I don't really undertsand why intel is going to be using two sockets and has done too. Just look at 775 that was fine with just one, two sockets just complecates things. My rant over let the desscusions begin!!!
Because they can. No seriously, look at AMD during the S939 era, same thing really. Because they now have the performance lead meaning that they can split sockets to gouge the customer.
How is it gouging the customer? My own buying style is to get one machine which I know will meet my needs throughout its lifetime. I haven't had to upgrade yet since 775, let alone from 1156 to 1366.
It's to give us more flexibility. LGA 1366 has extra pins over LGA 1156 so that it can handle more PCIe lanes and more memory channels. It makes boards more expensive, but gives more memory bandwidth and multi-GPU options to the people who want it. The cheaper 1156 boards don't have that, so it keeps costs down for those who don't need it. The reason that you can't do one socket to do both is that more functions are being moved onto the die. LGA 775 was available with AGP, PCIe, multiple PCIe, DDR2, DDR3, tons of different options for that socket. That's because more functions (such as the memory controller) were handled by the northbridge. Get a different mobo chipset, and you can have more memory bandwidth, different kinds of memory, more PCIe lanes, integrated graphics, whatever you wanted. For all intents and purposes, most of the 'northbridge' functions have moved onto the CPU. Memory channels come off the CPU, not the northbridge. PCIe lanes come off the CPU, not the northbridge. So, instead of seeing one socket and several kinds of chipsets (775 had 965, P35, G31, X38 - at least four different families of chipsets), we're going to see multiple sockets, each with fewer chipset options (1156 has H55 and P55, 1366 has X58). It would be bad for the enthusiasts if 1366 wasn't available, as the enthusiasts would be severely limited by the number of PCIe lanes and memory channels. It would be bad for regular customers if 1156 wasn't available, as it would drive up the costs by giving them features they don't want or need.
1366 was never meant to surpass 1156. It's just that with 1366 you get more "x16" PCI-E lanes and bunch of other stuff that some people really don't need. 1366 was meant for high end enthusiastic people where as 1156 is more main stream.
And triple channel memory rather than dual channel! It objectively does surpass 1156 in every field. But pedantics aside you're right, it's a choice rather than a straight upgrade path. That's why I don't get why it's such a big deal or price gouge. If anything it's nice to the consumer by not making mid-end customers pay for the extra goodies. If you want a middle end machine then get 1156, if you want a high end machine then get 1366. If you buy an 1156 machine and want a 1366 later down the line then it's really one's own problem for not planning for that.
Hmm apologies, it was an obtuse statement. Although I do remember the S939s being very odd in pricing. Guess times are different eh?
It's quite possible to build a sensible high-end gaming rig on 1156, though. You're stuck with quad cores, but that doesn't really matter for gaming. Most will do x8/x8 SLI/xfire, which isn't a major performance hit unless you get into multiple top-end cards.
I read an article not long ago about how even the top-end graphic cards don't use the full x16 lanes. But as soon as you begin to yank SATA 6Gb/s and USB3 into the computer you have a problem... And things don't get better when Intel refuses to implament USB3 in the near future.
