What happened to the higher feature set of 1156 Socket Motherboards?

ECH

Regular
What happened to the High End feature set of 1156 Socket Motherboards?

I like to know why is it that:
-all 1156 motherboards offer only 2 x PCIe 2.0 x8/x8
-I can't find Marvel lan support
-Integrated sound instead of PCIe sound card for higher end models

Yet charge a higher premium for what appears to me to be reduce feature set. Now if the price for these upper end motherboards were less then $175 I could understand but the 1156 motherboards seem to be for the most part lack luster compared to other motherboards for other CPUs.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
1156 was meant for the mainstream/budget market. 1366 is meant for enthusiast/workstation market.

As such the PCIE controller integrated in the CPU has a total of 16x PCIE 2.0 lanes. An additional 4x PCIE lanes (don't think these are 2.0, but not sure on that) are available from the associated chipset.

LAN chip has always been up to the MB maker to decide what to use. Same goes for the onboard sound.

Personally I think anyone silly enough to pay more than 200 USD for a 1156 MB is bonkers. :) At that point you may as well go for 1366. Although speaking for myself power consumption was the one thing that kept me on 1156 rather than go up to 1366. Well that along with Stock single threaded performance is better on 1156. Overclocked to the max though, 1366 is still faster.

Basically any of the expensive 1156 MBs are due to MB makers trying to shoehorn enthusiast features into a platform that is targetted at mainstream/budget.

Regards,
SB
 
I see, good information thanks. I can see how they are throwing enthusiast titles for some of these motherboards but aren't providing those enthusiast feature set along with it. It really had me scratching my head on this because I expect a certain feature set for the price they are asking. For the most part, it's completely absent or they are offering a midrange feature set at a higher premium IMO.
There is word on the new Asus P7P55D-E Pro which includes SATA 6 Gb/s and USB 3.0. Also offering Gigabyte lan controller but still x8/x8 and only 1 lan port (where is the bios reset switch?).


One issue in particular are the "older sockets". Some say that problems can occur regardless of OC with others say it doesn't matter. This really, really concerns me as no one want to damage MB/CPU because the pins aren't making proper contact. So I look for either LOTES or the revised, newer Foxconn sockets. In any case this is what I would consider a step in the right direction but that depends on the price. If it's another $220 motherboard then no way!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I see, good information thanks. I can see how they are throwing enthusiast titles for some of these motherboards but aren't providing those enthusiast feature set along with it. It really had me scratching my head on this because I expect a certain feature set for the price they are asking. For the most part, it's completely absent or they are offering a midrange feature set at a higher premium IMO.
There is word on the new Asus P7P55D-E Pro which includes SATA 6 Gb/s and USB 3.0. Also offering Gigabyte lan controller but still x8/x8 and only 1 lan port (where is the bios reset switch?).

Be aware, that in most cases for 1156 boards, support of SATA 6 Gb/s and USB 3.0 means you are limited to 8x PCIE lanes off the CPU (the other 8x are used to support the SATA and USB 3.0).

This won't be changed until Intel decides to release an updated chipset for 1156. And there's no word of that. The new H-series chipsets will have the same issue.

Regards,
SB
 
Thanks guys for the information.

So what you are saying is that if I bought that MB I would be stuck at x8 if I had a HD that used sata 6.0 and/or USB 3.0? Wow...this is amazing stuff. So we need to wait for a whole new chipset if you want to consider a 1156 CPU...Sad, really sad... I wonder what it would be called? P57 perhaps?
 
I've always been surprised at the level of enthusiasm about 1156 on the internet ... it's not that much cheaper (especially the better mobos) it doesn't really clock higher and it's architecturally inferior ... a big pile of meh. 1366 was the one with superior features where it mattered (power and ground pins and PCI Express lanes).
 
mobo vendors make epensive mobos with nicer looking heatsinks, 90°-tilted SATA ports and one or two features, because they know they'll sell a high-margin product this way.

this has been true on all sockets.

and yeah, the I/O is the market diffenciation between 1156 and 1366.
still the 1156 looks decent if you limit yourself to a single graphics card. or maybe a main graphics card, and the option of a second one for additional displays.

I've looked around and the Gigabyte GA-P55A-UD3 looks like a very good mobo. right price, a second PCI 16x@4x slot, three PCI slots, two PCIe 1x, a huge number of USB ports including two USB 3, a huge number of SATA ports.

it looks like it can do anything short of SLI/crossfire, and besides if worst case your main GPU runs at PCIe 8x 2.0 I get a feeling you can survive that.
 
That's the thing, I only plan on using 1 video card. So the 1156 is ideal for me. The usb 3.0 is IMO a setback causing the PCIe x16 to change to x8 for the 1156. But when you compare to a CPU, MB, ram for a 1366 vs 1156 the price difference is substantial for what you get. It's no surprise that folk prefer 1156 over 1366.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I also only ever intend to have one GPU.
USB3 I don't care for, the only USB devices I have are Mouse, Joystick & a flash stick, I have no real need for big speed there.

