kryyst

This seems like a bad idea to me. By not having any pins and just contact points you increase the chance of not getting a good connection which can lead to all softs of problems right off the bat. On top of that there is the chance of getting air in there between the contact points which could lead to oxidization down the line depending on what kind of environment the computer is in.

Add to that you need to have perfectly even pressure when putting on a heatsink so that one side isn't compressed slightly more then the other leaving the possibility of a small gap.

Just seems like more problems will be created then solved.

DJ_Evergreen

As good as that sounds, I'd have to agree with kryyst's post. I can only see bad things coming from it... who know's maybe i'll be proved wrong. wouldn't be a first

Cantankerous

DJ_Evergreen wrote:

As good as that sounds, I'd have to agree with kryyst's post. I can only see bad things coming from it... who know's maybe i'll be proved wrong. wouldn't be a first

I can't imagine that any mobo manufacturers are happy about this, seems like this will lead to a influx of mobo RMAs. It also seems like it would be much harder to keep pins on a mobo from betting bent.

drowd

i understand about the pressure points and air and other problems that would arise. i guess i just have faith in these companies that if they can do other tasks (such as programming chips and designing circuit boards) with much precision, then they can make it perfectly even/easy/(mostly) idiot proof. but i imagine, it will just spawn more problems then there already are . . .

Zuntar

drowd wrote:

.......then they can make it perfectly even/easy/(mostly) idiot proof. but i imagine, it will just spawn more problems then there already are . . .

agreed on the "spawn more problems".

Understand one thing though, it doesn't matter how idiot proof they make it, there ARE better idiots out there! That gets proven at work ALL the time! :loco:

Just think, it is not exactly hard to mount a current processor, but people still screw it up. You pay attention, read the directions, and... um..i don't know...maybe follow them! To each his/her own, but I think its a lame attempt to get the "intel" logo in the news.

yagga

kryyst wrote:

This seems like a bad idea to me. By not having any pins and just contact points you increase the chance of not getting a good connection which can lead to all softs of problems right off the bat. On top of that there is the chance of getting air in there between the contact points which could lead to oxidization down the line depending on what kind of environment the computer is in.

Add to that you need to have perfectly even pressure when putting on a heatsink so that one side isn't compressed slightly more then the other leaving the possibility of a small gap.

Just seems like more problems will be created then solved.

That's the first thing that came to though.

Vivec wrote:

I can't imagine that any mobo manufacturers are happy about this, seems like this will lead to a influx of mobo RMAs. It also seems like it would be much harder to keep pins on a mobo from betting bent.

Yeah, the motherboards companies won't be happy, and WHAT IF YOU BEND A PIN? Now your motherboard is screwed.

Zuntar wrote:

Another Intel Wacked idea.

Another agreed.

---

People surprise me how much of an idiot they can be. So many people are SO STUPID.

Also, I don't like pins to begin with, now are these typical pins? Are there going to be less of them? To idiot proof them they need to make less pins, and/or make pins spaced farther apart so you can fix problems. Maybe this idea would work if instead of pins on the motherboard there were spring/pressure metal contacts that kindof push against a contact on the cpu. Think of a train, remember those little bumper things that stick out of trains and at dead ends on the track? I think I'll just take the old fashioned slot/ old socket designs (like the older athlons or before)

That is all.

kryyst

there are no pins. Gold contacts on the cpu and gold contacts on the mobo. As for the number from the pictures they look to be about the same. There are 2 notches that in theory ensure that the chip will only fit in one way.

The actuall contack is like pushing two coins together just flat on flat. If you get dust or anything in between you screw up the contact and can create problems.

wrx_225

I agree to Kryyst, too. By putting the pin on the MB, Intel just save a lot of money on QC, etc. MB maker have to pick up the extra QC they have to do, if not the "Return MB" will be all time HIGH. Will that make the chip run faster? NO! I think it is just a bad idea, Intel trying to make themselves seem to be innovative, it’s just another marketing joke. :fu:

muddocktor

I disagree with kryyst about the lack of pins on the new Intel mobos. Look at this pic I've linked to at HardOCP, it clearly shows little gold plated pins inside the socket. BTW, there are 775 of those little bastards in that socket and I would imagine that they are quite fragile if you put any sideloading on them when inserting a proc. I do think that if a person is relatively careful though, you won't destroy too many sockets with that crap. :jelly:

kryyst

muddocktor wrote:

I disagree with kryyst about the lack of pins on the new Intel mobos. Look at this pic I've linked to at HardOCP, it clearly shows little gold plated pins inside the socket. BTW, there are 775 of those little bastards in that socket and I would imagine that they are quite fragile if you put any sideloading on them when inserting a proc. I do think that if a person is relatively careful though, you won't destroy too many sockets with that crap. :jelly:

I stand corrected that is a much better picture of it then the one I saw. The one I saw was at a weird angle and it just looked like they were flat pads on a board and not raised up. I don't think you'll destroy any sockets but it's still just a flat contact point as those pins don't insert into the chip. So it's More like pushing two pin heads together for the contact surface then the male/female system we have today.

yagga

Remember Intel, The higher force wanted the male/female system!

wrx_225

yagga wrote:

Remember Intel, The higher force wanted the male/female system!

We are now in a male/male & female/female world, Intel really know the world I guess :jelly:

yagga

Intel, you better watch out! Bush is getting angrier!

w_ashley

kryyst wrote:

there are no pins. Gold contacts on the cpu and gold contacts on the mobo. As for the number from the pictures they look to be about the same. There are 2 notches that in theory ensure that the chip will only fit in one way.

The actuall contack is like pushing two coins together just flat on flat. If you get dust or anything in between you screw up the contact and can create problems.

A few points I can understand how a replacement chip due to the rate at which processors upgrade etc... could make it more material friendly to have the chips removable however why not just put it in the board which would take away packaging cost individual transports product marketing etc.. etc.. although I can understand how people have all different cards and such why not just put the current best in to the board and make assembly points more easily adapted based upon best standard for ordering. It seems this is what often happens in store its understandable though.


Use of an Insulative Brush could reduce the chances of dust and static I would geuss.Why wouldn't they just treat the gold or whatever materials to be antistatic dust particle repelent.

From what i know gold doesn't oxidize very well.

if it is a larger contact surface rather then just the pins and the central point would the conductivity have a wider shorter traversal.

For instance if you remember the intel commercials which may have came out around outbreak where they were all wearing the suits and such if I'm not mistaken when they assemble the chips they have antistatics and airmonitoring etc.. however the difference of static potentials between a flat ship and a pined chip seems negligible if anything it would be easier to prepare with a antistatics/dust brush(which might cost you 10$ more also it would see marginally less costly to produce a flat chip then a pinned chip dont ask why its just i feel flat is more defined then many pins. Eventually thy will end up making spherical chips why they havnt done this yet I'm not sure. very small already.

I'm wondering how much dust it would take since air quality particle wise is dismal in cities.. dust particles are everywhere.

kryyst

First putting them on the board like they use to do would be a step in the wrong direction. No upgrading of the CPU and you fry the board or the cpu and you have to replace both.

From the looks of it the contact points seem to not be much bigger then the existing pins however it's hard to get an exact sense of scale from the pictures. The diffrence being there is now only 1 contact point and not a socket contact like the current system uses. So from the looks of things there is less surface contact overall. I'm sure though that it probably doesn't make any difference in fucntion one way or the other. My guess in all of this is it's for $$$ not for increases functionality.