backtop


Print 25 comment(s) - last by peternelson.. on Jul 11 at 7:42 PM


The dummy pins on Intel Socket P are rotated 90 degrees

Intel "Santa Rosa" block diagram
New mobile socket for "Santa Rosa"

DailyTech has come across a roadmap outlining Intel’s upcoming Socket P mobile processor socket. "Socket P" will part of Intel’s next generation Santa Rosa mobile platform and will continue to be a pin-grid array based socket unlike the land-grid array based desktop processors. There will be no backwards compatibility with "Socket P," as it will be keyed differently than the current Socket M. Socket P processors will have pins A1 and A2 removed unlike pins A1 and B1 of current Socket M processors. Sacrificial "Corner Balls" will also be introduced with Socket P for greater differentiation with Socket M processors. Intel's guidance clearly states:
Not pin-compatible with Intel Core 2 Duo for Napa, or Intel Core Duo T2500

Intel’s Santa Rosa platform is expected to launch in 1H’07 with new Socket P based Core 2 Duo processors. Santa Rosa is the next major revision to Intel’s successful Centrino mobile platform and will bring a new chipset and Intel’s Robson technology. At the heart of Santa Rosa will be the upcoming Crestline GM965 Express chipset with a fourth generation integrated graphics core that will be a derivative of Intel’s GMA X3000 found on desktop G965 Express chipsets.

Socket M still has some life in it, however. Before Intel launches Santa Rosa early next year, Intel will release Merom processors in August which will run on current 945M and 945GM chipsets. This will be known as the Napa "refresh." Users should be able to use first-generation Merom processors in their current notebooks provided that their BIOS supports the new microcode.

Intel has not stated how long the new socket will last, although Socket M stuck around for more than three major CPU revisions. 



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Firewire
By Zandros on 7/7/2006 5:14:07 PM , Rating: 2
Is a FireWire controller chip too large to integrate into the ICH, or are Intel just being slow? I would gladly exchange at least six of those USB2.0 lanes for two FireWire 800 ports.




RE: Firewire
By Bluestealth on 7/7/2006 5:23:33 PM , Rating: 2
Intel wont integrate firewire is more like it.


RE: Firewire
By saratoga on 7/7/2006 5:39:39 PM , Rating: 2
Firewire seems to be on the way out unfortunately. I don't expect to see many more chipsets with firewire support.


RE: Firewire
By Zandros on 7/7/2006 6:13:32 PM , Rating: 2
But some high end motherboards for stationary PC's have been getting FW 800 ports. I would not count it out.


RE: Firewire
By Bluestealth on 7/7/2006 8:22:44 PM , Rating: 2
Its pretty much only used on DV Cams, and some HD Cable Boxes nowadays... USB2 has just about killed it off I would say, it is nice, but it just couldn't compete with USB2.


RE: Firewire
By Great Googly Moogly on 7/9/2006 11:47:37 AM , Rating: 2
Hrm. Firewire400 > USB2 for external HDDs.
Also, tons of pro/semi-pro audio interfaces use Firewire. I've never understood why people would get those for desktop DAWs though. Laptops? Sure. But not desktops.


RE: Firewire
By peternelson on 7/11/2006 7:40:12 PM , Rating: 2
External SATA (ESATA) OWNS both USB2 and Firewire (400 or 800).

Firewire 400 is for DV digicams. For drives use ESATA to give best performance. For other things like joysticks use USB2. There is no benefit of Firewire 800. I wouldn't want it in my chipset, thanks.


"We can't expect users to use common sense. That would eliminate the need for all sorts of legislation, committees, oversight and lawyers." -- Christopher Jennings














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki