# AMD Backpedals, Zen 3 Support Coming to B450 and X470



## btarunr (May 19, 2020)

AMD backpedaled on dropping support for its future "Zen 3" processors on AMD 400-series chipset motherboards. The company will work with its motherboard partners in integrating "Zen 3" processor support on certain beta versions of motherboard BIOSes. AMD also detailed how it plans to go about it. The said BIOS will be a one-way ticket to using "Zen 3" processors while losing support for all older microarchitectures. 

The way it works is the motherboard manufacturer will integrate the Zen 3-only AGESA with a firmware that can squeeze into a 16 MB ROM. They may also choose to conserve ROM space in areas such as the UEFI setup program, which may not correspond with the motherboard's original feature-set. This is essentially similar to how MSI integrated "Zen 2" support on some of its older motherboards with 16 MB ROMs, by slimming down its UEFI setup program. 



 




Since the BIOS will chop support for all older processors, to prevent motherboard RMA chaos for manufacturers, they will set up a system that issues BIOS updates only to customers upon verifying that they actually own a "Zen 3" processor. The way we imagine this works would be similar to game bundles (retailer issues a BIOS update token along with the processor, or a scratch card next to the case badge inside the PIB). Flashing a 400-series chipset motherboard will be a delicate process. You will have to use the USB BIOS flashback feature (which luckily is well proliferated on the AM4 motherboard ecosystem). Alternatively, you should be able to begin the BIOS flashing process with an older processor installed, and immediately switch over to the newer Zen 3 processor once the flashing process is complete. 

Also, the beta BIOS updates won't be immediately available, but rather when "Zen 3" processors are readily available in all the markets AMD serves. AMD reiterates, that "Zen 3" will be the final microarchitecture 400-series chipsets support, recommending that the processors will work best with a 500-series chipset motherboard for best performance and support for the latest features. 

Controversy erupted when AMD revealed in its B550 chipset slide deck that 400-series (and older) chipsets won't support "Zen 3," which users felt betrayed AMD's promise of platform support running into 2020. In the absence of B550, many value-conscious buyers paired their brand new 3rd generation Ryzen processors with some of the more premium B450 chipset motherboards, in hopes of an upgrade path to "Zen 3."

*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## Decryptor009 (May 19, 2020)

Good to see AMD fixing their mistake.


----------



## bug (May 19, 2020)

With all that talk, AMD was about to do what their fans accuse Intel of: removing CPU support for no good reason.
At least they reversed their stance quickly. But not quick enough for people not to notice where their heart truly is


----------



## Mats (May 19, 2020)

bug said:


> But not quick enough for people not to notice where their heart truly is


Dunno about that. I mean, how official was that reddit post to begin with? Yeah he worked for AMD, but I have no more info than that.

This wasn't a simple yes/no question. AMD really had to give it a thought if it was feasible, and to what extent.


----------



## bug (May 19, 2020)

Mats said:


> Dunno about that. I mean, how official was that reddit post to begin with? Yeah he worked for AMD, but I have no more info than that.


How official is this? https://community.amd.com/community/gaming/blog/2020/05/07/the-exciting-future-of-amd-socket-am4


----------



## NoJuan999 (May 19, 2020)

I had a VERY strong feeling this was going to be the case.
I even posted that in another thread last week:


> I still have hope that MB manufacturers will offer support for 4000 Series CPUs on B450 and X470 motherboards via BIOS updates.











						AMD B550 Chipset Detailed, It's Ready for Zen 3, Older AM4 Motherboards not Compatible
					

Very true. And why did they recommend B450's? Because there was nothing better in the market to recommend (for the majority of their audience). And why did they think B450's had longevity? Because AMD has been selling the whole platform with longevity. And MSI went as far as to launch a whole...




					www.techpowerup.com


----------



## KarymidoN (May 19, 2020)

I Have a question, legit one, might be stupid but if anyone can answer...

My Mobo has Dual Bios (2 16mb chips), a lot of Mobos do. I Can have 2 complete different versions of bions on those 2. 
Why not create an option to update the second bios to ZEN3 while using the #1 BIOS for ZEN/ZEN+/ZEN2? 
and if you try to boot BIOS#1 with ZEN3 it detects and tryies the BIOS#2... 

Is that not possible? too risky? legit question.


----------



## thesmokingman (May 19, 2020)

KarymidoN said:


> I Have a question, legit one, might be stupid but if anyone can answer...
> 
> My Mobo has Dual Bios (2 16mb chips), a lot of Mobos do. I Can have 2 complete different versions of bions on those 2.
> Why not create an option to update the second bios to ZEN3 while using the #1 BIOS for ZEN/ZEN+/ZEN2?
> ...



It's going to be up to board p[artners to do the soft lifting to make it work. There are too many if ands or buts which is why they said no. But really it is going to come down to the board partners to sort it all out.


----------



## bug (May 19, 2020)

KarymidoN said:


> I Have a question, legit one, might be stupid but if anyone can answer...
> 
> My Mobo has Dual Bios (2 16mb chips), a lot of Mobos do. I Can have 2 complete different versions of bions on those 2.
> Why not create an option to update the second bios to ZEN3 while using the #1 BIOS for ZEN/ZEN+/ZEN2?
> ...


You don't need an option for that, you can already flash anything you want on your BIOS copies. Typically one copy is used as backup/failsafe, but they don't care which BIOS version they hold. But you'll loose the backup/failsafe if the other copy doesn't support your current CPU.


----------



## Mats (May 19, 2020)

bug said:


> How official is this? https://community.amd.com/community/gaming/blog/2020/05/07/the-exciting-future-of-amd-socket-am4


That's not reddit. I was referring to when some AMD guy said the opposite of what that pic says, which started this whole shit storm.


----------



## TheLostSwede (May 19, 2020)

KarymidoN said:


> I Have a question, legit one, might be stupid but if anyone can answer...
> 
> My Mobo has Dual Bios (2 16mb chips), a lot of Mobos do. I Can have 2 complete different versions of bions on those 2.
> Why not create an option to update the second bios to ZEN3 while using the #1 BIOS for ZEN/ZEN+/ZEN2?
> ...



Maybe, on some boards it's possible, but not on all. You also can't manually select which one to boot from on most boards. Your board doesn't appear to have such a switch. Normally only really high-end models have that.


----------



## ZoneDymo (May 19, 2020)

bug said:


> With all that talk, AMD was about to do what their fans accuse Intel of: removing CPU support for no good reason.
> At least they reversed their stance quickly. But not quick enough for people not to notice where their heart truly is



you should really look into the problem before running your mouth, would make you look a tad more intelligent.
I recommened Gamers Nexus.


----------



## moproblems99 (May 19, 2020)

thesmokingman said:


> It's going to be up to board p[artners to do the soft lifting to make it work. There are too many if ands or buts which is why they said no. But really it is going to come down to the board partners to sort it all out.



My understanding was that it was only an issue based on UEFI rom size.


----------



## TheLostSwede (May 19, 2020)

bug said:


> You don't need an option for that, you can already flash anything you want on your BIOS copies. Typically one copy is used as backup/failsafe, but they don't care which BIOS version they hold. But you'll loose the backup/failsafe if the other copy doesn't support your current CPU.


How do you, as the end user, flash the secondary chip, if there's no switch to select which one to flash?
Normally it seems to be a matter you being able to flash the primary chip, but not the secondary one. I haven't had my secondary one kick in for so long that I don't even remember if gets flashed automagically or doesn't get updated at all.


----------



## bug (May 19, 2020)

Mats said:


> That's not reddit. I was referring to when some AMD guy said the opposite of what that pic says, which started this whole shit storm.


You lost me.


----------



## thesmokingman (May 19, 2020)

moproblems99 said:


> My understanding was that it was only an issue based on UEFI rom size.



The main issue is that the early Ryzens do not support ROM over 16mb. These cpus will see a 32MB ROM as two 16MB partitions if you will. That's why I suspect it will come down to how much lifting board partners are going to put into it. There's way too many variables times the cpus out there, times the MB models.


----------



## bug (May 19, 2020)

TheLostSwede said:


> How do you, as the end user, flash the secondary chip, if there's no switch to select which one to flash?
> Normally it seems to be a matter you being able to flash the primary chip, but not the secondary one. I haven't had my secondary one kick in for so long that I don't even remember if gets flashed automagically or doesn't get updated at all.


I'm not sure. I'm running Z170, I haven't flashed in a while...


----------



## Mats (May 19, 2020)

moproblems99 said:


> My understanding was that it was only an issue based on UEFI rom size.


Partly, the other one being that all CPU's before Ryzen 3000 can only read 16 MB ROMs.


----------



## NoJuan999 (May 19, 2020)

KarymidoN said:


> I Have a question, legit one, might be stupid but if anyone can answer...
> 
> My Mobo has Dual Bios (2 16mb chips), a lot of Mobos do. I Can have 2 complete different versions of bions on those 2.
> Why not create an option to update the second bios to ZEN3 while using the #1 BIOS for ZEN/ZEN+/ZEN2?
> ...


It can be done on some motherboards BUT you will need to have the know how to flash the back up (2nd BIOS ROM) separately from the main BIOS ROM.
I did exactly that on a Gigabyte P55A board.
I had a BIOS version that I modified on the main ROM and the original untouched BIOS on the backup ROM.
Mine required using a DOS flash utility and using the correct software switches to flash the back up BIOS.
It did NOT have a physical switch to do that.


----------



## TheLostSwede (May 19, 2020)

moproblems99 said:


> My understanding was that it was only an issue based on UEFI rom size.


Well, sort of. I mean, the board makers are also going to have to be willing and it's possible and this is pure speculation, that they approached AMD and said hey, we didn't put large enough flash chips for the UEFI on these boards, so we don't want to support them for your next gen CPUs. Obviously the way it is now, it's down to each board makers to decide which boards may or may not get support, which sort of absolves AMD and the board makers.


----------



## moproblems99 (May 19, 2020)

thesmokingman said:


> The main issue is that the early Ryzens do not support ROM over 16mb.



Not necessarily a problem when an early Ryzen is not what is going back in to the board.


----------



## thesmokingman (May 19, 2020)

moproblems99 said:


> Not necessarily a problem when an early Ryzen is not what is going back in to the board.



You are not getting it. The early boards were not made with 32MB ROMS cuz the cpus only addressed up to 16MB. Board partners are going to have to make news bios per MB per needs.


----------



## Mats (May 19, 2020)

bug said:


> You lost me.


Yeah, I didn't know about it until last week. At 7:40.


----------



## GoldenX (May 19, 2020)

Oh no, get ready for another round of broken BETA BIOS that no one will ever fix.


----------



## Assimilator (May 19, 2020)

I'm 100% sure this won't turn out to be a s**tshow like everything BIOS-related with AMD before (AGESA stability, MSI 16MB BIOS limits, RX 5600 XT memory OC).


----------



## evernessince (May 19, 2020)

bug said:


> With all that talk, AMD was about to do what their fans accuse Intel of: removing CPU support for no good reason.
> At least they reversed their stance quickly. But not quick enough for people not to notice where their heart truly is



Wrong.  Go watch GamersNexus videos on the topic.  AMD removing support for last gen was a shit move but there were multiple legitimate reasons why they would need to do it.


----------



## bug (May 19, 2020)

evernessince said:


> Wrong.  Go watch GamersNexus videos on the topic.  AMD removing support for last gen was a shit move but there were multiple legitimate reasons why they would need to do it.


I didn't say there weren't reasons. I said their first instinct was not to bother.


----------



## Mats (May 19, 2020)

GoldenX said:


> Oh no, get ready for another round of broken BETA BIOS that no one will ever fix.


These BIOS versions will drop all the old models, and you won't be able to go back (officially). This could hopefully make the transition less buggy.. who knows.


----------



## Athlonite (May 19, 2020)

If you want to buy a Ferrari buy a Ferrari don't try making a 700BHP mini which is basically what's going on here people with B450 motherboards (Mini's)  wanting the same power as a X570/B550 (Ferrari)...
But on the otherhand I can see where users of high end X470 mobo's are coming from too and I'd have agree that atleast high end X470 should be given the option atleast to upgrade with a BIOS update who cares if you won't be able to run ZEN 1 and APU's or ZEN 2 and their associated APU's I was never going to run one of those so excise those chips from BIOS and give us the upgrade path if we want it


----------



## evernessince (May 19, 2020)

bug said:


> I didn't say there weren't reasons. I said their first instinct was not to bother.



You said:

"AMD was about to do what their fans accuse Intel of: *removing CPU support for no good reason*."

That statement is wrong. period.  There were good reasons as explained by gamersnexus.


----------



## bug (May 19, 2020)

evernessince said:


> You said:
> 
> AMD was about to do what their fans accuse Intel of: *removing CPU support for no good reason*.
> 
> That statement is wrong. period.


Well, their reason was no good. Proof: it's fixable.


----------



## evernessince (May 19, 2020)

bug said:


> Well, their reason was no good. Proof: it's fixable.



Wrong, just watch the video


----------



## windwhirl (May 19, 2020)

Mats said:


> Dunno about that. I mean, how official was that reddit post to begin with? Yeah he worked for AMD, but I have no more info than that.
> 
> This wasn't a simple yes/no question. AMD really had to give it a thought if it was feasible, and to what extent.



What Reddit post? Nevermind


----------



## bug (May 19, 2020)

evernessince said:


> Wrong, just watch the video


I'm clearly right, if their reason wasn't fixable, you wouldn't be getting support


----------



## Mats (May 19, 2020)

bug said:


> I'm clearly right, if their reason wasn't fixable, you wouldn't be getting support


Tell that to 300-series board owners.


----------



## ShurikN (May 19, 2020)

Oh boy I can't wait to look at forum posts 5 months from now from ignorant dumbasses, that bricked their mobo, crying for help. And blaming AMD of course. 
Fun times ahead


----------



## Jack1n (May 19, 2020)

This BIOS flash is not really a one way ticket since you can probably just flash it back if you need to.


----------



## Mats (May 19, 2020)

Jack1n said:


> This BIOS flash is not really a one way ticket since you can probably just flash it back if you need to.


That's not what's been told. In the end there are of course workarounds tho.


----------



## DeathtoGnomes (May 19, 2020)

Mats said:


> That's not what's been told. In the end there are of course workarounds tho.


who told what where?


----------



## windwhirl (May 19, 2020)

DeathtoGnomes said:


> who told what where?


AMD. They said that it would be a one-way BIOS update for 400 series boards. That is, once you update the BIOS to get Zen 3 compatibility, you can't go back to previous versions, meaning you lose compatibility with the CPUs for which support was removed in the BIOS update.


----------



## NoJuan999 (May 20, 2020)

DeathtoGnomes said:


> who told what where?





> -- *AMD* -- We hear that many of you hoped for a longer upgrade path. We hear your hope that AMD B450 and X470 chipsets would carry you into the “Zen 3” era. Our experience has been that large-scale BIOS upgrades can be difficult and confusing especially as processors come on and off the support lists.  As the community of Socket AM4 customers has grown over the past three years, our intention was to take a path forward that provides the safest upgrade experience for the largest number of users.  However, we hear you loud and clear when you tell us you would like to see B450 or X470 boards extended to the next generation “Zen 3” products. As the team weighed your feedback against the technical challenges we face, we decided to change course. As a result, we will enable an upgrade path for B450 and X470 customers that adds support for next-gen AMD Ryzen Processors with the “Zen 3” architecture.  This decision is very fresh, but here is a first look at how the upgrade path is expected to work for customers of these motherboards.
> 
> 
> We will develop and enable our motherboard partners with the code to support “Zen 3”-based processors in select beta BIOSes for AMD B450 and X470 motherboards.
> ...


From this article:








						AMD ZEN3 to get see Series B450 and X470 motherboard support after all
					

AMD just issued a press statement where they are explaining that AMD B450 and X470 chipsets could become compatible with the new “Zen 3” era of processors....




					www.guru3d.com
				



and this one as well:








						AMD to Support Zen 3 and Ryzen 4000 CPUs on B450 and X470 Motherboards
					






					www.anandtech.com


----------



## B-Real (May 20, 2020)

bug said:


> At least they reversed their stance quickly.
> 
> With all that talk, AMD was about to do what their fans accuse Intel of: removing CPU support for no good reason.
> At least they reversed their stance quickly. But not quick enough for people not to notice where their heart truly is



Reversed what?  Was there any official post that B450/X470 mobos will support Zen3? The only official note since Zen was released in 2017 as far as I know is that AM4 will be up till 2020. And that is true. I can't remember they promised they will support mobos back to 2 generations.

Where their heart is? They are a company just like Intel or NV. They want money. At least they can make a reverse so who were bothered got a right answer.


----------



## oxidized (May 20, 2020)

evernessince said:


> Wrong.  Go watch GamersNexus videos on the topic.  AMD removing support for last gen was a shit move but there were multiple legitimate reasons why they would need to do it.



No reason is good enough to contradict oneself.

Nice to see AMD fixed this crapstorm promptly, wonder where all them AMD boyos are since they tried saying every possible thing to excuse an intel-like move.



windwhirl said:


> AMD. They said that it would be a one-way BIOS update for 400 series boards. That is, once you update the BIOS to get Zen 3 compatibility, you can't go back to previous versions, meaning you lose compatibility with the CPUs for which support was removed in the BIOS update.



Can't one just flash an older version if they need to? What's exactly a one-way bios update? Sounds like some randomly made up name to me.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (May 20, 2020)

I have a 2 month old B450 /2600x I thought was then wasn't going to be supported so I bought an x570 with a 3600....I also wanted PCI-E 40. x4 NVMe.
Any way the wind blows...doesn't really matter...to me.
Momma eww...oh wait.
I bet b450 mobo prices are about to go up.


----------



## moproblems99 (May 20, 2020)

thesmokingman said:


> You are not getting it. The early boards were not made with 32MB ROMS cuz the cpus only addressed up to 16MB. Board partners are going to have to make news bios per MB per needs.



No, I get that, but as noted previously in this thread, there are a lot of useless CPUs already supported that are not going in B450/X470, hell, even the 300 series.  They don't even make those cpus anymore so drop support of anything before 1st Gen Ryzen....profit.


----------



## R0H1T (May 20, 2020)

Decryptor009 said:


> Good to see AMD fixing their mistake.


It was never a mistake, sure probably going a bit for that *$$* though remember supporting AM4 right from *Excavator* (yes from *Bulldozer* fame!) till zen3 is no easy task & please don't bring any *Intel* comparisons up ~ it's frankly embarrassing!


----------



## InVasMani (May 20, 2020)

windwhirl said:


> AMD. They said that it would be a one-way BIOS update for 400 series boards. That is, once you update the BIOS to get Zen 3 compatibility, you can't go back to previous versions, meaning you lose compatibility with the CPUs for which support was removed in the BIOS update.


 Technically that's probably correct and true and it is a one way ticket, but that doesn't mean you can't then take a one-way ticket backwards. I think what AMD means is once you update it for Zen 3 that's all the BIOS ROM is able to storage information for so Zen/Zen 2 support is lost. That said once on a Zen 3 BIOS ROM update with a Zen 3 CPU I can't foresee a barrier reason why you couldn't flash the BIOS ROM to a Zen/Zen2 BIOS ROM and switch the CPU back out for a Zen/Zen 2 CPU in place of the Zen 3 CPU. That of course is a rather unlikely scenario in the first place. How many people would actually bother to do all of that. It's a one way ticket in a sense in either direction due to the limited ROM storage space to support the assortment of Zen CPU's of a given generation due to the variety of various SKU's between each generation of them.


----------



## Darmok N Jalad (May 20, 2020)

Maybe board partners are actually fairly happy with this change, as it allows them to keep selling old designs with minimal effort, especially the B450. If support died with the 3000 series, then the existing supply loses value rather quickly. Now they can just revise the BIOS and keep selling these as entry-level products. It might be cheaper than developing entry-level B550 models.

The problem will be getting them to support boards they no longer produce and sell. There is little incentive to go back to update those products. The X470 is probably less a concern, since X570 has been out for a while, and it’s the enthusiast grade chipset. Could we actually see better support for B450 than X470?


----------



## windwhirl (May 20, 2020)

oxidized said:


> Can't one just flash an older version if they need to? What's exactly a one-way bios update? Sounds like some randomly made up name to me.





InVasMani said:


> Technically that's probably correct and true and it is a one way ticket, but that doesn't mean you can't then take a one-way ticket backwards. I think what AMD means is once you update it for Zen 3 that's all the BIOS ROM is able to storage information for so Zen/Zen 2 support is lost. That said once on a Zen 3 BIOS ROM update with a Zen 3 CPU I can't foresee a barrier reason why you couldn't flash the BIOS ROM to a Zen/Zen2 BIOS ROM and switch the CPU back out for a Zen/Zen 2 CPU in place of the Zen 3 CPU. That of course is a rather unlikely scenario in the first place. How many people would actually bother to do all of that. It's a one way ticket in a sense in either direction due to the limited ROM storage space to support the assortment of Zen CPU's of a given generation due to the variety of various SKU's between each generation of them.



I think that what AMD meant is that you will not be able to go back to an older BIOS version the "easy way", that is, using the BIOS/UEFI setup program or the firmware updater that usually comes already bundled with the BIOS. You can always take the chip out and flash it with an EEPROM programmer or similar tool if you have the skill for that.

Why you wouldn't be able to do it the easy way? I do not know the internals of a BIOS update process, so this is just my guess and take it with a truckload of salt:

1-The updater checks the version number and doesn't allow you to flash an older version. Probably the most simple way to block it. Getting past that limitation could be as easy as changing the new/old firmware filename or as complicated as reverse-engineering the whole thing.
2-The update/downgrade process works in such a way that it would end up being truncated half-way through if you were using a Zen 3 processor, which would leave you with a bricked board.

If there is someone around who may actually know, it might be @R-T-B ...


----------



## Melvis (May 20, 2020)




----------



## Ultra Taco (May 20, 2020)

I just wanted to thank TPU for sparking consumer outrage toward AMD for the second time.

Keeping the multi billion dollar companies honest can only be done if there is journalism that feels the same dissapointment and outrage over a company decieving or going back on it's word, and if there is a community of folks that will stand up to (while remaining seated)  this injustice.

It wasn't but last year that TPU made a similar article about how b350 370x motherboards wouldn't support zen 2 / mattise.

There was huge backlash and policy reversed. 

If only actual politics worked this justly and swiftly. The FCC just getting it's way again and such. 

A meager victory, but still, a victory for the people.


----------



## Turmania (May 20, 2020)

The problem with AMD is that their departments arennot unified it seems and one department moves its legs. The other picks its nose with its fingers. They need to be on same page,their marketing department has always been their weakest department.


----------



## InVasMani (May 20, 2020)

All this outrage at AMD meanwhile Intel deliberately and blatantly lied about Z170. AMD has a fairly reasonable excuse at least on top of zen to zen 2 upgrade path being far better than skylake to kabyfake upgrade path was.


----------



## newtekie1 (May 20, 2020)

evernessince said:


> Wrong, just watch the video



The BIOS size limitation was not a good reason to limit support on all 400 chipset boards as there are plenty of boards out there with 32MB BIOS chips. And it was clearly a 100% excuse to try to increase profits.

In fact, AMD should have never taken it upon themselves to make the decision. The motherboard manufacturers should have been left to figure out how to support the new processors. The ones that used 16MB chips could either flash a BIOS that only supports Zen3 or not support Zen3 at all. The ones that used 32MB chips can just flash the BIOS like normal and move on.



InVasMani said:


> Intel deliberately and blatantly lied about Z170.



How did Intel lie about Z170?


----------



## Amite (May 20, 2020)

Given the slowdown AMD was about to shoot their selves in the foot


----------



## hat (May 20, 2020)

Very well... I find this acceptable. Stay on this path, AMD, as your processors continue to kick ass, and you'll have a lot of happy hobbyists, at least. 

Meanwhile, Intel is releasing the same processor on the same manufacturing process on a new motherboard again and everything's still locked down unless you pay big bucks for the K series. They got away with this for a while because their processors were simply better, but now the tables have pretty much turned.


----------



## Dyatlov A (May 20, 2020)

It is very nice from AMD, that is why I will keep with them. So even  if they told it will not work, they listened and later told OK we will make it work. Of course it is possible, Intel could do similar things too or like all the new hardware support would be possible for Windows 7, if they would like to do it.


----------



## windwhirl (May 20, 2020)

oxidized said:


> Can't one just flash an older version if they need to? What's exactly a one-way bios update? Sounds like some randomly made up name to me.





InVasMani said:


> Technically that's probably correct and true and it is a one way ticket, but that doesn't mean you can't then take a one-way ticket backwards. I think what AMD means is once you update it for Zen 3 that's all the BIOS ROM is able to storage information for so Zen/Zen 2 support is lost. That said once on a Zen 3 BIOS ROM update with a Zen 3 CPU I can't foresee a barrier reason why you couldn't flash the BIOS ROM to a Zen/Zen2 BIOS ROM and switch the CPU back out for a Zen/Zen 2 CPU in place of the Zen 3 CPU. That of course is a rather unlikely scenario in the first place. How many people would actually bother to do all of that. It's a one way ticket in a sense in either direction due to the limited ROM storage space to support the assortment of Zen CPU's of a given generation due to the variety of various SKU's between each generation of them.



AMD answered that question to Gamers Nexus' Steve.






Apparently, that kind of operation is also one the most risky ones, with a relatively high chance of bricking the board...

Source:








 starting at 11:29.

Also, 300 series boards are NOT supported on Zen 3.


----------



## evernessince (May 20, 2020)

newtekie1 said:


> The BIOS size limitation was not a good reason to limit support on all 400 chipset boards as there are plenty of boards out there with 32MB BIOS chips. And it was clearly a 100% excuse to try to increase profits.
> 
> In fact, AMD should have never taken it upon themselves to make the decision. The motherboard manufacturers should have been left to figure out how to support the new processors. The ones that used 16MB chips could either flash a BIOS that only supports Zen3 or not support Zen3 at all. The ones that used 32MB chips can just flash the BIOS like normal and move on.
> 
> ...



Again watch the video.  People are bringing up points that are discussed in it.  Steve takes the time to ask the board partners, AMD, and BIOS engineers who make both AMD and Intel BIOS.  I can tell you for a fact that according to the engineers that make motherboard BIOS that it is not nearly as simple or devious as you make it sound.  Put away your pitchfork and educate yourself.











I'm not saying that AMD pulling support was right, just that it can certainly be justified from a consumer ease of use perspective and from a technical one.  Once again, this is explained far more in depth in the video.


----------



## ahenriquedsj (May 20, 2020)

Nice


----------



## InVasMani (May 20, 2020)

newtekie1 said:


> How did Intel lie about Z170?


 Intel's excuse for Z270/Z370 to support later CPU sku's was pretty much proven patiently false. They had had made some claims and remarks in the past for reasons that they needed to sell people z270/z370 chipsets basically that didn't hold weight and sure if you want optane that's a another subject though I wouldn't doubt if that's also another Intel self cooked artificial limitation.
https://www.pcbuildersclub.com/en/2018/11/intel-core-i9-9900k-runs-on-z170-motherboard-with-5-5-ghz/


----------



## dyonoctis (May 20, 2020)

It's great that it's happening, but some people are acting as if it was eazy peazy. It seems like they didn't get the memo about how restricted this is , zen 2 on B350/X370 was a walk in the cake compared to this. 

You will have to send proof that you own a 400 motherboard and bought a zen 3 cpu before seeing any Bios. You are not assured to get it on launch day, and we know nothing about the support that we will get if bugs like destiny 2 not working on zen 2 happens again. In my case I got that uppgrade 1 month later.

