# Why no one has the right to be angry at AMD with regards to AM4



## JAB Creations (May 15, 2020)

Recently there was an uproar over AMD not being able to support all socket AM4 processors on all AM4 motherboards, namely the upcoming 4000 series. I have learned that perspective is critical to advancing in life and I feel that a lot of people completely lack that perspective. Before I continue I would like to clarify that while I have been cheering AMD since I realized many things I am not a blind-fanboy and am willing to criticize any business of any industry when it's _appropriate_.

Socket AM4 debuted in September 2016 and their stock was about $6 - *up* from $2 a share.
The stock for Asus in September 2016 was around was around $270, *45 times greater* than AMD.
AMD's market share around 2016 was below 20%.
AMD's margins on their products haven't been great for them.
AMD continued to lose market share when companies like Dell agreed to only sell Intel products.
Total knobs who only care about FPS and are incapable of critical thinking blindly bought Intel.
You're not a professional _anything_ unless you're getting *paid*.
Who was responsible for this? See my conclusion at the end.
Gamers Nexus recently posted a video about how it was the industry standard to use 16MB roms. As a developer that sounds like a ton of space (I don't use bloatware like jquery or other third party frameworks and libraries though I'm a rarity in that regards). As a business looking to make profit you can as a company completely reliant on other businesses go out and make demands to businesses that are literally 45 times your size. America is supposed to be a capitalist country though it has degraded largely in to cronyism - capitalism has checks and balances and the monopolies and mergers are a blatant sign that that corruption is completely rampant and only so because people are not holding government or businesses accountable which ultimately is from a lack of critical thinking.

Some more perspective:

At $2 a share and large amounts of debt AMD's focus on higher margin products was about saving the company.
If AMD would have gone out of business would you want to buy processors from Via to avoid the Intel tax? - Most people don't even know who Via is, kudos to those who _frigin read_.
While AMD was struggling to build up and away from oblivion people were complaining about no killer GPUs from AMD, one of if not the lowest margin products they could have sold.
Nvidia took the opportunity to jack their prices up to take advantage of the fact that AMD was not able to really compete.
Who was responsible for this imbalance in the market? Again, see my conclusion at the end.
AMD is not your friend or mine, they're a business that exists to make a profit. Because they've been forced to compete with Intel and to a lesser extent Nvidia they've made some great (and some no so great) decisions to remain competitive in the markets they compete in. Because of their innovations (64 Bit, dual/quad/oct/multi-core, etc) they have been the business to keep the market moving forward.

*Conclusion*

You get what you pay for. It is up to each individual to take the time to think critical and include the impact of their purchases on our world in to those purchasing decisions. If masses of people didn't blindly buy 4-to-1 ratio or held government and businesses accountable imagine what we would have today from all three of these businesses. And this isn't farming people. This is technology. If a company like AMD goes out of business that's it, *monopoly*. If you think the prices of the RTX 2000 series are ridiculous just wait until there has been no competition for years, let me give you a preview: Intel.

At the end of the day if you are not capable of critical thinking then you are overwhelmingly likely directly contributing to the businesses that are not only dishonest though sustain dishonest tactics in the markets that we here on these forums are very much a part of. Whether you think you can or can't - you're right. I have only found my success in life by the presumption that I am wrong because it is better to validate one's position than to blindly carry on wearing the emperor's new cloths. Of course those subject to the Dunning-Kruger effect will always think they are right by default and continue to be mad at everyone other than who is at fault: themselves.


----------



## R-T-B (May 15, 2020)

JAB Creations said:


> As a developer that sounds like a ton of space



Uh, it's not.  What on earth are you developing that can make do with that at the barebones level?  Windows has GIGABYTES of libraries supporting your little 2 meg exe, for perspective.  For a baremetal example, Linux's kernel is around 100-200MB's in most distros.


----------



## JAB Creations (May 15, 2020)

R-T-B said:


> Uh, it's not.  What on earth are you developing that can make do with that at the barebones level?  Windows has GIGABYTES of libraries supporting your little 2 meg exe, for perspective.



I'm not interested in self-promotion here though I will say I do _have a profile_.


----------



## R-T-B (May 15, 2020)

JAB Creations said:


> I'm not interested in self-promotion here though I will say I do _have a profile_.



All I can say is if you are doing BIOS/UEFI work you really know that's nothing.

My work here speaks for my experience in that department.

16MB's though, you get the opposite issue:  You end up with free space in most UEFI toolkits and strange things can happen or be taken advantage of then that are offtopic for this thread.  The truth is they need to bring back hardware write protect switches.

AMD's AGESA is exceptionally bloated though in that it does use the full 16MBs.  As such, they should've planned for that.


----------



## JAB Creations (May 15, 2020)

R-T-B said:


> All I can say is if you are doing BIOS/UEFI work you really know that's nothing.
> 
> My work here speaks for my experience in that department.
> 
> 16MB's though, you get the opposite issue:  You end up with free space in most UEFI toolkits and strange things can happen then that are offtopic for this thread.  The truth is they need to bring back hardware write protect switches.



Okay, so you're agreeing that AMD doesn't have enough to work with, thank you.

In regards to experience I'm not familiar with the work of others for the most part so I'm happy to read a bit of what you do?

I'm not familiar with hardware write protect switches.


----------



## tabascosauz (May 15, 2020)

The 16MB issue is nonsensical for a different reason. All of Gigabyte's boards have 16MB chips and they have no problems except for trading APU support for Matisse support, but that's all. Including their X570 boards, which will support Ryzen 4000. Compared to Asus and ASRock, Gigabyte's BIOSes are weird, clunky and inefficient, but they work; MSI's stripped-down-to-the-core 16MB UEFI are laughable by comparison. Not a surprise, considering that Click BIOS 5 is just Click BIOS 4 from seven years ago with the number changed.

That aside, I don't understand why this has you so worked up that you feel the need to write a whole post to defend AMD. Tell your friends how you feel, continue to buy AMD, but this whole wall of text?


----------



## R-T-B (May 15, 2020)

JAB Creations said:


> In regards to experience I'm not familiar with the work of others for the most part so I'm happy to read a bit of what you do?



I don't do much in the public sphere anymore, but I know bios modding inside and out and have threads in the mobo forums about scrubbing Intel Management Engine firmware from roms for security reasons.  I'm very involved in that effort.

Last public project was this I think:









						ASRock Z370/Z390 Taichi (and some others, actively modding!) Firmware with Intel Management Engine Disabled, new method
					

This is a new thread to remove the clutter from my old one, which can be found here:  https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/asrock-z370-z390-taichi-and-some-others-actively-modding-firmware-with-intel-management-engine-disabled.243939/  This is for new builds utilizing a new technique which...




					www.techpowerup.com
				




The real thing that strikes me as odd is that 8MB flash roms and 16MB flash roms are like pennies apart in cost, sometimes the 8MB rom even costs MORE.  It was an odd choice for Ryzen X370 boards, but that was long ago now.


----------



## DemonicRyzen666 (May 15, 2020)

People got to use to old AMD and Am2 on up. Where you could've went from Am2 - Am2+ - Am3 - Am3+.


----------



## silentbogo (May 15, 2020)

R-T-B said:


> Uh, it's not.  What on earth are you developing that can make do with that at the barebones level?  Windows has GIGABYTES of libraries supporting your little 2 meg exe, for perspective.


We're talking about moving around few KBs of microcode in a mostly empty and yet... still bloated firmware. I'm sure there was a convenient way to keep all CPU support and not cut RAID and other functionality on a mostly empty ROM. Simply, no one cared enough to spend extra time on optimizations.... not AMD, not OEMs. Bureaucracy at its best.
BTW 128Mbit is a shitton of space for a firmware. Just few years ago 64Mbit was enough to store a firmware, a backup copy of a firmware, a HW diagnostics mini-OS, all those fancy backgrounds, and still have tons of space left.



JAB Creations said:


> Recently there was an uproar over AMD not being able to support all socket AM4 processors on all AM4 motherboards, namely the upcoming 4000 series.


Socket AM4 is scheduled to go EoL this year, and it had a solid run already. There'll be angry idiots all the time, but with a 3-year heads-up that we had, there is no logical reason to be angry. 
If anything, we are lucky and should be thankful to get the fourth run on this platform right before its end.


----------



## R-T-B (May 15, 2020)

silentbogo said:


> We're talking about moving around few KBs of microcode in a mostly empty and yet... still bloated firmware.



There is.  AGESA is pretty bloated.



silentbogo said:


> BTW 128Mbit is a shitton of space for a firmware. Just few years ago 64Mbit was enough to store a firmware, a backup copy of a firmware, a HW diagnostics mini-OS, all those fancy backgrounds, and still have tons of space left.



Thank UEFI partially for the bloat, but only partially.  Intel Roms still come in around or under 8MBs.


----------



## jesdals (May 15, 2020)

I think the real issue hele is the B450 that until resent was promoted as Ryzen 4000 capable. MSI and others that made special MAX editions with Ryzen 3000 and beyond compatible motherboard. I have recently helped build both a MSI tomahawk and a mortar MAX. And was planning yet a mortar build. The most recent was with a 2700x because the 4000 Series where so close. All of those customers have a right to feel burned. But then again, my Vega II is a noter example, almost 2 months aften getting it - it was abandon by AMD.


----------



## silentbogo (May 15, 2020)

R-T-B said:


> Thank UEFI partially for the bloat, but only partially. Intel Roms still come in around or under 8MBs.


UEFI itself has nothing to do with bloat. Bloat itself does.
On both Intel and AMD sides the workflow is pretty similar: Intel or AMD ships firmware components, OEMs only put it together, add fancy UI that weighs more than firmware itself, tick a few checkboxes to enable/disable certain features, and that's pretty much it. Only the likes of Dell, HP and Apple spend actual time and resources on further firmware development and optimization.


----------



## IceShroom (May 15, 2020)

jesdals said:


> I think the real issue hele is the B450 that until resent was promoted as Ryzen 4000 capable. MSI and others that made special MAX editions with Ryzen 3000 and beyond compatible motherboard. I have recently helped build both a MSI tomahawk and a mortar MAX. And was planning yet a mortar build. The most recent was with a 2700x because the 4000 Series where so close. All of those customers have a right to feel burned. But then again, my Vega II is a noter example, almost 2 months aften getting it - it was abandon by AMD.


Well you can still update to a Ryzen 9 3950X on that MSI board.
And AMD still supports Vega. Which Vega card you are talking about??


----------



## R-T-B (May 15, 2020)

silentbogo said:


> UEFI itself has nothing to do with bloat. Bloat itself does.



The frameworks and modules and common source everyone uses, mostly provided by AMI, are indeed a factor.



silentbogo said:


> UEFI itself has nothing to do with bloat. Bloat itself does.
> On both Intel and AMD sides the workflow is pretty similar: Intel or AMD ships firmware components, OEMs only put it together, add fancy UI that weighs more than firmware itself, tick a few checkboxes to enable/disable certain features, and that's pretty much it. Only the likes of Dell, HP and Apple spend actual time and resources on further firmware development and optimization.



The Intel and AMD components are only part of it.  The base TianoCore firmware put out by Intel as an example is probably the most lightweight AMi based UEFI I know of and it's still way more bloated than the bios era.


----------



## ratirt (May 15, 2020)

tabascosauz said:


> hat aside, I don't understand why this has you so worked up that you feel the need to write a whole post to defend AMD. Tell your friends how you feel, continue to buy AMD, but this whole wall of text?


I don't think he is defending AMD nor any other company. I see a lot of people in the forums (not just TPU) are fixed on either Intel or AMD. If you say AMD did good with that, you must be a fanboy. If you agree with something one of the given companies did or is about to do, doesn't make you fanboy but you still need to be objective. This is his conclusion about how people fail to understand the business and blame others for their own decisions when something goes south. Also blindly going for one or the other (AMD or Intel) despite the fact that these are companies and they want to make profit not to care about every individual that buys their products or potential customer. People are losing their judgement and for a lot of them it is either AMD or Intel and they don't understand you can be that, nowadays, weird dude in the middle watching and drawing conclusions about the situation or any other stuff the companies are doing.
At least, that's how I take it.


----------



## Ultra Taco (May 15, 2020)

Don't have the right to feel angry? 

Depends..

Did AMD lead people to believe / tell people  their boards 470X would support ZEN 3? 

"AMD is not my friend" it's a business. True? We don't have a relationship personally as friends.

Though I have built every computer I've ever owned and of family & friends because I support AMDs' culture of user support, value, underdog, and the ability to upgrade. If they start behaving like intel, why wouldn't I chose Intel? I bought a an FX8350 when Haswell was clearly better. I buy fair trade coffee and shop local farms because I understand that in capitalism we vote with our $ more than anything. If AMD has lost it's way then I will change my vote.


----------



## GoldenX (May 15, 2020)

AMD promised 3 years, and delivered, besides, Zen3 is the last hurrah of AM4. It still feels like a dick move, but judging by my own experience with the MSI beta BIOS, I can understand them.
Hey, it's not like any vendor would sell the exact same product on 3 different sockets, right? Right.


----------



## tabascosauz (May 15, 2020)

ratirt said:


> I don't think he is defending AMD nor any other company.



I'm not sure many portions of that original argument could be taken as standing from the perspective of a middleman.



> Total knobs who only care about FPS and are incapable of critical thinking blindly bought Intel.



So I'm a total knob for buying Intel over the past 6 years because absolutely nothing out of AMD's entire K10 or K15 families was conducive to building <15L, balanced PCs for work,1440P gaming, and air travel?

And now I'm also a total knob for feeling a little taken aback that this is the end of the line for the B450 board I had just purchased, because "AMD is not my friend"? I'm not allowed to feel a _little_ frustrated that I fell for all the "AM4 is one happy family" advertising that AMD put out, and all the tech sites echoed for AMD? I'm not in the streets with a pitchfork, but I just have to swallow this turn of events because it's all in the interest of not having a monopoly?

It's an interesting rant, and that's about it. People are hardly "losing their [collective] judgment". The original post makes it sound like PC-building human beings have completely lost the ability to think for themselves and purchase products on the merits of the hardware.

And that "unbiased" argument goes right back at you. Intel's a Grade A scumbag for the OEM bribing scandal (which I'm sure is ongoing given Dell's non-reaction to Renoir). AMD dug themselves out of the hole that they put themselves into with a good amount of help from Intel. Now AMD has decided that it's time to look to expanding their margins. And I'm still supposed to support them for it, because otherwise, *monopoly. *I sure as hell missed K10.5 when Bull[shit]dozer took its place, but pick a line and stick to it.



> AMD is not your friend or mine, they're a business that exists to make a profit.



And I'll treat them as such, as I did when I had variously sized GCN 1.0-based GPUs because they were the right fit for my needs. Did I give a shit that Intel was pulling dirty tricks? No. Did I give a shit that Nvidia was jacking up the prices in the absence of competition? No. Did I give a shit that AMD was going under? No. Isn't that the correct attitude towards a profit-driven business?

When I see the endless mobs of red team simps foaming at the mouths occupying comment sections on hardware Youtube channels, I find it hilarious. I don't agree that people should have an unhealthy obsession with any company that thrives on making money off of you. I think you do make a valid point. But this entire post was an attempt at explaining while fanboyism is undesirable, yet labelling people in droves as fanboys for buying the products they did.

If it's a rant, it's a rant. I enjoy reading a good rant every now and then because there's a lot that I can relate to. But don't try and pass it off as some kind of enlightened proclamation. You don't get anywhere in a conversation (yes, this forum is a large network of loosely connected, sometimes incoherent conversations) by elevating yourself above other people.


----------



## JAB Creations (May 15, 2020)

tabascosauz said:


> I'm not sure many portions of that original argument could be taken as standing from the perspective of a middleman.
> 
> So I'm a total knob for buying Intel over the past 6 years because absolutely nothing out of AMD's entire K10 or K15 families was conducive to building <15L, balanced PCs for work,1440P gaming, and air travel?



I've been doing 4K gaming on an 8350 up until the end of 2019 and you can't pull it off at 1440? How are you a middleman when you're upset that you didn't get what you want while simultaneously not acknowledging the multitude of problems that AMD had to deal with?

middleman - appeal to the masses. Sometimes reality is highly biased, existence blatantly does not care about "equality" (I'm not for AMD or Intel or etc). This specific false argument is relative to what other people think - not what the companies being discussed are doing.

You're trying to elevate yourself by trying to argue that I have some need to elevate myself which I don't. If you feel burned then go and get a bunch of people and advocate for a separate bios to be made for your motherboards. Instead you're wasting time on the forums being upset that someone has pointed out the invalid aspect of your misplaced anger.


----------



## ratirt (May 15, 2020)

tabascosauz said:


> I'm not sure many portions of that original argument could be taken as standing from the perspective of a middleman.


That's the problem now and you can't seem to acknowledge it. If someone agrees with the company about something, he must be a fanboy because he agrees with what the company does or did in the past or is about to do, giving arguments supporting it. He used AMD as an example to show us what the problem is and what he has noticed. If he used Intel, would you have said he is defending Intel? I'm sure that would have been your answer.
You seem not to see the bigger picture and I do get why you don't see it. It is so common these days, people stop recognizing conclusions with an example of one company and conclusion about a bigger aspects, trying to show you what they are about. What's an argument without an example? People need to start recognizing what is the difference between, supporter, blind follower and conclusion giver with an example. This is something worth to think about especially when you have all of those given on a silver platter here on this forum.



JAB Creations said:


> I've been doing 4K gaming on an 8350 up until the end of 2019 and you can't pull it off at 1440? How are you a middleman when you're upset that you didn't get what you want while simultaneously not acknowledging the multitude of problems that AMD had to deal with?


You do realize that 4k gaming, requires less CPU power than 1080p or even 1440p (depending on the game) but rather more GPU power. It hasn't changed since. If he chose Intel that's his decision.
I remember people saying that the 4c4t or 4c8t is more than enough for gaming and people bought 7600k, 7700k when the price dropped. Now they wished they never did because some things have changed in gaming.


----------



## JAB Creations (May 15, 2020)

ratirt said:


> That's the problem now and you can't seem to acknowledge it. If someone agrees with the company about something, he must be a fanboy because he agrees with what the company does or did in the past or is about to do, giving arguments supporting it. He used AMD as an example to show us what the problem is and what he has noticed. If he used Intel, would you have said he is defending Intel? I'm sure that would have been your answer.
> You seem not to see the bigger picture and I do get why you don't see it. It is so common these days, people stop recognizing conclusions with an example of one company and conclusion about a bigger aspects, trying to show you what they are about. What's an argument without an example? People need to start recognizing what is the difference between, supporter, blind follower and conclusion giver with an example. This is something worth to think about especially when you have all of those given on a silver platter here on this forum.



AMD was forced in to their decision because they straight up have zero ability to encourage anything different, being literally 45 times smaller than Asus in example, forget about Intel.

