# AMD FX Zambezi Processors Compatible with ASUS AM3 Motherboards Using BIOS Update



## btarunr (Mar 15, 2011)

AMD's upcoming FX series "Zambezi" desktop processors based on the "Bulldozer architecture are also expected to bring with them compatible motherboards, as AMD, on a number of occassions, stated that the chips will require a new socket (referred to as AM3+) and compatible chipset, and that the chips will be incompatible with existing AM3 socket and existing chipset. Information available with SweClockers points to the contrary. 

According to the source, motherboard major ASUS is planning to provide support to AM3+ processors to some of its existing AM3 motherboards using mere BIOS updates. That's right, Zambezi will indeed be backwards compatible with AM3 and existing chipset, only what remains to be seen is if the processors will perform to their full potential and overclock well on existing platform. Amongst ASUS' Schindler's list are top of the line AM3 models, such as ROG Crosshair IV Formula and Extreme, M4A89TD PRO/USB3, and even AMD 890GX-based motherboards such as M4A89GTD PRO. The list also shows certain AM3+ motherboards that use dated chipsets such as 760G, probably the entry-level of ASUS' M5A series of motherboards.



 



*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## Yukikaze (Mar 15, 2011)

Very awesome. I have a buddy with a Crosshair IV Formula mobo who will be delighted to hear this!


----------



## $immond$ (Mar 15, 2011)

That's good news!


----------



## Yukikaze (Mar 15, 2011)

$immond$ said:


> that's good news!



edit: mega-ninja'ed!


----------



## $immond$ (Mar 15, 2011)

Does that mean ITX AM3 boards are compatible? 

Like the ZOTAC 890GXITX-A-E ??? Its 140 watt CPU capable.


----------



## Fourstaff (Mar 15, 2011)

Nice to hear that they are providing backwards compatibility, unlike some blue company which shall be left unnamed.


----------



## Marv (Mar 15, 2011)

Fantastic news! Just hope the processors can deliver too!

I do wonder though whether the AM3 motherboards will be compatible, but not as good as the AM3+ boards from a performance perspective despite both using DDR3 and so on.


----------



## AMD'ers (Mar 15, 2011)

its good news . not like intel .


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Mar 15, 2011)

Wait, timeout.  I though AM3+ socket had 942 pins which infers that AM3+ chips will have 942 pins. If that was true, the Zambezi will physically not fit into a AM3 socket motherboard.  Updating your BIOS doesn't alter the laws of physics.

Does ASUS plan to release some kind of adapter or were the pin count reports wrong?


----------



## btarunr (Mar 15, 2011)

$immond$ said:


> Does that mean ITX AM3 boards are compatible?



It means that every AM3 motherboard ever made is compatible provided the motherboard vendor decides to give a supportive BIOS update. 

To answer your question on ITX, that will also depend on the VRM of the ITX board, whether it supports 125W CPUs. Most ITX AMD motherboards support up to 95W CPUs, not 125W or 140W.


----------



## erocker (Mar 15, 2011)

TheLaughingMan said:


> Wait, timeout.  I though AM3+ socket had 942 pins which infers that AM3+ chips will have 942 pins. If that was true, the Zambezi will physically not fit into a AM3 socket motherboard.  Updating your BIOS doesn't alter the laws of physics.
> 
> Does ASUS plan to release some kind of adapter or where the pin count reports wrong?



That's what I thought, but really we haven't seen the pinout on the CPU itself yet soo... woo hoo. I'm happy about it as I can just upgrade my CPU first if I would want to.


----------



## $immond$ (Mar 15, 2011)

btarunr said:


> It means that every AM3 motherboard ever made is compatible provided the motherboard vendor decides to give a supportive BIOS update.
> 
> To answer your question on ITX, that will also depend on the VRM of the ITX board, whether it supports 125W CPUs. Most ITX AMD motherboards cap out at 95W CPUs.



ZOTAC 890GXITX-A-E

Yes but if read the specs it supports up to 140-watt TDP CPU, might just put my BE processor in it and use a Bulldozer processor in my gaming rig, once they are released.


----------



## suraswami (Mar 15, 2011)

This is great news.  Hopefully MSI releases update for my 790FX-GD70 board.  I am going to hold on to it for some more time to see if luck favors.


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Mar 15, 2011)

erocker said:


> That's what I thought, but really we haven't seen the pinout on the CPU itself yet soo... woo hoo. I'm happy about it as I can just upgrade my CPU first if I would want to.



Didn't TPU post a report from ASRock that they were going to release an board with the 890GX or FX chipset but an AM3b socket.  According to them and their pre-release pics, the socket should look something like this:







Anyone up for a count?


----------



## ROad86 (Mar 15, 2011)

I dont know what excactly is happening with compatibility but gigabyte too has released am3+ motherboards http://www.gigabyte.com/products/product-page.aspx?pid=3781#ov. More models are availabe claiming to be revision 3.1 if you visit the site.
As it seems bulldozer will be backawards compatible but we have to see in what extent.


----------



## btarunr (Mar 15, 2011)

$immond$ said:


> ZOTAC 890GXITX-A-E
> 
> Yes but if read the specs it supports up to 140-watt TDP CPU, might just put my BE processor in it and use a Bulldozer processor in my gaming rig, once they are released.



Then sure, your VRM can support FX processors. All that's left is Zotac giving you that important BIOS update. 

Market reasons will restrict motherboard vendors. They would much rather see you buy a new board from them. However, ASUS is a huge company, and giving away a Bulldozer-supporting BIOS won't hurt them. If anything, it will make ASUS' existing AM3 boards sell well till June.


----------



## erocker (Mar 15, 2011)

TheLaughingMan said:


> Didn't TPU post a report from ASRock that they were going to release an board with the 890GX or FX chipset but an AM3b socket.  According to them and their pre-release pics, the socket should look something like this:
> 
> http://i1-news.softpedia-static.com...ldozer-Motherboard-Gets-Listed-in-Japan-3.jpg
> 
> Anyone up for a count?



Yeah, we know what the socket looks like, we haven't seen the backside of a CPU yet. Maybe AM3 users will get a hole drill kit?


----------



## newtekie1 (Mar 15, 2011)

Fourstaff said:


> Nice to hear that they are providing backwards compatibility, unlike some blue company which shall be left unnamed.



While I won't comment on a certain blue companies crappy strategy, doesn't this news kind of prove that AMD it really doing the same thing, just being more blatent about it?  I mean AMD is saying that Bulldozer will not work at all with older chipsets and sockets, yet ASUS just proved AMD is full of it and is just saying that to get us all to buy new boards/chipsets...

Personally, I was hoping that AMD would use this as an opertunity to switch to LGA sockets instead of ZIF, I'm tired of pins on the CPU, they bend/break easier.


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Mar 15, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> While I won't comment on a certain blue companies crappy strategy, doesn't this news kind of prove that AMD it really doing the same thing, just being more blatent about it?  I mean AMD is saying that Bulldozer will not work at all with older chipsets and sockets, yet ASUS just proved AMD is full of it and is just saying that to get us all to buy new boards/chipsets...



Actually they just said it wouldn't work with the older socket.  Also this is coming from a "source" of someone else's, so he could just be full of it.

If AMD wanted you to buy a new board every time the released a new chip, they would just take Intel approach and come out with a completely new pin layout/socket each time.  They have never done that, so why start now.

If we are taking sides, I chose to believe this news report is full of crap and the old info. about the sockets were right.  I mean its all up in the air until someone from AMD steps forward and says something or the NDA is lifted and BtaRunr can just tell us the truth.


----------



## btarunr (Mar 15, 2011)

TheLaughingMan said:


> http://i1-news.softpedia-static.com...ldozer-Motherboard-Gets-Listed-in-Japan-3.jpg
> 
> Anyone up for a count?



It's 940. The pin-map looks the same as AM3, except that this notch now only covers one pin. AM3 socket has 941 contacts.


----------



## Fourstaff (Mar 15, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> While I won't comment on a certain blue companies crappy strategy, doesn't this news kind of prove that AMD it really doing the same thing, just being more blatent about it?  I mean AMD is saying that Bulldozer will not work at all with older chipsets and sockets, yet ASUS just proved AMD is full of it and is just saying that to get us all to buy new boards/chipsets...
> 
> Personally, I was hoping that AMD would use this as an opertunity to switch to LGA sockets instead of ZIF, I'm tired of pins on the CPU, they bend/break easier.



The lesser of the two evils is the angel  

I wish AMD will use LGA too, but it makes sense to use ZIF if the processors are cheaper than the motherboards (which seems to be the case for lower end processors).


----------



## devguy (Mar 15, 2011)

I agree that AMD's continued silence on the matter is discomforting.  Although, to be fair, AMD has never stated that the current chipsets are incompatible with Zambezi.

