This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
CPU socket article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
![]() | The contents of the List of CPU sockets page were merged into CPU socket. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
![]() | The contents of the List of Intel CPU slots and sockets page were merged into CPU socket. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
![]() | The contents of the List of AMD CPU slots and sockets page were merged into CPU socket. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
Thanks for the merge. Makes it easier. SEG88 05:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
The main reason I created this page is to have a list of various (most common) cpu sockets for x86's in one place, and have them link to more detailed information. The 'CPU Sockets Chart' at the end of the page has far more detailed info, but I just wanted a short and sweet avenue for some quick info. Added the Apple ones, but I really don't have much idea what they have, hopefully someone will come along and improve that :) -- Zarius 06:34, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
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)
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)
This is a great page for different sockets, kind of like of table of contents, but how do the sockets differ in performance. When building ones own computer why does it matter which socket is used? For instance how do the newest amd sockets compare.-- eximo ( talk) 19:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
The two articles seem to cover the same topic. -- Qviri 05:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
When you insert the heatsink on the CPU mounted in the socket, sometimes you can accidently break the CPU core.
Make a table and add the year of implementation and year of EOL? -- 202.71.240.18 11:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Here is what I've made so far, please comment. Thanks -- 202.71.240.18 13:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Socket name |
Year of first use | Year of EOL | CPU families | Package | Pin count | Voltage | Bus type | Bus speed | Core speed | RAM supported |
Others |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Socket 1 | ? | ? | Intel 80486 | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? |
Socket 2 | ? | ? | Intel 80486 | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? |
Socket 3 | ? | ? | Intel 80486 | ? | ? | 3.3
V 5 V |
? | ? | ? | ? | ? |
Socket 4 | ? | ? | Intel Pentium | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | 60/66 MHz | ? | ? |
Socket 5 | ? | ? |
Intel
Pentium AMD K5 IDT WinChip C6 IDT WinChip 2 |
? | ? | ? | ? | ? | 75-133 MHz | ? | ? |
Socket 6 | ? | ? | Intel 80486 | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? |
Socket 7 | ? | ? |
Intel
Pentium Intel Pentium MMX AMD K6 |
? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? |
Super Socket 7 | ? | ? | AMD
K6-2 AMD AMD K6-III Rise mP6 |
? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? |
Socket 8 | ? | ? | Intel Pentium Pro | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? |
Socket 370 | ? | ? | Intel
Pentium III Intel Celeron Cyrix III VIA C3 |
? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? |
Socket 423 | ? | ? | Intel
Pentium 4 (Williamette core) |
? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? |
Socket 462/ Socket A |
? | ? | AMD Athlon AMD Duron AMD Athlon XP AMD Athlon XP-M AMD Athlon MP AMD Sempron |
? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? |
Socket 463/ Socket NexGen |
? | ? | NexGen Nx586 | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? |
Socket 478/ Socket N |
? | ? | Intel
Pentium 4 Intel Celeron Intel Pentium 4 EE1 Intel Pentium M |
? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? |
Socket 479 | ? | ? | Intel
Pentium M Intel Celeron M Intel Core Duo Intel Core Solo |
? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? |
Socket 486 | ? | ? | Intel 80486 | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? |
Socket 499 | ? | ? | DEC Alpha 21164a | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? |
Socket 563 | ? | ? | AMD Athlon XP-M | µ-PGA | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? |
