Thank you, @Alan_Pearce. Great points.
I can imagine the complexity involved.
At the same time, we need to start exploring new ideas in design and prototyping.
After all, conformity is the enemy of innovation. 
Notice: my post was moved from another thread “Changing the CPU of the Framework Mainboards”.
As others have mentioned it is not just the CPU that changes each generation, the chipsets change too. This is primarily why Framework sat down and looked at this issue when creating the first Framework Laptop 13. Hence the ability to change the mainboard and have it swappable with every other component. This likely took millions of $$ to put together initially and continues to cost a significant amount of money in R&D to keep using the same platform.
Another example of this are mainboards for desktop computers. AMD has taken this approach with their AM4 and AM5 socket designs. Committing to using it for X years; though the newest processors will require updated chipsets again so it is back to a similar issue that Framework has built their business on.
The alternative would be to create an “upgradable” socket though the limiting factor is going to be stuck using older communication pathways.
Think if there was a mainboard that used the latest 9XXX AMD chip but still ran on DDR2 memory. Who would buy this vs. the incremental cost of upgrading the motherboard ($150?) to take their processor equivalent to an F1 racecar to an actual track where it could really shine.
Other areas of sustainability are equally as challenging and much more achievable. (Solar, MicroHydro, Wind, Geothermal, Recycling Building materials, etc.)
2 Likes
I don’t think this would make a reliable connection. Manufacturers would be happy to use a simple piece of metal instead of an expensive high-speed connector if it was possible.
Thank you, @pkunk.
I hope we will find new ways forward.
We probably need to rethink some of the paradigms around how things works.
An important point is that we need to talk more about it to expand our ideas.
For now, implementing a solution like a CPU correction frame (thermalright) instead of a soldered CPU could be an excellent next step.
Framework could consider partnering with a company to develop a prototype mobile socket for a current CPU (AMD might be a “simpler” starting point) using a solution similar to the correction frame (thermalright). With this setup, they could prototype a motherboard for testing. I’d love to help in any way I can.
Wow a lot of folks still thinking this is 2004. 
Dear Framework Team,
I love what you’re doing with modular laptops, and I had an idea that could take upgradability even further:
What if laptops had a swappable CPU socket module, allowing users to upgrade across different generations? Combined with a modular VRM system and improved cooling, this could enable true long-term upgradability while reducing e-waste and saving users money over time.
To make this possible, a slightly larger laptop design could accommodate better cooling solutions, ensuring stability across different CPU power levels. Additionally, offering a lower-cost base model with an entry-level CPU—and selling upgrade kits separately—would allow users to start affordably and upgrade as their needs grow, making high-performance laptops more accessible without requiring a full replacement.
To further support upgradability, a secondary mini BIOS could manage power configurations, dynamically adjusting voltage and power limits when a new CPU is installed. This would ensure seamless compatibility and prevent instability or power issues across different generations.
This approach could be a game-changer for gamers, professionals, and everyday users who want longevity and flexibility in their devices. I’d love to hear your thoughts on this! Would Framework consider exploring something like this for future models? and yes I used chat gpt to make it sound more nice as I can’t type well enough just an idea
There would be some challenges with this approach, if Framework wants to stay thin, light, sleek, retain backward and forward compatibility, etc.
- The only socketed CPU design that is modular that I know of as you suggest, is with a desktop CPU. As far as I am aware, all mobile CPU’s are not interchangeable, I’ve not seen a motherboard with a socketed interchangeable mobile CPU before, they’re typically soldered in place. This would necessitate an increase in chassis height and redesign of the cooling system. I think Framework is probably going to attempt, as much as possible, to retain backward compatibility wherever they can. This would further align with their goals to help eliminate E-Waste and maintain compatibility for upgradeability moving forward.
- I don’t think modular VRM’s are something that exists any longer, as less discrete components are used for such things in motherboards, and the elimination of connectors allows for less resistance and higher amps that can be regulated through a VRM. Given this, any motherboard with a discrete, modular VRM would undoubtedly be more costly than it might be otherwise, and would again require a change in the chassis, preventing backward and forward compatibility.
- Finally, if Framework did use a desktop CPU, there would be difficulties in power draw, and there are already enough challenges in that department with the FW16. Framework doesn’t even have a 240W USB-C charger of its own yet, and using a CPU designed for a desktop computer in a laptop, while possible, would only drive up power draw even further. I have a laptop using a desktop CPU, an Intel one so that’s not the most power efficient, and while it’s sitting idle with the screen closed and turbo-boost off, it draws a ridiculous 40 wats of power.
Perhaps Framework will surprise us, however. You never know.
What would the benefit of this be? For a sizeable increase in cost, complexity, and thickness, the tiny minority of people who decide they want to upgrade within a single CPU generation can save some money? Newer CPU generations would need new motherboards more or less unconditionally.
3 Likes