http://www.techpowerup.co...GA1356-Processors.html
http://www.cpu-world.com/...s_for_socket_1356.html
http://www.cpu-world.com/...Xeon_E5-2400_CPUs.html
 
How did the EVGA community brush over this?!

Neato, Burrito Seronx!
 
I haven't seen any of this news, nice work.

LGA1356 sounds like a cross between LGA2011 and LGA 1366

.... this is what happens when competition is severly limited,
 
 ...change sockets every few months....   1366, 1155, 1156, 2011, 1356

Interesting server socket chip but why only a dual core? Can you give us some insight as to why these would be better than our current gen Xeon?

Nevermind I see why, they are a lower entry budget server chip. However how cheap of a server are we talking? current gen 6-12 core chips with server tallied up come out about 2-3k. Usually if you're paying your guys or the outside guys 20-30k in labor you tend to splurge a little more on the gear.

Nvidia will you please compete with Intel?  Somebody has to do it.

Doesn't IBM make CPUs?

lol...it doesn't matter how many sockets Intel releases, the not-so-smart-people are the ones that are going to get sucker on getting the new stuff.  Intel is competing with itself by releasing different sockets every year....lol

lordshinro


Interesting server socket chip but why only a dual core? Can you give us some insight as to why these would be better than our current gen Xeon?

 
Small office client/server applications running 11-25 total clients. This would allow smaller businesses to get a much lower cost server setup for their networking needs.  Not everyone wants or needs a server with a 1k CPU in it.

Yeah I saw this yesterday, but it is not like I lost faith. I always knew it was coming even though most enthusiasts didn't believe it existed on the grounds of not using the socket for an "X" consumer chipset. In otherwords, typical enthusiasts tend to think it is all about their POV.
 
About the only concept that stands out to me is the Pentium 1400 series branding of a 1.33GHz dual-core Sandy Bridge with triple-channel; why not call it a Xeon like the rest? Simple, Intel has done their homework. I may never know, all I can figure is Intel is attempting to net an audience apart from typical Xeon customers.
 
But a pair of pentiums in a dual-socket board strikes me as odd, except if the Pentium 1400's might have been originally called "Xeon E5-1400", signifying the single-socket version of Xeon E5-2400 (akin to E5-1600 for X79 while E5-2600 for dual 2011 systems), and rebranded.
 
Here's Intel's logic for which brand of CPU can be used or which server application (because server is a use and not a function limited to certain hardware).
 
It remains my strong belief that had Intel not overestimated Bulldozer, X79 would have been LGA1356 and not LGA2011.  They reacted to Bulldozer's abysmal performance by postponing the cheap 3820 and focused all X79 sales to expensive 6-cores to make up for the expensive platform and pushed a more costly mainstream unlocked 2700K.  Historically, Intel always reacted to AMD by dropping prices, not increasing.  So LGA2011 for X79 was a mistake, it was overkill for them where they loose premium 8-core models with 2-cores disabled by selling them as i7's that aren't popular because Intel pushed mainstream first with Sandy Bridge.  It is a mess.
 

jimmycricket

LGA1356 sounds like a cross between LGA2011 and LGA 1366

Close. Intel used to have two separate sockets for dual-socket boards, Xeon 5500/5600 in LGA1366 (triple-channel) and Xeon 6500 for LGA1567 (quad-channel)-- except the latter was orginally made for Intel's 4-way systems. I think Intel attempted some consolidation and segmentation where the traditional Xeon split by letter (W, X, E, L) was separted by socket, higher end of dual-socket went to LGA2011 while mainstream went to LGA1366, while both sockets have access to 8-core models (killing the myth that more cores need more pinouts), 1356 should have cheaper models compared to 2011.
 

aka_STEVE_b

.... this is what happens when competition is severly limited,
...change sockets every few months.... 1366, 1155, 1156, 2011, 1356

No, you're just thinking one-dimensionally.
 