Again it's great, but don't downplay the whole thing.


----------



## btarunr (May 20, 2020)

InVasMani said:


> Intel's excuse for Z270/Z370 to support later CPU sku's was pretty much proven patiently false. They had had made some claims and remarks in the past for reasons that they needed to sell people z270/z370 chipsets basically that didn't hold weight and sure if you want optane that's a another subject though I wouldn't doubt if that's also another Intel self cooked artificial limitation.
> https://www.pcbuildersclub.com/en/2018/11/intel-core-i9-9900k-runs-on-z170-motherboard-with-5-5-ghz/


Z270 (14 nm) is a newer chipset than Z170 (22 nm). It offers 24 PCIe downstream lanes (vs. 20 on the Z170). Although I agree, Intel's official reason for segmenting 300-series apart from 200-series was teddy poo.


----------



## Countryside (May 20, 2020)

Can you feel the support


----------



## chstamos (May 20, 2020)

It's funny seeing the fanboys rage that we "stupid users" will mess up what we've been asking all along. Guess they can't stomach that people critical of AMD are getting what they wanted. AMD knew the BIOS limitations and difficulties from the get-go, when they insinuated future support for Zen3. They shouldn't have done so, but it's a good look for them that they didn't insist on screwing their customers over "for their own good". Good job AMD.


----------



## Vayra86 (May 20, 2020)

TheLostSwede said:


> Well, sort of. I mean, the board makers are also going to have to be willing and it's possible and this is pure speculation, that they approached AMD and said hey, we didn't put large enough flash chips for the UEFI on these boards, so we don't want to support them for your next gen CPUs. Obviously the way it is now, it's down to each board makers to decide which boards may or may not get support, which sort of absolves AMD and the board makers.



And AMD has successfully created yet another unclear platform, where you could be getting anything in terms of support. And that is with product lines already out in the wild. *cough* NAVI *cough*

They just never really learn to pre empt this crap properly. Why oh why... Its like they just don't like being awesome.



windwhirl said:


> AMD. They said that it would be a one-way BIOS update for 400 series boards. That is, once you update the BIOS to get Zen 3 compatibility, you can't go back to previous versions, meaning you lose compatibility with the CPUs for which support was removed in the BIOS update.



Wow. Next level.



evernessince said:


> I'm not saying that AMD pulling support was right, just that it can certainly be justified from a consumer ease of use perspective and from a technical one.  Once again, this is explained far more in depth in the video.



That is the world upside down really isn't it. What you expect in the normal world is that when support is added, you get to update through a simple process and are not SOL if it somehow fails. What we have now is an after-the-fact 'oops, yeah its not optimal, but hey, deal with it' situation because AMD was being vague until the very last moment.

This is the very thing that has always plagued AMD. It never looks really professional. And then they seem to recover, promising everyone it will be better this time... and devolve into the same shit once more. Its a sign of company culture...


----------



## oxidized (May 20, 2020)

windwhirl said:


> I think that what AMD meant is that you will not be able to go back to an older BIOS version the "easy way", that is, using the BIOS/UEFI setup program or the firmware updater that usually comes already bundled with the BIOS. You can always take the chip out and flash it with an EEPROM programmer or similar tool if you have the skill for that.
> 
> Why you wouldn't be able to do it the easy way? I do not know the internals of a BIOS update process, so this is just my guess and take it with a truckload of salt:
> 
> ...





windwhirl said:


> AMD answered that question to Gamers Nexus' Steve.
> 
> 
> Apparently, that kind of operation is also one the most risky ones, with a relatively high chance of bricking the board...
> ...




Well let's wait from mobo manufacturers about bios flashback capabilities, it might be possible to flash older bioses through those features.


----------



## Frick (May 20, 2020)

Athlonite said:


> If you want to buy a Ferrari buy a Ferrari don't try making a 700BHP mini which is basically what's going on here people with B450 motherboards (Mini's)  wanting the same power as a X570/B550 (Ferrari)...



More like if you want a car with driver assistance tech don't buy car without it. It's not like a fancy motherboard actually does something unless you use the extra features.


----------



## medi01 (May 20, 2020)

I was critical of AMD for AM4 promises not delivered, but they did indeed have objective reasons, other than greed, to not support older mainboards.

There is so much that can go wrong and will go wrong.

WIth this "step back" nobody would blame AMD once shit starts happening.


----------



## dyonoctis (May 20, 2020)

Now that the issue has been fixed on 400, a fews 300 owner's on reddit are suddenly stepping out of the shadow and want to join the fun as well.


----------



## Chrispy_ (May 20, 2020)

I'm sure it'll make a lot of people happy, and it also means that AMD are continuing to offer support for the latest processors in older AM4 boards.

But this move has come at the expense of older chips. It's likely to impact anyone who had a Bristol Ridge APU and changed motherboard (upgrade or replacing a dead one) and it will make things difficult in the used market where you can no longer guarantee that a 400-series board has an older BIOS you need.

Overall, it's a good thing in my opinion but we shouldn't be calling it a victory - it's just that the noisy minority (enthusiasts) have influenced AMD to do what enthusiasts want, at the cost of making things worse for the silent majority.

Zen3 on 400-series wasn't AMD being lazy, it was a fork in the road, and they got shouted at by enthusiasts for picking the anti-enthusiast fork. Whilst we as a demographic have benefitted, others have now lost out - including the demographic that has the least disposable income to deal with the problems this direction will cause. I hope ya'll remember that when helping people in the forums over 400-series compatibility issues a year or two from now.