JF-AMD has stated that AMD's official stance is that a motherboard manufacturer making a Zambezi chip run in an AM3 board via BIOS update is not *supported*.  He doesn't say it is impossible.


----------



## btarunr (Mar 15, 2011)

Fourstaff said:


> The lesser of the two evils is the angel



The less smelly among two turds is still a turd.


----------



## erocker (Mar 15, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> Personally, I was hoping that AMD would use this as an opertunity to switch to LGA sockets instead of ZIF, I'm tired of pins on the CPU, they bend/break easier.



I'm glad they didn't. For me, messing up a pin on a LGA socket seems all to easy. If you do happen to mess up a pin, it can be fixed, but a pin on the CPU itself seems easier to fix for me.


----------



## $immond$ (Mar 15, 2011)

erocker said:


> I'm glad they didn't. For me, messing up a pin on a LGA socket seems all to easy. If you do happen to mess up a pin, it can be fixed, but a pin on the CPU itself seems easier to fix for me.



agreed, much easier to fix on a CPU then on a board.


----------



## Fourstaff (Mar 15, 2011)

btarunr said:


> The less smelly among two turds is still a turd.



That is one concept few people understand


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Mar 15, 2011)

btarunr said:


> It's 940. The pin-map looks the same as AM3, except that this notch now only covers one pin. AM3 socket has 941 contacts.
> 
> http://img.techpowerup.org/110315/bta9783kmln.jpg



You got that backwards.  If AM3 has 941 and there is not 1 addition pin NOT being covered (AM3 has 4 sets of 2 blocks, thus that AM3+ board has 3 sets of 2 and 1 set of 1), that gives us 942 pins for AM3+ not 940.  If the processors match, that 1 pin that needs an open hole just get's cock blocked. Thus why old chips fit the new socket, but new chips don't fit the old.

Erocker's right in the fact we have not seen the back side of the chip.  Mayby this first gen will have 940 or 941 pins and the second gen they have planned has the 942.


----------



## btarunr (Mar 15, 2011)

Fourstaff said:


> That is one concept few people understand



Yeah, those who don't go to vote. 



TheLaughingMan said:


> You got that backwards.  If AM3 has 941 and there is not 1 addition pin NOT being covered (AM3 has 4 sets of 2 blocks, thus that AM3+ board has 3 sets of 2 and 1 set of 1), that gives us 942 pins for AM3+ not 940.  If the processors match, that 1 pin that needs an open hole just get's cock blocked. Thus why old chips fit the new socket, but new chips don't fit the old.
> 
> Erocker's right in the fact we have not seen the back side of the chip.  Mayby this first gen will have 940 or 941 pins and the second gen they have planned has the 942.



Oops


----------



## Steevo (Mar 15, 2011)

perhaps the hole is already there and just used for extra ground or some other unsupported on this platform feature like power gating, their new version of core boost,....


----------



## newtekie1 (Mar 15, 2011)

TheLaughingMan said:


> Actually they just said it wouldn't work with the older socket.  Also this is coming from a "source" of someone else's, so he could just be full of it.



They said it wouldn't work with the older socket because the older socket couldn't handle all the capabilities of the new architecture.  If adding a single pin is the only change to the socket, and that is all that is preventing it from working on the older socket, and you believe this is OK, then I pitty you.:shadedshu

The statement they made clearly is refering to not the physical socket itself not being capable, but the chipsets and boards as well.  There is no reason they couldn't have released bulldozer with AM3 support, even if it did loose some capabilities when run in an AM3 board. They've done it this way in the past. 



TheLaughingMan said:


> If AMD wanted you to buy a new board every time the released a new chip, they would just take Intel approach and come out with a completely new pin layout/socket each time.  They have never done that, so why start now.



They've never done that?!?  Tell that to all of us who have gone though 754, 939, AM2/AM2+/AM3.  They did it all the time, so don't give me that crap about them not doing it.  It is only recently, when they started loosing the game and had to do something else to add value to their products, that started including backwards compatibility.



TheLaughingMan said:


> If we are taking sides, I chose to believe this news report is full of crap and the old info. about the sockets were right.  I mean its all up in the air until someone from AMD steps forward and says something or the NDA is lifted and BtaRunr can just tell us the truth.



You're the only one taking sides, I'm just looking at the situation for what it is.



devguy said:


> I agree that AMD's continued silence on the matter is discomforting.  Although, to be fair, AMD has never stated that the current chipsets are incompatible with Zambezi.
> 
> JF-AMD has stated that AMD's official stance is that a motherboard manufacturer making a Zambezi chip run in an AM3 board via BIOS update is not *supported*.  He doesn't say it is impossible.



That is kind of my point.  They could have released the processor with backwards compatility, obviously, but decided not to.  Yes, the architecture might have been held back a little by an older chipset, but for someone looking for a cheap upgrade it wouldn't matter.  AMD has shown no problem with holding back an architecture on an older chipset/board/socket before.



erocker said:


> I'm glad they didn't. For me, messing up a pin on a LGA socket seems all to easy. If you do happen to mess up a pin, it can be fixed, but a pin on the CPU itself seems easier to fix for me.





$immond$ said:


> agreed, much easier to fix on a CPU then on a board.



It is easier to fix a pin on a CPU, but also easier to bend/break a pin on a CPU.  If I drop my motherboard, chances of bending a pin are pretty close to 0.  If I drop my CPU, I'm almost guaranteed a bend pin.  Not to mention dropping the CPU is easier since it is smaller.


----------



## TRIPTEX_CAN (Mar 15, 2011)

I've seen problems with people dropping the CPU itself into the socket on an LGA775 board which destroyed it completely. Basically just dont drop your shit.

I'm pretty excited for Zambezi. I've been riding my current system for long enough and I can't wait to buld a new system. Hopefully this series can smoke BF3 properly.


----------



## GSquadron (Mar 15, 2011)

At least they are launching the bios before the cpus are out!


----------



## Yellow&Nerdy? (Mar 15, 2011)

It might be that AMD is releasing Zambezi with two different pin-counts. Like for example the 4-core and 6-core variants will be backwards compatible, but not the 8-core version. Or they will release two "generations" of CPUs and one of them is backwards compatible and the other one is not. Who knows. I guess we'll have to wait until June, if there isn't more delays.


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Mar 15, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> They've never done that?!?  Tell that to all of us who have gone though 754, 939, AM2/AM2+/AM3.  They did it all the time, so don't give me that crap about them not doing it.  It is only recently, when they started loosing the game and had to do something else to add value to their products, that started including backwards compatibility.
> 
> You're the only one taking sides, I'm just looking at the situation for what it is.
> 
> That is kind of my point.  They could have released the processor with backwards compatility, obviously, but decided not to.  Yes, the architecture might have been held back a little by an older chipset, but for someone looking for a cheap upgrade it wouldn't matter.  AMD has shown no problem with holding back an architecture on an older chipset/board/socket before.



First AM3, AM2+ were both backwards compatible.  754 to 939 was an actual change in the chip architecture.  No excuse for 939 to AM2.  I do not deny the backwards compatibility was a move to add value to their products.  My point is why would they establish using backwards compatibility as value to their CPU line, then suddenly drop that entire idea?  Why not continue that same trend if it was possible?

Technically AMD hasn't said anything concrete.  We have had reports that it doesn't fit the socket.  I don't remember anyone saying the older chipsets don't work.

And you are taking sides.  You see a report from a site you probably never seen before with unidentified source in ASUS and your immediate response was "AMD are liars."  That is the definition of taking a side.

This is how you take it for what it is:  Read story and reply with, "Has ASUS confirmed this or responded to the post?"


----------



## slyfox2151 (Mar 15, 2011)

Yellow&Nerdy? said:


> It might be that AMD is releasing Zambezi with two different pin-counts. Like for example the 4-core and 6-core variants will be backwards compatible, but not the 8-core version. Or they will release two "generations" of CPUs and one of them is backwards compatible and the other one is not. Who knows. I guess we'll have to wait until June, if there isn't more delays.



IMO this does make a lot of sence



i can see them making the 4/6core cpus compatible and leaving the 8/12/16 core CPUs as AM3+ Only.


----------



## brandonwh64 (Mar 15, 2011)

I personally hope bulldozer comes out and can compete with intel this time. it still bothers me how thuban did when competing to 1366


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Mar 15, 2011)

Yellow&Nerdy? said:


> It might be that AMD is releasing Zambezi with two different pin-counts. Like for example the 4-core and 6-core variants will be backwards compatible, but not the 8-core version. Or they will release two "generations" of CPUs and one of them is backwards compatible and the other one is not. Who knows. I guess we'll have to wait until June, if there isn't more delays.



Much like they made some slower versions of Phenom 2 that were AM2+ , but if you look at the G34 chips they are huge and the socket is completely different, I just don't see AMD being able to die shrink that to fit the current AM3 socket they use. I think AM3+ will have a larger PGA ZIF.


All I know is the UD5 better be on there or I am going to be pissed! If I have to buy a new mobo for their next processor, I may as well go to an Intel then.


----------



## Bjorn_Of_Iceland (Mar 15, 2011)

thelaughingman said:


> didn't tpu post a report from asrock that they were going to release an board with the 890gx or fx chipset but an am3b socket.  According to them and their pre-release pics, the socket should look something like this:
> 
> http://i1-news.softpedia-static.com...ldozer-motherboard-gets-listed-in-japan-3.jpg
> 
> anyone up for a count?



942


----------



## CDdude55 (Mar 15, 2011)

Don't care unless i can throw one on my Asus 880G board. Great news for the people who have those top end boards though.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Mar 15, 2011)

So whats the conclusion?

Is there a pin difference or no?


----------



## Nesters (Mar 15, 2011)

Actually JF-AMD has said something about BD not working on AM3. 

http://www.amdzone.com/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=52&t=137898&start=25

'There is no way that BD will work in an AM3, there is nothing to "shut off"'
but anyways i guess there is this extra hole on some of the boards already so that extra pin just fits in.


----------



## HalfAHertz (Mar 15, 2011)

[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> Much like they made some slower versions of Phenom 2 that were AM2+ , but if you look at the G34 chips they are huge and the socket is completely different, I just don't see AMD being able to die shrink that to fit the current AM3 socket they use. I think AM3+ will have a larger PGA ZIF.
> 
> 
> All I know is the UD5 better be on there or I am going to be pissed! If I have to buy a new mobo for their next processor, I may as well go to an Intel then.



Or how the original phenom worked in AM2 boards but only at HT1.0 link speeds.


----------



## FlanK3r (Mar 15, 2011)

Guys, this news is not right....its little mistake. Yes, it will be new revision boards, but not with AM3 socket Zambezi has +1 pin for new controler...


----------



## newtekie1 (Mar 15, 2011)

TheLaughingMan said:


> First AM3, AM2+ were both backwards compatible.  754 to 939 was an actual change in the chip architecture.  No excuse for 939 to AM2.  I do not deny the backwards compatibility was a move to add value to their products.  My point is why would they establish using backwards compatibility as value to their CPU line, then suddenly drop that entire idea?  Why not continue that same trend if it was possible?
> 
> Technically AMD hasn't said anything concrete.  We have had reports that it doesn't fit the socket.  I don't remember anyone saying the older chipsets don't work.
> 
> ...



754 to 939 was not a change in architecture, they both used the same architecture.  Though I will accept that it was implemented to allow Dual-Core CPUs, which AMD did not take into consideration when designing the socket.

I understand your point about their recent history, but my point is that a few recent actions doesn't mean they will always follow that logic.  And if this news is true, it shows they obviously haven't followed that logic.

I'm not taking sides, I'm telling you what this news means.  If that offends you, or you don't like it because someone is casting AMD in a light you don't like, that is your problem.  That doesn't mean I'm taking a side.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Mar 15, 2011)

Ok now that we have all shown our e-peen can we please get to the facts?! Is this confirmed or bullshit?


----------



## erocker (Mar 15, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Ok now that we have all shown our e-peen can we please get to the facts?! Is this confirmed or bullshit?



Follow the source. It will give you _its_ source which is a press release from Asus. That is confirmation.


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Mar 15, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> 754 to 939 was not a change in architecture, they both used the same architecture.  Though I will accept that it was implemented to allow Dual-Core CPUs, which AMD did not take into consideration when designing the socket.
> 
> I understand your point about their recent history, but my point is that a few recent actions doesn't mean they will always follow that logic.  And if this news is true, it shows they obviously haven't followed that logic.
> 
> I'm not taking sides, I'm telling you what this news means.  If that offends you, or you don't like it because someone is casting AMD in a light you don't like, that is your problem.  That doesn't mean I'm taking a side.



Ok, I see your point.

And trust me there is nothing anyone can write about me that would offend me.  I have my buttons, but written messages aren't one of them.


----------



## yogurt_21 (Mar 15, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> *754 to 939 was not a change in architecture*, they both used the same architecture.  Though I will accept that it was implemented to allow Dual-Core CPUs, which AMD did not take into consideration when designing the socket.
> 
> I understand your point about their recent history, but my point is that a few recent actions doesn't mean they will always follow that logic.  And if this news is true, it shows they obviously haven't followed that logic.
> 
> I'm not taking sides, I'm telling you what this news means.  If that offends you, or you don't like it because someone is casting AMD in a light you don't like, that is your problem.  That doesn't mean I'm taking a side.



correct which is why I have a 754 rig that has a 3000 venice in it. the venice core athlon 64 was originally a 939 only chip and then they released some 754 variants later.


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Mar 15, 2011)

All will be revealed in about 2 and a half months, until then it's all speculation and bologna until AMD says something. I personally hope they at least support 8 cores on AM3 otherwise this is a fail on AMD's part.


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Mar 15, 2011)

What's with all the butter fingers? You should only be getting pin damage from excessive socket force like with a venom.


----------



## HalfAHertz (Mar 15, 2011)

Didn't we already have this discussion at lengths with LGA 1155? Excessive backwards compatibility is a double edged sword. If it works - great you won yourself a few more customers, but if it compromises performance or if the time and money needed to make it work are greater than those sales, then it's time to move on.


----------



## wiak (Mar 15, 2011)

seems the motherboard vendors are getting ready for bulldozer lift off


----------



## HalfAHertz (Mar 15, 2011)

Expect leak in 5...4....3....


----------



## Lionheart (Mar 15, 2011)

Gotta Love AMD for their support....^_^


----------



## Mussels (Mar 16, 2011)

good, so its following the same setup so far - new CPU's can work a generation back on mobos, but old CPU's wont work on new boards.


i wonder if they ditched the DDR2 controller completely?


----------



## Mads321 (Mar 16, 2011)

Let me see if I can fix this (if anyone is still reading)..

First have a look at the difference of AM3 and AM3+







Which in fact does make it physically impossible for a AM3+ CPU, to fit in a AM3 motherboard.

However, current AMD chipsets like the 890, 880, 870, 790, 760- series etc. IS compatible with Zambezi/Bulldozer/FX AM3+ CPU's.

So, what the motherboard manufacturers are currently doing, is fitting AM3+ sockets on existing AM3 motherboards, and calling them a new revision.

To sum up: For a motherboard to support Zambezi/Bulldozer/FX, it will need a AM3+ socket, but not (necceseraly) the new 990FX / 990X chipset. 

Generally AM3+ sockets are black, and AM3 sockets are white, so it's actually quite easy to spot which boards are compatible, and which are not.

Just have a look at Gigabytes website, and you'll be able to spot both AM3 and AM3+ sockets on motherboards (confusingly) under the AM3 tab:

http://gigabyte.com/products/list.aspx?s=42&jid=10&p=2&v=2


If you want to check if you board has an AM3+ socket, just look for 3 things:

1) Black socket
2) Written "AM3b" in it
3) Has one less pinhole


----------



## dezz (Mar 16, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> They said it wouldn't work with the older socket because the older socket couldn't handle all the capabilities of the new architecture.  If adding a single pin is the only change to the socket, and that is all that is preventing it from working on the older socket [...]



Sure it's only a pin? What if they sliced the power plane of the cores and/or the NB/L3? This way they could deliver different voltages to more parts of the new chips. AM3 CPU's could be supported by simply setting the appropriate power planes to the same voltage. Also, an AM3+ CPU could work in an AM3 board, but only with restrictions. Possibly AMD thought it's too much of a compromise. Or, it's perhaps not fully orderly from the engineers point of view.



TheLaughingMan said:


> 754 to 939 was an actual change in the chip architecture.



The microarchitecture was the same, but 754 has a single channel and 939 has a dual channel memory interface.



> No excuse for 939 to AM2.



??? What about 939 being DDR and AM2 being DDR2? The change of socket was necessary.


----------



## Mussels (Mar 16, 2011)

dezz said:


> ??? What about 939 being DDR and AM2 being DDR2? The change of socket was necessary.



you forgot AM2+ -> AM3, same socket, different ram. you can run AM3 CPU's in AM2+ boards without issue.




the fact is we dont know how they're doing this, until the chips actually come out.


----------



## erocker (Mar 16, 2011)

Mads321 said:


> Which in fact does make it physically impossible for a AM3+ CPU, to fit in a AM3 motherboard.



Unless some Bulldozer CPU's don't have that pin. We don't know that right now. Perhaps that could be the difference for the different box art for the same model Bulldozer CPU's?

I'm curious as to what benefits the new chipset will bring as the memory controller is in the CPU.


----------



## Jack Doph (Mar 16, 2011)

Perhaps we're all getting a little impatient for this release, as the speculation is rife around the web about this exact point.

Patience is a virtue .. if it didn't take so friggin long!