Socket 603 | ? | ? | Intel Xeon | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? |
Socket 604 | ? | ? | Intel Xeon | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? |
Socket S1 | 2006 | ? | AMD Turion 64 X2 | ? | 638 | ? | ? | ? | ? | DDR2 | |
Socket 754 | ? | ? | AMD
Athlon 64 AMD Sempron AMD Turion 64 |
? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | DDR | ? |
LGA 771/ Socket 771 |
? | ? | Intel Xeon | LGA | 771 | ? | ? | ? | ? | DDR2 | ? |
LGA 775/ Socket T |
? | ? | Intel
Pentium 4 Intel Pentium D Intel Celeron1 Intel Celeron D Intel Pentium XE Intel Core 2 Duo Intel Core 2 Extreme |
LGA | 775 | ? | ? | ? | ? | DDR2 | ? |
Socket 939 | ? | ? | AMD
Athlon 64 AMD Athlon 64 FX2 AMD Athlon 64 X2 AMD Opteron |
? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | DDR | Support of
Athlon 64 FX to 1 GHz Support of Opteron limited to 100-series only |
Socket 940 | ? | ? | AMD Opteron2, Athlon 64 FX | PGA | 940 | ? | HT 2.0 | ? | ? | DDR | ? |
Socket AM2 | 2006 | ? | AMD
Athlon 64 AMD Athlon 64 X2 |
PGA | 940 | ? | HT 2.0 | ? | ? | DDR2 | Replaces Socket 754 and Socket 9392 |
Socket AM2+ | 2007 | ? | AMD ? | PGA | 940 | ? | HT 3.0 | ? | ? | DDR2 | Separated power lanes Replaces Socket AM2 |
Socket F | 2006 | ? | AMD
Athlon 64 FX AMD Opteron |
LGA | 1207 | ? | HT 2.0 | ? | ? | DDR2 | Including AMD
Opteron2 Replaces Socket 940 |
Socket AM3 | Future | ? | AMD ? | ? | ? | ? | HT 3.0 | ? | ? | DDR3 | Separated power lanes Replaces Socket AM2+ |
Socket P | Future | ? | Intel | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | For notebook platfrom Replaces Socket 479 Expected 2007 |
PAC418 | ? | ? | Intel Itanium | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? |
PAC611 | ? | ? | Intel
Itanium 2 HP PA-RISC 8800/8900 |
? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? |
Socket M | ? | ? | Intel
Core Solo Intel Core Duo Intel Dual-Core Xeon Intel Core 2 Duo |
? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? |
Socket B | Future | ? | Intel ? | LGA | 1366 | ? | CSI | ? | ? | ? | Integrated memory controller |
Socket H | Future | ? | Intel ? | LGA | 715 | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | replaces LGA 775/ Socket T |
Notes:
1: The 478 pin socket was introduced because it uses a micro-PGA layout which is physically smaller than the socket 423. Socket 775 was introduced with support for PCI express, DDR2 memory and Intel's version of the AMD64 processor extensions (called EM64T or Intel64), but also moved to the new LGA physical layout, where the pins are in the socket rather than on the CPU package, for better electrical performance.
2: These sockets are for CPUs with integrated memory controllers. The 754 pin models have a single memory channel routed through the CPU pins. The Socket 939 models have two memory channels, hence the higher pin count. The Socket 940 CPUs also have two memory channels but they require registered memory, and most have support for SMP. Sockets F and AM2 are redesigned to support DDR2. The Socket F contains 1207 pins (Added pins speculated to be for more scalability and better power distribution citation needed). Socket AM2 has 940 pins but does not support Socket 940 CPUs.
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)
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)
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)
I could not find any information about a Pentium M for socket 478 (only 479). Therefore I think the information in the table on socket 478 could be incorrect. Furthermore the socket 479 could contain the Pentium III-M, but there is no specific article about the III-M. Should the Pentium III-M be put in the table as a possible CPU for 479 or could it be mentioned in the Notes section? FReaKaNDeLL ( talk) 21:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
Pro's and Con's include:
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)
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)
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)
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) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wayne Hardman ( talk • contribs)
I edited some table entries to improve consistency and updated an entry.
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)
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)
This article requires updating.
Thank you. Mani — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.70.121.49 ( talk) 03:05, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
The Socket FP3 isn't included on the list.-- MisterSanderson ( talk) 16:08, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
For example this list lacks FCBGA1170 — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
93.138.25.42 (
talk)
23:39, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
j 103.135.216.176 ( talk) 07:09, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
In the list of sockets the year and allowed voltage is missing. 84.140.204.50 ( talk) 18:43, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
CPU socket article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
![]() | The contents of the List of CPU sockets page were merged into CPU socket. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
![]() | The contents of the List of Intel CPU slots and sockets page were merged into CPU socket. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
![]() | The contents of the List of AMD CPU slots and sockets page were merged into CPU socket. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
Thanks for the merge. Makes it easier. SEG88 05:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
The main reason I created this page is to have a list of various (most common) cpu sockets for x86's in one place, and have them link to more detailed information. The 'CPU Sockets Chart' at the end of the page has far more detailed info, but I just wanted a short and sweet avenue for some quick info. Added the Apple ones, but I really don't have much idea what they have, hopefully someone will come along and improve that :) -- Zarius 06:34, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
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)
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)
This is a great page for different sockets, kind of like of table of contents, but how do the sockets differ in performance. When building ones own computer why does it matter which socket is used? For instance how do the newest amd sockets compare.-- eximo ( talk) 19:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
The two articles seem to cover the same topic. -- Qviri 05:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
When you insert the heatsink on the CPU mounted in the socket, sometimes you can accidently break the CPU core.
Make a table and add the year of implementation and year of EOL? -- 202.71.240.18 11:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Here is what I've made so far, please comment. Thanks -- 202.71.240.18 13:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Socket name |
Year of first use | Year of EOL | CPU families | Package | Pin count | Voltage | Bus type | Bus speed | Core speed | RAM supported |
Others |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Socket 1 | ? | ? | Intel 80486 | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? |
Socket 2 | ? | ? | Intel 80486 | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? |
Socket 3 | ? | ? | Intel 80486 | ? | ? | 3.3
V 5 V |
? | ? | ? | ? | ? |
Socket 4 | ? | ? | Intel Pentium | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | 60/66 MHz | ? | ? |
Socket 5 | ? | ? |
Intel
Pentium AMD K5 IDT WinChip C6 IDT WinChip 2 |
? | ? | ? | ? | ? | 75-133 MHz | ? | ? |
Socket 6 | ? | ? | Intel 80486 | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? |
Socket 7 | ? | ? |
Intel
Pentium Intel Pentium MMX AMD K6 |
? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? |
Super Socket 7 | ? | ? | AMD
K6-2 AMD AMD K6-III Rise mP6 |
? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? |
Socket 8 | ? | ? | Intel Pentium Pro | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? |
Socket 370 | ? | ? | Intel
Pentium III Intel Celeron Cyrix III VIA C3 |
? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? |
Socket 423 | ? | ? | Intel
Pentium 4 (Williamette core) |
? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? |
Socket 462/ Socket A |
? | ? | AMD Athlon AMD Duron AMD Athlon XP AMD Athlon XP-M AMD Athlon MP AMD Sempron |
? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? |
Socket 463/ Socket NexGen |
? | ? | NexGen Nx586 | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? |
Socket 478/ Socket N |
? | ? | Intel
Pentium 4 Intel Celeron Intel Pentium 4 EE1 Intel Pentium M |
? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? |
Socket 479 | ? | ? | Intel
Pentium M Intel Celeron M Intel Core Duo Intel Core Solo |
? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? |
Socket 486 | ? | ? | Intel 80486 | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? |
Socket 499 | ? | ? | DEC Alpha 21164a | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? |
Socket 563 | ? | ? | AMD Athlon XP-M | µ-PGA | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? |
Socket 603 | ? | ? | Intel Xeon | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? |
