Lord Nobby wrote:
I have (at work and at home) changed several hundred CPUs, all of which needed sealing, lining up, pressing down and locking.
And it's more of a pain to do that than to replace a video card, right?
Geez folks! I didn't say it was freaking impossible. Just that of the things you could replace inside a computer, the CPU is the biggest pain in the ***.
How many times have you *ever* upgraded the CPU on your home computer (not a work task) in place on the same board? Ever? If you have, was it in the last 10 years? How many times have you upgraded the video card?
What I'm saying isn't some crazy thing from left field. This is how people manage their computers. Most people simply buy fully built systems. Of those who assemble them, most buy board/CPU (and often memory) as a set and then install in a case, connect power, and add cards. And once they do that they may upgrade the cards (video being by far the most likely component to be upgraded in an existing system), but they very very very very very very very rarely will ever upgrade a CPU without replacing the board as well.
There are a host of reason for this. Part of it is the relative difficulty of replacing a CPU (yes, even the bga types). Another part is board chipset compatibility. A third is feature and peripheral connector improvements. Pretty much anytime in the last decade I've considered upgrading the CPU in a home system, upon doing even a tiny bit of research it becomes apparent that even if I purchased an upgrade in the same line which would work in the same board I have, for a small difference in price, I can buy a CPU in a new line, which requires a different socket type and/or chipset and comes on boards which support some newer external components which my old board doesn't, and by doing this, I'll gain a hell of a lot more bang for my buck.
You *can* replace one without the other, but I'm saying that unless you're spending a lot of money tinkering and building high end systems, there's pretty much never a good reason to do so.