----------



## dezz (Mar 16, 2011)

Mussels said:


> but old CPU's wont work on new boards.


AM3 CPU's work on AM3+ mobo's.



> i wonder if they ditched the DDR2 controller completely?


Most probably.



Mussels said:


> you forgot AM2+ -> AM3, same socket, different ram. you can run AM3 CPU's in AM2+ boards without issue.


DDR2 and DDR3 standards are much closer to each other than DDR and DDR2.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Mar 16, 2011)

Whatever happens I just don't want Gary to be right.


----------



## scope54 (Mar 16, 2011)

erocker said:


> Unless some Bulldozer CPU's don't have that pin. We don't know that right now. Perhaps that could be the difference for the different box art for the same model Bulldozer CPU's?
> 
> I'm curious as to what benefits the new chipset will bring as the memory controller is in the CPU.



I recently took an AMD insights survey about which box excited me more, so its going to be one or the other (i assume). I picked the one that looked like AMD's logo.


----------



## newtekie1 (Mar 16, 2011)

dezz said:


> Sure it's only a pin? What if they sliced the power plane of the cores and/or the NB/L3? This way they could deliver different voltages to more parts of the new chips. AM3 CPU's could be supported by simply setting the appropriate power planes to the same voltage. Also, an AM3  CPU could work in an AM3 board, but only with restrictions. Possibly AMD thought it's too much of a compromise. Or, it's perhaps not fully orderly from the engineers point of view.



You aren't following.  He said that the _socket_ was what wasn't compatible.  Well the only change in the socket was a single pin.

My point was that _if_ the CPU was actually incompatible, then what ASUS is doing wouldn't be possible.  But in reality, the CPUs obviously work in in AM3 boards, AMD just decided to not allow them to be used in AM3 boards.  AMD added a pin so that AM3+ processors couldn't be put in AM3 boards. They did a similar thing with AM2 to AM3, they removed a pin from the AM3 socket/processors so that an AM3 processor could still be put in an AM2 motherboard, but the extra pin on AM2 processors would prevent them from being put in AM3 moherboards.  These pins are never actually used for anything.

I would't be surprised if ASUS is expecting people to remove that extra pin, which I can almost guarantee is unused.


----------



## Tomisw (Mar 16, 2011)

the bios is on the air now, you can download it from asus website right now
but if you have a am3 processor (no comment about this) better don´t flash it because it may not boot

http://event.asus.com/2011/mb/AM3_PLUS_Ready/

i don´t understand, it looks like you can put on this motherboards am3+ processors right now but HOW?


----------



## dezz (Mar 16, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> He said that the _socket_ was what wasn't compatible.  Well the only change in the socket was a single pin.



A platform is not only a socket, but the electronics behind it. The difference is only a pin on the socket, but there can be differences in the electronics, too. That's what I tried to tell you.



> My point was that _if_ the CPU was actually incompatible, then what ASUS is doing wouldn't be possible.


That's right.



> But in reality, the CPUs obviously work in in AM3 boards


Probably only with compromises...



> AMD just decided to not allow them to be used in AM3 boards.  AMD added a pin so that AM3+ processors couldn't be put in AM3 boards.


Perhaps not without technical reasons. Like I said, power planes, etc.



> They did a similar thing with AM2 to AM3, they removed a pin from the AM3 socket/processors so that an AM3 processor could still be put in an AM2 motherboard, but the extra pin on AM2 processors would prevent them from being put in AM3 moherboards.  These pins are never actually used for anything.



But AM2 CPU's has had only a DDR2 controller, so they coudn't even work with the DDR3 memories on AM3 boards!


----------



## devguy (Mar 16, 2011)

dezz said:


> ??? What about 939 being DDR and AM2 being DDR2? The change of socket was necessary.



I do wonder why AMD didn't attempt to put both a DDR1 and DDR2 controller on AM2 CPUs, in order to make the 939 motherboards forwards compatible?  The only thing I can think of is that when they were back at the 1.3um - 90nm die sizes, they didn't have the space luxury that the 45nm AM3 CPUs afforded them.

On the other hand, they could've tried with the 65nm Brisbane's, as that shrink brought about quite a bit of extra space, a loss of L2 cache, and a slight drop in performance over the Windsor.

Either way, the s754 -> s939 upgrade was completely necessary (no avoiding it whatsoever).  On the other hand, I bet if Intel really tried, they could have made the lga1155  processors compatible on the lga1156 (not in their current state, but only if they had forwards compatibility in mind at the beginning).


----------



## dezz (Mar 16, 2011)

devguy said:


> I do wonder why AMD didn't attempt to put both a DDR1 and DDR2 controller on AM2 CPUs, in order to make the 939 motherboards forwards compatible? The only thing I can think of is that when they were back at the 1.3um - 90nm die sizes, they didn't have the space luxury that the 45nm AM3 CPUs afforded them.


AM3 CPU's has really one IMC that is capable of working in DDR2 and DDR3 modes, as well. There is probably too much difference between DDR1 and DDR2 to allow for a similar approach. Perhaps it's because of the voltages: DDR ~2.5V, DDR2 ~1.8V, DDR3 ~1.5V.



> On the other hand, I bet if Intel really tried, they could have made the lga1155 processors compatible on the lga1156 (not in their current state, but only if they had forwards compatibility in mind at the beginning).


Sure.


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Mar 16, 2011)

Tomisw said:


> the bios is on the air now, you can download it from asus website right now
> but if you have a am3 processor (no comment about this) better don´t flash it because it may not boot
> 
> http://event.asus.com/2011/mb/AM3_PLUS_Ready/
> ...



Then how are you supposed to flash it? It won't boot with an am3+ chip either until it's flashed.


----------



## Mussels (Mar 16, 2011)

LAN_deRf_HA said:


> Then how are you supposed to flash it? It won't boot with an am3+ chip either until it's flashed.



new boards will come with the new BIOS, old boards its assumed you already have one of the older CPU's. This is not unique here, look at socket 775 between the generations...


edit: on topic, i just checked out gigabytes website. they've released a new revision of my board (3.1) which has AM3+ support. no mention of BIOS updated support yet.


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Mar 16, 2011)

Huh? Did you read the post I was responding to? He said don't flash if have an am3 cpu, and obviously you can't flash an old board with an am3+ either. It doesn't support it until flashed... I'm assuming he misspoke.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Mar 16, 2011)

erocker said:


> Unless some Bulldozer CPU's don't have that pin. We don't know that right now. Perhaps that could be the difference for the different box art for the same model Bulldozer CPU's?
> 
> I'm curious as to what benefits the new chipset will bring as the memory controller is in the CPU.



That extra pin may not come into play on this series of CPU's.....aren't the future lines to have a built in GPU....

OH and I just updated my MSI bios I went from A.80 to B.A0....Now I gotta go find out what the update was


----------



## Meizuman (Mar 16, 2011)

Would love to try, just for kicks to drill two holes to AM2 socket and one hole to AM3 and then drop some AM3b processor and see what happens


----------



## dezz (Mar 16, 2011)

LAN_deRf_HA said:


> He said don't flash if have an am3 cpu, and obviously you can't flash an old board with an am3  either. It doesn't support it until flashed...



1. Boot with an AM3 CPU installed.
2. Flash the new BIOS.
(3. Switch the thing off.)
4. Remove the old CPU.
5. Install the new AM3+ CPU.
6. Boot your AM3+ CPU equipped AM3 board. 
7. Study what compomises this all means, like if the Turbo CORE works or not, etc.

UPDATE: I think ASUS updated the linked page, the text about not booting with old CPU is missing, it now reads:
"** Current BIOS update is a beta release. Please check the ASUS support site for continual updates."


----------



## HossHuge (Mar 16, 2011)

Here's the actual press release for those who may think this is BS.

http://event.asus.com/2011/mb/AM3_PLUS_Ready/


----------



## brandonwh64 (Mar 16, 2011)

HossHuge said:


> Here's the actual press release for those who may think this is BS.
> 
> http://event.asus.com/2011/mb/AM3_PLUS_Ready/



Hmm this is interesting, you notice that they have to release a M5 series board to use am3+ on older chipsets like 760G


----------



## Mussels (Mar 16, 2011)

brandonwh64 said:


> Hmm this is interesting, you notice that they have to release a M5 series board to use am3+ on older chipsets like 760G



maybe asus knew this was coming and planned ahead on their high end/latest boards?


----------



## brandonwh64 (Mar 16, 2011)

Mussels said:


> maybe asus knew this was coming and planned ahead on their high end/latest boards?



Maybe, but why 760G? what benifit would you get out of having to BUY a 760G board to use a newer CPU? wouldnt getting a AM3+ board in the first place more logical if you have to buy a board anyway?


----------



## JrRacinFan (Mar 16, 2011)

Methinks, the processors that are going to get released will have socket counterparts. AM3 & AM3+.

Let's say a possiblity of an FX1000 and an FX1000*+*. Who knows.....