Intel on the otherhand puts tons of their chips on _all their motherboards_. They are obsessed with preventing upgrades, they want to force people to do a rebuild (replacing the motherboard to upgrade a CPU is a rebuild, not an upgrade). WIFI, Nics, audio, just look at all those branded Intel chips on there.

Yes, AMD has done a few foolish things and I agree, blindly worshiping any company is just dumb. As I said earlier though the nature of the universe does not care about appeal the modestly or equality.

Now in a few years from now if AMD had AMD branded chips all over their motherboards I'd be the first to call them out on it. In fact I've never encountered anyone else who actually pointed out all those Intel branded chips on Intel motherboards and it's overwhelmingly blatant - you just have to look objectively.

I think AMD's best move is to encourage new separate bios builds and yes, I would say favor the motherboard manufacturers that are/have been helping maintain that high level of compatibility.

...but damn, AMD could bring back all the heroes of history to save the world but someone else gets lazy and now AMD is the new Intel overnight.


----------



## tabascosauz (May 15, 2020)

JAB Creations said:


> You're trying to elevate yourself by trying to argue that I have some need to elevate myself which I don't. If you feel burned then go and get a bunch of people and advocate for a separate bios to be made for your motherboards. Instead you're wasting time on the forums being upset that someone has pointed out the invalid aspect of your misplaced anger.



Misplaced anger?  I legitimately mean no offence when I say that you're throwing a lot of terms out there that just showcase your own strangely unfounded vitriol towards others. No, I'm not trying to elevate myself above other people. Just look at the opening sentence in your closing remarks. You've spent most of an entire post labelling others; what else would you call those sorts of remarks? They don't sound quite so unbiased or resigned-to-the-reality-of-the-product-market to me...

"_Total knobs who only care about FPS and are incapable of critical thinking blindly bought Intel._"
"_if you are not capable of critical thinking then you are...contributing to the businesses that are not only dishonest though sustain dishonest tactics in the markets that we here on these forums are very much a part of._"

These aren't my words, boss. Nevertheless, I found it interesting to read your thoughts on the matter. Good night.



ratirt said:


> That's the problem now and you can't seem to acknowledge it. If someone agrees with the company about something, he must be a fanboy because he agrees with what the company does or did in the past or is about to do, giving arguments supporting it. He used AMD as an example to show us what the problem is and what he has noticed. If he used Intel, would you have said he is defending Intel? I'm sure that would have been your answer.



No, that's not what I said. I made a passing remark questioning the necessity of all...this. Is this philosophy supposed to have some sort of impact on the masses, to bring about some sort of change in the groups of people that OP blames for the entire current state of the market?

And did I miss a seminar on new trigger words where they added "defend" to the list? Did he not seek to provide a reason for AMD's actions, albeit in a roundabout way? Did I *ever* accuse him of being a fanboy?

Yikes, can't even get a word in anymore without getting jumped on.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (May 15, 2020)

A year from now AMD's yet released Ryzen 3 (4000 series) will be out and reduced...you'll be able to get a 4600x for $170...
So shh


----------



## HD64G (May 15, 2020)

AMD can and should allow vendors to make UEFIs as they wish to. If they do so, most vendors will make UEFIs that support Zen2-3 CPUs and APUs on X470/B450 boards that would allow anyone with a Zen-Zen+ CPU or APU to upgrade. There wouldn't be any issue with the UEFI size then me thinks. I agree to not make UEFIs that have all AGESA codes for all Zen gen CPU and APU if that is not possible due to rom size but not allowing vendors to make UEFIs for their boards is another thing entirely that makes AMD look VERY bad towards their customers. And it will be only their fault. I hope they will change mind on that as they did with Zen2 and X470/B450 that didn't have support officially but was done by the vendors in the end.


----------



## Melvis (May 15, 2020)

Yeah we do


----------



## ratirt (May 15, 2020)

JAB Creations said:


> AMD was forced in to their decision because they straight up have zero ability to encourage anything different, being literally 45 times smaller than Asus in example, forget about Intel.


I think, AMD was forced to make a decision quick and pick the best option there was. I think AMD did right and stayed aside to figure out strategy. It payed off if you look at all the products they have now. I'm sure AMD picked the best option there was.


----------



## silentbogo (May 15, 2020)

JAB Creations said:


> AMD was forced in to their decision because they straight up have zero ability to encourage anything different, being literally 45 times smaller than Asus in example, forget about Intel.


AMD as an underdog is an old beat-up argument. It's a big-ass multi-billion dollar corporation which has been around for over 50 years. Most of their recent mishaps boil down to mismanagement or misadvertising. Don't get me wrong - they are still doing a great job in terms of hardware, but whenever something goes wrong in other areas - they seem to be unable to get their shit together.


----------



## ratirt (May 15, 2020)

tabascosauz said:


> No, that's not what I said. I made a passing remark questioning the necessity of all...this. Is this philosophy supposed to have some sort of impact on the masses, to bring about some sort of change in the groups of people that OP blames for the entire current state of the market?
> 
> And did I miss a seminar on new trigger words where they added "defend" to the list? Did he not seek to provide a reason for AMD's actions, albeit in a roundabout way? Did I *ever* accuse him of being a fanboy?
> 
> Yikes, can't even get a word in anymore without getting jumped on.


You said that he is defending AMD didn't you? Where is that lead? It was an example. It is not about if you called him a fanboy or not. You still didn't get it but instead you fight back with "i didnt say that" etc. He is not blaming anyone for the current state of the market.
Nobody jumps on you nor anything. If someone disagrees or you don't seem to understand a person's perspective it is so common people say "jumped on" "put words in my mouth" "accusations". it is really crappy. You didnt get what he was trying to say and that is all in that matter.


silentbogo said:


> AMD as an underdog is an old beat-up argument. It's a big-ass multi-billion dollar corporation which has been around for over 50 years. Most of their recent mishaps boil down to mismanagement or misadvertising. Don't get me wrong - they are still doing a great job in terms of hardware, but whenever something goes wrong in other areas - they seem to be unable to get their shit together.


Yeah I agree with that. The underdog is an overstatement. You get a 10 mil company and people see it as a big one and then you have 1b company and it becomes an underdog because it competes with 100b company. AMD is doing fine and they are doing great work with their CPUs products. If someone considered AMD a black sheep in the CPU business would have been much closer to the truth than an "underdog" that's for sure.


----------



## the54thvoid (May 15, 2020)

I want to step in over all this chat and offer this:

AMD said they would suport socket AM4 through Zen (pretty much). And they are doing that. Clap, clap, clap, well done AMD.

BUT (and I don't like big buts, sorry, sir Mixalot), the implication of that (to the layperson) is that any socket AM4 mobo (built to a specified power delivery) should support future AM4 CPU's. That's why I bought the most expensivce AM4 mobo from Asus at the time - for long term AM4 compatibility.

Contrast with Intel - new CPU, new socket (or enough of a revision to change mobo). AMD played their PR against that.

If you say you will support AM4, it implies it's compatible with all those AM4 CPU's. Otherwise, AMD should have called it AM4, AM4.1, AM4.2 etc - to inform us the actual compatibility would diminish. It's disingenuous to say AM4 and not have it support an AM4 CPU.

That's why folk are peeved. (I'm peeved, not pissed).


----------



## dyonoctis (May 15, 2020)

JAB Creations said:


> Intel on the otherhand puts tons of their chips on _all their motherboards_. They are obsessed with preventing upgrades, they want to force people to do a rebuild (replacing the motherboard to upgrade a CPU is a rebuild, not an upgrade). WIFI, Nics, audio, just look at all those branded Intel chips on there.
> 
> Yes, AMD has done a few foolish things and I agree, blindly worshiping any company is just dumb. As I said earlier though the nature of the universe does not care about appeal the modestly or equality.
> 
> Now in a few years from now if AMD had AMD branded chips all over their motherboards I'd be the first to call them out on it. In fact I've never encountered anyone else who actually pointed out all those Intel branded chips on Intel motherboards and it's overwhelmingly blatant - you just have to look objectively.


Just a FYI, those intel chips are also used on AMD motherboard. every single wifi 6 x570 motherboard is using an Intel chip, and most 1Gb rj45 are from Intel, and they seem to be the best option out there. Intel is more than just a cpu maker, they have business in memory and networking.

AMD is just too small right now to expand beyond cpu/gpu/compute. (They did had amd radeon branded memory at some point, but it was nothing more than a sticker.)

That subject was already turn in everyway possible, but humans being humans, we can't just agree on a common outcome.
Some are saying it's greed, since the chipset business seems to be so profitable (?).
Other are saying that they want to avoid the mess of having to deal with all the people buying 400 series Motherboard but not having a compatible cpu on hands, and avoid the zen 2 buggy launch.
Other want AMD to just suck it up, and support zen 3 no matter how bad the earlier uefi might be.
Other pointed out how confused some people might be about the selective compatibility. What are you going to tell to early buyers of msi 400 boards ?

The only thing that we can say for sure is that AMD marketing was too optimistic, and should have been more cautious. People would have been happy with a 2019 estimate, instead of that 2020*
*But subject to roadmap change.


----------



## arbiter (May 15, 2020)

Lets be real this is an AMD screw up, before releasing 400 series boards and even 300 series boards they would seen bios storeage limits would be coming in to play very soon. They could told board partners to put a bigger chip to support larger bios or do 2 seperate bios as said in video. One bios for 1000-3000 series parts then one for 3000-4000 parts. There is no way they didn't see this coming with 3000 series launch AT LEAST.

Anyone tries to spin it on to intel, Intel been doing it for many years so its EXPECTED to happen. My guess is AMD said some point support would be there but they randomly had to back track now and MSI did kinda step out on the limb with that advert.


----------



## ratirt (May 15, 2020)

the54thvoid said:


> I want to step in over all this chat and offer this:
> 
> AMD said they would suport socket AM4 through Zen (pretty much). And they are doing that. Clap, clap, clap, well done AMD.
> 
> ...


I don't think AMD said, that the AM4 socket will support all new processors in generations to come. They have said AM4 will support new processors for about 3-4 years as I recall and it did. It was to counter the tech society starting to be fed-up with Intel's idea, new CPU (sometimes a refresh) new mobo. That is exactly what @JAB Creations mentioned about people blaming a company for their own decisions.
It is not small, they evaluate the opportunities and how much profit they will get out of this. I don't get why people think a company like AMD is considered incapable of making right decisions? It is not an underdog and I think it is pretty clear. If they dropped a project, that would mean they didn't see profit in that or wanted to focus on something more stable and with more perspective for the future.
With the 400 series boards. What's the problem with that? new processors require Bios update. You can't release a new CPU that will work on an older board without any Bios update. Besides, this is not and AMD to blame but board vendors since they haven't thought this through? I've got an x470 board with 2700x CPU and it is all good so I'm not sure what you are after. Or maybe i misunderstood what you were trying to say. Clue me in if you'd like.



arbiter said:


> Lets be real this is an AMD screw up, before releasing 400 series boards and even 300 series boards they would seen bios storeage limits would be coming in to play very soon. They could told board partners to put a bigger chip to support larger bios or do 2 seperate bios as said in video. One bios for 1000-3000 series parts then one for 3000-4000 parts. There is no way they didn't see this coming with 3000 series launch AT LEAST.


They meaning who? AMD? They produce CPUs with specs for the vendors. if the MOBO vendors don't equip the boards with libraries for the future processors  upon release, or they don't have space for doing so, because they didn't think about it or didn't wanted too, how is that AMD's fault? Isn't it obvious that the processor range of products is growing with every gen which is supporting the same socket and vendors should have known about it? I think they did know very well.


----------



## Flanker (May 15, 2020)

dyonoctis said:


> Some are saying it's greed, since the chipset business seems to be so profitable (?).


I'm wondering about this too. How much do they actually get from these chipsets?


----------



## dyonoctis (May 15, 2020)

arbiter said:


> Lets be real this is an AMD screw up, before releasing 400 series boards and even 300 series boards they would seen bios storeage limits would be coming in to play very soon. They could told board partners to put a bigger chip to support larger bios or do 2 seperate bios as said in video. One bios for 1000-3000 series parts then one for 3000-4000 parts. There is no way they didn't see this coming with 3000 series launch AT LEAST.
> 
> Anyone tries to spin it on to intel, Intel been doing it for many years so its EXPECTED to happen. My guess is AMD said some point support would be there but they randomly had to back track now and MSI did kinda step out on the limb with that advert.


Another hypothesis was that when AMD worked on Ryzen, they weren't in a position to make any kind of premium demands. They were this close to go bankrupt, Bulldozer was awfull, and nobody thought that ryzen was going to be as good as it is now.


----------



## HTC (May 15, 2020)

Question: how many TPUers are using *unsupported CPUs* due to lack of chipset support with their *B350 / X370 boards, and even A320 boards*?

I ask because, according to this:







None of those board's chipsets support *Ryzen 3000 series CPUs* without Radeon Graphics.

Also: notice the date on that slide: May 7th 2020 ...


----------



## the54thvoid (May 15, 2020)

HTC said:


> Question: how many TPUers are using *unsupported CPUs* due to lack of chipset support with their *B350 / X370 boards, and even A320 boards*?
> 
> I ask because, according to this:
> 
> ...



Yeah, good point. My Asus CH6 X370 supports my 3700X.


----------



## HTC (May 15, 2020)

the54thvoid said:


> Yeah, good point. My Asus CH6 X370 supports my 3700X.


In page two of this topic alone, besides you, there's @dyonoctis : both of you MUST be lying because AMD's slide i posted clearly states those CPUs are NOT supported ... 

Dunno what your agenda is for spreading this false information so please kindly fill in your systems specs with supported hardware only ...

J/K ...


----------



## Bill_Bright (May 15, 2020)

tabascosauz said:


> It's an interesting rant, and that's about it.


I agree. With a lot of bias along with some misinformation thrown in. 

So speaking of rants, here's mine. 



JAB Creations said:


> AMD continued to lose market share when companies like Dell agreed to only sell Intel products.


That never happened! For one, this goes back to 2006 and before, not 2016 and what happened is Intel offered significant incentives in the form of discounts and rebates the more Dell (and HP and IBM among others) used Intel processors. Very much in the same way Taco Bell and KFC mostly or even exclusively sells Pepsi products while Coke dominates at McDonalds and Subway. Dell NEVER agreed to sell only Intels and never did sell only Intels. While Intels clearly led the marketshare that was also driven greatly by consumer demand - buyers of prebuilt computers wanted "Intel Inside". 



JAB Creations said:


> AMD was forced in to their decision because they straight up have zero ability to encourage anything different, being literally 45 times smaller than Asus in example, forget about Intel.


That's bullsh!t! As silentbogo said, 


silentbogo said:


> AMD as an underdog is an old beat-up argument. It's a big-ass multi-billion dollar corporation which has been around for over 50 years.


Talk about total knobs and incapable of critical thinking? Where's yours here, JAB C? And where's your homework? 

45 times smaller than ASUS? Bullsh!t! Sorry, but that just demonstrates a total knob understanding of the market. I don't know where you pulled that 45 out of but it is clearly, and grossly wrong. Are you suggesting the price per share reflects the net worth of a company? If so,   !!! Are you familiar with Bing Google?

ASUSTek market cap = $5.14B USD (153.75B TWD @ 1 USD = 29.94 TWD )
AMD market cap = $63.84B USD

And what do you think drives Intel to continue to innovate and pour $billions into R&D? Its clearly due to AMD constantly nipping at the heels of Intel with their own innovations, keeping the fires of fear burning in Intel that AMD might leapfrog over them - again. 

Oh, and speaking of 2016 to present, see https://www.cpubenchmark.net/market_share.html



			
				JAB Creations said:
			
		

> "Total knobs who only care about FPS and are incapable of critical thinking blindly bought Intel."


 



JAB Creations said:


> You're not a professional _anything_ unless you're getting *paid*.


Bullsh!t!!!! So all of us in this forum who have worked years and even decades working professionally in various fields within IT are not professionals after all?  I might suggest you look up the definition of "volunteer" and "charity work". It might give you a better attitude towards others and even help with your critical thinking skills before going off on any more rants. 



			
				Jab Creations said:
			
		

> I ... am willing to criticize any business of any industry when it's _appropriate_.


And apparently when inappropriate too. 

For the record, I have the Right to be angry at any company I want - as long as my reason for being angry is a valid one. And that may be just because I like blue better than red, although green is my favorite, by far.  But should I decide to criticize them, then it should be, first and foremost, factual and for something objective, not subjective.


----------



## Flaky (May 15, 2020)

Flanker said:


> I'm wondering about this too. How much do they actually get from these chipsets?


Probably not much, otherwise we'd see at least some chipsetless AM4 boards in retail, with I/O barely better than what AM1 platform provided.


----------



## londiste (May 15, 2020)

HTC said:


> Question: how many TPUers are using *unsupported CPUs* due to lack of chipset support with their *B350 / X370 boards, and even A320 boards*?


This slide is different from the one back then. 300-series chipsets were marked as optionally supported on Ryzen 3000 launch slides. Basically that AMD provides the code/AGESA and it is up to manufacturer if they want to implement it. The current slide is in decidedly different language.


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (May 15, 2020)

JAB Creations said:


> AMD is not your friend



This is the exact argument that should have stopped you from making this post.


----------



## HTC (May 15, 2020)

londiste said:


> *This slide is different from the one back then. 300-series chipsets were marked as optionally supported on Ryzen 3000 launch slides.* Basically that AMD provides the code/AGESA and it is up to manufacturer if they want to implement it. The current slide is in decidedly different language.


That's not the point: the point is that this AMD May 2020 slide says Ryzen 3000 series without Radeon Graphics are NOT supported by X370 / B350 / A320's chipset, even though there are a lot of people using said CPUs with boards using the chipset present in these boards, this very topic included.


----------



## TheLostSwede (May 15, 2020)

No need to argue semantics here. AMD will NOT allow for Ryzen 4000 CPU support on any chipset older than the X570. I don't know about the APUs, but I've had this confirmed by friends that work for the motherboard makers.
This means there won't be support in the AGESA for a Ryzen 4000 CPU running on an X470 board for example.
AMD has for whatever reason made this decision and without AGESA support, there's nothing the board makers can do.
The only way to change this, might be to petition AMD to change their mind.

As far as Ryzen 3000 on 300-series chipsets goes, there's no lockout in the AGESA, so the board makers can implement this if they want to.


----------



## ratirt (May 15, 2020)

TheLostSwede said:


> No need to argue semantics here. AMD will NOT allow for Ryzen 4000 CPU support on any chipset older than the X570.


AMD never promised that so if it doesn't support like you say, is that really a problem? It's been 3 years already of the AM4 being backwards compatible. I know, if they find a way, people will complain about problems, issues and God knows what. Blaming AMD for it. It's just not fair. AND some people say Intel is better becase it makes new gen (pff new ?) gets a new chipset and that is at least fair? C'mon.
Im sceptic about it now. Maybe AGESA will have that (btw that is cool) and have it on older platforms is an overstrech. AMD kept it's promise new chipset is coming I hope. New chipset new possibilities. 
At least, i think that is for the best.


----------



## TheLostSwede (May 15, 2020)

ratirt said:


> AMD never promised that so if it doesn't support like you say, is that really a problem? It's been 3 years already of the AM4 being backwards compatible. I know, if they find a way, people will complain about problems, issues and God knows what. Blaming AMD for it. It's just not fair. AND some people say Intel is better becase it makes new gen (pff new ?) gets a new chipset and that is at least fair? C'mon.
> Im sceptic about it now. Maybe AGESA will have that (btw that is cool) and have it on older platforms is an overstrech. AMD kept it's promise new chipset is coming I hope. New chipset new possibilities.
> At least, i think that is for the best.


From what I have been told, there won't be any new DDR4 compatible premium chipsets from AMD. I.e. there is no X670. That doesn't mean there won't be new chipsets made by their partners, such at B550, so maybe we get a B650 in the future.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (May 15, 2020)

Secret is ,I am always angry.


After realising my crosshair hero seven has a 256Mb ROM I await the greatness that might be Ryzen 4 with no baited breath at all, but they're better be something un doable on x470.

Well looks like this rigs getting a few years in after all.

To be honest I think mattise 2 is the lineup for year's end now with zen 3 coming in 2021 with new motherboards etc.

Perhaps the Rona is doing damage to timetables.


----------



## TheLostSwede (May 15, 2020)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> Secret is ,I am always angry.
> 
> 
> After realising my crosshair hero seven has a 256Mb ROM I await the greatness that might be Ryzen 4 with no baited breath at all, but they're better be something un doable on x470.
> ...


You won't have to wait that long for Matisse 2, it's June/July...
Not sure what it'll bring though.


----------



## Decryptor009 (May 15, 2020)

The only issue i have is that they mentioned they would support these processor on older revision boards, if they had not, nobody would be entitled to have a go, but for that reason, they made the rod for their own back.


----------



## ChristTheGreat (May 15, 2020)

Actually, AM4 has 4 gen CPU supported right now.

Bristol (Well, all serie in the A**)
Summit (Ryzen 1000)
Pinacle (ryzen 2000 and variant iGPU)
Matisse (Ryzen 3000 and Variant iGPU)

Still, 4 gen CPU on AM4, which is not bad at all.

I would say we have to wait, maybe there is a reason why the 4000 wouldn't be compatible?


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (May 15, 2020)

I bought a 2600x with an ASRock Pro 4 ATX about 10 days before we found out b450's won't support AMD 4000 series cpu's back when MSI was still telling us that a b450 was going to work.
AMD never clarified at that point and they should have.
I'm not mad about it. The 2660x on this b450 performs fantastically and I'm happy I bought it.
However....
I went out and bought a x570 so I could still have an upgrade path.
If I hadn't been able to do that...I still wouldn't be mad


----------



## Decryptor009 (May 15, 2020)

jmcslob said:


> I bought a 2600x with an ASRock Pro 4 ATX about 10 days before we found out b450's won't support AMD 4000 series cpu's back when MSI was still telling us that a b450 was going to work.
> AMD never clarified at that point and they should have.
> I'm not mad about it. The 2660x on this b450 performs fantastically and I'm happy I bought it.
> However....
> ...


We mirror each other except i never bought an x570 board, though i may well do and grab a 3700X down the line, mean while though the 2600X is still a very good choice.


----------



## xrror (May 15, 2020)

TL;DR
It still sucks though, I'd have thought at the very least 4xx boards would be supported because most makers (except MSI) had enough sense to not shortchange that badly that gen.

It IS shit if the _only_ reason that pre 5xx boards can't support upcoming chips is due to rom size. Especially since NOT everyone was MSI and kept fitting 16mb roms until they started losing sales because they couldn't support anything newer than 2000 series. 

Nevermind that there are other 3xx and 4xx boards with ... wait for it... a bigger than 16mb eeprom.

Plus even if you stay with the 16mb limitation it's not like AMD couldn't remove the block of code for the old piledriver APU's. I'm no bios programmer but surely the overlap between the old Piledriver and Ryzen code blocks might not be so much that the legacy block couldn't be removed? But hey I'll give benefit of a doubt and maybe you can't free "enough" space that way... although since there won't be anything past 4000 gen it would still be a worthwhile project for them - they'll never have to support anything newer on AM4! So if they did make a 4000 firmware in 16mb they'd be set until AM4 is retired.

No what this more feels like is AMD throwing a bone to mobo makers (and themselves - no need to validate all those old boards now!) to both push some new chipsets and try and leverage PCIe gen4 as a marketing bullet (which _might _be relevant 3 years after they make the last AM4 board) . That and there is still a bad taste of some older boards (mostly 3xx) that still don't even run 2000/3000 Ryzen correctly (can't handle ram speeds over 3000) and maybe AMD is trying to keep mobo makers happy since they'll need all the help they can get when AM5 releases.* *the fight will begin for real whenever Intel is able to actually get their next gen core/process together into a real product. The later that is - the better for AMD.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (May 15, 2020)

Decryptor009 said:


> We mirror each other except i never bought an x570 board, though i may well do and grab a 3700X down the line, mean while though the 2600X is still a very good choice.


TBH...I also ended up getting a 3600 as well.
i wasn't going to but I was very curious about NVMe PCI-E 4.0 x4 ...But a 2600x doesn't have PCI-E 4.0...and then Newegg sent out an eBlast with $10 off a 3600.


----------



## Decryptor009 (May 15, 2020)

jmcslob said:


> TBH...I also ended up getting a 3600 as well.
> i wasn't going to but I was very curious about NVMe PCI-E 4.0 x4 ...But a 2600x doesn't have PCI-E 4.0...and then Newegg sent out an eBlast with $10 off a 3600.


PCI-E 4 is supported on my Aorus Elite in the bios, i am not sure if it is full support (Supports Ryzen 3000 from the get - go), but it is in the bios regardless... as an option. I had to manually set PCI-E 3.0 with this system with the 5700-XT because it would cause intermittent crashes in any game i ran.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (May 15, 2020)

Decryptor009 said:


> PCI-E 4 is supported on my Aorus Elite in the bios, i am not sure if it is full support (Supports Ryzen 3000 from the get - go), but it is in the bios regardless... as an option. I had to manually set PCI-E 3.0 with this system with the 5700-XT because it would cause intermittent crashes in any game i ran.


I have yet to have an Intel board come with retarded default settings (not counting voltage) but with few exceptions every AMD board I've had has.
I get it.. the card is 4.0...it should have the proper setting set by the cpu regardless


----------



## DemonicRyzen666 (May 15, 2020)

This issue shouldn't be just AM4 users people seem to forget trx40 has different pin out from x399 for Threadripper 1900 series and 2900 seres. Threadripper 3000 series only with in Trx40_boards. Considering those people spent far more for a board they should've complained just as much, but they didn't. They can't upgrade at all to 3000 series on x399. Having far less users overall means complaints would matter more imho. Then there is also the argument that they can afford it too.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (May 16, 2020)

DemonicRyzen666 said:


> This issue shouldn't be just AM4 users people seem to forget trx40 has different pin out from x399 for Threadripper 1900 series and 2900 seres. Threadripper 3000 series only with in Trx40_boards. Considering those people spent far more for a board they should've complained just as much, but they didn't. They can't upgrade at all to 3000 series on x399. Having far less users overall means complaints would matter more imho. Then there is also the argument that they can afford it too.


Now I think that's a stretch they definitely did not say TR would retain socket's or compatibility afaik.


----------



## Athlonite (May 16, 2020)

Personally I wouldn't care if Asus removed compatibility for Zen1 and 2 from my Strix X470F-Gaming mobo's BIOS inorder to give me Zen 3 and 4 compatibility


----------



## maxfly (May 16, 2020)

How many people would have bothered with a 400 series mb if amd had released the 550 mbs closer to the 570s?


----------



## Hyderz (May 16, 2020)

so 300,400,500 series chipset support up to zen 2? 300,400 chipset wont support zen 3?
only 500 and up chipset support zen 3? i can understand not supporting 300 series but
400 series owners yikes... but what is the main reason? socket limitations? or generate more sales for mb vendors?


----------



## Totally (May 16, 2020)

Hyderz said:


> so 300,400,500 series chipset support up to zen 2? 300,400 chipset wont support zen 3?
> only 500 and up chipset support zen 3? i can understand not supporting 300 series but
> 400 series owners yikes... but what is the main reason? socket limitations? or generate more sales for mb vendors?









They just got shortchanges 1 generation, not really yikes considering we don't know the  difference between 3000 and 4000 is enough to warrant an upgrade, and even then will the 4000 present enough value to justify upgrading compared to 3000 series pricing then.


----------



## JAB Creations (May 16, 2020)

silentbogo said:


> AMD as an underdog is an old beat-up argument. It's a big-ass multi-billion dollar corporation which has been around for over 50 years. Most of their recent mishaps boil down to mismanagement or misadvertising. Don't get me wrong - they are still doing a great job in terms of hardware, but whenever something goes wrong in other areas - they seem to be unable to get their shit together.



Being a "big-ass multi-billion dollar corporation" doesn't negate the underdog status and they literally still are. We enthusiasts are only a small portion of the market and Intel and Nvidia are still have largely disproportionate market shares. I have learned very strikingly that people have a very high tendency to not comprehend the positions of others. For a lot of us $1,000 might be a lot of money and then we remember how life comes along and says "nope!" and how it's _not_ a lot of money. People might think that having a billion in the bank or being worth many billions of dollars is a lot of money though when their version of life comes along and says, "nope!" we're not talking about the inability of an individual to take their family on a much needed family vacation or to take care of a pressing health issue. In this regards specific to AMD we're talking about technology in which if we ended up with a monopoly would be exceptionally difficult to return to even a duopoly. The vast majority of qualified businesses would not find themselves making a profit to justify the investments to enter in to the market and we'd all be stuck blowing $600 on Celerons.

Don't get me wrong for a moment, they're out to make profit (just like I am in my own way) though we still need competition to keep society healthy. It's the individual's responsibility to release their place in the greater scheme of things otherwise we end up with a monopolized corrupted society and we've already got the second half.

No single rain drop thinks it is responsible for the flood.


----------



## Countryside (May 16, 2020)

What people need to understand is how little this has to do with the hardware and how much it has do to with marketing this is purely a business decision.

If you look at my system i cant buy an b550 mobo beacause of my cpu is not supported and i will not buy a new cpu because there is no reason for it, its a pefectly working 2 year old cpu so my only option is to buy an expensive x570 board.


----------



## puma99dk| (May 16, 2020)

What @tabascosauz said in the start of this thread AMD promissed 3 years support and they delievered only sad part is they talked about X370/B350 and I don't think they did about the B450 but it's a shame but I understand when AMD choose to go forward with things you can't keep old things around even when the B550 might be the last socket AM4 board and Zen3 uses something new.

Look at Intel been using LGA1151 for a long time but using their tick tock system it's like people blindly accept they can only do 2 generations and they have to buy new CPU and board at least AMD kept AM4 around since Feb 2017 and that's over 3years and I feel that's like an age for hardware.


----------



## Bronan (May 16, 2020)

R-T-B said:


> Uh, it's not.  What on earth are you developing that can make do with that at the barebones level?  Windows has GIGABYTES of libraries supporting your little 2 meg exe, for perspective.  For a baremetal example, Linux's kernel is around 100-200MB's in most distros.


lol for a bios that is alot of space .... just learn to read properly

Back on topic they held their initial promise and gave the users of the x370 almost 3 years no need for upgrade to a newer motherboard.
That AMD does want to make a new motherboard for the upcoming new release might have a reason they do not want to reveal yet.
But i actually decided to go for AMD when this newer boards are widely available, so i am totally not angry about them changing to a new socket because there can be legit reasons todo so.
And if it does not have any legit reason i still would not whine but if AMD does start to act like Intel and start selling new boards and sockets by every release then i will become angry.
Because that is what Intel is doing, if you look at the chinese market you see motherboards supporting cpu which according to Intel never could have been run on that same motherboard.
Hell they even make boards which runs dual cpu's on a total wrong sounding motherboard its almost a miracle that it actually works.
Each time Intel launches with every new release a new chipset which in my view actually could have been used by the 4 previous releases as well.
So fact is Intel does do the Intel on every generation and forces to buy a new set even if you do not need it at all.
These new releases are acutally not needing a new socket at all but guess what they simply play with the pins again by that AGAIN force you to buy a new motherboard as well.
So again there is absolute no need for a new design motherboard at all for the last 4 released generations but ofcourse that is not intels law.
The law says every new release must also sell a new chipset and preferred also alot of other chips to make even more profit.
Even though there is actually almost nothing changed besides a small processor speed update. 



HD64G said:


> AMD can and should allow vendors to make UEFIs as they wish to. If they do so, most vendors will make UEFIs that support Zen2-3 CPUs and APUs on X470/B450 boards that would allow anyone with a Zen-Zen+ CPU or APU to upgrade. There wouldn't be any issue with the UEFI size then me thinks. I agree to not make UEFIs that have all AGESA codes for all Zen gen CPU and APU if that is not possible due to rom size but not allowing vendors to make UEFIs for their boards is another thing entirely that makes AMD look VERY bad towards their customers. And it will be only their fault. I hope they will change mind on that as they did with Zen2 and X470/B450 that didn't have support officially but was done by the vendors in the end.


You are making a massive mistake here vendors can not adopt anything new in a bios without the knowledge of AMD.
Do you really think they are capable to bypass changes to a socket and or do have the knowledge to change the hardware so that the need for a new socket disappears
Time will tell if there is a good reason why AMD chooses todo this.
Some chinese developers do that but allways on older models who are almost obsolete for modern usage.


----------



## Vayra86 (May 16, 2020)

JAB Creations said:


> Being a "big-ass multi-billion dollar corporation" doesn't negate the underdog status and they literally still are. We enthusiasts are only a small portion of the market and Intel and Nvidia are still have largely disproportionate market shares. I have learned very strikingly that people have a very high tendency to not comprehend the positions of others. For a lot of us $1,000 might be a lot of money and then we remember how life comes along and says "nope!" and how it's _not_ a lot of money. People might think that having a billion in the bank or being worth many billions of dollars is a lot of money though when their version of life comes along and says, "nope!" we're not talking about the inability of an individual to take their family on a much needed family vacation or to take care of a pressing health issue. In this regards specific to AMD we're talking about technology in which if we ended up with a monopoly would be exceptionally difficult to return to even a duopoly. The vast majority of qualified businesses would not find themselves making a profit to justify the investments to enter in to the market and we'd all be stuck blowing $600 on Celerons.
> 
> Don't get me wrong for a moment, they're out to make profit (just like I am in my own way) though we still need competition to keep society healthy. It's the individual's responsibility to release their place in the greater scheme of things otherwise we end up with a monopolized corrupted society and we've already got the second half.
> 
> No single rain drop thinks it is responsible for the flood.



Your topic is a good reminder and wake up call. But at the same time, lots of problems AMD has around releases are not ever about money or being an underdog at all.

It is always, eternally, every single god damn time about COMMUNICATION.

They suck massively at it, plans change last minute or things get axed with no advance notice. And then, to make matters worse, they pile on with some driver and BIOS confusion to solidify the idea things are not perfect at all. That is fine, one time. A second time can be forgiven. But with AMD, its company culture.

I'm not fixed to any camp, blue green red, and if yellow comes around I'll take a long look too. But I don't reward companies that perform below par or drop the ball with my hard earned cash. I did already build several Zen rigs. I would now, since the latest release also recommend these CPUs for general gaming over Intel. Things do change, but they do it on MY pace based on MY view of a company. Not because the market somehow demands it for 'balance' or 'to do my part'. In that sense, I'm not touching AMD GPUs with a ten foot pole yet, completely unreliable. If they can produce a few good generations with no crappy events and drivers, I'll reconsider. Hopefully they get the memo with RDNA2, because the first iteration was again pretty shaky.



Countryside said:


> What people need to understand is how little this has to do with the hardware and how much it has do to with marketing this is purely a business decision.
> 
> If you look at my system i cant buy an b550 mobo beacause of my cpu is not supported and i will not buy a new cpu because there is no reason for it, its a pefectly working 2 year old cpu so my only option is to buy an expensive x570 board.



Its always about business and anyone thinking otherwise is deluded. Intel is no different in that regard.


----------



## londiste (May 16, 2020)

Bronan said:


> Each time Intel launches with every new release a new chipset which in my view actually could have been used by the 4 previous releases as well.
> So fact is Intel does do the Intel on every generation and forces to buy a new set even if you do not need it at all.
> These new releases are acutally not needing a new socket at all but guess what they simply play with the pins again by that AGAIN force you to buy a new motherboard as well.
> So again there is absolute no need for a new design motherboard at all for the last 4 released generations but ofcourse that is not intels law.
> ...


There are things to be said and opinions to be had about how Intel deals with motherboards and chipsets but ignoring the facts is not a good way to go at it.

Intel changes socket every 2 generations and that is usually 2 years:
2011 - s1155 - Sandy Bridge/Ivy Bridge
2013 - s1150 - Haswell/Broadwell
2015 - s1151 - Skylake/Kaby Lake
2017 - s1151v2 - Coffee Lake/Coffee Lake Refresh
2020 - s1200 - Comet Lake/Rocket Lake

There are changes in Haswell's s1150 (primarily FIVR) that would make socket not very compatible with SandyBridge/IvyBridge's s1155. This was reversed for Skylake with a similar effect.

This has advantages from both Intel and motherboard manufacturers perspective. Everyone knows what to expect. Intel keeps the two CPU generations close enough that issues from socket mid-lifetime release are smaller (not without problems if you remember PCIe 2.0 > PCIe 3.0 for example). Manufacturers know they need to rebuild BIOS halfway through board lifetime and that the socket has a defined lifetime. All of this is very convenient for all the involved parties as they know exactly what to expect. And this includes users.

The usual situation broke down in 2017 and continues to be broken because Intel does not have new CPUs. They have new generation with more cores and more recently also vulnerability fixes, but the new generation has been waiting for 10nm ever since. This makes it true that technically s1151 and s1151v2 could support the same CPUs and probably s1200 as well. If I were a motherboard manufacturer though, I would be very careful with wanting to do that - because of power requirements mostly. Skylake and Kaby Lake were fine with TDPs, anything after that and power consumption blew up in the high end (which is what you need to keep in mind when releasing a motherboard). s1200 boards make it very obvious with quite powerful VRMs on all boards so far.

One of Intel's faults there is perception - keeping the s1151 as socket. They could have done s1152 and the outcry would have been much smaller. Yes, enthusiast crowd would still scream at them but all the problems with choosing the compatible CPU/motherboard combination in all the forums and questions etc would not be common as they are now.

That 4 generations (or maybe 6) could be on one socket/platform is pretty unique and only because the architecture used in the CPU generations is almost exactly the same.
Does anyone really believe Intel does it to sell chipsets? This sounds pretty bullshit argument. They make far more profit on any CPU than a chipset.

Now, supporting an old platform over a long time has downsides.
- Cost. You are building BIOSes for chipsets that are old. For each of them you are building the BIOS for a larger number of CPUs. This adds complexity and testing must be hell.
- You need to keep the compatibility in mind. You cannot make technical changes that would break the platform in any way. You cannot improve some things because you need to keep everything working.
- No doubt motherboard makers are not very happy. On one hand, they cannot sell new motherboards. On the other, they need to support old motherboards much longer. Both add cost to manufacturer.
Even if you do this and keep a platform for long, some things will end up slightly broken at one point. There will be compatibility breaks somewhere in the middle of platform lifetime. Think about how older platforms addressed these issues, for example AM2/AM2+, AM3/AM3+, LGA775 or Socket 370.


----------



## IceShroom (May 16, 2020)

londiste said:


> 2013 - s1150 - Haswell/Broadwell


Correction : LGA1150 only supported 1 generation. Broadwell desktop only came to some limited market.


----------



## puma99dk| (May 16, 2020)

IceShroom said:


> Correction : LGA1150 only supported 1 generation. Broadwell desktop only came to some limited market.



It was still released that made it 2 generations no matter if it wasn't world wide or not you cannot denied that.


----------



## IceShroom (May 16, 2020)

puma99dk| said:


> It was still released that made it 2 generations no matter if it wasn't world wide or not you cannot denied that.


Tenchically they supported it, but with only 2 SKU and limited release it makes Broadwell nonexistence.


----------



## Bill_Bright (May 16, 2020)

Changing sockets does not bother me a bit. That's because the odds are, some other technology has come along or made significant advancements since the board came out. For example, why would I spend a bunch of money on the latest and greatest CPU if the board only supported (just for illustrative purposes) USB 2.0? Or DDR3? Or some other advancement in the state-of-the-art, or some new technology that became standard since that board was made? 

So if I am buying the latest and greatest CPU, I know I will want "all" the other latest and greatest technologies motherboard makers offer too. And I will save my pennies until I can do that. Point being, I'm going to be buying a new motherboard (and most likely, RAM) anyways. So why care about the socket? If the budget is limited (as it always is), I might keep my current graphics card, case, drives, cooler and PSU, then upgrade them as the budget allows. 

If I really want to upgrade just the CPU on a current build, odds are there is a more powerful CPU in a supported family I can buy and use - for now. Then have it hold me over until I can afford a new CPU/motherboard/RAM bundle that will really move me closer to that cutting edge I'm seeking.


----------



## londiste (May 16, 2020)

This would actually be an interesting question for the poll on TPU main page - how often do you upgrade your CPU and/or motherboard?


----------



## John Naylor (May 16, 2020)

JAB Creations said:


> Recently there was an uproar over AMD not being able to support all socket AM4 processors on all AM4 motherboards, namely the upcoming 4000 series. I have learned that perspective is critical to advancing in life and I feel that a lot of people completely lack that perspective. Before I continue I would like to clarify that while I have been cheering AMD since I realized many things I am not a blind-fanboy and am willing to criticize any business of any industry when it's _appropriate_.



No doubt some were hoping to be able to use new CPus in older boards. But one  of those reasons is fanboism itself.   Most of the post i see trashing Intel have standard list of issues they say makes Intel better than AMD.  These include:

a)  More cores 
b) Smaller die size 
c) Intel makes you change MoBos with new CPU releases.


----------



## freeagent (May 16, 2020)

I get a kick out of the uproar lol. Users are like, but you promised! AMD is like, well, we need more money. You have the moneys we needs. Users are like, waahh! Intel is like, mwaha we have cookies.


----------



## Decryptor009 (May 16, 2020)

freeagent said:


> I get a kick out of the uproar lol. Users are like, but you promised! AMD is like, well, we need more money. You have the moneys we needs. Users are like, waahh! Intel is like, mwaha we have cookies.


Business first, though fairness is something that should be considered when dealing with consumers.
Consumers are an issue too because all they want to do is consummmme and never think of the issues that has in and of it's self.


----------



## TheLostSwede (May 16, 2020)

Vayra86 said:


> Your topic is a good reminder and wake up call. But at the same time, lots of problems AMD has around releases are not ever about money or being an underdog at all.
> 
> It is always, eternally, every single god damn time about COMMUNICATION.
> 
> ...


One thing I've hopefully learnt from this is, don't be an early adopter of AMD hardware. They do seems to fix most of the stuff, but with my current rig, it took the better part of three months. Next time, I won't be so quick to jump in, that's for sure, but at the same time, it hasn't put me off AMD hardware. Admittedly I haven't used one of their graphics cards in something like the past 10 years, for various reasons and it seems like they still need to spend a lot more time and resources on their drivers, from what I can tell.


----------



## Bill_Bright (May 16, 2020)

londiste said:


> This would actually be an interesting question for the poll on TPU main page - how often do you upgrade your CPU and/or motherboard?


I don't think it would be useful. Businesses typically establish 5 year plans, for example, and might replace hardware on a timetable schedule. But I personally don't know any users (including enthusiasts) who do. 

For myself and others I know, we upgrade when our current setup no longer meets our needs (perhaps forced by some failure), or when some new technology comes out we can't live without. Not because X number of months have passed. 



freeagent said:


> AMD is like, well, we need more money.
> Intel is like, mwaha we have cookies.


Nah! Not true at all. All companies (even non-profits) have the same goal - make money. And all companies have the goal to grow. If a company cannot grow and keep up with the times and technologies, they will fail. And all companies have the goal of not failing.


----------



## xrobwx71 (May 16, 2020)

Bill_Bright said:


> I don't think it would be useful. Businesses typically establish 5 year plans, for example, and might replace hardware on a timetable schedule. But I personally don't know any users (including enthusiasts) who do.
> 
> For myself and others I know, we upgrade when our current setup no longer meets our needs (perhaps forced by some failure), or when some new technology comes out we can't live without. Not because X number of months have passed.
> 
> Nah! Not true at all. All companies (even non-profits) have the same goal - make money. And all companies have the goal to grow. If a company cannot grow and keep up with the times and technologies, they will fail. And all companies have the goal of not failing.


Spot on Bill.


----------



## delshay (May 16, 2020)

Question:

Are any of the AM4 motherboards BIOS in a socket, or are all soldered to motherboard. Just need one or two users to post answer.


----------



## TheLostSwede (May 16, 2020)

delshay said:


> Question:
> 
> Are any of the AM4 motherboards BIOS in a socket, or are all soldered to motherboard. Just need one or two users to post answer.


Some have one of the chips in a socket. This is a bit off topic though, no?


----------



## delshay (May 16, 2020)

TheLostSwede said:


> Some have one of the chips in a socket. This is a bit off topic though, no?


[

Not really off topic because if it's in a socket & the rom is too small all the end user has to do is purchase a pre-programmed firmware from said company.

You may want to read this, so hold on users.


__
		https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/gkgmwf


----------



## TheLostSwede (May 16, 2020)

delshay said:


> [
> 
> Not really off topic because if it's in a socket & the rom is too small all the end user has to do is purchase a pre-programmed firmware from said company.
> 
> ...


No, sorry, but it's not that simple. AMD won't add support in the AGESA for the combination of 4000-series CPUs on any chipset prior to X570.
The board makers have been told it's a no go.
Sure, someone might be able to hack something together, but it's not likely to work reliably.


----------



## delshay (May 16, 2020)

TheLostSwede said:


> No, sorry, but it's not that simple. AMD won't add support in the AGESA for the combination of 4000-series CPUs on any chipset prior to X570.
> The board makers have been told it's a no go.
> Sure, someone might be able to hack something together, but it's not likely to work reliably.



Maybe so, but they could do something along the lines of trade in your old motherboard & buy the newer one at a discounted price. Let's see if Lisa SU can change anything to help end users.


----------



## TheLostSwede (May 16, 2020)

delshay said:


> Maybe so, but they could do something along the lines of trade in your old motherboard & buy the newer one at a discounted price. Let's see if Lisa SU can change anything to help end users.


Sure, but that's something entirely different. Doubt it'll happen though.


----------



## Bronan (May 16, 2020)

Guess i am not a consumator i actually use since 1 month a 8700k the old still fantastic 6700k on a z170 board still works pretty darn well.
I have stopped wanting the newest and fastest because this only means a minor improvement for a incredible price tag which i have no actual need for.
The only reason i bought the 8700k for is that it can speedup certain tasks related to backup and storage.
I actually would love to see a much faster storage system which really is faster and by that not in idiot synthetic benchmarks but real world faster.
Ofcourse i am a bit spoiled because i have been working on systems with a massive raid storage devices which was build around multiple raid controllers with insane speeds but for home usage that is far above my budget. The price of one of these controllers alone cost more than i got for my whole pc budget


----------



## newtekie1 (May 16, 2020)

I know I'm late to the party, and frankly I'm not going to read 4 pages of posts, I don't have the time.  So, if what I say has been discussed, I'm sorry.

I think the uproar is not that they can't support all the processors at once, it's that they outright refuse to support the 4000 series on the 400 chipset boards.  There seems to be no technical reason they can't, they are just choosing not to in an effort to force people to buy new motherboards. Yes, there are limitation with BIOS size, but we've already hit that and addressed work-arounds.  Using x470 as an example, it technically supports all the processors from the 1000 series up to the 3000 series, but most motherboards can't do it all at once.  In fact, using my x470 Taichi Ultimate as an example, it has different BIOSes for different processors and warns you not to use certain BIOSes with certain CPUs.  And there is always a cross-over with the BIOSes.  So if I say had a 1700 and wanted to upgrade to a 3700, I could but it wouldn't be as easy as just swapping out CPUs.  I'd have to upgrade the BIOS to one that supports the 1000 and 2000 CPUs.  Then swap in a 2000 cpu, then flash the BIOS to one that supports 2000 and 3000 CPUs, then put in the 3700.  It's annoying, but works, and is better than outright not supporting newer processors.

Now, do I really have a right to be mad at AMD for not supporting the 4000 CPUs on my x470 chipset?  No, not really.  The 400 chipsets came out along side the 2000 CPUs, and then I got support for 3000 CPUs.  So I got 2 CPU generations out of one chipset, which Intel has made pretty par for the course.  But AMD kind of hyped themselves up here, so they are deserving of some anger.  Part of their marketing has been better platform longevity.  Now the 400 series platform is only seeing 2 CPU generations, so it turns out it's not any longer lived than an Intel platform at this point.  If there was a technical reasoning behind it, like the socket is actually changing, then OK.  But this comes down solely to a software lockout, which is pretty scummy on AMD's side given their previous marketing.  And it is a very Intel thing to do, which has a lot of people disappointed.*  IMO, if they are going to market longer platform life compared to Intel, each platform should see support for at least 3 CPU generations after it is released. So the 400 chipsets should work with 2000, 3000, and 4000 CPUs.

*Not me though, because if you actually look at history, AMD is just as bad as Intel when they can be.


----------



## TheLostSwede (May 16, 2020)

newtekie1 said:


> I know I'm late to the party, and frankly I'm not going to read 4 pages of posts, I don't have the time.  So, if what I say has been discussed, I'm sorry.
> 
> I think the uproar is not that they can't support all the processors at once, it's that they outright refuse to support the 4000 series on the 400 chipset boards.  There seems to be no technical reason they can't, they are just choosing not to in an effort to force people to buy new motherboards. Yes, there are limitation with BIOS size, but we've already hit that and addressed work-arounds.  Using x470 as an example, it technically supports all the processors from the 1000 series up to the 3000 series, but most motherboards can't do it all at once.  In fact, using my x470 Taichi Ultimate as an example, it has different BIOSes for different processors and warns you not to use certain BIOSes with certain CPUs.
> 
> ...


Fair comment, although I'm not sure they deserve anger, but a bit of a scolding, sure. 
From what they've said publicly and from what I've been told off the record, yes, this is an AGESA/software lockout. 
However, there might be more things that we don't know at this point.
It also seems like AMD wants people to use their PCIe 4.0 CPUs/APUs with PCIe 4.0 compliant motherboards. Sure, it's a bit of a lame excuse but hey...
They did over hype the longevity, but we also don't know what's cooking at AMD. Maybe next year 16 cores will be mainstream and some older boards won't be able to cope, but this is just a wild guess on my side. 
Time will tell if there is something more to this than what we know right now.


----------



## newtekie1 (May 16, 2020)

TheLostSwede said:


> Fair comment, although I'm not sure they deserve anger, but a bit of a scolding, sure.
> From what they've said publicly and from what I've been told off the record, yes, this is an AGESA/software lockout.
> However, there might be more things that we don't know at this point.
> It also seems like AMD wants people to use their PCIe 4.0 CPUs/APUs with PCIe 4.0 compliant motherboards. Sure, it's a bit of a lame excuse but hey...



I think a small amount of anger is due, I'm not saying rake them over the coals.

I think they just want to sell more chipsets and boards to make more profit while also not wanting to deal with the tech support of people that can't figure out what BIOS they should be using or doing that whole "loan a CPU" think again.

Honestly, if I was AMD, I'd put out the full update that supports all CPUs and let the motherboard manufacturers flounder for using low capacity BIOS ROMs.  Let ASUS and AsRock and MSI and Gigabyte etc, explain why their boards can't handle the new CPUs and why their decision to save 25¢ on a part for a $200 motherboard means their customers can't upgrade to the latest generation of CPUs.



TheLostSwede said:


> They did over hype the longevity, but we also don't know what's cooking at AMD. Maybe next year 16 cores will be mainstream and some older boards won't be able to cope, but this is just a wild guess on my side.



Even in that case, it doesn't really matter, that is on the motherboard manufacturers to test what their boards can handle and post CPU support lists.  I've certainly got plenty of boards that won't support CPUs that are out right now that technically work, but the board just can't handle the power draw.  It isn't AMD's decision in that case to limit an entire generation of chipsets just because a few weaker boards might not handle the power requirements.


----------



## Vario (May 16, 2020)

First,
If you really want the new CPU, then sell the old board and old CPU.  Buy a new board and CPU.  Not as big a deal as its made out to be.  You can often sell the old board on eBay for the basis price, there is that much demand for working mint old motherboards.  If you keep the motherboard in mint condition and the box, manual, disks, antistatic bag, IO panel, the motherboards do not lose value.  If the new motherboards do not support the old CPUs, then it will ensure the old motherboards retain value.
Second,
CPUs gain like 5 to 10% performance at the most between generations.  The idea of upgrading a CPU each and every generation (all while staying on the same motherboard) is an insane waste of money.  Go out a few years before upgrading CPUs, and then at that future time, it makes sense to get a new motherboard, newest generation of ram, newest generation of SSD storage, and so forth.
Third,
There is a bit of irony that one of the more annoying to read AMD fanboy talking points was the supposed upgrade-ability of AM4 motherboards for every Ryzen generation going forward, and yet we find it had roughly the same longevity as Intel.


----------



## Khonjel (May 16, 2020)

Nobody has the right to tell consumers what and what not to be angry at. Frankly speaking people defending AMD even now are buncha corporate simps.


----------



## Bill_Bright (May 16, 2020)

Khonjel said:


> Frankly speaking people defending AMD even now are buncha corporate simps.


Gee whiz. That's just stupid.


----------



## TheLostSwede (May 16, 2020)

Khonjel said:


> Nobody has the right to tell consumers what and what not to be angry at. Frankly speaking people defending AMD even now are buncha corporate simps.


So what do you gain from going around being angry at something you can do absolutely nothing about? 
I mean, do you think it's acceptable to send threatening emails to AMD staff because of this? As some people clearly do.
Yes, it's fine to be pissed off about it in a forum thread or two, but how long is ok to go around being furious over something like this?
I fully understand why some people are miffed about this, but there's a limit to how far you're allowed to take it.


----------



## Vayra86 (May 16, 2020)

newtekie1 said:


> I know I'm late to the party, and frankly I'm not going to read 4 pages of posts, I don't have the time.  So, if what I say has been discussed, I'm sorry.
> 
> I think the uproar is not that they can't support all the processors at once, it's that they outright refuse to support the 4000 series on the 400 chipset boards.  There seems to be no technical reason they can't, they are just choosing not to in an effort to force people to buy new motherboards. Yes, there are limitation with BIOS size, but we've already hit that and addressed work-arounds.  Using x470 as an example, it technically supports all the processors from the 1000 series up to the 3000 series, but most motherboards can't do it all at once.  In fact, using my x470 Taichi Ultimate as an example, it has different BIOSes for different processors and warns you not to use certain BIOSes with certain CPUs.  And there is always a cross-over with the BIOSes.  So if I say had a 1700 and wanted to upgrade to a 3700, I could but it wouldn't be as easy as just swapping out CPUs.  I'd have to upgrade the BIOS to one that supports the 1000 and 2000 CPUs.  Then swap in a 2000 cpu, then flash the BIOS to one that supports 2000 and 3000 CPUs, then put in the 3700.  It's annoying, but works, and is better than outright not supporting newer processors.
> 
> ...



I reckon the core of the issue is not so much the fact it is or is not supported, but that the suggestion existed it probably would be, and AMD did nothing, until the very last moment (launch!) to change that idea.

They knew damn well what was going to happen long before we did. And that is the key here. Communication. Managing expectations and your PR properly, and not ripping your potential customers a new hole with empty promises. However unrealistic they might have been, or vague. It was up in the air and AMD profited off that, but now gets the backlash.

Its only fair really. I also can completely imagine how the pessimist would view this: the immediate kneejerk response is 'Omg, they're just like Intel after all, now that they have sales'.... Its really unfortunate but pessimists tend to be right. AMD can easily prove them wrong by communicating more clearly on their socket approach going forward. But... that is also shooting themselves in the foot, because it reveals strategy. Bottom line... maybe even they are reconsidering their approach right now. After all, if it does not benefit the company, why do it.



TheLostSwede said:


> One thing I've hopefully learnt from this is, don't be an early adopter of AMD hardware. They do seems to fix most of the stuff, but with my current rig, it took the better part of three months. Next time, I won't be so quick to jump in, that's for sure, but at the same time, it hasn't put me off AMD hardware. Admittedly I haven't used one of their graphics cards in something like the past 10 years, for various reasons and it seems like they still need to spend a lot more time and resources on their drivers, from what I can tell.



Oh yes... early adopting is a recipe for frequent headaches. I've learned a while ago that trailing the new stuff by one or a half gen is the best way to go. Stuff is readily available, patched up and good to go, and the price is not quite as inflated. And on top of that you get an idea for widespread adoption which in tech is another huge thing. Its good to be part of the herd, more users is more bug fixing and maintenance, and therefore quality.



Khonjel said:


> Nobody has the right to tell consumers what and what not to be angry at. Frankly speaking people defending AMD even now are buncha corporate simps.



The reasons do or do not apply to you. We each have our own truths, its good to hear others from time to time, to get inspired


----------



## newtekie1 (May 16, 2020)

Vayra86 said:


> I reckon the core of the issue is not so much the fact it is or is not supported, but that the suggestion existed it probably would be, and AMD did nothing, until the very last moment (launch!) to change that idea.
> 
> They knew damn well what was going to happen long before we did. And that is the key here. Communication. Managing expectations and your PR properly, and not ripping your potential customers a new hole with empty promises. However unrealistic they might have been, or vague. It was up in the air and AMD profited off that, but now gets the backlash.
> 
> Its only fair really. I also can completely imagine how the pessimist would view this: the immediate kneejerk response is 'Omg, they're just like Intel after all, now that they have sales'.... Its really unfortunate but pessimists tend to be right. AMD can easily prove them wrong by communicating more clearly on their socket approach going forward. But... that is also shooting themselves in the foot, because it reveals strategy. Bottom line... maybe even they are reconsidering their approach right now. After all, if it does not benefit the company, why do it.



I believe a big part of it too is that people view AMD as "the good guys" that don't do evil things like Intel.  I know better, I remember history and know that it repeats itself.  Now that they are ahead, they are proving once again that they'll do exactly what their fans have bashed Intel for for years.  At least with Intel there was socket improvements over the years that explained why new boards were necessary.  But AMD is doing an outright software lockout, which is even worse than what Intel does.


----------



## TheLostSwede (May 16, 2020)

Vayra86 said:


> Oh yes... early adopting is a recipe for frequent headaches. I've learned a while ago that trailing the new stuff by one or a half gen is the best way to go. Stuff is readily available, patched up and good to go, and the price is not quite as inflated. And on top of that you get an idea for widespread adoption which in tech is another huge thing. Its good to be part of the herd, more users is more bug fixing and maintenance, and therefore quality.


I wasn't going to be that cautious, only three to six months after launch  



newtekie1 said:


> I believe a big part of it too is that people view AMD as "the good guys" that don't do evil things like Intel.  I know better, I remember history and know that it repeats itself.  Now that they are ahead, they are proving once again that they'll do exactly what their fans have bashed Intel for for years.  At least with Intel there was socket improvements over the years that explained why new boards were necessary.  But AMD is doing an outright software lockout, which is even worse than what Intel does.


Please list out what those socket improvements were from LGA-1155 to now.
Intel didn't need a new socket to go from PCIe 2.0 to PCIe 3.0.
Intel didn't need a new socket to add more SATA 6Gbps ports.
Intel didn't need a new socket to add more cores.
Intel didn't need a new socket to add USB 3.x.
Intel didn't need a new socket to add NVMe support.
Intel didn't need a new socket to add faster memory support.

New chipsets and other changes to the motherboard, yes.
But not a new socket, as there's no significant pin changes, so getting more interfaces for the CPU is not part of the problem here.
Yes, the new sockets were "needed" due to Intel changing the power domain inside the CPUs, but beyond this, all of the new features are related to new chipsets, as most of what I listed above was introduced on second generation CPUs/chipsets on the same socket.


----------



## Vayra86 (May 16, 2020)

TheLostSwede said:


> I wasn't going to be that cautious, only three to six months after launch
> 
> 
> Please list out what those socket improvements were from LGA-1155 to now.
> ...



Small caveat. If you want to push those new features, you will require new chipsets in the wild and the socket change is a perfect way to force that to happen.

It enables business cases for, for example, new storage media.


----------



## TheLostSwede (May 16, 2020)

Vayra86 said:


> Small caveat. If you want to push those new features, you will require new chipsets in the wild and the socket change is a perfect way to force that to happen.
> 
> It enables business cases for, for example, new storage media.



Now that's an entirely different kettle of fish though. But this is exactly what AMD is now getting shit for. They want to push the platform forward, much like what Intel has done, but some of AMD's customers, seemingly disagree and are calling AMD out over it...  

Yes, AMD failed from a marketing perspective, but we shouldn't pretend as if a new socket is the only reason why Intel has progressed its platforms forward, as it wasn't a true requirement, but rather the way Intel implemented it.


----------



## Vayra86 (May 16, 2020)

TheLostSwede said:


> Now that's an entirely different kettle of fish though. But this is exactly what AMD is now getting shit for. They want to push the platform forward, much like what Intel has done, but some of AMD's customers, seemingly disagree and are calling AMD out over it...
> 
> Yes, AMD failed from a marketing perspective, but we shouldn't pretend as if a new socket is the only reason why Intel has progressed its platforms forward, as it wasn't a true requirement, but rather the way Intel implemented it.



Yep, well I've always been an advocate of the idea that you buy a board with a CPU because the two do tend to last equally long, even if its not your main rig anymore, why separate them to find a new buddy... Also the idea that the board will age less quickly than a CPU is... a bit strange. A board is much more prone to failure than a CPU in every single way, it will also go obsolete faster as new standards arrive.

This affects the way people purchase stuff though. If your base notion is that a board will be having multiple CPUs, you start off with the goal not of finding the optimal CPU you can ever find, but one 'that will do for now' and gets resold down the line. Its not my cup of tea, as it seems rather wasteful.


----------



## newtekie1 (May 16, 2020)

TheLostSwede said:


> Please list out what those socket improvements were from LGA-1155 to now.
> Intel didn't need a new socket to go from PCIe 2.0 to PCIe 3.0.
> Intel didn't need a new socket to add more SATA 6Gbps ports.
> Intel didn't need a new socket to add more cores.
> ...



In short:

Going from 1155 to 1150 the socket was redesigned to simplify trace routing.
Going from 1150 to 1151 unused pins were repurposed to add Displayport output from the iGPU.
And going from 1151 to 1151(300 Chipsets) more power delivery pins were added to support higher core count CPUs.


----------



## TheLostSwede (May 16, 2020)

newtekie1 said:


> In short:
> 
> Going from 1155 to 1150 the socket was redesigned to simplify trace routing.
> Going from 1150 to 1151 unused pins were repurposed to add Displayport output from the iGPU.
> And going from 1151 to 1151(300 Chipsets) more power delivery pins were added to support higher core count CPUs.


Those are still fairly minor things. Sure, simplifying trace routing makers for easier board designs, so it's a good thing, but did it require a socket change? Most likely not. 
Unused pins being repurposed happens all the time, so no big deal.
The last one is questionable, as some people have modded older boards to work with newer CPUs, but sure. I'm not convinced it required Intel locking out older parts, as AMD didn't have to do it for AM4 where we've gone from eight to 16 cores.


----------



## xrror (May 16, 2020)

For those using the transition of ThreadRipper from TR4 to sTR4 as a justification - at least in that instance there was a fundamental improvement to the platform to justify the incompatibility. And at least it made some sense - those looking in the HEDT market probably are less price sensitive to having to buy a new mobo in the name of retaining more raw performance that otherwise might have been sacrificed to keep compatibility. Basically it's probably worth an extra $300 to not take a hit of say 20% performance.

That's not the case with AM4.

Honestly I'd be more sympathetic if they DID break compatibility for perf but unless there is some sort of "magic sauce" between 5xx chipsets and Ryzen 4xxx there's no reason for this other than worrying about validating on older boards that were honestly crap even back in the day. And that to me sounds like "not wanting to anger mobo makers that made subpar 4xx boards."

Like incompatible 3xx boards I can understand, Ryzen 1xxx wasn't pushing 3800 memory. But Ryzen 2xxx boards (4xx) come on - should at least do 3200.

But like others say AMD is the smaller fish by far, and they need all the help they can get from mobo makers so this seems more like a PR move to them.


----------



## Bones (May 16, 2020)

newtekie1 said:


> I know I'm late to the party, and frankly I'm not going to read 4 pages of posts, I don't have the time.  So, if what I say has been discussed, I'm sorry.
> -SNIP-



Same here, I'm not reading through all that. 

I'll remind folks Intel did the exact same thing with Socket 775 at one time. 

I own a 775 board (DFI Infinity P965-S Dark) that literally has two different BIOS files you can use, depending on what gen chip you'd want to run in it. One version supports the older gen chips and of course the newer chips have a different BIOS to support them.

It's also a matter of supporting features the newest boards would come with, I mean naturally you'll have advancements of the tech and so on..... 
Hey, it happens.

The older Ryzen chips may not be capable of supporting these newer functions fully or at all and the board makers are doing it partially to mitigate any complaints about certain boards features "Not working" when in fact it would be it's the chip, one that cannot support such functions/features. 
They would be the ones having to "Make it right" while not being able to do much if anything about it if the customer wanted to reuse the same chip - Same situation - Same result.

It's a simple fact: 
If you sell a board with features it woudn't make sense to "Gimp" it by supporting chips that won't fully support the new features, only to turn around and deal with all the griping over it being that way. If the board has them, folks when they buy them expect them to be fully functional, not gimped as described for any reason and no way they could justify it either. 

And don't try to convince me some of you woudn't be on the front lines over it if and when it happens - I know better than that already. 

I guess that's what Intel did with 775 and _I certainly don't recall_ any villages/castles getting burned down over it.

Nuff said - _Done_.


----------



## robot zombie (May 16, 2020)

Vario said:


> First,
> If you really want the new CPU, then sell the old board and old CPU.  Buy a new board and CPU.  Not as big a deal as its made out to be.  You can often sell the old board on eBay for the basis price, there is that much demand for working mint old motherboards.  If you keep the motherboard in mint condition and the box, manual, disks, antistatic bag, IO panel, the motherboards do not lose value.  If the new motherboards do not support the old CPUs, then it will ensure the old motherboards retain value.
> Second,
> CPUs gain like 5 to 10% performance at the most between generations.  The idea of upgrading a CPU each and every generation (all while staying on the same motherboard) is an insane waste of money.  Go out a few years before upgrading CPUs, and then at that future time, it makes sense to get a new motherboard, newest generation of ram, newest generation of SSD storage, and so forth.
> ...


Haha, I read this as I looked down at my 3900X/X370 rig. Honestly, I wasn't expecting it to work. I considered it good luck. I was happy that I was able to do that. I got that board open box for $120, with good features and solid VRM's. Came with everything and I still have it all.

But at the very same time, I was saying that if it didn't work, I'd just swap it for an X570. The old board is still pristine, I could've gotten enough to make the X570 pretty affordable. To me, it's one of those things where if you can keep a mobo through an upgrade, that's great, but if not, what am I really gonna do about that but try to figure out the best way to proceed, if at all? So I agree, not really that bad to swap mobos. On principle I think we swap them more than should be necessary, but if you do it right, the only part that hurts is re-routing power cables.

Never thought this board would see 3 gens of Ryzen in it, but it did! Not a bad deal, for me. I paid $120 for a board that took all of these chips, from Zen to Zen 2. Feel like asking for more is kinda pointless. Like... shit man that's pretty good if you ask me!

That said, I might have a different mindset than some. I'm not really hardcore at all, but I go through parts just for fun - I like to be working inside cases, seeing what things can do for myself, so for me buying and replacing them is just par for the course. I'm not gonna sit here and act like all I want is a good computer. I'd be a fool to spend literal thousands just to do that. I just take em, use em, and flip em.

I think some people just aren't honest with themselves about that, and let certain things trickle in too much. They know they probably don't need all of the upgrades... they want them but can't afford them and feel like they're being blocked out. And on principal it is annoying when you can't combine things for no obvious reasons. Now you gotta buy more parts. But I might ask why you're looking at buying new parts for a year-old machine. Does it really need the upgrade? If not, cool. I make pointless upgrades just because I want it and I can find a way to make it happen. But to me that's always gonna cost some serious money. I've done builds on the side to pay for parts, or sometimes I just save up for a while. When an unused part I have is good for the build I'm doing, I get to cut them a deal and recoup my entry fee. It's a niche hobby. Most people don't want/care about this shit like we might. I'm trying to remember a time when it was ever really cheap or practical to be always working on your PC. The only way it was ever cheap was to shop smart, trade, buy used, and when you're done run it till it's obsolete. That's not new. It's an expensive hobby. There's always a game to play, getting into this stuff. The ones who stick around know what I'm saying.

So I get the frustration, but at the same time feel like if you want to REALLY go after AMD for stuff like this, you have to point the finger at everyone in the game for like the past 2 decades. To criticize it and want it to be better, knowing it probably can be, I can get behind. The straight outrage, not so much. That stuff is for the kids. Like any other company, AMD does some good and some bad. I've supported them for the past couple of years because I really do like their products. If I feel like that's not the case anymore, I'm not sticking around complaining. I'm just going to find another way to get what I want, or hang on to my money until there's more. To me, it's all extravagant. None of it is really needed. I just want it. If you want me to list the things I want but can't have, it'll be the longest post I ever write.

Kinda getting OT, but I think the climate is just different. This hobby, like most other tech hobbies, has been inundated with people ages 19-23ish, who previously would've had a much harder time engaging with it. Not really a dig on them or anything, but their outlook might be missing certain things that those with more experience (in life, even) are past the point of even looking at. Not to mention their finances and how they make things work for them are different. Engaging with PC building is different for them, because of the point they're at in their lives. This is the crowd you see most on places like Reddit and Youtube, even forums (though it seems like forums are more geared to NOT be that - the last bastion of the old ways.) They may say a lot of things that people who've been in it, who've had the experience and dealt with things they wouldn't know about, would look at and say "What is this guy talking about??"

Obviously can't say that about everyone. I think there are people here in that demographic who see this as well as the rest.

Anybody know what I mean here? I'm trying not to be mean about it. I think new people are good. But a lot of the popular opinions out in many tech communities are coming from greener people, and those people are sustaining opportunities for information outlets and people making hardware. What is important to them is going to be talked about more, even if others who have been around more don't care as much. They are a new driving force, talking A LOT about gear, generating interest and creating markets.

They all market a lot more towards that crowd, and the media favors them more, too. Same thing has happened in the audiophile world. Lots of younger dudes out there with less disposable income, soaking up the media that drew them in and basing opinions around that more than anything else. Then they gather and talk and it's all made that much more real. But at the end of the day it's chatter from those who for the most part know only what they have read. They want flashy stuff that has it all, measures perfect, and doesn't cost $10000... in sphere where for a long time that wasn't done much at all. Companies do try to sell them a lot of stuff, but most of that stuff still is not what it's made out to be, and somehow everyone is always surprised. PCs aren't that different IME. Same attitude floating around as the new headphone dorks. I say just move on and don't worry too much about it, because those of them who stick around will eventually branch out beyond shit people say on reddit and buzz fed to them by their favorite reviewers, who are the ones doing the most to inform their decisions. It's kind of an interesting climate. I think quite misguided a lot of times, but I also think the face and general ecosystem of the hobby is changing quite a lot. This is what you get when you take a niche and expensive interest and broaden it out across the net. You're going to have that crowd that comes in swinging like that, knowing how they want their hobby to be, but really having no way of knowing quite how it actually is... yet.


----------



## Vario (May 16, 2020)

Vayra86 said:


> Yep, well I've always been an advocate of the idea that you buy a board with a CPU because the two do tend to last equally long, even if its not your main rig anymore, why separate them to find a new buddy... Also the idea that the board will age less quickly than a CPU is... a bit strange. A board is much more prone to failure than a CPU in every single way, it will also go obsolete faster as new standards arrive.
> 
> This affects the way people purchase stuff though. If your base notion is that a board will be having multiple CPUs, you start off with the goal not of finding the optimal CPU you can ever find, but one 'that will do for now' and gets resold down the line. Its not my cup of tea, as it seems rather wasteful.


Exactly, the CPU usually outlasts the board, the idea of one board to last a lifetime is a bit backwards.



robot zombie said:


> Haha, I read this as I looked down at my 3900X/X370 rig. Honestly, I wasn't expecting it to work. I considered it good luck. I was happy that I was able to do that. I got that board open box for $120, with good features and solid VRM's. Came with everything and I still have it all.  .... Lots of younger dudes out there with less disposable income, soaking up the media that drew them in and basing opinions around that more than anything else.


That is quite good!  As far as younger, passionate, but less experienced enthusiasts, that is one market that AMD has chosen to market to.  See reddit.com/r/amd.


----------



## TheLostSwede (May 16, 2020)

Vario said:


> Exactly, the CPU usually outlasts the board, the idea of one board to last a lifetime is a bit backwards.


How so? If we got to a point where the motherboard is only a collection of passive slots, the motherboard would last a very long time. 
Let's say we ended up with all the key parts integrated into the CPU/SoC, then something like this would be more than enough.








						Backplane - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




The NUC 9 Extreme is sort in a way going down that route as well.








						Intel Ghost Canyon NUC9i9QNX Review: NUC 9 Extreme Realizes the SFF Dream
					






					www.anandtech.com


----------



## Vario (May 16, 2020)

TheLostSwede said:


> How so? If we got to a point where the motherboard is only a collection of passive slots, the motherboard would last a very long time.
> Let's say we ended up with all the key parts integrated into the CPU/SoC, then something like this would be more than enough.
> 
> 
> ...


Sure, if it got to that point it would make sense, but the design of consumer motherboards is moving in the opposite direction, more integrated.
The Compute Element is pretty interesting, though in a sense it is an 'all in one' motherboard, ram, storage, i/o, and CPU combo, mounted onto an add on-card form factor.  The NUC backplane isn't at all a motherboard.  Its more like a PCI-E riser.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (May 16, 2020)

Vario said:


> Sure, if it got to that point it would make sense, but the design of consumer motherboards is moving in the opposite direction, more integrated.
> The Compute Element is pretty interesting, though in a sense it is an 'all in one' motherboard, ram, storage, i/o, and CPU combo, mounted onto an add on-card form factor.  The NUC backplane isn't at all a motherboard.  Its more like a PCI-E riser.


Damn skipy, only the gits used non standard pciex so you can't just put it in a pc.
Damnit people I want cores plugged into the cores of my cores if possible and double, all to make a crunching folding beast in a box.


----------



## Bill_Bright (May 16, 2020)

Wouldn't it be nice if all the armchair and Monday morning quarterbacks were really as smart as they pretend to be? If all the whiners could predict not just where the state-of-the-art will be in 3, 5,  or 10 years, but consumer demand, the market, the weather, politics and pandemics too?

Wouldn't it be nice if foresight was as good as hindsight?

Obviously, what both Intel and AMD (and Motorola, Via and whoever) should have done 30+ years ago was get together ATX style and create the AM-LGA-10000 socket that would support 100 years worth processors (Is 100 years enough? My crystal ball is a bit cloudy today). Then we could all use our motherboards from 1990 with today's latest CPUs. Oh goody!

But then I guess the whiners would complain they didn't have anything to whine about. 

Here's a thought. If a socket doesn't support the CPU you want to use, don't buy it! AMD makes lots of other great CPUs. If you are done whining about the last despicable and totally unforgivable thing Intel did to you, buy Intel instead. Or maybe forget both and get an iPhone. Apple has never done anything bad for consumers, right?


----------



## trparky (May 16, 2020)

silentbogo said:


> UEFI itself has nothing to do with bloat. Bloat itself does.


I know I may have started late into this conversation, but I do have some really dumb questions that I want to ask.

Why in God's name do most of these UEFIs have lots of (often gaudy) graphics for something that is essentially a "set it up and leave it alone" kind thing?
Who really goes into the UEFI every day and asks, "How can this be more pretty?" (No one I know.)
If the OEMs decided to drop all of that graphical garbage and go back to what I remember from the dark old days of BIOS, how much space would be freed up?


----------



## TheLostSwede (May 16, 2020)

trparky said:


> I know I may have started late into this conversation, but I do have some really dumb questions that I want to ask.
> 
> Why in God's name do most of these UEFIs have lots of (often gaudy) graphics for something that is essentially a "set it up and leave it alone" kind thing?
> Who really goes into the UEFI every day and asks, "How can this be more pretty?" (No one I know.)
> If the OEMs decided to drop all of that graphical garbage and go back to what I remember from the dark old days of BIOS, how much space would be freed up?


1. To make it "consumer" friendly. Also, the Taiwanese loves to come up with useless new features, as that way they can justify their jobs in front of their bosses. No offence to the Taiwanese, but I've sat through way too many meetings where people are suggesting utterly senseless things, just to suggest something during so called brainstorming meetings.
2.   
3. Gigabyte has in all fairness removed a lot of the crap, not sure about the others, but it's not just that today, we have things like having to adopt the graphics for 1080p, 1440p and 4k resolutions, so we don't get blocky looking graphics, or a tiny square at the centre of the screen. These things are easy to forget, but the UEFI graphics don't scale all that well.  Add to that the AGESA, which is apparently quite sizeable now on AMD boards and we're soon looking at 64MB flash chips on the boards.


----------



## Bones (May 16, 2020)

Damn!
I got ninja'ed! 

Oh well - My take on it.


trparky said:


> I know I may have started late into this conversation, but I do have some really dumb questions that I want to ask.
> 1: Why in God's name do most of these UEFIs have lots of (often gaudy) graphics for something that is essentially a "set it up and leave it alone" kind thing?


It's all about the "Bling" or marketing - Making it fancy instead of as you call it like the old, dark days.



trparky said:


> 2: Who really goes into the UEFI every day and asks, "How can this be more pretty?" (No one I know.)


Good question - No answer here except it ain't me doing it.
However if you want to hang some RGB curtains on the monitor to make it look nice, just go for it.



trparky said:


> 3: If the OEMs decided to drop all of that graphical garbage and go back to what I remember from the dark old days of BIOS, how much space would be freed up?


TBH I prefer a BIOS like that, simpler, stuff isn't tucked away so much and so on.
Plus you can actually see all the BIOS without having to use a card of a certain age or newer too to avoid some of it getting chopped out because it can't display the entire BIOS page.


----------



## trparky (May 16, 2020)

TheLostSwede said:


> Gigabyte has in all fairness removed a lot of the crap, not sure about the others, but it's not just that today, we have things like having to adopt the graphics for 1080p, 1440p and 4k resolutions, so we don't get blocky looking graphics, or a tiny square at the centre of the screen. These things are easy to forget, but the UEFI graphics don't scale all that well.


OK so, here's the solution. Dump the gaudy graphics and go back to text-only screens with nothing more than the bare necessities. We used to have nothing more than text on the screen with simple menus and by God, we were happy! We didn't have fancy graphics, but it worked. Cue up my "Get off my lawn!" rant.  


Bones said:


> No answer here except it ain't me doing it.


Me either. I can't remember the last time I was in the UEFI of my motherboard. I have it set up and I've left it alone ever since. As for UEFI updates, I only do those when it's absolutely necessary and even then, I dread doing it.



Bones said:


> It's all about the "Bling" or marketing - Making it fancy instead of as you call it like the old, dark days.


Don't need it, don't care about it. It's not something that I load up and look at every day so it's the last thing I think about.


----------



## TheLostSwede (May 17, 2020)

trparky said:


> OK so, here's the solution. Dump the gaudy graphics and go back to text-only screens with nothing more than the bare necessities. We used to have nothing more than text on the screen with simple menus and by God, we were happy! We didn't have fancy graphics, but it worked. Cue up my "Get off my lawn!" rant.


Unfortunately, as I mentioned, that's not going to work due to people using much higher resolution screens now and unless you want to have a 640x480 tiny square in the middle of your screen (which is a monitor setting) or very, very blurry text as the 640x480 UI is scaled up to 4k, we're sadly going to have to live with the fact that there has to be multiple graphics simply for display scaling. Does it have to include a bunch of stupid animations and other gaudy crap? Obviously not, nor does it need to include a clickable image of a motherboard.
There were actually fancy (for the time) graphical UI's in the BIOS with mouse support way back in the day, example below. Was it easier to use or better? No, not really.






Source: http://www.vcfed.org/forum/showthre...dae750d68b7fcd53cfe52cb01&p=504351#post504351

There are some advantages with what we have now though, like the ability to use the mouse to set the steps for the fan profiles, as that's a nightmare to do with arrow keys. I prefer to set it up there, rather than to install some bloatware app in Windows that never seems to work properly.


----------



## RealNeil (May 17, 2020)

ratirt said:


> I don't think he is defending AMD nor any other company. I see a lot of people in the forums (not just TPU) are fixed on either Intel or AMD. If you say AMD did good with that, you must be a fanboy. If you agree with something one of the given companies did or is about to do, doesn't make you fanboy but you still need to be objective.


I don't think that either company is king. (If they want loyalty, they should get a dog)


I think that AMD thought that they would be able to support existing motherboards with their new CPUs and then they ran into problems getting it done.
So now we have AMD with egg on their face and people tying them to the whipping post for evil deeds.
I still just love my 3800X system by AMD. I love that they are competing again, and I love that they didn't perish and leave us to deal with JUST Intel.
I also love my i9-9900K box. Intel DOES build some nice product.

So AMD can't live up to what they originally stated,....I'll get over it.


----------



## trparky (May 17, 2020)

TheLostSwede said:


> Does it have to include a bunch of stupid animations and other gaudy crap? Obviously not


Exactly! Get rid of the damn graphics and I'm sure that they could free up a good amount of storage space in the ROM for necessary things like, you know... AGESA code.


RealNeil said:


> If they want loyalty, they should get a dog


----------



## moproblems99 (May 17, 2020)

delshay said:


> You may want to read this, so hold on users.



Not that it is acceptable, but you can still buy another motherboard and likely still be under the cost of equivalent Intel package.


----------



## newtekie1 (May 17, 2020)

TheLostSwede said:


> Those are still fairly minor things. Sure, simplifying trace routing makers for easier board designs, so it's a good thing, but did it require a socket change? Most likely not.
> Unused pins being repurposed happens all the time, so no big deal.
> The last one is questionable, as some people have modded older boards to work with newer CPUs, but sure. I'm not convinced it required Intel locking out older parts, as AMD didn't have to do it for AM4 where we've gone from eight to 16 cores.



Minor or not, they are improvements.  Of course, completely changing the pin-out to improve wiring and signal quality isn't exactly a simple thing.

And while there was some success in hacking Coffee-Lake processors to work on Z170/Z270 boards, we have no idea on the longevity.  The fact is that Intel added more pins to provide power to the processor because they believed they were necessary.  The CPUs might have run for a while with fewer power pins, but pulling too much current through the pins because there isn't enough pins can definitely lead to some very bad things.  Intel knows this, and Intel believed the pins on the old 1151 socket were not enough.


----------



## Melvis (May 17, 2020)

Vario said:


> First,
> If you really want the new CPU, then sell the old board and old CPU.  Buy a new board and CPU.  Not as big a deal as its made out to be.



Oh ok so your going to hand out the $1100+ it would cost me to get a new equivalent X570 Mobo and CPU then if you think its not that big of a deal?  
which FYI is double what it cost me for my current Mobo/CPU and they wasnt cheap to begin with!


----------



## Khonjel (May 17, 2020)

TheLostSwede said:


> So what do you gain from going around being angry at something you can do absolutely nothing about?
> I mean, do you think it's acceptable to send threatening emails to AMD staff because of this? As some people clearly do.
> Yes, it's fine to be pissed off about it in a forum thread or two, but how long is ok to go around being furious over something like this?
> I fully understand why some people are miffed about this, but there's a limit to how far you're allowed to take it.


I dunno why yar putting things in my comment. Threatening email and death threats aren't acceptable in any way, shape or form and nobody will contest that. Justification for those is understandable but doesn't mean it's acceptable at all. We can criticise both the fuckfaces that do that and the entity that instigated that behaviour at the same time.

And NOT "going around being angry at something we can do nothing about" is what these entities want you to believe. And looking at your reply it's working for the majority of people. Net neutrality, ownership of digital media, right to repair (not to mention other things) these are all going to disappear because people like to believe they as an individual won't matter in the grand scheme of things. I may be not from a western civilized first world country like yours and many others in this forum but third world autocracies like ours like to follow your example (unless something that threatens their cling to power). I'm not thrilled of the day I have to deal with data caps in broadband connection if I'm being honest.


----------



## TheLostSwede (May 17, 2020)

Khonjel said:


> I dunno why yar putting things in my comment. Threatening email and death threats aren't acceptable in any way, shape or form and nobody will contest that. Justification for those is understandable but doesn't mean it's acceptable at all. We can criticise both the fuckfaces that do that and the entity that instigated that behaviour at the same time.
> 
> And NOT "going around being angry at something we can do nothing about" is what these entities want you to believe. And looking at your reply it's working for the majority of people. Net neutrality, ownership of digital media, right to repair (not to mention other things) these are all going to disappear because people like to believe they as an individual won't matter in the grand scheme of things. I may be not from a western civilized first world country like yours and many others in this forum but third world autocracies like ours like to follow your example (unless something that threatens their cling to power). I'm not thrilled of the day I have to deal with data caps in broadband connection if I'm being honest.


I'm not trying to put anything anywhere, I was asking a question or two based on your comment here, that's all. This wasn't something personal, so apologies if it hit a nerve.

It's a big difference between being angry and being upset or frustrated by a situation. Anger usually implies aggression, which isn't going to help the situation. 

I guess you didn't read some of my other comments here, where I suggested if people wants AMD to change their mind maybe a petition is a better way forward.

I live in a place that's barely recognised as existing by most countries, in fact, they've been helping a lot countries recently by gifting facial masks in the millions, yet most countries aren't even willing to thank them by name, because of China. That's something to be pissed off about, not a for profit enterprise that changed their mind and created a PR screwup. 

Yes, this reflects badly in AMD, but I think there are more important things going on in the world right now that requires our attention.



newtekie1 said:


> Minor or not, they are improvements.  Of course, completely changing the pin-out to improve wiring and signal quality isn't exactly a simple thing.
> 
> And while there was some success in hacking Coffee-Lake processors to work on Z170/Z270 boards, we have no idea on the longevity.  The fact is that Intel added more pins to provide power to the processor because they believed they were necessary.  The CPUs might have run for a while with fewer power pins, but pulling too much current through the pins because there isn't enough pins can definitely lead to some very bad things.  Intel knows this, and Intel believed the pins on the old 1151 socket were not enough.


The question is if it couldn't have been done differently though. 

Regardless, people have accepted Intel's way of doing things, but AMD is get a boat load of crap, even though they've offered better support than Intel has done since socket 775. I don't think that's fair and I don't think your excuse in behalf of Intel is quite good enough.


----------



## londiste (May 17, 2020)

TheLostSwede said:


> Regardless, people have accepted Intel's way of doing things, but AMD is get a boat load of crap, even though they've offered better support than Intel has done since socket 775. I don't think that's fair and I don't think your excuse in behalf of Intel is quite good enough.


Socket 775 was a dumpster fire. That might have something to do with how Intel deals with platforms.


----------



## oxrufiioxo (May 17, 2020)

I mostly feel bad for the people who picked up max motherboards. To me they have the most legitimate reason to be upset.

At the same time I'm hoping ryzen 4000 is such a huge leap over 3000 as far a clocks/ipc that AMD was actually worried about all the garbo 1st and 2nd gen boards catching on fire. Probably not the case because if it was then the  entire msi x570 lineup under $250  would also be in trouble because their vrms perform worse than the B450 Tomahawk thermally.


----------



## Bones (May 17, 2020)

oxrufiioxo said:


> I mostly feel bad for the people who picked up max motherboards. To me they have the most legitimate reason to be upset.
> 
> At the same time I'm hoping ryzen 4000 is such a huge leap over 3000 as far a clocks/ipc that AMD was actually worried about all the garbo 1st and 2nd gen boards catching on fire. Probably not the case because if it was then *the  entire msi x570 lineup under $250  would also be in trouble because their vrms perform worse than the B450 Tomahawk thermally*.


Care to provide something of substance to this statement please?


----------



## oxrufiioxo (May 17, 2020)

Bones said:


> Care to provide something of substance to this statement please?



You can see vrm testing here


----------



## delshay (May 17, 2020)

oxrufiioxo said:


> I mostly feel bad for the people who picked up max motherboards. To me they have the most legitimate reason to be upset.



I'm with you on this one, but I also feel for Radeon VII users when they cards were made EOL in such a short time, but that's another topic for another thread.


----------



## newtekie1 (May 17, 2020)

TheLostSwede said:


> The question is if it couldn't have been done differently though.



No, they really couldn't have.



TheLostSwede said:


> Regardless, people have accepted Intel's way of doing things, but AMD is get a boat load of crap, even though they've offered better support than Intel has done since socket 775. I don't think that's fair and I don't think your excuse in behalf of Intel is quite good enough.



And socket 775 was a cluster f*ck of compatibility that lead to more backlash and confusion from customers.


----------



## TheLostSwede (May 17, 2020)

newtekie1 said:


> No, they really couldn't have.
> 
> And socket 775 was a cluster f*ck of compatibility that lead to more backlash and confusion from customers.


Sorry, but your statement is clearly not true. If AMD could go from a monolithic CPU design to two chiplets and an I/O controller and retain compatibility with the same socket, I'm sure Intel could've done the same. That's unless you're saying that Intel is either incompetent or simply do this as planned obsolesce. But please, go on, defend Intel's business decisions, as I'm sure they have benefited you somehow.

Yet I don't remember Intel users back then sending threats to Intel employees...
Maybe those were just more civilised times before social media took over...


----------



## IceShroom (May 17, 2020)

oxrufiioxo said:


> I mostly feel bad for the people who picked up max motherboards. To me they have the most legitimate reason to be upset.


Well they can still update to Ryzen 9 3950X on that board.


----------



## trparky (May 17, 2020)

TheLostSwede said:


> Maybe those were just more civilised times before social media took over...


Yes. I've always said that social media, especially the likes of Facebook and Twitter, is responsible for bringing out the worst in people.


----------



## newtekie1 (May 17, 2020)

TheLostSwede said:


> Sorry, but your statement is clearly not true. If AMD could go from a monolithic CPU design to two chiplets and an I/O controller and retain compatibility with the same socket, I'm sure Intel could've done the same. That's unless you're saying that Intel is either incompetent or simply do this as planned obsolesce. But please, go on, defend Intel's business decisions, as I'm sure they have benefited you somehow.
> 
> Yet I don't remember Intel users back then sending threats to Intel employees...
> Maybe those were just more civilised times before social media took over...



You can't rewire an entire socket to move pads around so motherboard traces are optimized without changing the socket.  Sorry, it just can't be done.

AMD's change to a chiplet design just requires adapting communication of that to the socket that already exists, and that's the job of the CPU substrate.  Intel has physically changed and improved the sockets, that requires a new socket.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (May 17, 2020)

newtekie1 said:


> You can't rewire an entire socket to move pads around so motherboard traces are optimized without changing the socket.  Sorry, it just can't be done.


While you can't, what you could do is use the multi layered PCB interposer Every CPU chip is mounted into in packaging to route to the required pin out, exactly like they have to anyway.

That's a mythical reason with little weight.


----------



## newtekie1 (May 17, 2020)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> While you can't, what you could do is use the multi layered PCB interposer Every CPU chip is mounted into in packaging to route to the required pin out, exactly like they have to anyway.
> 
> That's a mythical reason with little weight.



There is only so much you can do with that.  If you are moving pins to completely opposite sides of the socket, you can't realistically use the substrate PCB to route those traces.  There just isn't the room to do it, the layers required to prevent crosstalk makes it not feasible.  Especially in an LGA socket where the PCB can only be so thick.

AMD was able to do it with the chiplet design because, even though they are breaking the CPU cores away from the I/O controller, they are physically still located pretty close to where they were on the old CPUs.  They are flipping everything around.

But I'm not going to continue to argue this.  If you think you know how to do it, I suggest you apply for a job at Intel, because you know better than any other engineer in the world.  You should be making millions.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (May 17, 2020)

newtekie1 said:


> There is only so much you can do with that.  If you are moving pins to completely opposite sides of the socket, you can't realistically use the substrate PCB to route those traces.  There just isn't the room to do it, the layers required to prevent crosstalk makes it not feasible.  Especially in an LGA socket where the PCB can only be so thick.
> 
> AMD was able to do it with the chiplet design because, even though they are breaking the CPU cores away from the I/O controller, they are physically still located pretty close to where they were on the old CPUs.  They are flipping everything around.


Yet as indi Chinese Dev's manufacturers prove with sub circuit interposer, much more than most imagine given enough layer's.

I heartily disagree ,these are market driven design's.


----------



## newtekie1 (May 17, 2020)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> Yet as indi Chinese Dev's manufacturers prove with sub circuit interposer, much more than most imagine given enough layer's.
> 
> I heartily disagree ,these are market driven design's.



It's just not feasible.  They're moving pins to the completely opposite side of the socket.  The phsyical socket was updated to make it better.  You can't adapt to that with an interposer.  There's more problems involved.  You're losing support for older processors that don't have the interpose, defeating the entire support.  We're talking about making boards support more newer CPUs here, remember.  The socket change on the motherboards to improve the socket, doesn't align with that.  Changing the socket makes the old processor incompatible.

You're losing sight of the whole point.  The fact is the sockets were updated, there was reasons behind these updates, no matter how minor some of them were the sockets were updates.  This is different than what AMD has done where the socket is remaining unchanged and they are just software locking out new processors on old boards.

An interposer is not going to fix the problem going from 1155 to 1150. The pins were physically moved around to make traces on the motherboards easier to router.  This isn't something that can be done with a CPU interposer.  Please, explain to me how you do that with a CPU interposer.  How do you do that, maintain compatibility with old processors that were designed and produced years before the changes to the socket were made and also completely change the layout of pins in the socket.  Explain how a CPU interposer solves that problem.


----------



## TheLostSwede (May 17, 2020)

newtekie1 said:


> It's just not feasible. They're moving pins to the completely opposite side of the socket. The phsyical socket was updated to make it better. You can't adapt to that with an interposer. There's more problems involved. You're losing support for older processors that don't have the interpose, defeating the entire support. We're talking about making boards support more newer CPUs here, remember. The socket change on the motherboards to improve the socket, doesn't align with that. Changing the socket makes the old processor incompatible.
> 
> You're losing sight of the whole point. The fact is the sockets were updated, there was reasons behind these updates, no matter how minor some of them were the sockets were updates. This is different than what AMD has done where the socket is remaining unchanged and they are just software locking out new processors on old boards.
> 
> An interposer is not going to fix the problem going from 1155 to 1150. The pins were physically moved around to make traces on the motherboards easier to router.  This isn't something that can be done with a CPU interposer.  Please, explain to me how you do that with a CPU interposer.  How do you do that, maintain compatibility with old processors that were designed and produced years before the changes to the socket were made and also completely change the layout of pins in the socket.  Explain how a CPU interposer solves that problem.


Hang on, are you saying Intel is incompetent here?
I mean, they happily present a three, four, five year roadmap of what they have coming in terms of CPUs, so they must know well ahead of time what they need to do when they're designing these things, no?

As this is exactly what AMD is being accused of here.

So if AMD knows, Intel knows, no?

As such, you'd think they would have planned ahead and made sure their sockets can cope with future changes. I mean, Intel didn't change the LGA-2066 socket for years and it got more than two generations of CPUs. So why is it possible for Intel to do this on a high-end platform, but not on a consumer platform? I mean, they even managed to shoehorn in some "crappy" quad core CPUs into the platform with dual channel memory support and limited PCIe support, just because why not. Except they were a total disaster and a lot of boards don't even support those CPUs any more, but hey, it was all part of the master plan no?

Sure, it might not have been possible to go from 1155 to 1150, but what about onwards from there, did we really need three variations on the same socket, or was it possible for Intel to solve this more elegantly?

My issues is that Intel always have their two CPUs per socket tick/tock crap defended, whereas AMD is now getting stick for screwing up their PR with regards to socket compatibility, without us knowing squat about the Ryzen 4000 series CPUs will bring. In reality, why aren't people angry with Intel when they clearly force people to upgrade their motherboards, based on technicalities sometimes.

I'm not saying socket changes don't need to happen from time to time, as obviously it does once you run out of pins for various interfaces, or the socket design is no longer suitable for new high-speed interfaces. However, I believe there's also no need for a two year cycle, with some forward thinking.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (May 17, 2020)

newtekie1 said:


> It's just not feasible.  They're moving pins to the completely opposite side of the socket.  The phsyical socket was updated to make it better.  You can't adapt to that with an interposer.  There's more problems involved.  You're losing support for older processors that don't have the interpose, defeating the entire support.  We're talking about making boards support more newer CPUs here, remember.  The socket change on the motherboards to improve the socket, doesn't align with that.  Changing the socket makes the old processor incompatible.
> 
> You're losing sight of the whole point.  The fact is the sockets were updated, there was reasons behind these updates, no matter how minor some of them were the sockets were updates.  This is different than what AMD has done where the socket is remaining unchanged and they are just software locking out new processors on old boards.
> 
> An interposer is not going to fix the problem going from 1155 to 1150. The pins were physically moved around to make traces on the motherboards easier to router.  This isn't something that can be done with a CPU interposer.  Please, explain to me how you do that with a CPU interposer.  How do you do that, maintain compatibility with old processors that were designed and produced years before the changes to the socket were made and also completely change the layout of pins in the socket.  Explain how a CPU interposer solves that problem.


Well, with no idea at this point what Ryzen 4000 is going to Actually bring I think your points are slightly moot, if the simple bios argument is it then sure , I will argue that's shit but.
I still heartily disagree on a interposer, we will set that asside I have worked with OEM systems that retained socket's with differing intel cores.

Since they're not fully disclosing Ryzen 4### specs ,I'll check for now, maybe go all in on the argument ,maybe fold later.


----------



## Vario (May 17, 2020)

TheLostSwede said:


> Hang on, are you saying Intel is incompetent here?
> I mean, they happily present a three, four, five year roadmap of what they have coming in terms of CPUs, so they must know well ahead of time what they need to do when they're designing these things, no?
> 
> As this is exactly what AMD is being accused of here.
> ...


Some of it may be that with 2066 pins they had some future planning on the socket.  The Intel Z170, 270, 370 'Lake era had a lot of complaints about not carrying forward compatibility when it was probably possible to do so.  No one excused Intel for doing this, it was panned.  However it was somewhat expected because Intel has done this before.  The Z170 AsRock OC Formula was one of the best boards of that period, and with modification, achieved some of the most impressive 8700K overclocks.  The difference with AMD was the marketing about promised future compatibility.


----------



## TheLostSwede (May 17, 2020)

Vario said:


> The difference with AMD was the marketing about promised future compatibility.


Sure and I'm not excusing them for that. However, something has clearly gone wrong in some people's heads, when they send threats to staff of a company based on a PR screw-up. Not saying anyone here did that, but some people did.  
This has never happened to Intel afaik. 

At the same time, AMD wasn't that specific about what that future compatibility meant. As I've stated elsewhere, AMD seems to have screwed up their message to their partners with their message to consumers, which is poor management, but clearly doesn't deserve the kind of reaction it has had.


----------



## kapone32 (May 18, 2020)

Wow I can't believe this thread was posted on Friday. I ag ree with most of what the author postulates. Unfortunately (it may have already been said) the biggest no no for me was the non release of B550 boards. The X470 and B450 boards launched the same day and it was the same for the 3 series too. From what I have seen of B550 boards they seem to be more interesting than X570 with the way that PCIe has been implemented on some boards.


----------



## newtekie1 (May 18, 2020)

TheLostSwede said:


> Hang on, are you saying Intel is incompetent here?
> I mean, they happily present a three, four, five year roadmap of what they have coming in terms of CPUs, so they must know well ahead of time what they need to do when they're designing these things, no?


Roadmaps have nothing to do with sockets, or for that matter even what is really coming.  They get changed and updated all the time.  I mean, if roadmaps actually were true, we'd have Intel 10nm on the deakop market by now.  And roadmaps are a guide to what processor features we expect to see, but nothing to do with the sockets.  The design teams are updating the sockets as they go along with the designs of the new CPUs.  But there comes a point when you have to stop refining and get the product to market.  Then you keep improving and eventually release a new iteration.  It's how things work.



TheLostSwede said:


> As this is exactly what AMD is being accused of here.



No, it is entirely different from what AMD is being accused of.  There is no technical reason an X470 board, with the exact same socket with the exact same pinout shouldn't work with a 4000 series CPU.  We know this because the 4000 CPUs will work with an X570 board with the same AM4 socket that is on the X470 motherboards.  What AMD doing is 100% a software lockout.  Intel has never done this.



TheLostSwede said:


> So if AMD knows, Intel knows, no?
> 
> As such, you'd think they would have planned ahead and made sure their sockets can cope with future changes. I mean, Intel didn't change the LGA-2066 socket for years and it got more than two generations of CPUs. So why is it possible for Intel to do this on a high-end platform, but not on a consumer platform? I mean, they even managed to shoehorn in some "crappy" quad core CPUs into the platform with dual channel memory support and limited PCIe support, just because why not. Except they were a total disaster and a lot of boards don't even support those CPUs any more, but hey, it was all part of the master plan no?



There are some things you can't predict.  You can't predict that you need to add an additional display output beyond the 3 you have now later on down the road, a display output that at the time wasn't really even popular and they weren't sure if it was going to take off.  At the time they redesigned 1155 to 1150 displayport wasn't a popular connector, some dedicated cards still didn't even have it, so I doubt they were thinking about adding it to the iGPUs at the time.



TheLostSwede said:


> Sure, it might not have been possible to go from 1155 to 1150, but what about onwards from there, did we really need three variations on the same socket, or was it possible for Intel to solve this more elegantly?



The 1150 to 1151 transition, maybe.  An external Displayport connector fed off one of the other display outputs might have worked, but also been more expensive and complex for the board manufacturers.  So if they wanted it in the prococessor directly, the signal for the displayport had to be added to the socket, and you can't just put video signal pins anywhere.  You can't just have them right next to a power pin, crosstalk becomes an issue.

And the 1151 to 1151(300) transition was not possible to do any other way and maintain long lasting reliability.  The number of power pins had to be increased to handle the new processors long term reliably. There is no doing this on the old socket pin-out.  If they could have gotten 10nm going and increase the core counts without the 25-50% increases in power consumption, then they might have been able to do it with the old socket, but 10nm didn't happen.



TheLostSwede said:


> My issues is that Intel always have their two CPUs per socket tick/tock crap defended, whereas AMD is now getting stick for screwing up their PR with regards to socket compatibility, without us knowing squat about the Ryzen 4000 series CPUs will bring. In reality, why aren't people angry with Intel when they clearly force people to upgrade their motherboards, based on technicalities sometimes.



Intel never pretends like their platforms have increased longevity compared to the competition.  They never market that.  Hell, they've been upfront about the tick/tock system since Nehalem.  AMD on the other hand did market their platforms as having longer longevity than Intel.  Their longterm compatibility with future processors was a selling point that they made.

There have also always been reasons for the new socket.  Regardless of how minor you think they are, the reasons are facts.  On the other hand, we know for a fact that AMD isn't using a new socket, and the 4000 CPUs should work with the older motherboards.  The fact that they will work with X570 boards tells use that there is no reason they shouldn't work with X470 boards, they both use the same sockets, there was no changed between the two platforms other than the addition of PCI-E 4.0.  Which even the 4000 CPUs are required to be backwards compatible with 3.0, so that isn't an issue.

At the end of the day, that is the point.  Intel has been upfront about their strategy and it seems AMD now has lied about theirs.  And that's why people are angry with AMD.



theoneandonlymrk said:


> Well, with no idea at this point what Ryzen 4000 is going to Actually bring I think your points are slightly moot, if the simple bios argument is it then sure , I will argue that's shit but.



The fact is, it doesn't matter what the 4000 processors bring.  We know they aren't using a new socket, and so there should be no technical reason they can't run on older boards.  If it will run on X570 I see no reason it wouldn't run on X470.  Can you come up with any reasons?



theoneandonlymrk said:


> i still heartily disagree on a interposer, we will set that asside I have worked with OEM systems that retained socket's with differing intel cores.



I've seen mobile processors put in desktop motherboards with custom interposers.  However, that doesn't help in the discussion.

We are talking about redesigns of the socket to aid in motherboard trace routing.  There is no way you can solve that problem with an interposer in a consumer friendly marketable way.  You're talking about, what, selling processors with interchangeable interposers that you expect the consumer to change depending on what motherboard they are putting the processor in?  And also selling those interposers separately so people that want to put an older processor in a new board can buy one?  Because that's the only solution we are talking about here where an interposer would work.  The socket needed to be redesigned, there is no argument about that. You can't optimize pin layout in the socket to improve motherboard trace routing without redesigning the socket pinout.

So now we are talking about an interposer solution to having two different sockets supporting 4 generations of processors.  So how do you expect that to work?  If a consumer wants to put their 1150 CPU in an older 1155 motherboard, they'd need a super thick interposer to go between the 1150 CPU and the 1155 socket.  Then that means the already designed stock cooling isn't going to work, because that whole mess would be too tall. But what about if someone wants to use an 1155 CPU in an 1150 motherboard, you need another super thick interposer that can be bought separately.  The whole interposer solution just isn't feasible even if it would _technically_ work.  To be clear, I'm not saying it wouldn't technically work, I'm saying it isn't feasible to bring to market.



TheLostSwede said:


> Sure and I'm not excusing them for that.



But you are.  You're entire argument is "Intel does it so AMD can to."  You're missing the point, AMD was the chosen one, they were "supposed" to be better than Intel, and now it turns out they're worse.



TheLostSwede said:


> However, something has clearly gone wrong in some people's heads, when they send threats to staff of a company based on a PR screw-up. Not saying anyone here did that, but some people did.



Obviously that's an extreme that should never happen, but you're argument that people don't have a right to be angry that AMD lied to them isn't valid either.

And Intel gets plenty of hate by the way.  People got their pitchforks and torches out when Intel said CoffeeLake was going to need new motherboards, even when there is a perfectly valid reason for it.  Hell, people are still bitching about that shit.

Anyway, this is my last post on the subject. I think I've said enough.


----------



## Countryside (May 18, 2020)

Checked my X370-a cpu support list there are 12 obsolete 28nm cpus that could be removed, very few use these A6-A12 and X4 cpus these days.


----------



## Bones (May 18, 2020)

Hopefully this will help clarify things with the socket as in the _possibilites_.
Do remember how they did sockets AM2, AM2+, AM3 and AM3+ and how each chip gen interchanged with what socket.

You can also see if you look closely at each corner, the "MIssing" pin holes in the socket cover vs what's down inside the socket itself that _could_ be used later if they wanted to.
And also note the little oval shaped/rectangular pieces covering where pin holes could have been in the socket cover - Those can be moved to a different position if they wanted to.
This particular socket is from some work I had been doing on one of my x570 boards.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (May 18, 2020)

newtekie1 said:


> Roadmaps have nothing to do with sockets, or for that matter even what is really coming.  They get changed and updated all the time.  I mean, if roadmaps actually were true, we'd have Intel 10nm on the deakop market by now.  And roadmaps are a guide to what processor features we expect to see, but nothing to do with the sockets.  The design teams are updating the sockets as they go along with the designs of the new CPUs.  But there comes a point when you have to stop refining and get the product to market.  Then you keep improving and eventually release a new iteration.  It's how things work.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You said too much, I still heartily disagree , luckily I have STILL set it asside.


----------



## Vya Domus (May 18, 2020)

The only "solution" that I can see for all this would be that board manufactures would just send upon request a BIOS with specific CPUs removed or maybe every CPU removed except the ones you need. This ensures that people wont just brick their systems updating to a new official BIOS where their CPUs are removed and that the ones who really want to run a new 4000 series CPU can do it.



newtekie1 said:


> No, it is entirely different from what AMD is being accused of.  There is no technical reason an X470 board, with the exact same socket with the exact same pinout shouldn't work with a 4000 series CPU.  We know this because the 4000 CPUs will work with an X570 board with the same AM4 socket that is on the X470 motherboards.  What AMD doing is 100% a software lockout.  Intel has never done this.
> 
> The fact is, it doesn't matter what the 4000 processors bring.  We know they aren't using a new socket, and so there should be no technical reason they can't run on older boards.  If it will run on X570 I see no reason it wouldn't run on X470.  Can you come up with any reasons?



Just stop, it's already being made very clear it's an issue of ROM space. It's not a software lockout, it's not a socket limitation.


----------



## Bill_Bright (May 18, 2020)

I think this thread is getting too far OT. 

I also think it absurd to suggest Intel changes sockets just to force consumers to buy all new platforms. It is also absurd to expect a company to cater to small niche markets - and for sure, the number of users who upgrade their CPUs is but a tiny fraction of all users. And those wanting to upgrade their CPU to a different family of CPUs is an even smaller niche market.  
Yes, it costs money to design a whole new socket, but to modify existing sockets to accommodate new CPUs is costly too, and may force compromises.  


newtekie1 said:


> If you are moving pins to completely opposite sides of the socket, you can't realistically use the substrate PCB to route those traces. There just isn't the room to do it, the layers required to prevent crosstalk makes it not feasible.


It is not just about room, but distance too. There are also add resistance, RFI/EMI, latency and wait-state issues to consider when distances between Point A and Point B are dramatically (microscopically speaking) increased too.


----------



## londiste (May 18, 2020)

Vya Domus said:


> The only "solution" that I can see for all this would be that board manufactures would just send upon request a BIOS with specific CPUs removed or maybe every CPU removed except the ones you need. This ensures that people wont just brick their systems updating to a new official BIOS where their CPUs are removed and that the ones who really want to run a new 4000 series CPU can do it.


Can you imagine the headaches to support this type of solution? You would have had to make CPUless BIOS update a requirement since day1 before even attempting something like this.


----------



## Vya Domus (May 18, 2020)

londiste said:


> Can you imagine the headaches to support this type of solution? You would have had to make CPUless BIOS update a requirement since day1 before even attempting something like this.



You don't have to make CPUless BIOS updates a requirement, that makes no sense. Why would that even be a thing ? You simply send an email to ASUS/MSI/Asrock/etc and ask them to send you the latest revison with X CPUs/series removed and Y CPU/series added, it's by far the best solution with the least amount of headache (no wide spread RMA issues)

Of course that would require a non zero amount of extra effort from manufactures but it's totally feasible to make let's say 4 versions of each new BIOS revision where each has one of the 1000/2000/300 CPU series support removed and support for the 4000 series added. It just would't be complicated at all for them. I can't think of anything simpler than this, the only thing they'd have to test is the 4000 series support, that's it.

And it's not like these older boards will get a heap load of new BIOS revisions in the future, realistically you would need to do this just once.


----------



## Rahnak (May 18, 2020)

Vya Domus said:


> Of course that would require a non zero amount of extra effort from manufactures but it totally feasible to make let's say 4 versions of each new BIOS revision each with one of the CPU series support removed. It just would't be complicated at all for them.


4 versions multiplied by every motherboard model with the AM4 socket, plus testing/validation sounds like a real nightmare.


----------



## Vya Domus (May 18, 2020)

Rahnak said:


> 4 versions multiplied by every motherboard model with the AM4 socket, plus testing/validation sounds like a real nightmare.



It's not, you'd just have to test support for 4000 series because you already know the rest of the CPU support list is fine. After that it's as simple as removing unwanted CPUs from the support list. And like I said these older boards wont really get new BIOSes in the future, so you would need to do this once for each board. They've already done this with some APUs and obscure CPUs and it seems like that wasn't a nighmare.


----------



## windwhirl (May 18, 2020)

Rahnak said:


> 4 versions multiplied by every motherboard model with the AM4 socket, plus testing/validation sounds like a real nightmare.



And on top of all that, from what Steve from GN found out, there is at most 2 guys in any given company that are legit BIOS programmers. Sometimes only one.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (May 18, 2020)

windwhirl said:


> And on top of all that, from what Steve from GN found out, there is at most 2 guys in any given company that are legit BIOS programmers. Sometimes only one.


I would be surprised if they don't have separate test and validation team's from the guy writing bios.


----------



## Vya Domus (May 18, 2020)

windwhirl said:


> there is at most 2 guys in any given company that are legit BIOS programmers. Sometimes only one.



They are just exaggerating the workload this stuff entails. When 3000 series arrived a year ago their "1 guy" did just fine so it's not about the available workforce. They are simply trying to be cheap and avoid spending extra resources for something that AMD did not mandate officially. Everyone is just "PR-ing" their way through this mess, solutions exist, they almost always do.

