Talk:CPU socket

message: Thanks for the merge. Makes it easier. SEG88 05:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Old

message: There is only one entry in the EOL column. Perhaps it should be removed? The two earliest sockets on the list show that they are still available, so that would mean most of the sockets on the list are still available. However, there are only a few sockets that modern computers use... I think the EOL column is inconsistent and without stated EOLs from the manufacturers I don't see much of a point.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.230.108.198 (talk) 22:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: EOL Column

message: It'd be great if this explained what single socket and dual socket means, or at least links to those articles with the information written there. 137.186.22.30 13:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Question based Explantions

message: The two articles seem to cover the same topic. --Qviri 05:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm adding the merge templates now. --SheeEttin 17:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge with [[List of CPU sockets]]?

message: *Agree. The articles mostly cover the same subject. I suggest they be merged into this one for more than just a list of sockets. --SheeEttin 17:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: Make a table and add the year of implementation and year of EOL? --202.71.240.18 11:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup list

message: It would be great to have a direct explanation of the difference between a  socket and a slot.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.173.126.190 (talk) 15:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Difference between socket and slot

message: I cleaned up the intro and added a reference or two. If there is no objection I'd like to remove the current list of sockets and replace it with a table (something like the above). However, since sockets don't support memory and voltage (the cpu does this) I'd probably remove those columns and add a column for pitch (the distance between pins). I suppose adding info about capacitance, inductance, resistance and mechanical limitations might be too much. Wderousse (talk) 18:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Facelift

message: I added some colors to the table (Green for AMD and Blue for Intel) based on what CPU was first used on the socket. The colors don't have much contrast but I wanted to make sure the colors weren't blinding and I think they're easily distinguishable to most people.
GoldKanga (talk) 12:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't all AMD be red? It's "Red Team." Intel is blue, so that works. "Team Green" is nVidia, not AMD. Cecoppola (talk) 00:16, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Table Colors

message: I believe sockets were first used in prototyping -- specifically, in wirewrapping.  The sockets always had spring-type retention clips so were not under pressure until a device was inserted.  The retention pressure, once a device was inserted, was not always sufficient for a proto to withstand a sudden mechanical jarring or continued low-amplitude vibration.  The socket's purpose was (and is) to ensure electrical conductivity.  Mechanical restraint is nearly always relegated to the design engineer and modern sockets provide suitably for both.  With these older types of sockets, it was often necessary to drop in a little glue to hold the chip where it ought to be.  (Cyanoacrylate glues found a commercial niche here and the trick was to drops just enough of it to tack things down without also gluing your wires or fingers to the board).
There are at least three types of sockets that can be categorized as "CPU" sockets.  They are: "cheap" (for lack of knowing another (vendor) term, Zero Insertion Force (ZIF), and Land Grid Array (LGA).  The latter happens to require zero force be applied to insert the device.  Wire wrap versions probably exist for each type. (These have longer pins on the board side that allow the designer or tech wrap wire around them).
Any socket is identified in computer catalogs and such, by the chip that is known to be used with them, for the sake of sales, not because it is the correct name.  (This makes sense when you think about it.  Socket makers are not chip makers.  They stand to make more money if their socket can hold everything, rather than just one thing).  This article should take care to use only the name of the socket used by the manufacturer of the socket, when the socket is being referenced.  A table can easily show which CPU or peripheral device fits into a given socket.  Which socket is used is a function of the pin (or ball) spacing on the device and the total number of pins.  Since any socket can be used in other ways, it doesn't make sense to force a chip name on them.
I never thought I'd see a day when engineering lingo could actually reduce the amount of text used to describe something.  Now that marketers have joined the fun, this day has arrived.  Just my two cents.  Kernel.package (talk) 19:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sockets, versus CPU Sockets, versus Market (proprietary) names) 

message: I'm not sure why chip sockets should be restricted only to CPU chips.  Nevertheless, there are Pro's and Con's to using any sort of chip socket on a circuit board.   IMO, sockets are fine for prototyping but not for production.--74.107.74.39 (talk) 22:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Pro's
* Ability to replace failed or faulty components with replacement devices --74.107.74.39 (talk) 22:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

text: Con's
* The socket adds cost to the circuit board --74.107.74.39 (talk) 22:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pro's and Con's 

message: Leadless_chip_carrier#Leadless should be added for the 80286, which combined a small heatsink with the CPU clamp and was extremely common on 12Mhz and faster 80286 CPUs. The LGA types could be considered an extreme evolution of LCC. The 80386 was most commonly packaged in PGA while the 80386SX most commonly was produced in the same size PLCC as many 80286 CPUs as a way to use existing stocks of 16bit chipsets designed for the 80286. Some 80486SX CPUs were shoehorned into the same 16 bit bus package and could be used as "drop in" upgrades for 286 and 386SX systems, requiring a program to be run during boot to enable use of the CPU's cache RAM. Bizzybody (talk) 10:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  LCC and PGA missing for the 80286 

message: The text "Laptops typically use surface mount CPUs, which need less space than a socketed part" is dubious to me. I repaired laptops professionally for years and only ever came across a small number that actually did this. It's certainly not typical. I would recommend this is removed 86.29.95.83 (talk) 15:10, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Laptops using surface mount CPUs 

message: Lists of socket types is fine and all, but this is Wikipedia.  Lets examine the subject of CPU/GPU compatibility with sockets and be critical of why this is being done.  What should be known is if there are good reasons for manufacturers to be frequently changing socket types.  Is this is primarily in order to keep consumers on the upgrade treadmill, or would it be easy to create standards for socket types if it was a higher priority.  AMD and Intel used to both use the same socket type, but now they have broken off from doing so.  A history on that and the reasons for doing so is important to note.  I'd think a greater number of pins for greater bandwidth would be the primary reason for socket changes, and Intel seems to follow that with the ever-increasing pin count, though AMD does not and has remained around 940 for a long time, in one case differing by only a single pin.  You would then suspect AMD of just using the lack of standards as a tool for pushing consumerism.  In Intel's case, if they know they continually want additional pins, perhaps they could be accused of not making a socket with more pins than are needed at the time in order to future-proof their socket types.  This section could also mention that perhaps some of the reason for lack of interest in more solidly standardizing CPU sockets is less interest by consumers in not upgrading their motherboards because of the other components on the motherboard (north bridge, south bridge) not being upgradable due to those chips lacking sockets and standards themselves.  Does anyone have any articles on the subject of designing motherboards to be fully interchangeable for the conservation of resources in technological advancement?  Does anyone have any articles on the reasons behind, for and/or against, the lack of socket standardization to create such a section?  Also, the mounting positions for CPU fans and coolers being slightly different between socket types which forces the purchase of new heat sinks should also be noted. Yfrwlf (talk) 12:07, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The Connector conspiracy has been with us since UNIVAC. Is it not the case that most personal computers live out their whole lives with the chips they were born with? The market fraction of people swapping CPUs in computers must be dwarfed by the market fraction of people who swap engines in cars; you don't hear them griping about 5 bolt transaxles and 6 bolt flywheels, they just machine up adapters and have at it. It's not like 30 years ago when you could swap chips and get a clearly beneficial performance step. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:53, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh?  That made no sense.  Motherboards don't get upgraded now days because it usually can't be done.  It doesn't matter to what degree it is a conspiracy between makers, that is besides the point.  It is poor planning and bad engineering.  Engineering something which can be easily re-used, replaced, swapped out, re-built, and is compatible with other common things is what engineers do who are concerned about usability, durability, longevity, cost to citizens, etc.  Those aren't things that modern corporations today are concerned about and are instead concerned with doing the exact opposite.  That is the reason these things aren't done, regardless of who is colluding and conspiring together.  Back on the subject of AMD vs. Intel though, it'd be my guess that AMD followed Intel's socket types while AMD was small.  Then, once they got big enough to resist citizens getting too upset over proprietary sockets, they started making those. Yfrwlf (talk) 19:10, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasons for lack of standardization / History of socket type divergence 

message: The article confidently states that "Laptops commonly use surface mount CPUs". I challenge anyone here to find a single mass produced laptop in the last ten years which has, using CPUs from AMD or Intel. 20:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Laptops 

message: I edited some table entries to improve consistency and updated an entry.
* added vishera/piledriver to the am3+ entry 
* the cpu entry for FM2 was just 'A10', which reflects a specific model of processor, rather than a series as all the other entries are. changed to 'Trinity Processors'.
* added links to the processor series entries for Llano, Bulldozer, and Trinity.
* changed bulldozer to zambezi. I fell that labeling as bulldozer and Piledriver is too general, as that could be interpreted to include the Apus that use that arcitecture, so labeling as vishera and Zambezi makes it clear that "we" are referring to the FX processors specifically.
* I removed 'AMD FX' from the AM3+ entry, as it was redundant (and possibly confusing) since Zambezi and Vishera are listed separately. however, I added 'FX' into the entries for vishera and zambezi instead.
* aded 'desktop to the appropriate column for FM1, AM3+, and FM2.
my edits should prevent confusion from the table. I haven't looked at the rest of the article, but this should be a big improvement.
Aunva6 (talk) 06:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  cleanup/updates 

message: It seems there is no mention anywhere of the above socket. This is just one of the sockets used by Intel's 4th gen chipset.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.147.61 (talk) 01:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not really sure what you mean by 4th gen chipset (perhaps you mean 4th gen Core architecture), but I believe your reference to FCPGA946 is a reference to socket G3. 50.53.15.59 (talk) 11:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intel socket FCPGA946 

message: This article requires updating.
Thank you.
Mani  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.70.121.49 (talk) 03:05, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please update this Article - Reference. 

message: Can you add AM1 to the table? Introduced in 2014 by AMD for their low power/performance APUs. TinyEdit (talk) 21:37, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  AMD AM1 

message: Can someone add the FM2+ to the table? It was added in 2014 I believe. (http://www.cpu-world.com/Releases/Desktop_CPU_releases_%282014%29.html) 70.27.26.133 (talk) 05:37, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  AMD FM2+ 

message: The Socket FP3 isn't included on the list.--MisterSanderson (talk) 16:08, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  AMD FP3 

message: I propose that we add a column to the list of x86 sockets with their respective heatsink mounting dimensions. Many of the pages already include this information, see LGA 775 , LGA 1150, Socket AM4 - it would be useful to have this information all in one place. What do people think of this? --Emil.Carr (talk) 16:01, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heatsink Mounting Dimensions 

message: this list should be split into desktop and mobile sockets, and possibly enter a date of introduction (and eventually end of production date),
and,
on the subject - in the list there are no newer mobile sockets / sockets that use mobile processor
nhf, 
all the best :)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.136.208.220 (talk) 22:00, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where's the list of (modern) mobile sockets? 

message: j 103.135.216.176 (talk) 07:09, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  j 

message: In the list of sockets the year and allowed voltage is missing. 84.140.204.50 (talk) 18:43, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Year of date and voltage missing in list