Last year, credible reports of a design defect with LGA1156 sockets made by a certain component manufacturer in particular, made headlines. Reviewers found that extreme overclocking using increase voltages, in test cases, caused certain pins of the socket to burn out, damaging both the board and processor. The defect was found to be caused by shorting between the pins and the socket causing tiny electrical arcs. Motherboard reviewer from TechReaction.net discovered that his Gigabyte GA-P67A-UD4 and GA-P67A-UD7 samples showed signs of socket burn. The publication is yet to receive a reply from the board manufacturer.LGA1155 and LGA1156 are very similar in physical pin layout, chip package, and retention clips, although the pin-maps are significantly different . TechReaction comments that while only "extreme conditions" cause such pin burnouts, 24/7-stable overclocked settings could, over a period of time, create similar conditions. Only time, and extensive testing will reveal if burnouts are a cause for concern to enthusiasts.

65 Comments on Socket Pin Burnout Returns to Haunt LGA1155?

1 to 25 of 65 Go to Page 123 PreviousNext

#1 Wile E

Power User Not many details. Only 2 individual boards so far? I wouldn't worry about this yet. Seems a bit soon to even make a blog post about. Posted on Jan 17th 2011, 2:02 Reply

#2 cdawall

where the hell are my stars no surprise here to much wattage to few pins Posted on Jan 17th 2011, 2:05 Reply

#3 Wile E

Power User cdawall no surprise here to much wattage to few pins Except that it wasn't number of pins that caused it the first time around, it was the manufacturer of the socket making it out of spec.



And it's still only been shown on 2 individual boards this time around, not even 2 model lines, just 2 boards some guy had. We don't even know if it's legit burnout. Except that it wasn't number of pins that caused it the first time around, it was the manufacturer of the socket making it out of spec.And it's still only been shown on 2 individual boards this time around, not even 2 model lines, just 2 boards some guy had. We don't even know if it's legit burnout. Posted on Jan 17th 2011, 2:09 Reply

#4 btarunr

Editor & Senior Moderator Wile E Not many details. Only 2 individual boards so far? I wouldn't worry about this yet. Seems a bit soon to even make a blog post about. Those were the same exact comments when the very first article about LGA1156 pin burnout surfaced. Those were the same exact comments when the very first article about LGA1156 pin burnout surfaced. Posted on Jan 17th 2011, 2:11 Reply

#5 Wile E

Power User btarunr Those were the same exact comments when the very first article about LGA1156 pin burnout surfaced. Didn't those articles provide a bit more info in the process? And because it turned out to be a problem in 1156, that automatically means it is also a problem in 1155?



If they were posted with the same amount of facts as this was, they deserved that initial skepticism. Didn't those articles provide a bit more info in the process? And because it turned out to be a problem in 1156, that automatically means it is also a problem in 1155?If they were posted with the same amount of facts as this was, they deserved that initial skepticism. Posted on Jan 17th 2011, 2:26 Reply

#6 Link108

That is just the risk you take for overclocking. I'm not suprised. That is why I have limits as to how high I oc my system because you have to decide is the risk worth the gain. Overclocking is nothing but a gamble. If you want to do some insane ocing use liquid nitro, or phase change. Also every piece of hardware is different in terms of ocing. Posted on Jan 17th 2011, 3:43 Reply

#7 LAN_deRf_HA

A reasonable overclock taking consideration for the hardware is very far from a gamble, particularly if you're in any way competent at life. If this is anything at all, it's a defect that could have shown itself regardless of overclocking. Posted on Jan 17th 2011, 3:48 Reply

#8 buggalugs

It would be nice if the guy said something about how much voltage he was using. Posted on Jan 17th 2011, 4:02 Reply

#9 pr0n Inspector

I received two motherboards from Gigabyte recently for testing, one P67A-UD4 and one P67A-UD7. Upon arrival, I did a thorough visual inspection, and found the UD4 had obvious signs of “socket burn”… I demand the socket for my 95W processor to provide over 9000W without breaking a sweat or I will sh-t bricks in your face, [motherboard maker]! Posted on Jan 17th 2011, 4:05 Reply

#10 Riou

The reviewer did not even put the CPU in the board yet. The socket already had burned pins.