I run only fairly minor overclocks (stock voltage) too, so I figure a mid-range 1156 mobo should be ok for that & its going to be much cheaper than a mid-range 1366 mobo.
 
I've always been surprised at the level of enthusiasm about 1156 on the internet ... it's not that much cheaper (especially the better mobos) it doesn't really clock higher and it's architecturally inferior ... a big pile of meh. 1366 was the one with superior features where it mattered (power and ground pins and PCI Express lanes).

Power consumption and cost. That's the main advantages of 1156 versus 1366.

Only for some unknown reason, MB makers are dead set on trying to take a mainstream/budget chipset and shoehorning in enthusiast features at an enthusiast price. It boggles the mind.

Anyway, had Intel made a Lynnsfield variant for socket 1366, I would have gone with 1366 in a heartbeat. Unfortunately, power consumption and single threaded stock performance of 1366 are both lacking compared to 1156. So I ended up with 1156, and I'm perfectly happy with it. Saved up front costs, and save in month to month operating costs.

Regards,
SB
 
That's the thing, I only plan on using 1 video card. So the 1156 is ideal for me. The usb 3.0 is IMO a setback causing the PCIe x16 to change to x8 for the 1156. But when you compare to a CPU, MB, ram for a 1366 vs 1156 the price difference is substantial for what you get. It's no surprise that folk prefer 1156 over 1366.

BTW - not all vendors make the same design choices. Some use PCI lanes or use PCIE bridge chips (I believe) or share x1 lanes off the chipset for usb 3.0/Sata 6.0.

You just need to be careful and do some research into what capabilities might or might not be reduced to support those features.

Regards,
SB
 
Matter in what way? For graphics? I'd imagine x8 wouldn't significantly hold back anything other than possibly a 5970. Crossfire on 1156 wasn't significantly slower than crossfire on 1366 with 16x PCIE lanes per slot from what I remember of the Anandtech article.

Regards,
SB
 
Well, the SATA/USB controllers use a single PCI-E lane ... a single of the "slow" PCI-E lanes (ie. not the graphics ones) on the current 1156 chipsets is limited to 250 MB/s, potentially severely throttling them. For present generation SSDs it's not an issue, but in a year it will be. I really don't see why Intel went so cheap with 1156.

Personally I'd go for a nice X58 with 2x16x and 1x4x PCI-E slots and buy something like an Asus U3S6 once you really want/need USB-3 or SATA-6 (at which point such add on cards will almost certainly be cheap).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah that's why some of the 1156 MB's use x8 lanes off the CPU instead.

Again, budget/mainstream. I think Intel perhaps didn't expect Lynnsfield to be so popular among enthusiasts. And they would prefer enthusiasts (who generally spend more money) to stick with 1366, thus the rather low support for cutting edge features.

Myself I figure if/when Sata 6.0 and USB 3.0 become popular I'll get a new motherboard, rather than trying to shoehorn any current 1156 board.

Regards,
SB
 
If there was a MB that was priced right with all the features I'm looking for I'm sure that 1156 board would be right for me. I've also noticed they've added a i7 860S. I'm not sure what all they've done but so far it's a lower TDP part with a lower bus/core ratio then the normal i7 860 but costs more :oops:. I do have to see benchmark results of it thought.

I agree that I have to do a whole lot of research to find the best 1156 that suites me. But it appears that it's not needed as much with a 1366 although it costs considerably more (for what I want). In any case I still have more research to do. I want to thank everyone for their time and information.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If there was a MB that was priced right with all the features I'm looking for I'm sure that 1156 board would be right for me. I've also noticed they've added a i7 860S. I'm not sure what all they've done but so far it's a lower TDP part with a lower bus/core ratio then the normal i7 860 but costs more :oops:. I do have to see benchmark results of it thought.

I agree that I have to do a whole lot of research to find the best 1156 that suites me. But it appears that it's not needed as much with a 1366 although it costs considerably more (for what I want). In any case I still have more research to do. I want to thank everyone for their time and information.

If you are already looking at enthusiast level boards and plan on overclocking, then 1156 doesn't make a whole lot of sense, IMO.

1366 also gives you an upgrade path to future 6+ core CPUs (1156 will always be limited to 4 core max).

As I said the only reasons really to get 1156 is power consumption, cost, and stock single threaded performance.

If you are getting an enthusiast based MB, you're already eroding much of the value proposition.

And if you are overclocking, you aren't going to be worried about stock performance, and overclocking a Lynnsfield CPU requires upping the voltage usually for high overclocks (not so much with Bloomsfield) so your power consumption will skyrocket negating all the power savings.

It's the new thing sure, but for most enthusiasts 1366 is just the overall better platform.

Regards,
SB
 
Wow, thanks, I nearly forgot that! Hmm, the question now remains if I will ever have need for it?
 
As I said the only reasons really to get 1156 is power consumption, cost, and stock single threaded performance.

in essence, that's a superior computer on all accounts.
the 1366 then becomes about the crossfire you might get, or the "exxtreme" or xeon CPU you might get, or the 12, 18 or 24GB ram you might get.

fine if it's what you're after. but in the end, there's not a good socket and a wrong one.
 
Back
Top