Socket 604 | ? | ? | Intel Xeon | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? |
Socket S1 | 2006 | ? | AMD Turion 64 X2 | ? | 638 | ? | ? | ? | ? | DDR2 | |
Socket 754 | ? | ? | AMD
Athlon 64 AMD Sempron AMD Turion 64 |
? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | DDR | ? |
LGA 771/ Socket 771 |
? | ? | Intel Xeon | LGA | 771 | ? | ? | ? | ? | DDR2 | ? |
LGA 775/ Socket T |
? | ? | Intel
Pentium 4 Intel Pentium D Intel Celeron1 Intel Celeron D Intel Pentium XE Intel Core 2 Duo Intel Core 2 Extreme |
LGA | 775 | ? | ? | ? | ? | DDR2 | ? |
Socket 939 | ? | ? | AMD
Athlon 64 AMD Athlon 64 FX2 AMD Athlon 64 X2 AMD Opteron |
? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | DDR | Support of
Athlon 64 FX to 1 GHz Support of Opteron limited to 100-series only |
Socket 940 | ? | ? | AMD Opteron2, Athlon 64 FX | PGA | 940 | ? | HT 2.0 | ? | ? | DDR | ? |
Socket AM2 | 2006 | ? | AMD
Athlon 64 AMD Athlon 64 X2 |
PGA | 940 | ? | HT 2.0 | ? | ? | DDR2 | Replaces Socket 754 and Socket 9392 |
Socket AM2+ | 2007 | ? | AMD ? | PGA | 940 | ? | HT 3.0 | ? | ? | DDR2 | Separated power lanes Replaces Socket AM2 |
Socket F | 2006 | ? | AMD
Athlon 64 FX AMD Opteron |
LGA | 1207 | ? | HT 2.0 | ? | ? | DDR2 | Including AMD
Opteron2 Replaces Socket 940 |
Socket AM3 | Future | ? | AMD ? | ? | ? | ? | HT 3.0 | ? | ? | DDR3 | Separated power lanes Replaces Socket AM2+ |
Socket P | Future | ? | Intel | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | For notebook platfrom Replaces Socket 479 Expected 2007 |
PAC418 | ? | ? | Intel Itanium | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? |
PAC611 | ? | ? | Intel
Itanium 2 HP PA-RISC 8800/8900 |
? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? |
Socket M | ? | ? | Intel
Core Solo Intel Core Duo Intel Dual-Core Xeon Intel Core 2 Duo |
? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? |
Socket B | Future | ? | Intel ? | LGA | 1366 | ? | CSI | ? | ? | ? | Integrated memory controller |
Socket H | Future | ? | Intel ? | LGA | 715 | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | replaces LGA 775/ Socket T |
Notes:
1: The 478 pin socket was introduced because it uses a micro-PGA layout which is physically smaller than the socket 423. Socket 775 was introduced with support for PCI express, DDR2 memory and Intel's version of the AMD64 processor extensions (called EM64T or Intel64), but also moved to the new LGA physical layout, where the pins are in the socket rather than on the CPU package, for better electrical performance.
2: These sockets are for CPUs with integrated memory controllers. The 754 pin models have a single memory channel routed through the CPU pins. The Socket 939 models have two memory channels, hence the higher pin count. The Socket 940 CPUs also have two memory channels but they require registered memory, and most have support for SMP. Sockets F and AM2 are redesigned to support DDR2. The Socket F contains 1207 pins (Added pins speculated to be for more scalability and better power distribution citation needed). Socket AM2 has 940 pins but does not support Socket 940 CPUs.
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)
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)
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)
I could not find any information about a Pentium M for socket 478 (only 479). Therefore I think the information in the table on socket 478 could be incorrect. Furthermore the socket 479 could contain the Pentium III-M, but there is no specific article about the III-M. Should the Pentium III-M be put in the table as a possible CPU for 479 or could it be mentioned in the Notes section? FReaKaNDeLL ( talk) 21:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
Pro's and Con's include:
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)
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)
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)
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) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wayne Hardman ( talk • contribs)
I edited some table entries to improve consistency and updated an entry.
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)
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)
This article requires updating.
Thank you. Mani — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.70.121.49 ( talk) 03:05, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
The Socket FP3 isn't included on the list.-- MisterSanderson ( talk) 16:08, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
For example this list lacks FCBGA1170 — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
93.138.25.42 (
talk)
23:39, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
j 103.135.216.176 ( talk) 07:09, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
In the list of sockets the year and allowed voltage is missing. 84.140.204.50 ( talk) 18:43, 12 July 2023 (UTC)