The LGA-1156 Socket: Size and Installation

The first Core i7, Bloomfield, went into a 1366-pin LGA socket:

A year later we have Lynnfield, and it fits in a much tighter space:

The LGA-1156 socket and Lynnfield CPUs are about as big as the old LGA-775 sockets/chips:


From Left to Right: Intel Core i7 "Bloomfield" (LGA-1366), Intel Core i7 "Lynnfield" (LGA-1156), Intel Core 2 Quad "Yorkfield" (LGA-775)


Note the pad densitiy of Lynnfield vs. LGA-775 processors

The installation process is largely the same as any other Intel LGA socket, the difference being that LGA-1156 uses a new one-sided retention mechanism.

After the socket is "open", gently place the CPU on top of the pins. The chip can only fit in one direction so just pay attention:

With the chip in the socket and the lever still pulled back, move the socket cover over the CPU and slide its teeth under the retention screw on the opposite side:

Then, lower the lever, lock it in place and you're good to go:

Index New Heatsinks and Motherboards
POST A COMMENT

341 Comments

View All Comments

  • mschira - Tuesday, September 08, 2009 - link

    I wonder if a 4xPCIe RAID adapter directly connected to a PCIe slot that is connected to the CPU is any faster than it is for a Core i7 920....
    Cheers

    Reply
  • Gary Key - Tuesday, September 08, 2009 - link

    Less than a one percent difference in my testing so far. Reply
  • Jamahl - Tuesday, September 08, 2009 - link

    Why do your benches falsely state 2.66ghz when they are clearly running faster than that? Reply
  • rbbot - Tuesday, September 08, 2009 - link

    lol - I've just been berating a reviewer on another site for benchmarking with turbo off! In that case the review wasn't targeted at an overclocking audience, but even here I can't see the argument for benchmarking with it disabled.

    Yes you do need to turn it off for extreme overclocking, but this review is comparing the chips in their stock configuration and stock configuration is on.
    Reply
  • maxxcool - Tuesday, September 08, 2009 - link

    As for false, well gee, you were told it was on. Didn't you read that? or are you snakeoils brother? Reply
  • goinginstyle - Tuesday, September 08, 2009 - link

    They list the base CPU speeds, it was discussed clearly in the article that turbo is enabled, it is not a false statement for reporting what you will purchase. Apparently you just want to flame bait here and I hope they ban you and the two other nut jobs. Reply
  • rgallant - Wednesday, September 09, 2009 - link

    people see what they want to see I guess
    -I wanted to see the multi gpu test, 1156 vs 1366 , clock vs clock ,fps vs fps ,16x vs 8x on die , not one chip overclocking it's self unless you show the numbers for turbo on and off, what if the 1366 mb used for the benches came out of the box and by the default bios overclocked the i7 920 to 3.8 ,would those numbers be included as stock out of the box. I don't think so , that feature would be turned off on the mb.for the benches. 1156 numbers could mean nothing really.
    -all cpu's should been locked at 3.6 at least for the multi gpu test or one test anyways.
    -the 8x 8x lane issue is the only crippled feature on the new chips ,and it seems to take a back seat to the $50.00 savings for a mb for a $600.00 i7 870 chip ,or $900.00 CND .lol On sept.05 my local shop had the i7 920 D0 and the i7 860 both at $345 CND.
    -good review as always ,just missing that part for me , looking to commit on a 1156 or a 1366 upgrade.
    Reply
  • maxxcool - Tuesday, September 08, 2009 - link

    Yeah, you got to get rid of snakeoil, he is quiet the troll on the TechReport forums as well. He has been banned from several sites already. Reply
  • andrenb91 - Tuesday, September 08, 2009 - link

    i5 is faster than PII's! but gotta wait for the lower end ones come out
    because these $190+ chips aren't the one ones that brings up revenue for companies like amd or intel...of course intel has the upper hand here, it could use as a propaganda do deliver up the slower parts. Amd has value and some good cpus at the lower end... that ones bring profits to the company,amd strategy is looking good for now, but it's design must change (native dual/tripe core versions of Phenom II) and the die size have to get smaller to compete next year (against 32nm low end ones...) well I use amd budget ones, for what I do is good enough, ( thin about $400 pc in USA, live in Brazil...) still, I can play some 40fps games and do some video encoding with my gpu,my point is, amd still have the lower-end market, the problem is, if were some of that people that think pentium is a company name, I would by the pentium cpus instead of amd strange cpus. that's why intel sells a lot more desktops and notebooks, of course the performace is great at some 700+ pcs and laptops, but amd has the lower-end, and there it is what amd is looking for: market share, and taht will pump amd back again by 2011 with its fusion apu, intel already controls 80% of mainstream,and high-end markets, but doesn't have a player for the lower-end, thats what I'm looking for a good old intel cpu that beats p2x3 or athlonIIx4 by intel at about $100. then I'll buy my next cpu, probably an intel, or continue with Amd, time will tell...
    Reply
  • andrenb91 - Tuesday, September 08, 2009 - link

    sorry for my english and, these benchmarks are for windows only, over linux intel i5 will not have this crazy advantage at all, well but who of us uses linux anyway?(don't lie to me, it's a dual boot...) well my system specs are: phenomII x3 705e,4gb ddr3 1333,hd 4650 basicaly a low-end to mainstream.. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now