Can I get Ivy Bridge motherboard for Haswell too?

[hackmole]

If I get Ivy Bridge next month. Can I get a motherboard with it that will also run with Haswell in 2013? So that if I choose to upgrade some time in the next year or two, I don't have to buy another motherboard.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

I haven't heard anything, but I'd bet slim to none on that.

 

[tynopik]

short answer: no

long answer: noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

 

[PG]

Haswell will be for a new socket so don't go crazy now.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

I was under the impression that mainstream would be a new socket for Haswell, LGA 1150: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGA_1150, so no, a s1155 board for Sandy/Ivy wouldn't work.

That being said, it might be possible that s2011 will remain compatible for Haswell-E, but I wouldn't bet on it.

 

[denev2004]

Most rumors say that Haswell will use LGA 1150.

 

[Tuna-Fish]

Haswell will move the VRM circuitry on the CPU package, so the MB will supply the cpu directly with +12V, instead of stepping down the current down to ~1V as is done with the present-day cpus. This means that it would be essentially impossible to support Haswell and Ivy Bridge on the same MB.

This change is also positive, meaning that there is a good reason to break backwards compatibility, unlike the case was with 1156/1155.

Interestingly, after the VRM is on package, there should be absolutely no cpu performance- or overclockability-affecting parts left on the MB. So, how will the MB makers sell their expensive editions in the next gen?

 

[Ventanni]

$100 per USB port I guess.

 

[Joseph F]

Haswell will move the VRM circuitry on the CPU package, so the MB will supply the cpu directly with +12V, instead of stepping down the current down to ~1V as is done with the present-day cpus. This means that it would be essentially impossible to support Haswell and Ivy Bridge on the same MB.

This change is also positive, meaning that there is a good reason to break backwards compatibility, unlike the case was with 1156/1155.

Interestingly, after the VRM is on package, there should be absolutely no cpu performance- or overclockability-affecting parts left on the MB. So, how will the MB makers sell their expensive editions in the next gen?

How is that supposed to work? VRMs contain big, bulky components that usually require a good bit of cooling.

 

[Don Karnage]

How is that supposed to work? VRMs contain big, bulky components that usually require a good bit of cooling.

Overclocking is dead with Haswell

 

[lehtv]

Overclocking will be dead with Haswell IMO

Fixed.

 

[VirtualLarry]

How is that supposed to work? VRMs contain big, bulky components that usually require a good bit of cooling.

This. How is Intel going to pull that off? Somehow, I have my doubts.

 

[Magic Carpet]

Interesting.., really?

 

[anikhtos]

This. How is Intel going to pull that off? Somehow, I have my doubts.

maybe the new cpu can operate in 12v lol
put the cpu cores in serial or something to raise the col to 12v
or else it will be interesting to see how it can be done if it possible at all
to be done

 

[Edrick]

How is that supposed to work? VRMs contain big, bulky components that usually require a good bit of cooling.

I am wondering the same thing.

I wonder if Haswell is only moving the VRM to the CPU on the low power SOC design for Ultrabooks. Leaving the desktop parts as is.

 

[taltamir]

If I get Ivy Bridge next month. Can I get a motherboard with it that will also run with Haswell in 2013? So that if I choose to upgrade some time in the next year or two, I don't have to buy another motherboard.

*Intel makes the chips on the mobo; it sells for lots o money.
*Intel moved the entire northbridge and most of the southbridge unto the CPU. They compensated by raising the price of the cut down southbridge to what a full northbridge + full southbridge used to cost put together to prevent loss of revenue by the fact the product was obsolete.
*Intel is demolishing AMD
*Intel raises prices and reduces backwards compatibility to ensure every CPU upgrade comes with a mobo upgrade for more money.

 

[nyker96]

short answer: no

long answer: noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

didn't know long answer = loooooooooooong answer ;]

 

[BenchPress]

How is that supposed to work? VRMs contain big, bulky components that usually require a good bit of cooling.

Have you ever looked at a recent laptop motherboard? There's nothing bulky about the VRMs and they typically don't even have a heatsink. Moving them on-chip might also be a necessity to achieve the ultra-low standby power consumption.

Edrick might be right that the desktop chips will still have external VRMs though, primarily because it would be cheaper and heat is much less of an issue.

 

[Arachnotronic]

I'd bet it's for the desktop version too: http://www.dvhardware.net/news/2011/intel_haswell_slide_tpu.jpg

 

[IntelUser2000]

That may just depend on the motherboard manufacturer. The chip may have the integrated VRM, but the motherboard manufacturer may decide it needs the bigger VRMs to handle power better. Of course in most if not all laptops you'll only have them on the CPU.

Also the slide seems to indicate on-die VRM rather than being on package. Interesting how it will turn out.

 

[Khato]

With respect to on-chip/on-die VRM, it'll have only taken 'em about 8 years - http://www.anandtech.com/show/1770

Of course Haswell isn't going to look like that seeing as how it's apparently going to be an on-die VRM, but the basic concepts remain the same. It increases power efficiency by allowing for much faster dynamic voltage scaling while reducing motherboard and packaging complexity.

That may just depend on the motherboard manufacturer. The chip may have the integrated VRM, but the motherboard manufacturer may decide it needs the bigger VRMs to handle power better.

I'd be quite surprised if there was an option to bypass the integrated VRM. Such an option would require both design overhead on the integrated VRM and an adequate number of pins on the socket for off-chip VRM power delivery. One marked advantage of having an on-chip VRM is that the number of power supply pins can be reduced as the input voltage rises.

 

[Tuna-Fish]

How is that supposed to work? VRMs contain big, bulky components that usually require a good bit of cooling.

The type of VRM they are going to use is quite different from traditional designs.

Also the slide seems to indicate on-die VRM rather than being on package. Interesting how it will turn out.

As I understand it, it will still need some analog parts, and these are on-package. The semiconductor parts that hack the power down from 12V are on-die. And these are distributed, meaning that nowhere on the chip is the low voltage moved for a distance bigger than a few mm. Talk about huge power savings.

That may just depend on the motherboard manufacturer. The chip may have the integrated VRM, but the motherboard manufacturer may decide it needs the bigger VRMs to handle power better. Of course in most if not all laptops you'll only have them on the CPU.

I'd fully expect that none of the 1150 parts will be capable of taking in anything but 12V. Part of the advantages of moving the circuitry on-die is to get rid of huge lines needed to shift the massive currents needed for 70W+ at 1V. Making it possible for the MB to supply low voltages would entirely eliminate this advantage.

 

[Tuna-Fish]

I'd be quite surprised if there was an option to bypass the integrated VRM. Such an option would require both design overhead on the integrated VRM and an adequate number of pins on the socket for off-chip VRM power delivery. One marked advantage of having an on-chip VRM is that the number of power supply pins can be reduced as the input voltage rises.

It's not just about the pins. Moving power laterally on the chip and package gets harder each time the voltage goes down. 80A is a lot of current for something as thin as a cpu.

 

[IntelUser2000]

It's not just about the pins. Moving power laterally on the chip and package gets harder each time the voltage goes down. 80A is a lot of current for something as thin as a cpu.

It's amazing how they can make such a small device handle that much current. Electronics for CPUs are in a completely different world.

I'm saying though, modern motherboards with 12+ phase voltage regulators are overdesigned when running on stock.

How do they make an on-die version handle it when its running at 6-7GHz @ 1.5-1.6V using 300W or so?

 

[Tuna-Fish]

How do they make an on-die version handle it when its running at 6-7GHz @ 1.5-1.6V using 300W or so?

The sad part is, I find it completely believable that they simply won't.

Extreme overclockers are not that big of a market, and this move will be hugely positive to pretty much everyone else. If that means dumping us, it would be pretty daft of them not to.

The higher-end socket ones will likely have much more VRM capacity, and since it's all semiconductors, it will probably be able to handle a lot more power when it's colder, but that's about it.