@Brandon
Same reasoning one would purchase an H55 over P55.....

You already know my take on the whole ordeal.


----------



## Mussels (Mar 16, 2011)

brandonwh64 said:


> Maybe, but why 760G? what benifit would you get out of having to BUY a 760G board to use a newer CPU? wouldnt getting a AM3+ board in the first place more logical if you have to buy a board anyway?



because sooner or later there WILL be budget AM3+ CPU's, as AM2 fades away completely.


----------



## brandonwh64 (Mar 16, 2011)

JrRacinFan said:


> @Brandon
> Same reasoning one would purchase an H55 over P55.....
> 
> You already know my take on the whole ordeal.



BUT H55 and P55 are close to the same. when it comes to 760G and 890G there is a big difference.

why buy something thats OLD tech with a new bios/CPU socket when you can get a 890G for maybe alittle more that has more features for around the same price?


----------



## Mussels (Mar 16, 2011)

brandonwh64 said:


> BUT H55 and P55 are close to the same. when it comes to 760G and 890G there is a big difference.
> 
> why buy something thats OLD tech with a new bios/CPU socket when you can get a 890G for maybe alittle more that has more features for around the same price?



because they have tons of 760G chipsets laying about they need to sell, most likely.


----------



## brandonwh64 (Mar 16, 2011)

Mussels said:


> because they have tons of 760G chipsets laying about they need to sell, most likely.



That would be my guess as well, IF they would just release a bios for 760G and such, i would agree to that but having to buy a 760G WITH new socket is a waist IMO


----------



## JrRacinFan (Mar 16, 2011)

brandonwh64 said:


> BUT H55 and P55 are close to the same. when it comes to 760G and 890G there is a big difference.
> 
> why buy something thats OLD tech with a new bios/CPU socket when you can get a 890G for maybe alittle more that has more features for around the same price?



Power consumption and marketing. If one didn't need all the bells n whistles I'd buy the older tech.


----------



## Mussels (Mar 16, 2011)

brandonwh64 said:


> That would be my guess as well, IF they would just release a bios for 760G and such, i would agree to that but having to buy a 760G WITH new socket is a waist IMO



it wont be, over time.


for example, i ran my x6 thuban on my 780G/785G (i upgraded) board(s) for a while, and had zero performance loss (at stock!) doing so compared to my later bought 890FX board.

the new socket could be a cheap, excellent upgrade path for non OCers and people who just use mid range hardware/low end AM3+ CPU's


----------



## brandonwh64 (Mar 16, 2011)

Mussels said:


> it wont be, over time.
> 
> 
> for example, i ran my x6 thuban on my 780G/785G (i upgraded) board(s) for a while, and had zero performance loss (at stock!) doing so compared to my later bought 890FX board.
> ...



Yea that was nice to run a thuban in a AM2/AM3+ board BUT! having to buy a new motherboard just because a CPU has *EXTRA PINS* doesnt justify it. 

IF they would have not added extra pins and just did a bios update like with thuban then it would be super sweet.


----------



## JrRacinFan (Mar 16, 2011)

@Brandon
Perfect analogy; dropping a corvette engine into a camaro frame with the same rear end tranny.


----------



## brandonwh64 (Mar 16, 2011)

JrRacinFan said:


> @Brandon
> Perfect analogy; dropping a corvette engine into a camaro frame with the same rear end tranny.



I would say that would be with 785G

760G would be like shoving a corvette engine in a chevette


----------



## Mussels (Mar 16, 2011)

brandonwh64 said:


> Yea that was nice to run a thuban in a AM2/AM3+ board BUT! having to buy a new motherboard just because a CPU has *EXTRA PINS* doesnt justify it.
> 
> IF they would have not added extra pins and just did a bios update like with thuban then it would be super sweet.



its not for people buying new boards as a replacement, its for people upgrading from say, 478, 775 or 939. not everyone is only one generation behind.


----------



## brandonwh64 (Mar 16, 2011)

Mussels said:


> its not for people buying new boards as a replacement, its for people upgrading from say, 478, 775 or 939. not everyone is only one generation behind.



Well if you were upgrading from say 939 and you could get a 760G with new socket for say 65$ but you could get a 870G for 80$ which one would you go for? personally i would pay a little more for newer tech.


----------



## Mads321 (Mar 16, 2011)

JrRacinFan said:


> Methinks, the processors that are going to get released will have socket counterparts. AM3 & AM3+.
> 
> Let's say a possiblity of an FX1000 and an FX1000*+*. Who knows.....
> 
> ...



That would make no sense, now that Asus has released the info, that AM3 motherboards, can be upgraded to AM3+ without any new pinhole. So an AM3+ FX1000+ can be fitted into the same motherboards as the FX1000


----------



## JrRacinFan (Mar 16, 2011)

Mads321 said:


> That would make no sense, now that Asus has released the info, that AM3 motherboards, can be upgraded to AM3+ without any new pinhole. So an AM3+ FX1000+ can be fitted into the same motherboards as the FX1000



I have a feeling, from a marketing perspective it *COULD* make perfect sense. Some of the higher end models getting a counterpart released for the AM3 compatible boards. Also neither yourself nor I, know the different SKU's of Zambezi chips.

And in my scenario; the so called FX1000+ wouldn't be able to fit in the current AM3 boards due to the extra pin.


----------



## Mads321 (Mar 16, 2011)

JrRacinFan said:


> I have a feeling, from a marketing perspective it *COULD* make perfect sense. Some of the higher end models getting a counterpart released for the AM3 compatible boards. Also neither yourself nor I, know the different SKU's of Zambezi chips.
> 
> And in my scenario; the so called FX1000+ wouldn't be able to fit in the current AM3 boards due to the extra pin.



So why in the world, would Asus call their AM3 boards AM3*+* ready? Why not call them Zambezi ready, Bulldozer ready or AMD-FX ready?

So "from a marketing perspective", you'r saying that an AMD FX1000+ CPU, would have the same pincount as an AMD FX1000 CPU?

Be cause the + model would (according to Asus), fit in the AM3+ ready motherboard (with the AM3 socket) - you see? It makes absolutely no sense.

But I guess that now Asus has made up their mind, calling AM3 motherboards with AM3 sockets AM3+ ready (AM3+ would be referring to a socket until now), they have changed the whole naming-scheme from AMD - since they refer to 939, AM2, AM3 etc. as a socket - has nothing to do with "marketing perspective".


----------



## JrRacinFan (Mar 16, 2011)

Mads321 said:


> So "from a marketing perspective", you'r saying that an AMD FX1000+ CPU, would have the same pincount as an AMD FX1000 CPU?



No, I'm saying the pin count could potentially be different.


----------



## Mads321 (Mar 16, 2011)

JrRacinFan said:


> No, I'm saying the pin count could potentially be different.



I was being sarcastic - but you get the point. If AMD release FX1000 CPU that fits in Asus AM3 -> AM3+ BIOS-updated motherboard, then what will the FX1000+ ready motherboard be called? AMD3++ ready? Makes no sense.


----------



## devguy (Mar 16, 2011)

AMD will not be making separate AM3/AM3+ Bulldozer's.  There will be only AM3+ versions, and should motherboard manufacturer's somehow get them running in AM3 boards, good for them, but it will be unsupported by AMD.

As for mid-range and lower processors, I highly doubt the AM3+ platform will see anything other than AMD FX series processors.  I suspect that like lga1366, AM3+ will be exclusively high-end, and that all mid-range will be powered by the Llano A-series APUs, and the low-end/ULV powered by the Brazos C/E-series APUs.  Could that change?  Sure.  But if it does, any slower AM3+ chips will certainly not get the FX moniker.  Here's a list of the upcoming mid-range products.


----------



## JrRacinFan (Mar 16, 2011)

Mads321 said:


> I was being sarcastic - but you get the point. If AMD release FX1000 CPU that fits in Asus AM3 -> AM3+ BIOS-updated motherboard, then what will the FX1000+ ready motherboard be called? AMD3++ ready? Makes no sense.



Also your seeing AM3+, I am seeing Bulldozer. 2 totally seperate things. A new socket versus a new stepping/platform/model of cpu.



devguy said:


> AMD will not be making separate AM3/AM3+ Bulldozer's.  There will be only AM3+ versions, and should motherboard manufacturer's somehow get them running in AM3 boards, good for them, but it will be unsupported by AMD.
> 
> As for mid-range and lower processors, I highly doubt the AM3+ platform will see anything other than AMD FX series processors.  I suspect that like lga1366, AM3+ will be exclusively high-end, and that all mid-range will be powered by the Llano A-series APUs, and the low-end/ULV powered by the Brazos C/E-series APUs.  Could that change?  Sure.  But if it does, any slower AM3+ chips will certainly not get the FX moniker.  Here's a list of the upcoming mid-range products.



Then why make a whole new chipset? Then why make a whole new socket?