Intel always had multiple market segments that, per their massive share of the market, they are obligated to cater to each one; best with a unique platform and socket. In otherwords, they don't replace or succeed each other.
 
The past few sockets line of succession was as follows:

• 1-way mainstream: mPGA478 > LGA775 > LGA1156 > LGA1155
• 1/2-way server: mPGA478 > LGA771 > LGA1366 > LGA1356
• 2/4-way server: mPGA604 > LGA1567 > LGA2011
• mobile: mPGA478/479 > mPGA988a > mPGA988b
• Embedded can use any socket combination per order, i.e. Xeon C3500/C5500 series are 45nm LGA1366 soddered permanently to their boards. 

Intel has four major segments they cater to: Mainstream Client, Server, Mobile and Embedded; each with their own sockets. Yes there was a time when all Intel sockets were the same, that changed to better cater to each segment. AMD and all other non-x86 companies have done the same with each market having their own socket, this isn't new.
 
It is just that many so-called "computer hardware enthusiasts" are ironically clueless about everything but what they get for themselves. Not that anyone is obligated, but it makes them look like frauds when they don't know what else is going on.
 

lordshinro

Interesting server socket chip but why only a dual core? Can you give us some insight as to why these would be better than our current gen Xeon?

FWIW, there is only a handful of dual-core models, and it has been that way for a while.  A few Xeon E550x and E560x were dual-cores for dual 1366 systems, they have slow specs and are cheap.   Oddly enough, there is one LGA2011 Xeon E5-2637 fast dual-core model deliberately placed in higher TDP to justify costs for what it is: Intel monopolizing a quad-channel 32nm dual-core processor.  Triple-channel version will be cheaper, maybe.
 
If you had a business where your applications benefit from high memory and/or PCIe bandwidth, but not the x86 processing power or associated power/cooling costs, then dual-cores are perfect.  Intel can't just ignore a market thinking customers should move on to more cores even though they don't need the extra power and cooling to go with it; plus why allow AMD to fill that gap?   Especially in the server market, customers here aren't as guilible or pacified as with desktop/laptop, so Intel doesn't mess around and makes sure just about every combination is available.  This is the reason Intel maintains their 95% share of the server market because they have covered all bases. 
 
Businesses don't think like enthusiasts-- for one, they can spend between 3-7 years between overhauling their systems, sockets will change no one is getting suckered-- they are only interested in maximizing their profit and they might not need the best to do that or upgrade often.  Depends on their applications and who is competing with them.

gutcheck


Nvidia will you please compete with Intel?  Somebody has to do it.

Not going to happen in a world where patent law dictates the possibilities with x86. Very few players own the rights to that playing field.

So its targeted at the lower end/low power server market?
Only dual cores and only 2 proc's per board...  however 3 channel memory.  And Pentium?!.
 
What the hell are you doing intel.
 
Its a step BACKWARDS from 1366 at this point.

Bkatt
So its targeted at the lower end/low power server market?
Only dual cores and only 2 proc's per board...  however 3 channel memory.  And Pentium?!.

Rest of the CPUs there are probably more....

Brad_Hawthorne

gutcheck


Nvidia will you please compete with Intel?  Somebody has to do it.

Not going to happen in a world where patent law dictates the possibilities with x86. Very few players own the rights to that playing field.

 
Not only that but also Intel controls who gets x86 licenses and I'm pretty sure Nvidia would be on the bottom of that list. And that's if they even decided to license any other corporation at all. Plus who really wants to compete against Intel in the x86 architecture? They just have too much money and experience. I think it's up to AMD to put out a more competitive architecture, but lately that's seems to be no easy task.

Also, with Tylersburg, there were two chipsets for dual 1366 boards, i5500 has 24 lanes of PCIe 2.0 while i5520 had 36 lanes, just like X58.  i5520 is used in SR-2.  So while Intel allowed any Xeon 5500/5600 to work in boards with either chipset, the two chipsets separated their markets as one group needing more PCIe lanes and the other didn't.   A clear separation between the Sandy Bridge variants is that LGA1356 processors have 24 lanes of PCIe 3.0 in their controllers while LGA2011 has 40, even if both series has access to up to 8-core models.  Market differenciation is by PCIe lanes, just like the primary separation between X79 and LGA1155 systems despite both having access to a quad-core w/HT option.  Just like DIY/gamer/enthusiasts, companies need to decide whether they need more lanes or not. 
 