I repeat, the board came from Gigabyte with burnt pins. Posted on Jan 17th 2011, 4:20 Reply

#11 buggalugs

Riou The reviewer did not even put the CPU in the board yet. The socket already had burned pins.



I repeat, the board came from Gigabyte with burnt pins. Oh, well that sucks then. Bad quality control from Gigabyte. Oh, well that sucks then. Bad quality control from Gigabyte. Posted on Jan 17th 2011, 4:42 Reply

#12 erixx

Maybe because they -GB- are doing non stop overclocking contests? :P Posted on Jan 17th 2011, 5:03 Reply

#13 BUCK NASTY

4P Enthusiust Here we go again. Just limited to GigaByte so far? Looks like I may hold off on being an early adopter this round.:shadedshu Posted on Jan 17th 2011, 6:21 Reply

#14 hat

Enthusiast Ouch. This might give me a reason to avoid GB... however, they don't specify the voltage they were using. I wouldn't be surprised if this happened while pushing ridiculous power like 1.7v.



Take it from me, always look into your board's specs when you are going to overclock, and more importantly, push voltage. I had a Biostar board (same model I'm using now, it got RMA'd) blow up and kill my 9800GT I had at the time when I tried to overclock/overvolt a Phenom 9500. The P9500 is already at 95w stock, and my board is only rated to support up to 95w processors. That sucked, but it was my fault for not paying attention, but I'm much the wiser about such things now.



It doesn't surprise me that these pins would burn out, especially when overclocked. Fitting 1155 pins into such a small space... those pins got to be awful thin. Posted on Jan 17th 2011, 7:28 Reply

#15 KieX

Oh god, please no! :cry:



To be honest I think that may just be the reviewer's fault or possibly just an unlucky board from GB. My UD4 didn't look like that, and so far so good. Feel like I'm a guinea pig now :ohwell: Posted on Jan 17th 2011, 7:39 Reply

#16 buggalugs

KieX Oh god, please no! :cry:



To be honest I think that may just be the reviewer's fault :ohwell: We already established the reviewer didnt even use the board. Gigabyte sent it like that.



Ya but because they were sample boards i'm guessing Gigabyte sent a couple of boards they were using and testing with and didnt realise the socket was burnt. I doubt a new board would have burnt sockets. Haha looks bad for Gigabyte though. We already established the reviewer didnt even use the board. Gigabyte sent it like that.Ya but because they were sample boards i'm guessing Gigabyte sent a couple of boards they were using and testing with and didnt realise the socket was burnt. I doubt a new board would have burnt sockets. Haha looks bad for Gigabyte though. Posted on Jan 17th 2011, 7:57 Reply

#17 Tartaros

Ouch. This might give me a reason to avoid GB Sometimes this things happens and everyone can fail. Quality controls are not perfect, that doesn't mean gb is a bad brand. Sometimes this things happens and everyone can fail. Quality controls are not perfect, that doesn't mean gb is a bad brand. Posted on Jan 17th 2011, 8:10 Reply

#18 Unregistered

Wile E Didn't those articles provide a bit more info in the process? And because it turned out to be a problem in 1156, that automatically means it is also a problem in 1155?



If they were posted with the same amount of facts as this was, they deserved that initial skepticism. i don't think so because LGA 1155 have significantly different pin arrangement, i don't think so because LGA 1155 have significantly different pin arrangement, Posted on Jan 17th 2011, 8:14 Edit | Reply

#19 micropage7

Tartaros Sometimes this things happens and everyone can fail. Quality controls are not perfect, that doesn't mean gb is a bad brand. agree, personally i think that the socket is not made by gigabyte, then the fault not only from gigabyte itself, any other brand could have that

when intel change the pin from the processor to the socket, any fault like that is possible, remember how many pins on the socket, any small thing err on manufacture or handling would give result like that agree, personally i think that the socket is not made by gigabyte, then the fault not only from gigabyte itself, any other brand could have thatwhen intel change the pin from the processor to the socket, any fault like that is possible, remember how many pins on the socket, any small thing err on manufacture or handling would give result like that Posted on Jan 17th 2011, 9:04 Reply

#20 hat

Enthusiast Tartaros Sometimes this things happens and everyone can fail. Quality controls are not perfect, that doesn't mean gb is a bad brand. I know, but I keep seeing mixed views about GB... I know, but I keep seeing mixed views about GB... Posted on Jan 17th 2011, 9:14 Reply

#21 bear jesus

If it was a review sample is it possible another reviewer had pushed it too far? But also was not the issues with the LGA1156 sockets due to low quality ones from foxconn? anyone know what brand gigabyte uses on these boards?



