So people were complaining about coffeelake requiring a new mobo and thats all fine and good to gripe about but it got me thinking into the future. What is going to happen 2020+ ? From wiki:
"Beyond 7 nm, major technological advances would have to be made; possible candidates include vortex laser,[6] MOSFET-BJT dual-mode transistor,[7] 3D packaging,[8] microfluidic cooling,[9] PCMOS,[10] vacuum transistors,[11] t-rays,[12] extreme ultraviolet lithography,[13] carbon nanotube transistors,[14] silicon photonics,[15] graphene,[16] phosphorene,[17] organic semiconductors,[18] gallium arsenide,[19] indium gallium arsenide,[20] nano-patterning,[21] and reconfigurable chaos-based microchips.[22]"
wouldn't implementing such new tech require changes to the mobo as well for viability ? Correct me if I am wrong but I feel like a 2018 mobo isn't going to be compatible with a new 2020 CPU. And I feel like long term compatible will not be a thing until we tap into a new tech with a long term upgrade path.
>>62036963
the sillicon of the CPU is soldered/welded onto the PCB of the motherboard, which in turn has their I/O at the bottom.
you can basically fit anything on anything if you can match the voltages.
they could remake the core 2 duo with way more efficiency.
>>62037045
so you could in theory use improved semi conductor manufacturing techniques to produce a CPU that would still be compatible with an outdated mobo ?
the interface between mobo and CPU package is 1000-something electric contacts. as long as the mobo can supply the proper voltage and can apply the protocols to communicate through those contacts the technology the CPU was made with is irrelevant.
>>62037045
What's the point of using chip-on-board? All modern CPUs are flip-chip PGA/LGA, and you'd sacrifice maintainability for unnecessary space savings.
Socket 775 started with 90nm Pentium 4s and had 65 and 45nm CPUs released for it. There are boards that are compatible with all 775 CPUs. Intel's socket changes are just part of their jewing scheme, since they also make all the chipsets that go on the boards.
>>62037283
gas the kikes.
>>62037195
yeah but take for instance IBM's 5 nm it is GAAFETs instead of finFETs doesn't that have physical implications ? It would fit on a socket that was designed to accommodate a 10 or 7 nm finFET based CPU ?
>>62037329
it's still transistors. electrons go in, electrons come out.
>>62037329
When physical size with transistors is involved and it has a smaller size than another, it means transistor density increases, not the physical PCB size which you are concerned about.
Again, as the other poster said, as long as the socket fits the PCB, can get enough voltage from the said socket and can communicate with the chipset via some specified protocol, the chip will work no matter what technology was used to make it.