----------



## kapone32 (May 20, 2020)

The squeaky gear gets the oil? On a BIOS made for PCIe 4.0 specs in the CPUs but let's put them in B450 boards? AMD lied to us? From A320 to X470 how many CPUs can you insert? PCIe 4.0 for $200 ($300 Cad) a 3300 and B550 will do that and oh they made some B550 boards fully compatible with the 1 or 2 PCIE 3.0 NVME drive you have in your current AM4 and you wouldn't even need to worry about buying a new Windows key. The objective fact is the 32MB BIOS is made for PCIe 4.0 and Ryzen3 CPUs are PCIe 4.0. You could put a Corvette engine in a Cavalier, that does not mean that the Cavalier will last unless you do structural changes to accept all of the added horsepower. It is the same thing here.


----------



## newtekie1 (May 20, 2020)

evernessince said:


> Again watch the video. People are bringing up points that are discussed in it. Steve takes the time to ask the board partners, AMD, and BIOS engineers who make both AMD and Intel BIOS. I can tell you for a fact that according to the engineers that make motherboard BIOS that it is not nearly as simple or devious as you make it sound. Put away your pitchfork and educate yourself.



I watched it. Most of his points don't even make sense. He's talking about things that are motherboard makers decisions to make, not AMDs.  AMD's decision to just outright not support the 400 series chipsets was wrong and done from a purely business standpoint(for them).

Steve talks in that video like flashing BIOS is this huge scary thing that most people don't know how to do. But if you have an older motherboard and are buying a newer CPU for it, which is what this whole fiasco is about, then you expect to have to flash your BIOS to support the new CPU.  It's a common thing.

He talks about how removing older CPU support would be like "pulling the rug out from under people", literally his words.  But we've already seen that, and it isn't an issue.  There are plenty of 16MB boards that have lost support for older processors already.  Right now, on the 32MB ROM boards the issue is anything older than the 3000 CPUs can't address more than 16MB.  That's fine, then you make 3000 the stepping stone.  If you want 4000 CPU support, you need to use a 3000 series CPU to flash the BIOS first.  Then the board will only support 3000 and 4000 CPUs.  What are the chances someone will downgrade afterwards anyway?  I'd say 99% of people upgrade their CPU to the new one and then never touch it again.

He talks people might buy a B450 motherboard new that has the latest "Zen3 Only" BIOS on it, but wanting to use that board with an older processors.  Ok, we have methods to handle that too.  Just like the stickers that are put on motherboard boxes now that let users know the motherboard already has the BIOS to support 3000 series CPUs.  They put a sticker on the motherboard that says "This Board Only Supports Ryzen 4000 CPUs". Problem solved.

And at the end of the day, if you watched the video, the most important thing that he says is "B450 Can Support Zen3".  That's all you need to know.  The issues that arise by the smaller BIOS on a lot of boards have already had workaround developed.  I do not buy this "we did it for consumer ease of use" crap.  They did it because they want to sell chipsets and make more money, period!



InVasMani said:


> Intel's excuse for Z270/Z370 to support later CPU sku's was pretty much proven patiently false. They had had made some claims and remarks in the past for reasons that they needed to sell people z270/z370 chipsets basically that didn't hold weight and sure if you want optane that's a another subject though I wouldn't doubt if that's also another Intel self cooked artificial limitation.
> https://www.pcbuildersclub.com/en/2018/11/intel-core-i9-9900k-runs-on-z170-motherboard-with-5-5-ghz/



What?  First off, Z170 supports all the same CPU that Z270 supports.  I think your issue is with the requirement of Z370 for CoffeLake.  And there are technical reasons for that. Not specifically with the chipset, but the socket.  This has been gone over many times.  The number of power delivery pins on the socket need to be increased to support more CPU cores, and the power draw that goes along with them.  It is technically possible to get a Coffeelake CPU working on Z170/Z270 motherboards.  The issue is reliability over years of use.  You can overload power delivery for short amounts of time, and all seems fine, but over long periods of time bad things can happen.  That was the issue.  The chipset distinction was done to make it extremely easy to tell what motherboard supported new vs old processors.


----------



## Countryside (May 20, 2020)

dyonoctis said:


> Now that the issue has been fixed on 400, a fews 300 owner's on reddit are suddenly stepping out of the shadow and want to join the fun as well.



Not gonna happen, my x370 board is EOL, Asus hasn't even released bios with agesa 1004, last bios update was 7 months ago.


----------



## TechLurker (May 20, 2020)

In line with the drama to some extent, I expect that AMD will no longer guarantee more than 2 series (not necessarily generations) worth of CPUs per socket; any compatibility after is just because AMD was able to make it work and isn't because they promised. If a CPU is likely to need a slight revision and a slightly newer socket, I expect them to maybe pull a Socket+ (as they did with AM2+ and AM3+) and still allow compatibility with older CPUs while restarting the upgrade path for at least another 2 series. I do still expect AMD to also end up dropping old CPUs over time with such a scheme (especially if it stretches say, 5-6 series on a Socket+), even if all of them are standardized to 32MB BIOS.


----------



## GLD (May 21, 2020)

Good news! I need to put my last rig, MSi B450 and sweet qvl 3400 ram in the FS forum as it's still relevant.


----------



## Mats (May 21, 2020)

Amite said:


> Given the slowdown AMD was about to shoot their selves in the foot


What slowdown?





A lot of things has slowed down the last months, AMD sales is not on of them, if Mindfactory sales are of any indication. I know, just one big store in one country.

More than three times as many CPU's sold in one month compared to a year ago, and nine months since the last Ryzen launch. Not bad.

Compare all the Intel CPU's sold last month with the 3600 alone, yeah that's less than half the amount..

Or have a look at Amazon, would like to see the numbers tho, this is less informative than the last one. I always thought USA were more pro Intel than Germany, but again, this doesn't tell us much.