----------



## arroyo (Mar 16, 2011)

JrRacinFan said:


> Then why make a whole new chipset? Then why make a whole new socket?


$$ money $$ It's all about it.


----------



## JrRacinFan (Mar 16, 2011)

arroyo said:


> $$ money $$ It's all about it.



Exactly my point, which makes them valid to making a AM3 ready Zambezi and an AM3+ ready Zambezi chip. Essentially making pin count different, as for the difference in pin count... 

Unsure what it would change or be. Again all speculation on my part and I think i might be putting too much thought into this.


----------



## devguy (Mar 16, 2011)

Why did AMD make the 8xx series chipsets when the 7xx chipsets seemed to do fine?  Well, among other minor things, it really added proper support for AMD TurboCore 1.0 technology.  From speaking with Asus engineers who managed to make the TurboCore "work" on my 790FX board, they said it was more of a hack, one that even after two BIOS revisions, I still keep turned off because it is buggy.

The 990FX chipset should include HTT3.1, PCI-Express 3.0 (I think), and TurboCore 2.0 support.  I suspect the latter to be the most relevant in AMDs decision to exclude AM3 boards, as I don't believe per-core voltage modification is supported (and if it is, likely not how the Zambezi chips require it).  In the past, AMD chips never had much of a performance difference from HTT 1.0 -> 2.0 and so on, but maybe it will be more important for Zambezi?

Unfortunately, I don't see native USB3 support coming (I think the Llano chipset will be the only one to see that), but I do foresee many new motherboards being released supporting the UEFI standard over the BIOS.

The question I have for some of you all is that if the reason is money, why would Asus be making Zambezi compatible BIOSes for current motherboards?  A stronger argument is why would they announce them now, potentially hurting future motherboard sales, instead of just silently releasing updates once they've become satisfied by AM3+ motherboard profits?


----------



## JrRacinFan (Mar 16, 2011)

Ok so what I am getting out of your post, the extra pin all surrounds the additional features of the new chipset. Yay, Nay? Could be?

 /rhetorical thoughts



devguy said:


> The question I have for some of you all is that if the reason is money, why would Asus be making Zambezi compatible BIOSes for current motherboards?  A stronger argument is why would they announce them now, potentially hurting future motherboard sales, instead of just silently releasing updates once they've become satisfied by AM3+ motherboard profits?



Exactly what i am questioning as well.


----------



## CDdude55 (Mar 16, 2011)

devguy said:


> AMD will not be making separate AM3/AM3+ Bulldozer's.  There will be only AM3+ versions, and should motherboard manufacturer's somehow get them running in AM3 boards, good for them, but it will be unsupported by AMD.
> 
> As for mid-range and lower processors, I highly doubt the AM3+ platform will see anything other than AMD FX series processors.  I suspect that like lga1366, AM3+ will be exclusively high-end, and that all mid-range will be powered by the Llano A-series APUs, and the low-end/ULV powered by the Brazos C/E-series APUs.  Could that change?  Sure.  But if it does, any slower AM3+ chips will certainly not get the FX moniker.  Here's a list of the upcoming mid-range products.



Well Intels High-end will be LGA 2011, 1366 should be phased around the time AM3+ hits the market.


----------



## johnnyfiive (Mar 16, 2011)

So where can I buy a CH Formula IV with the extra pin hole??!?!? 

How is this possible?


----------



## devguy (Mar 16, 2011)

CDdude55 said:


> Well Intels High-end will be LGA 2011, 1366 should be phased around the time AM3+ hits the market.



Lol, that's really not the point I was trying to make...  And AM3+ CPUs should be out in June, whereas LGA 2011 CPUs aren't expected until Q4 2011.


----------



## CDdude55 (Mar 16, 2011)

devguy said:


> Lol, that's really not the point I was trying to make...  And AM3+ CPUs should be out in June, whereas LGA 2011 CPUs aren't expected until Q4 2011.



I was only addressing your mistake, 1366 isn't made to fight with AM3+, LGA 2011 is (and it'll probably beat bulldzoer more likely no matter when it comes out.)

Everything else makes sense.


----------



## devguy (Mar 16, 2011)

CDdude55 said:


> I was only addressing your mistake, 1366 isn't made to fight with AM3+, LGA 2011 is (and it'll probably beat bulldzoer more likely no matter when it comes out.)
> 
> Everything else makes sense.



Lol, what I was trying to say was that I think that the AM3+ platform will exclusively house high-end products, much in the same way that the LGA1366 platform hosts exclusively high-end products (and likely lga 2011 will too).  I wasn't specifically saying they were designed as competition for each other.  

<eagerly awaits Zambezi benches>.


----------



## CDdude55 (Mar 16, 2011)

devguy said:


> Lol, what I was trying to say was that I think that the AM3+ platform will exclusively house high-end products, much in the same way that the LGA1366 platform hosts exclusively high-end products (and likely lga 2011 will too).  I wasn't specifically saying they were designed as competition for each other.
> 
> <eagerly awaits Zambezi benches>.



That's possible, but i would think they would make desktop mid range/low end chips exist in the newer socket, as APU's may not provide enough power for others that don't have money for the highend. But that could be the reason why they are allowing AM3 chips onto AM3+(for midrange/budget users)

I too am awaiting bulldozer benches.


----------



## dezz (Mar 16, 2011)

Some more info on that why only some of AM3 boards can support Zambezi, possible compromises, etc. (autotranslated)



devguy said:


> Lol, what I was trying to say was that I think that the AM3+ platform will exclusively house high-end products, much in the same way that the LGA1366 platform hosts exclusively high-end products (and likely lga 2011 will too).  I wasn't specifically saying they were designed as competition for each other.



The new high-end will be the 8-cored one, but there will be 6- and 4-core versions, as well.


----------



## JF-AMD (Mar 16, 2011)

AMD is supporting BD on AM3+ sockets only. Period.


----------



## Mads321 (Mar 16, 2011)

@JF-AMD

So I guess then Asus forgot to mention, that it's only brand new revisions of current AM3 models, fittet with a new AM3+ socket, which will support BD aka. be AM3+ ready.

I couldn't get my head around Asus' AM3 -> AM3+ BIOS-upgrade story, but they can only mean revised models then - not models sold with AM3 socket.

Well then, shame on Asus for getting peoples hopes up. I know allot of people will be dissapointed when it turns out, that only the latest (probably unsold at the moment) revisions of their:

Crosshair IV Extreme
Crosshair Formula IV
M4A89TD PRO/USB3
M4A89TD PRO
M4A89GTD PRO/USB3
M4A89GTD PRO

motherboards, are compatible with BD, because those boards are all sold (until today i guess) with the AM3 socket - not the AM3+

Or am I missing something here?


----------



## dezz (Mar 17, 2011)

@Mads321: No, those on the upper half of that table at ASUS are earlier boards with an AM3 socket, this is clear.

JF-AMD didn't say it's impossible, just that AMD won't support it. Probably not without a good technical reason they have decided this way.

From now on it's the responsibility of the motherboard makers if your new AM3+ CPU happen to not work reliably or at all with your older AM3 board, despite the BIOS update. ASUS (and probably MSI) has decided to take this responsibility, in case of some of their boards. Most probably those that has been tested to work reliably with certain Zambezi variants, though.


----------



## Mads321 (Mar 17, 2011)

@deez

Okay, so that will make BD pin-compatible with AM3. I just thought BD had an extra pin, and that this extra pin would make it impossible to mount it in a socket AM3 (hence the AM3+ socket, with room for one extra pin).

Either that, or Asus will be handing out nail-clippers, to get rid on the extra pin on BD..

This stuff is confusing to say the least.


----------



## Tomisw (Mar 17, 2011)

Asus said that zambezi will be compatible at first because zambezi will not have the damn pin that its not included in am3 socket. The problem is turbo core 2.0 and some power options like Clock Gating and Fast-Switch VID.


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Mar 17, 2011)

Tomisw said:


> Asus said that zambezi will be compatible at first because zambezi will not have the damn pin that its not included in am3 socket. The problem is turbo core 2.0 and some power options like Clock Gating and Fast-Switch VID.



It will have that pin.

They are basically phasing out AM3 socket right now on their boards.  Any new revisions to those boards will come with the new BIOS and an AM3+ socket.  Since old chips work on the new socket, it will not affect current sales and set them up to be the first with actual AM3+ boards you can buy.  They are trying to beat out ASRock to market who showed their AM3+ board a while back.


----------



## Tomisw (Mar 17, 2011)

TheLaughingMan said:


> It will have that pin.
> 
> They are basically phasing out AM3 socket right now on their boards.  Any new revisions to those boards will come with the new BIOS and an AM3+ socket.  Since old chips work on the new socket, it will not affect current sales and set them up to be the first with actual AM3+ boards you can buy.  They are trying to beat out ASRock to market who showed their AM3+ board a while back.



just it
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/aid,8...-aber-mit-eingeschraenkten-Features/CPU/News/


----------



## Tomisw (Mar 17, 2011)

TheLaughingMan said:


> It will have that pin.
> 
> They are basically phasing out AM3 socket right now on their boards.  Any new revisions to those boards will come with the new BIOS and an AM3+ socket.  Since old chips work on the new socket, it will not affect current sales and set them up to be the first with actual AM3+ boards you can buy.  They are trying to beat out ASRock to market who showed their AM3+ board a while back.



http://www.pcgameshardware.de/aid,8...-aber-mit-eingeschraenkten-Features/CPU/News/

The notice


----------



## NC37 (Mar 17, 2011)

Aww man, no support for my nForce 570...boo AMD 

hehe

Wonder what they'll do with the budget lines. The Athlon quads were popular for people that didn't need the L3. Just built a system for a friend that is AM3. I'd be a little irritated if there wasn't an upgrade path for it.


----------



## Melvis (Mar 17, 2011)

[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> ! If I have to buy a new mobo for their next processor, I may as well go to an Intel then.



 That makes no sense at all.



[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> All will be revealed in about 2 and a half months, until then it's all speculation and bologna until AMD says something. I personally hope they at least support 8 cores on AM3 otherwise this is a fail on AMD's part.



You must be pissed at intel then?


----------



## johnnyfiive (Mar 17, 2011)

Surprised no one posted this link?

http://event.asus.com/2011/mb/AM3_PLUS_Ready/


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Mar 17, 2011)

brandonwh64 said:


> I would say that would be with 785G
> 
> 760G would be like shoving a corvette engine in a chevette
> 
> http://bradrants.com/blog/uploaded/BradRants/Images/Misc/ChevyChevette.jpg



Which would be pure win!

Given it was not the crate engine but the hand built 638 hp engine that goes in the ZR1, I mean if your going to do it why do it half way right ?


----------



## newtekie1 (Mar 17, 2011)

dezz said:


> A platform is not only a socket, but the electronics behind it. The difference is only a pin on the socket, but there can be differences in the electronics, too. That's what I tried to tell you.



Yes, but he and AMD both said the _socket_ wasn't compatible.  Obviously it is.




dezz said:


> That's right.



So you agree that obviously the processors are compatible with the old platform, there is not power plane issues or anything like that, because ASUS was able to get the new processors working with the old boards via just a BIOS upgrade.  Good, glad we got that sorted then.



dezz said:


> Probably only with compromises...



The only compromises would be that the processors run slower in the old sockets, AMD has never seemed to care about that in the past.



dezz said:


> Perhaps not without technical reasons. Like I said, power planes, etc.



You did say that in the past, but you also agreed that obviously that isn't the case since ASUS doesn't seem to have a problem with it.



dezz said:


> But AM2 CPU's has had only a DDR2 controller, so they coudn't even work with the DDR3 memories on AM3 boards!



Yes, that doesn't matter.  My point was that the extra pin was removed from AM3 so that AM2 processors couldn't be inserted.  In this case, they've added a pin to AM3+ so they can't be inserted in AM3 boards.  But that has nothing to do with the fact that AM3+ processor do in fact work on the old platform, AMD just decided to not allow it.


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Mar 17, 2011)

Melvis said:


> That makes no sense all.



Sure it does, if I have to buy a new mobo to make the new processor work why not go Intel, the main reason I was interested in the new AMD processors is because I figured they would be backwards compatable, if there not then I see no reason to pursue second best performance only to possibly save a few dollars 





Melvis said:


> You must be pissed at intel then?



^



Melvis said:


> That makes no sense all.


Agreed Melvis.

Clearly you seem to have animosity against myself and Intel, grow a thicker skin ?


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Mar 17, 2011)

Tekie you are still assume that ASUS is the one telling the truth.  I still don't think it is just a BIOS update.  I think they are going to released rev. B for all those boards with the new socket.  I think they just built the BIOS first.


----------



## newtekie1 (Mar 17, 2011)

TheLaughingMan said:


> Tekie you are still assume that ASUS is the one telling the truth.  I still don't think it is just a BIOS update.  I think they are going to released rev. B for all those boards with the new socket.  I think they just built the BIOS first.



There is no reason for ASUS to lie.  They say just a BIOS update is all that is required.  I have no doubt that they will release a revision that uses the actual AM3+ socket, so that the extra pin doesn't get in the way, but that is it.  From what they have said, the old boards just need a BIOS update and they will support the new socket(I'm guessing with the removal of that pin).


----------



## CDdude55 (Mar 17, 2011)

I don't get it, since AM3+ has an extra pin(942 pins for AM3+ compared to 941 pins on AM3) that means it won't physically fit into an AM3 socket, so a BIOS update would be useless in that regard unless the pin gets removed. Plus it has been stated multiple times that Bulldozer will be AM3+ only, i really don't understand how ASUS is planning to go around that with solely a BIOS update.


----------



## devguy (Mar 17, 2011)

Here's the situation, as posted at XtremeSystems:



> am3 socket: 941 pin holes
> am3+ socket: 942 pin holes
> ---
> am3 cpu: 938 pins
> ...



Garner what you will from that.  Basically, just because there are extra pin slots in a socket, doesn't necessarily mean that a processor has a corresponding pin to put inside it.


----------



## Tomisw (Mar 17, 2011)

the first zambezi processors will not have this pin, this is the reason of it will fit.
ASUS said that, AASUS don t have reasons to lie, bcz if they lie some users like me will strop buying em boards


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Mar 17, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> There is no reason for ASUS to lie.  They say just a BIOS update is all that is required.  I have no doubt that they will release a revision that uses the actual AM3+ socket, so that the extra pin doesn't get in the way, but that is it.  From what they have said, the old boards just need a BIOS update and they will support the new socket(I'm guessing with the removal of that pin).



Ok, then we are both on the same page I see.  I am not saying they are lying.  I am saying the reported on half of the truth to get a nice news buzz for their new boards (which worked by the way).  I also think they are going to stated the new board with the new socket will be needed once beta tests are done.



devguy said:


> Here's the situation, as posted at XtremeSystems:



Didn't think about that.  Interesting.  Back to wait a see mode.  Last post from me.


----------



## CDdude55 (Mar 17, 2011)

devguy said:


> Here's the situation, as posted at XtremeSystems:
> 
> 
> 
> Garner what you will from that.  Basically, just because there are extra pin slots in a socket, doesn't necessarily mean that a processor has a corresponding pin to put inside it.



Ahh, that makes sense, didn't know how many pins Bulldozer had.


----------



## newtekie1 (Mar 18, 2011)

TheLaughingMan said:


> I am saying the reported on half of the truth to get a nice news buzz for their new boards (which worked by the way). I also think they are going to stated the new board with the new socket will be needed once beta tests are done.



That is where we differ.  I don't think they are reporting half truths at all.  I think they are reporting the whole truth, but might be expecting users to break an unused pin off their CPU to make it fit in the older socket.  New boards won't be required, they will just make then easier.

But either way, we'll have to wait and see for sure, as you said.  

Either way though, regardless of if the CPU will fit in the socket or not, ASUS has provent that the CPUs are in fact compatible with older chipsets/motherboards, and AMD is just not allowing it for whatever reason.


----------



## Melvis (Mar 18, 2011)

[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> Sure it does, if I have to buy a new mobo to make the new processor work why not go Intel, the main reason I was interested in the new AMD processors is because I figured they would be backwards compatable, if there not then I see no reason to pursue second best performance only to possibly save a few dollars



A few $$$? you must be joking right, we are talking about a mobo and CPU here at least, i find that just more then a few dollars?

Name one intel CPU that is forwards/backwards compatible with any of the other intel skt's?

Least this way you can use your current AM3 CPU and put it into a new AM3+ mobo considering this is going to be a whole new arch, i find that impressive. 

SB should of been backwards compatible with the older i7's but it wasnt, i think that's fail.







[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> Agreed Melvis.
> 
> Clearly you seem to have animosity against myself and Intel, grow a thicker skin ?



Clearly


----------



## Mussels (Mar 18, 2011)

Melvis said:


> A few $$$? you must be joking right, we are talking about a mobo and CPU here at least, i find that just more then a few dollars?
> 
> Name one intel CPU that is forwards/backwards compatible with any of the other intel skt's?



socket 775 had P4, allendale, conroe, wolfdale, kentsfield and whatever the 45nm quad variants were called. that was several architechtures that shared one socket. no modern intel platforms do it, but the older ones did.




Melvis said:


> Least this way you can use your current AM3 CPU and put it into a new AM3+ mobo considering this is going to be a whole new arch, i find that impressive.



we dont know for sure what way around it works - AM3+ could work on AM3 boards, or vice versa.