That Intel bothered to make a whole series of processors in a different socket just proves the demand already exists for customers that want something in between LGA1155 and LGA2011 for non-processor uses.
 
Of course, while with less fervor thesedays, I would have liked to see Intel push a single-socket LGA1356 board into desktop segments and calling that chipset "Z78" or "X78" just because there is a nomenclarture gap between Z77 and X79.    LGA1356 would allow triple x8 3.0 without a PLX chip, and ironically AMD's integrated video would do better with more channels, so for Intel their triple-channel inffrastructure already exists.

lehpron


Also, with Tylersburg, there were two chipsets for dual 1366 boards, i5500 has 24 lanes of PCIe 2.0 while i5520 had 36 lanes, just like X58.  i5520 is used in SR-2.  So while Intel allowed any Xeon 5500/5600 to work in boards with either chipset, the two chipsets separated their markets as one group needing more PCIe lanes and the other didn't.   A clear separation between the Sandy Bridge variants is that LGA1356 processors have 24 lanes of PCIe 3.0 in their controllers while LGA2011 has 40, even if both series has access to up to 8-core models.  Market differenciation is by PCIe lanes, just like the primary separation between X79 and LGA1155 systems despite both having access to a quad-core w/HT option.  Just like DIY/gamer/enthusiasts, companies need to decide whether they need more lanes or not. 

That Intel bothered to make a whole series of processors in a different socket just proves the demand already exists for customers that want something in between LGA1155 and LGA2011 for non-processor uses.

Of course, while with less fervor thesedays, I would have liked to see Intel push a single-socket LGA1356 board into desktop segments and calling that chipset "Z78" or "X78" just because there is a nomenclarture gap between Z77 and X79.    LGA1356 would allow triple x8 3.0 without a PLX chip, and ironically AMD's integrated video would do better with more channels, so for Intel their triple-channel inffrastructure already exists.

That's a heck of an idea. How would they price it though? Is there enough price gap between 1155 and 2011 to do it?

kram36
That's a heck of an idea. How would they price it though? Is there enough price gap between 1155 and 2011 to do it?

Z75 -> <~$109
Z77 -> <~$199
X76 -> >~$249
X79 -> >~$299

kram36
 

lehpron

I would have liked to see Intel push a single-socket LGA1356 board into desktop segments and calling that chipset "Z78" or "X78" just because there is a nomenclarture gap between Z77 and X79.    LGA1356 would allow triple x8 3.0 without a PLX chip, and ironically AMD's integrated video would do better with more channels, so for Intel their triple-channel inffrastructure already exists.

That's a heck of an idea. How would they price it though? Is there enough price gap between 1155 and 2011 to do it?

All unlocked quads with HT would have to EOL, shift those successors to LGA1356.  Only unlocked quads w/o HT would stay.
 
Ultimately, the whole point for X58 and then P67 was so Intel could segment the enthusiast market, they're still searching for a sweet spot to maximize their sales.   If 3570K's successor were to stay in the mainstream, I'd price it a bit higher at $250-300 range because it will be worth it.  Therefore leaving two HT options in the midrange socket, a non-K and K in the $350-450 range.  High-end socket will harbor $500+ options be it 6/8/10-core whatevers.

The only advantage I saw with HT was folding@home, so thats why I decided to save the $100 and get a 2500K instead of 2600K when I upgraded from my i7 920 system.
 

aka_STEVE_b


.... this is what happens when competition is severly limited,

...change sockets every few months....   1366, 1155, 1156, 2011, 1356

 
Yep this is part of the reason its just not worth upgrading CPU on the same board, best to buy the Board and CPU together and do a new build.