Personally i dislike the pins being on the motherboard but that's mainly as my CPU's usually cost less than the board so that way around if a pin gets damaged it is the more costly replacement. Posted on Jan 17th 2011, 9:35 Reply

#22 yogurt_21

bear jesus If it was a review sample is it possible another reviewer had pushed it too far? that'd be my guess also.



I'd haver a guess that the cpu overheated as well.



though i really do preser the pins on the mobo rather than the cpu, so many bent pins on cpus over the years and nada since I went to intel's lga style. So while I had an all too easy time beding a cpu pin while trying to be careful I've never bent one on a mobo even while not being careful.



And typically my mobo's are cheaper than my cpu. It's just more stuff to remove when a mobo burns out but that's no biggie. that'd be my guess also.I'd haver a guess that the cpu overheated as well.though i really do preser the pins on the mobo rather than the cpu, so many bent pins on cpus over the years and nada since I went to intel's lga style. So while I had an all too easy time beding a cpu pin while trying to be careful I've never bent one on a mobo even while not being careful.And typically my mobo's are cheaper than my cpu. It's just more stuff to remove when a mobo burns out but that's no biggie. Posted on Jan 17th 2011, 9:54 Reply

#23 mechtech

Doesn't FOXCONN make the cpu holder that goes on the motherboard?? Posted on Jan 17th 2011, 9:59 Reply

#24 bear jesus

yogurt_21 that'd be my guess also.



I'd haver a guess that the cpu overheated as well.



though i really do preser the pins on the mobo rather than the cpu, so many bent pins on cpus over the years and nada since I went to intel's lga style. So while I had an all too easy time beding a cpu pin while trying to be careful I've never bent one on a mobo even while not being careful.



And typically my mobo's are cheaper than my cpu. It's just more stuff to remove when a mobo burns out but that's no biggie. I totally agree that pins on a CPU are easy to bend and when the CPU is more expensive (even more so if it's something like a 980x) it makes much more sense to have them on the board also every CPU i have had in the past 10 years has outlasted the motherboard, i think apart from crazy high voltage the only way to kill a CPU is damage the pins so i totally see why Intel and AMD (on some server CPU's) have done this. mechtech Doesn't FOXCONN make the cpu holder that goes on the motherboard?? foxconn makes the full socket, i don't know if it's their socket on that board but they do make them for many board makers. I totally agree that pins on a CPU are easy to bend and when the CPU is more expensive (even more so if it's something like a 980x) it makes much more sense to have them on the board also every CPU i have had in the past 10 years has outlasted the motherboard, i think apart from crazy high voltage the only way to kill a CPU is damage the pins so i totally see why Intel and AMD (on some server CPU's) have done this.foxconn makes the full socket, i don't know if it's their socket on that board but they do make them for many board makers. Posted on Jan 17th 2011, 10:01 Reply

#25 newtekie1

Semi-Retired Folder Some things should be cleared up.



1.) We do not know that he received the board this way from Gigabyte. He simply states that "upon arrival" there were burnt pins. However, he could have recieved it from another reviewer that tested it first, and the reviewer screwed up the pins. I know that when you review parts, they don't always come directly from the manufacturer. The manufacturer sends out the part to one person for review, then tells the reviewer where to send it when they are done.



2.) The reviewer posting about the problem has no idea what voltage was used, because he didn't burn the pins.



Now, as for my own observations from the pictures, it seems at least one of the pins is actually broken off. So my guess would be that one of the previous reviewers were a little rough with removing and inserting the processor, and broke a few pins. This was still enough to make contact, but caused the arcing situation. Of course there is the other pin that isn't broken but is still burnt, but that can be caused by the extra stress of more power going through that one pin because the others are failing. Posted on Jan 17th 2011, 10:07 Reply