Melvis said:


> SB should of been backwards compatible with the older i7's but it wasnt, i think that's fail.



which i7's? if it was 1366 that means it had to do triple channel, and if it was 1156 that would mean it had to be compatible with the lesser/crippled PCI-E lanes of that CPU architecture



as soon as intel integrated more stuff into the CPU, it stopped being so upgradeable. same thing happend with IMC's.


----------



## JrRacinFan (Mar 18, 2011)

JF-AMD said:


> AMD is supporting BD on AM3+ sockets only. Period.



Then why manufacture them on a similar socket when clearly as this news post pointed out is about getting Zambezi/BD/AM3+/whatever on AM3?

So if needing to RMA one of AM3+ cpu's one of your support questions will be "what motherboard? was it AM3?" Therefore voiding warranties? Correct?



Mussels said:


> we dont know for sure what way around it works - AM3+ could work on AM3 boards, or vice versa.



Yes we do. Then why did Asus and btarunr post this as news?


----------



## Mussels (Mar 18, 2011)

JrRacinFan said:


> Yes we do. Then why did Asus and btarunr post this as news?



we dont know if it works on all of them, or only very specific boards.


----------



## JrRacinFan (Mar 18, 2011)

Mussels said:


> we dont know if it works on all of them, or only very specific boards.



Contradictory eh? *Looks at OP* Specific boards I would say as was pointed out previously.


----------



## Mussels (Mar 18, 2011)

JrRacinFan said:


> Contradictory eh? *Looks at OP* Specific boards I would say as was pointed out previously.



to clarify my point:

we dont know if a BIOS update is all thats needed, or if some board makers knew early on and updated their sockets/board designs to work with the upcoming CPU's on the sly.


i dislike blanket statements such as "AM3+ works on AM3 boards" because its too easy for someone to read that and get the wrong idea. works on SOME boards, is what i want to see.


----------



## JrRacinFan (Mar 18, 2011)

Oh I know what you're saying Mussels. Refer back to my reply to JF-AMD. I totally agree with you and am far from ranting at you... 

Sorry if my posts looked bad in context, just horribly worded and looked harsh.
No disrespect.... You're my bud!


----------



## Melvis (Mar 18, 2011)

Mussels said:


> socket 775 had P4, allendale, conroe, wolfdale, kentsfield and whatever the 45nm quad variants were called. that was several architechtures that shared one socket. no modern intel platforms do it, but the older ones did.



True but i mean skts as in 478 to 775 or 775 to 1366 etc, not like AM2/AM2+/AM3 see?
Same thing could be said from 939 to AM2, same thing just support for DDR2.



Mussels said:


> we dont know for sure what way around it works - AM3+ could work on AM3 boards, or vice versa.



Going by what JF-AMD says ( and i believe him over anyone else) this wont happen, but it be nice if it did 



Mussels said:


> which i7's? if it was 1366 that means it had to do triple channel, and if it was 1156 that would mean it had to be compatible with the lesser/crippled PCI-E lanes of that CPU architecture



Ether one realy, doesnt matter, it was just a surprise they didnt make them fit into ANY old skt, i felt bad for those i7 owners.



Mussels said:


> as soon as intel integrated more stuff into the CPU, it stopped being so upgradeable. same thing happend with IMC's.



Yea i do realize this and that makes sense, and this i think will be the same with Bulldozer and it also makes sense, its all new.


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Mar 18, 2011)

Melvis said:


> A few $$$? you must be joking right, we are talking about a mobo and CPU here at least, i find that just more then a few dollars?
> 
> Name one intel CPU that is forwards/backwards compatible with any of the other intel skt's?
> 
> Least this way you can use your current AM3 CPU and put it into a new AM3+ mobo considering this is going to be a whole new arch, i find that impressive.



What's the difference if I have to buy a new AMD mobo and a new AMD CPU which is a whole new platform or if I have to do the same to switch to Intel.

You have 0 evidence that AM3 and AM3+ will be backwards compatible, other than a sketchy release from ASUS, and if it didn't come from AMD the one making the chips and chip sets themselves it's worth less than your opinion.





Melvis said:


> SB should of been backwards compatible with the older i7's but it wasnt, i think that's fail.



That's your opinion and it's backed up by nothing but hatred, you have 0 incite into the internal specs and if the 1156 bus  could have actually supported the Sandy Bridge architecture, which if it couldn't I will grant you kinda sucks and shows a lack of internal coordination on Intel's  part, but in no way makes it a fail, given it's nearly double the performance of AMD's best efforts.

Also I would expect you to admit you were wrong if it turns out AM3 and AM3+ aren't compatible, and the nonsensical vitriol you have spewed all over this thread and at others simply expressing their opinions.

All I can say to you is QQ?


----------



## Mussels (Mar 18, 2011)

[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> That's your opinion and it's backed up by nothing but hatred,... ...but in no way makes it a fail, *given it's nearly double the performance of AMD's best efforts.*
> All I can say to you is QQ?



for someone claiming the opposing party to be backed up on hatred and ignorance, you sure made a great screwup with that comment.


find me a single shred of proof that sandy bridge has twice the performance of AMD's latest chips (meaning, thuban) and i'll listen to you. otherwise, you're just another fanboi hatin.


----------



## Melvis (Mar 18, 2011)

[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> What's the difference if I have to buy a new AMD mobo and a new AMD CPU which is a whole new platform or if I have to do the same to switch to Intel.



None since it is all new tech, but at least AM3+ will hold your older AM3 CPU's.



[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> You have 0 evidence that AM3 and AM3+ will be backwards compatible, other than a sketchy release from ASUS, and if it didn't come from AMD the one making the chips and chip sets themselves it's worth less than your opinion.



 Ummm i didnt say it was, i said the opposite actually. 





[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> That's your opinion and it's backed up by nothing but hatred, you have 0 incite into the internal specs and if the 1156 bus  could have actually supported the Sandy Bridge architecture, which if it couldn't I will grant you kinda sucks and shows a lack of internal coordination on Intel's  part, but in no way makes it a fail, given it's nearly double the performance of AMD's best efforts.



No just stating the facts is all, sorry if you think its hatred as thats a strong word. I just think at least that SB should of been compatible with one of the old skts that havent been out that long realy? Double? i find that hard to believe with every benchmark's ive seen on the net, now thats just going abit over board. 




[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> Also I would expect you to admit you were wrong if it turns out AM3 and AM3+ aren't compatible, and the nonsensical vitriol you have spewed all over this thread and at others simply expressing their opinions.



I will be happy to admit this, but i will expect you to admit im right in this up coming June


----------



## devguy (Mar 18, 2011)

Mussels said:


> socket 775 had P4, allendale, conroe, wolfdale, kentsfield and whatever the 45nm quad variants were called. that was several architechtures that shared one socket. no modern intel platforms do it, but the older ones did.



Funny you should mention that.  One of my idiot, gotta have the latest and greatest, friends went through dealing with the pains of incompatible chipsets on LGA775.  I believe his initial 775 board didn't support hyperthreaded Pentium 4s, so he upgraded.  Next, his new chipset didn't support the dual-core Pentium D processor, so he had to upgrade again.  Along came Conroe, and another chipset incompatibility hit him, so again he upgraded.  Finally, he wanted to get a quad-core 45nm, but his chipset wouldn't work with those either.  Frustrated, he swapped over to AMD's AM2 platform with the Crosshair II, and started with an Athlon x2, moved to a Phenom I 9850, and I believe he currently has a Phenom II 940 in there.

I suppose it might have helped if he had purchased an nVidia chipset instead of the latest Intel ones (as well as not be an early-adopter), but I would still say he got screwed pretty badly there.




Mussels said:


> we dont know for sure what way around it works - AM3+ could work on AM3 boards, or vice versa.



I can guarantee you that AM3 processors will work in AM3+ boards.  As for the other way, wait and see.



Mussels said:


> as soon as intel integrated more stuff into the CPU, it stopped being so upgradeable. same thing happend with IMC's.



Yup, bringing that northbridge into the CPU forced some changes.  Whether or not they are better or worth it is a different question (I haven't used them, so I can't give an opinion).




			
				[H]@RD5TUFF  said:
			
		

> ... and the nonsensical vitriol you have spewed all over this thread and at others simply expressing their opinions.



lolwut?


----------



## erocker (Mar 18, 2011)




----------



## Mussels (Mar 19, 2011)

that seems to imply that AM3+ CPU's will boot in boards even without a BIOS update, just that the update is needed for full recognition


----------



## JrRacinFan (Mar 19, 2011)

Mussels said:


> that seems to imply that AM3+ CPU's will boot in boards even without a BIOS update, just that the update is needed for full recognition



just adding; sounds to me like once that bios is flashed it will no longer post with an AM3 cpu installed.


----------



## WarEagleAU (Mar 19, 2011)

Well this is awesome news. Personally I want a new mobo with more USB 3.0 ports on it. I don't currently have that with my Crosshair 3 but I hope to soon


----------

