I've been wondering for a while now. why companies continue to use modular socket-based cpus in notebooks instead of a single all in one board like the old ppc apple computers? Does anyone know of any articles that address this because it seems like embedded chips would make a lot more sense in something like a laptop which is basically a disposable computer that can rarely accommodate upgrades of major components.

It's easier to replace if the cpu breaks but I'm pretty sure most of them are soldered in

they require new sockets often too

making a new chip costs more than making a new motherboard but i think system on a chip designs are the way they're progressing

It's a lot like the reason car manufacturers outsource instead of making their own car radios. It's easier to buy components at a unit cost and not have to think about the rest. A lot of the time computer architecture is just licensed designs from design holdings companies (e.g. ARM don't make chips but companies like Apple, Nokia, SE - they all license the design to use in their products). It's all about standards and the IET has to meet in order for them to be changed/refined.

Also when you are midway through a supply chain it's a good idea to have multiple sources for components so that you don't have a shortage for your design of product.

It's a lot like the reason car manufacturers outsource instead of making their own car radios. It's easier to buy components at a unit cost and not have to think about the rest. A lot of the time computer architecture is just licensed designs from design holdings companies (e.g. ARM don't make chips but companies like Apple, Nokia, SE - they all license the design to use in their products). It's all about standards and the IET has to meet in order for them to be changed/refined.

Also when you are midway through a supply chain it's a good idea to have multiple sources for components so that you don't have a shortage for your design of product.

yeah when I was thinking about it I figured the economics of supply/distribution were the main reason, but it seems like from an engineering standpoint an embedded solution would be a lot more efficient

i'm mostly interested in some kind of technical article about socket vs embedded

Good thing you're not making laptops then

Well that's the thing, a lot of notebook companies are looking toward things like arm chips from companies like freescale, qualcomm, nvidia, and TI because its an increadibly energy efficient design with performance rivaling socketed cpus.

I'm pretty certain the reason has more to do with Intel's dominance of the market and capability to crank out a ton of processors for both desktops and laptops than a sound engineering decision, but what I'm interested in is a purely technical comparison between the two.

as an aside i've been a huge ARM fan since risc os and it's very exciting that since computers are being used more and more for WEB BROWSING rather than predicting weather patterns or w/e they're becomming a viable alternative to x86 architecture again. CISC SUCKS!!!!! LONG LIVE ARM!!!!

Well that's the thing, a lot of notebook companies are looking toward things like arm chips from companies like freescale, qualcomm, nvidia, and TI because its an increadibly energy efficient design with performance rivaling socketed cpus.

Are you saying socketed cpus are entirely different to surface mounted ones? Because I'm pretty sure the only difference is the way they're attached to the motherboard and there are brands like apple that make all their laptops with soldered cpus (macbook air has even the memory soldered in).

Are you saying socketed cpus are entirely different to surface mounted ones? Because I'm pretty sure the only difference is the way they're attached to the motherboard and there are brands like apple that make all their laptops with soldered cpus (macbook air has even the memory soldered in).

yes I'm talking about an entirely different architecture

The more you put into one "unit" the more ppm (parts per million) you will have defective i.e. whole boards will be wasted. Hot-swappable components are a wise idea when you're designing systems. Sure you could design some absolutely beasty system on a chip but you'd have much higher defective ppm rates.

My dad just bought a Phenom II X2 550 with an Asus motherboard that allows you to unlock the two cores they turn off as part of the design. They manufacture the chip with four so that if one is defective they can turn off that and one other and still meet the spec. I am really jealous cause he basically just paid £60 for a 3.1Ghz quad core.

yes I'm talking about an entirely different architecture

Architecture is not the same thing as packaging

I don't know if its a language thing or if you're just being an idiot but "embedded" CPU is generally understood as those ARM-like RISC chips.

Ed can you confirm this


My microwave has a Z80. Why don't people use it in a laptop, it's more efficient.

Just wondering, how many processors they produce are defective these days? Have they made improvements in this area throughout the years or have the huge amount of transistors actually made it more difficult?

I'd love to pay a visit to Intel's research facility sometime.

around 70% or above is a good yeild
http://www.pcstats.com/NewsView.cfm?NewsID=81304

see this is pretty much what I was saying

With the cortex a9 running a 500mhz without video acceleration  you're pretty much seeing the same performance as a 1600mhz Intel chip that's sucking a lot more power and probably costs more