.


----------



## R0H1T (May 21, 2020)

Well you could argue that with a new launch, okay rebadged SKL, Intel would gain some market share but that's normal. If AMD were to launch their APU & zen3 for desktops in the near future their sales would skyrocket once again. In terms of DIY the sales fluctuate periodically between launches, though the momentum AMD has in this direction will not reverse any time soon, unless Intel pulls a Conroe &* prices their best parts way lower* than what AMD does currently ~ yes that was one of the main reasons why Core took off !


----------



## Mats (May 21, 2020)

R0H1T said:


> unless Intel pulls a Conroe &* prices their best parts way lower* than what AMD does currently


That never happened with Conroe. Intels best C2D cost $1000 at launch.




R0H1T said:


> yes that was one of the main reasons why Core took off !


Low power, overclockability and IPC uplift were the main reasons IMO. They weren't exactly cheap just because they were worth the money.


----------



## R0H1T (May 21, 2020)

Did it? I don't remember the timeline but I do recall the best AMD processors costing $*1k* just before their launch *IIRC*.


----------



## Chrispy_ (May 21, 2020)

R0H1T said:


> Did it? I don't remember the timeline but I do recall the best AMD processors costing $*1k* just before their launch *IIRC*.



You're right. Socket 939's swansong (FX-60) was the hottest consumer chip you could buy when Conroe landed and it was selling at over $1k in quantities of 1000.


----------



## bug (May 21, 2020)

R0H1T said:


> Did it? I don't remember the timeline but I do recall the best AMD processors costing $*1k* just before their launch *IIRC*.











						Conroe (microprocessor) - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				



$316 for an E6600
Further 4c/4t i5 were just above $200 though (iirc)


----------



## Mats (May 21, 2020)

Prices at the Conroe launch.







__





						Intel's Core 2 Extreme & Core 2 Duo: The Empire Strikes Back
					






					www.anandtech.com
				






R0H1T said:


> Did it? I don't remember the timeline but I do recall the best AMD processors costing $*1k* just before their launch *IIRC*.


The FX and the X6800 were more like halo products I guess. Like I said, Conroe wasn't cheap, but it was so worth the price it had.


----------



## Chrispy_ (May 21, 2020)

bug said:


> Conroe (microprocessor) - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm not sure how that answers his point. He clearly said "*prices their best parts" *so we're talking Core2 Extreme at $999.

If you want to link budget dual-core conroe, at $316 you need to compare to the competition at the time, which would have been the new (at the time) AM2 Athlon 64 X2 line - and back then you were getting similar IPC, core counts, clockspeeds, and pricing from both AMD and Intel.

This article acknowledges that Intel had to massively slash prices to "pull a conroe" as R0H1T called it:
https://www.anandtech.com/show/2045/2
Though I would say that they didn't _massively undercut_ AMD, they massively undercut their previous product stack, obsoleting the entire Pentium D line overnight in order to _match_ AMD.


----------



## Mats (May 21, 2020)

I think it's funny how some people payed $1000 for a bit better silicon, stock speed, overclockability and cache size. At least these ones had two cores lol.


----------



## bug (May 21, 2020)

Chrispy_ said:


> I'm not sure how that answers his point.


He said he doesn't remember the timeline. I liked to the prices at launch and used a mid-ranger for reference.
Like you @Mats said, Conroe wasn't cheap overall. It was about bang for the buck.


----------



## Mats (May 21, 2020)

If anyone lowered their prices it was AMD, because they had to.


----------



## rvalencia (May 23, 2020)

Mats said:


> If anyone lowered their prices it was AMD, because they had to.


From https://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-9-39...600xt-matisse-refresh-desktop-cpus-confirmed/
"Zen 2" CPUs are being refreshed with higher clock speed.


----------



## crotach (May 24, 2020)

What if you have a decent motherboard that has more than 16MB ROM?


----------



## Mats (May 24, 2020)

rvalencia said:


> From https://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-9-39...600xt-matisse-refresh-desktop-cpus-confirmed/
> "Zen 2" CPUs are being refreshed with higher clock speed.


Do you even understand what I was talking about? Hint: It was offtopic..


Spoiler



AMD in 2006. They had to lower their prices because of Intels new CPU's at the time.


----------



## crotach (May 24, 2020)

"*ASUS* says they are using only 16MB of the 32MB *ROM*, and that the extra space is to ensure future CPU support, in case AMD expands the BIOS *size*."





__





						ASUS Crosshair VII Hero (AMD X470) Motherboard Review
					

The ASUS Crosshair VII Hero is one of few high-end motherboards with a solid legacy, lets see if it lives up to its name!




					www.tweaktown.com


----------



## rvalencia (May 25, 2020)

Mats said:


> Do you even understand what I was talking about? Hint: It was offtopic..
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...


Too bad for your argument, AMD has Zen 2 refresh.


----------



## Jayp (May 25, 2020)

bug said:


> With all that talk, AMD was about to do what their fans accuse Intel of: removing CPU support for no good reason.
> At least they reversed their stance quickly. But not quick enough for people not to notice where their heart truly is



The 16 MB limitation and the one way ticket to Zen 3 isn’t a good reason. They also said they had no plans but that didn’t mean it wouldn’t happen. At least Zen changes year after year. As it stands the X470 supports three generations of Zen. That’s more than Intel ever gives. Intel hasn’t actually changed their architecture since Skylake and Z170. Yet we have Z170, Z270, Z370, Z390 and a newly pinned Z490.


----------



## Mats (May 26, 2020)

rvalencia said:


> Too bad for your argument, AMD has Zen 2 refresh.


What's that got to do with what I said lol.


----------