These things aren't tested by hand, they're automated, that's what is really costing them money and therefore that's what they try to avoid.


----------



## Countryside (May 18, 2020)

Since when did we ran out of BIOS programmers, one guy running between oems this sounds like a bad joke.

And like i said before Asus managed on my x370 board with 128 Mbit flash to support Ryzen 1,2,3 + twelve pointless 28nm cpus and theres seven Athlon 200 series cpus. Quite impressive list.


----------



## HD64G (May 18, 2020)

AMD can allow board vendors to use AGESA code for Zen3 for all the previous board designs compatible to it. And those vendors can publish beta UEFIs to allow any customer willing to update his board with that to support the upcoming Zen2 APUs and Zen3 CPUs. Problem solved. For now, all vendors support Zen, Zen+ CPUs and APUs and Zen2 in one UEFI only. With 2 UEFIs they can cover all needs. And no customer having a previous gen board will have big anxiety if they delay to publish that UEFI 1-2 months after the CPU-APU goes on sale.


----------



## Bill_Bright (May 18, 2020)

HD64G said:


> And those vendors can publish beta UEFIs to allow any customer willing to update his board with that to support the upcoming Zen2 APUs and Zen3 CPUs. Problem solved.


Problem solved? With a Beta? Ummm, no!

Users should NEVER have to be Guinea pigs for vendors. If a CPU has been released for general consumer purchase, there should be a "general availability", stable release version of the BIOS/UEFI for that CPU.

Beta copies are still in testing. If consumers what to be beta testers, then fine. But never as their only option once the CPU has gone into full, final release, production.

Edit comment: fixed typo.


----------



## londiste (May 18, 2020)

Vya Domus said:


> You don't have to make CPUless BIOS updates a requirement, that makes no sense. Why would that even be a thing ? You simply send an email to ASUS/MSI/Asrock/etc and ask them to send you the latest revison with X CPUs/series removed and Y CPU/series added, it's by far the best solution with the least amount of headache (no wide spread RMA issues)


Once? Depending on how support goes on the motherboard maybe you sell it to someone with an older CPU and they have to do it again.

Ignoring the part of putting a reliable BIOS together (in one try? ), the main question is who pays for shipping and handling? The closest motherboard vendor center is pretty far away from me and reasonably insured package would be 15-20€ each way. They'd likely want to add some handling free. At that rate I'd be better off using some local retailer for BIOS update service or more likely - just go for a new board.

Pretty sure I personally would be able to find a CPU that fits but finding out which one it is, going through friends to find one who has the correct generation CPU and dealing with the switcheroo is a pain. Been there, done that. Twice, already. But most people do not move in hardware enthusiast circles.


----------



## Vya Domus (May 18, 2020)

londiste said:


> Once? Depending on how support goes on the motherboard maybe you sell it to someone with an older CPU and they have to do it again.
> 
> Pretty sure I personally would be able to find a CPU that fits but finding out which one it is, going through friends to find one who has the correct generation CPU and dealing with the switcheroo is a pain. Been there, done that. Twice, already. But most people do not move in hardware enthusiast circles.



Shipping and selling what ? What are you talking about ? This is simply about a manufacturer sending you a BIOS with the support you need, that's it, you do your own thing. These CPUs would continue to be officially unsupported so there is no obligation for anyone to do anything.

Things have been added/removed outside of official support god knows how many times, there is literally nothing new about what I suggested.



londiste said:


> Ignoring the part of putting a reliable BIOS together



There is nothing special about putting together such a BIOS, just like how they added and tested 3000 series on B450.


----------



## HD64G (May 18, 2020)

Bill_Bright said:


> Problem solved? With a Beta? Ummm, no!
> 
> Users should NEVER have to be Guinea pigs for vendors. If a CPU has been released for general consumer purchase, there should be a "general availability", stable release version of the BIOS/UEFI for that CPU.
> 
> ...


I just meant that the board vendors can even add a BETA title on the UEFI description to make customers more cautious that it might ruin their PC if done without previous planning and thinking. And this should be done imho, if AMD cannot support officially those CPUs for previous chipsets and allow vendors to use the AGESA and make themselves UEFIs that do so. I prefer that solution than preventing old chipsets from working with upcoming CPUs that are fully compatible on power, pins and all other aspects to fit in all AM4 boards.


----------



## londiste (May 18, 2020)

Vya Domus said:


> Shipping and selling what ? What are you talking about ? This is simply about a manufacturer sending you a BIOS with the support you need, that's it, you do your own thing. These CPUs would continue to be officially unsupported so there is no obligation for anyone to do anything.
> 
> Things have been added/removed outside of official support god knows how many times, there is literally nothing new about what I suggested.


Oh, I thought you meant getting boards to manufacturers. Just the BIOS and an unsupported one at that? Nope. That is definitely not even a solution at all.


----------



## Vya Domus (May 18, 2020)

londiste said:


> That is definitely not a solution at all.



It most certainly is, you give the people who absolutely want these things the option to do it unofficially and for everyone else nothing changes.


----------



## Bill_Bright (May 18, 2020)

HD64G said:


> I just meant that the board vendors can even add a BETA title on the UEFI description to make customers more cautious that it might ruin their PC if done without previous planning and thinking.


The fact it "might" ruin a PC is not a "problem solved" scenario. And sorry, but it is a fantasy idealistic world to suggest "_previous planning and thinking_" would prevent this firmware, that, by definition, is still in testing, from bricking the board. If the code is still in beta, that means the company knows it has not been thoroughly tested yet. 

*I understand what you are saying* but by no stretch of the imagination is putting "BETA" in the title solving anything. All that does is (maybe) release the maker from any legal liability should the update fail catastrophically. 

The facts are pretty simple here. The processor and the chipset/firmware development sides of the house need to be working as a team and only RTM (release to manufactures) the processor or chipsets to the motherboard makers when the processors and chipsets are thoroughly tested and 100% ready. And the motherboard makers must not release the product for "general availability" until the board is verified fully compatible with the processors - as listed on their published compatibility lists (QVLs). 

If users attempt to use a processor not listed, they need to be aware they are 100% on their own and board makers should not be suggesting problems are solved with beta software. And this user awareness should not be hidden in 10 pages of legalese uses are expected to scroll through and read before downloading either!


----------



## HD64G (May 18, 2020)

Bill_Bright said:


> The fact it "might" ruin a PC is not a "problem solved" scenario. And sorry, but it is a fantasy idealistic world to suggest "_previous planning and thinking_" would prevent this firmware, that, by definition, is still in testing, from bricking the board. If the code is still in beta, that means the company knows it has not been thoroughly tested yet.
> 
> *I understand what you are saying* but by no stretch of the imagination is putting "BETA" in the title solving anything. All that does is (maybe) release the maker from any legal liability should the update fail catastrophically.
> 
> ...


Since we all PC enthusiasts know for sure that upcoming cpus are fully compatible with all AM4 sockets, the label BETA could just act as a "being cautious" warning to users that could update their UEFI and lose compatibility with the CPU in their system as the UEFI could be compatible only with Zen2&3 products. Just an idea as I know many PC users cannot fully comprehend what an update with an incompatible UEFI can do to their PC. If the BETA label is so bad, let's agree that a big red banner with what products that BIOS will work will be more than required to protect users from big mistakes.


----------



## Bill_Bright (May 19, 2020)

HD64G said:


> Since we all PC enthusiasts know for sure that upcoming cpus are fully compatible with all AM4 sockets


No! That's an entirely bogus, unfounded, and frankly a tunnel-visioned assumption.

I've been a "PC enthusiast" ever since the IBM PC came out, and into "desktop micro" computers long before that - but as an electronics technician - not as a gamer, or programmer, or graphics designer, or [fill in the blank], any of whom can be a "PC enthusiast". A PC enthusiast maybe someone who just loves using PC computers but has no desire to learn everything to there is to know about AMD processors. 

And I would never, as in NEVER EVER assuming "upcoming" CPUs are "fully compatible" with "all" AM4 sockets. If that were true, why have QVLs?

You must not assume "all" PC enthusiasts are (1) the same, and (2) just like you. For that is not true at all. We are all unique! There are as many different types of PC enthusiasts as there are people who like PCs. There is NOTHING to suggest a gamer knows all the ins and outs of AMD CPU compatibility any more than there is anything to suggest someone who enjoys coding webpages does. There are many enthusiasts who would not think of building their own PC. Or maybe they prefer Intel and don't follow AMD. Or are lifelong Mac fans. 

The fact is, a person may be very specialized and highly regarded in their area of interest/expertise, not know or care anything about AMD or AM4 compatibility, and still be considered a PC enthusiasts. 

Do not assume, just because someone regularly visits TPU that they care or "know for sure" anything about AMD or AM4 compatibility, or that they are not an enthusiasts. 


HD64G said:


> the label BETA could just act as a "being cautious" warning to users


And that is fine.  I don't have a problem with a product being labeled as a "Beta" product. In fact, if something is NOT ready for final production and general release to consumers, it should be labeled as beta or something similar. That is not the point. The point is, by definition, a product that is still in "beta" is still in "testing". And therefore, not a "problem solved" - yet.


----------



## Vya Domus (May 19, 2020)

Bill_Bright said:


> The fact is, a person may be very specialized and highly regarded in their area of interest/expertise, not know or care anything about AMD or AM4 compatibility, and still be considered a PC enthusiasts.



If their area of expertise does not include things like AMD or AM4 compatibility or at least the know-how of how you would find out about that, then they're not PC enthusiasts, it's that simple. Your logic sounds really dumb, how can you possibly be a PC enthusiasts if you have zero knowledge and interest about them ? This genuinely makes no sense. 

Is this some feely touchy thing like "it's enough to believe you're part of a group to be in that group " ? Come on. If you don't know anything about PCs one thing we can be sure of is that you're not a PC enthusiast.


----------



## Bill_Bright (May 19, 2020)

Vya Domus said:


> If their area of expertise does not include things like AMD or AM4 compatibility or at least the know-how of how you would find out about that, then they're not PC enthusiasts,


Oh bullfeathers! Does a car enthusiast need to know the minute details of how a transmission works? 

More importantly, if a car enthusiast has no desire to know the intricacies of a transmission, does that mean they can't be a car enthusiasts? 

And having the know-how to find out about about something is not the same thing at all. Just because I might know how to Google something does not mean I am an enthusiast. 


Vya Domus said:


> If you don't know anything about PCs


Whoa! Who said anything about not knowing anything about PCs? I sure never said anything of the sort!!! This is another "tunnel-visioned" look at PCs.  You are suggesting a person has to know EVERYTHING about PCs to be considered an enthusiast. That's just nonsense. I know for a fact, YOU don't know everything. Therefore, you're no enthusiast!!! 

Personal computers, like IT in general, involves many industries within industries. NO WAY can anybody have expertise (or care to have expertise) in all of them. 

Now we are getting way off track here.


----------



## Vya Domus (May 19, 2020)

Bill_Bright said:


> Who said anything about not knowing anything about PCs?



You did say this, which more or less implies the same thing, that you can have people who have never delved into the intricacies of how these things work and who could still be considered enthusiasts. 



Bill_Bright said:


> There are many enthusiasts who would not think of building their own PC.



What are the chances that someone who doesn't even think about building a PC knows a lot about them. Again, you're logic is bewildering.



Bill_Bright said:


> You are suggesting a person has to know EVERYTHING about PCs to be considered an enthusiast.



They have to know a decent amount to be considered that, like knowing enough in order to build a PC or knowing how to look up which CPUs are compatible with which boards. You know this is true, but as always you try to defend your bizarre ideas.


----------



## Turmania (May 19, 2020)

Amd did Intel. But Intel does not go around giving false advertisements and that is the issue here. I think Steve,from gamers nexus explained it pretty well.


----------



## HD64G (May 19, 2020)

BOOM!!!








Now AMD is again the most customer-friendly PC enterprise we know.


----------



## brucechow (May 19, 2020)

And here I was, happy with my 3600 on a B450 board. Now the god damn upgrade demon is back!


----------



## Vya Domus (May 19, 2020)

HD64G said:


> BOOM!!!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So they basically did what I suggested in that there are going to be unofficial BIOS revisions with most CPUs removed. *londiste*, what do you say, was it a solution or was it not ?


----------



## Bill_Bright (May 19, 2020)

Vya Domus said:


> You did say this,


 No I didn't! Show us where. You can't.

Why would you make up such an obvious falsehood when everyone can go back and read and see that I never said that? That's just not cool, dude.

To repeat, I NEVER EVER said a person needs to know "everything" to be an enthusiast, or that they "not know anything" any still be an enthusiast. To say I did is just a lie. 

Since you have now stooped to making up falsehoods about what others have said or not said, I'm done here.


----------



## Space Lynx (May 19, 2020)

HD64G said:


> BOOM!!!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



lol wow. too bad I just refunded my b450 tomahawk max. what a hassle. make up your effin mind AMD.  I will just pay Intel tax at this point, I got the b450 max on sale too. so yeah... screw AMD, just state it up front why the back and forth. super annoying.


----------



## Vya Domus (May 19, 2020)

Bill_Bright said:


> No I didn't! Show us were. You can't.



I quoted what I was talking about in my comment, maybe you missed it.


----------



## TheLostSwede (May 19, 2020)

lynx29 said:


> lol wow. too bad I just refunded my b450 tomahawk max. what a hassle. make up your effin mind AMD.  I will just pay Intel tax at this point, I got the b450 max on sale too. so yeah... screw AMD, just state it up front why the back and forth. super annoying.


Did you watch the video? It's not as straight forward as you'd think.
It's now up to the board makers, so you may or may not get support...


----------



## londiste (May 19, 2020)

Vya Domus said:


> So they basically did what I suggested in that there are going to be unofficial BIOS revisions with most CPUs removed. *londiste*, what do you say, was it a solution or was it not ?


It is still the same bad solution. Not unofficial, beta. Will be interesting to see how these are going to be supported. One-way, verification of 400-series motherboard and that you have Zen3 CPU plus availability that may not coincide with availability of Zen3 CPUs.

Sounds like made be enthusiasts and for enthusiasts and no normal person would want that.


----------



## Space Lynx (May 19, 2020)

TheLostSwede said:


> Did you watch the video? It's not as straight forward as you'd think.
> It's now up to the board makers, so you may or may not get support...



the tomahawk max will be one that will that is basically promised. so i just lost out on my great sale price and buy and entire plan i had in place for the upgrade path of the 3600. all because AMD can't make up there mind. it doesn't matter, LGA 1200 tomorrow for me. will be faster than Zen 3 in gaming anyway by about 10 fps so meh screw it


----------



## Vya Domus (May 19, 2020)

londiste said:


> It is still the same bad solution.



Bad for whom ? I don't get this weird negativity, it's a way to give some of the people what they wanted, nothing bad in that. Why do you even care if it's bad or good ? I just don't get it.


----------



## Khonjel (May 19, 2020)

Like Roman said, good work to everybody who gave AMD the much-needed flack and congrats. And as for the corporate simps, sod off!


----------



## londiste (May 19, 2020)

Vya Domus said:


> Bad for whom ? I don't get this weird negativity, it's a way to give some of the people what they wanted, nothing bad in that. Why do you even care if it's bad or good ? I just don't get it.


I had a B350 board for which I needed to get a 1st gen Ryzen to update the BIOS. I had a B450 board for which I had to find a supported CPU and ended up moving the CPUs around so B350 get the Zen2 CPU and B450 now hosts my APU because fuck the additional CPU switching. It's a considerable annoyance. With the quality of AGESAs as well as BIOSes so far, I do not want anything resembling a beta anywhere near a machine that I need to use for anything but testing.

Again, no normal person is likely to deal with this mess. I guess it is a win-win for AMD. Enthusiasts will accept that there is a way and shut up about it and normal customers won't care and won't see complaining in the Internet any more either.


----------



## Flanker (May 19, 2020)

Now I am confused. Did AMD explicitly disallow 400 series chipsets from supporting Zen 3 and then ate their words? Or did they just say there are no official support?


----------



## Vya Domus (May 19, 2020)

londiste said:


> do not want anything resembling a beta anywhere near a machine



So don't do it, these wont be available for the public at large. These will be issued upon request for those who absolutely want this. It's all very simple, no one is forcing you to do this.



londiste said:


> Again, no normal person is likely to deal with this mess.



And no normal person will because it's outside their area of expertise to do so anyway.


----------



## Space Lynx (May 19, 2020)

Flanker said:


> AMD explicitly disallow 400 series chipsets from supporting Zen 3 and then ate their words.



you nailed it, they made the impossible possible. lol somehow? magic i guess Kappa


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (May 19, 2020)

Well I thought it too early to weep.

Still it will be hell getting the likes of Asus on board.

I don't like my chances still.


----------



## Darmok N Jalad (May 19, 2020)

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






					www.anandtech.com
				




Sounds like they plan to sort this out before 4000 launch, which could get rather interesting. I guess they will have to get board partners to release new BIOS’s that drop legacy CPUs to make room for the new models? I could see why they wouldn’t push this, since it’s going to be up to the board manufacturer to provide the support, and we all know how many don’t want to mess with updating older products, especially the budget models. Hopefully this doesn’t turn into a bigger mess!


----------



## londiste (May 19, 2020)

Darmok N Jalad said:


> Sounds like they plan to sort this out before 4000 launch, which could get rather interesting. I guess they will have to get board partners to release new BIOS’s that drop legacy CPUs to make room for the new models? I could see why they wouldn’t push this, since it’s going to be up to the board manufacturer to provide the support, and we all know how many don’t want to mess with updating older products, especially the budget models. Hopefully this doesn’t turn into a bigger mess!





			
				AMD said:
			
		

> 4) To reduce the potential for confusion, our intent is to offer BIOS download only to verified customers of 400 Series motherboards who have purchased a new desktop processor with “Zen 3” inside. This will help us ensure that customers have a bootable processor on-hand after the BIOS flash, minimizing the risk a user could get caught in a no-boot situation.
> 5) Timing and availability of the BIOS updates will vary and may not immediately coincide with the availability of the first “Zen 3”-based processors.


----------



## TheLostSwede (May 19, 2020)

lynx29 said:


> the tomahawk max will be one that will that is basically promised. so i just lost out on my great sale price and buy and entire plan i had in place for the upgrade path of the 3600. all because AMD can't make up there mind. it doesn't matter, LGA 1200 tomorrow for me. will be faster than Zen 3 in gaming anyway by about 10 fps so meh screw it


You base that on a third party video? I wouldn't trust anything until the board makers themselves announce support.

Good luck with your Intel system and spending 3x as much on it.


----------



## P4-630 (May 19, 2020)

__
		https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/gmp45o


----------



## bogmali (May 19, 2020)

Closing up shop since AMD changed its stance on this whole topic plus the fact that a couple hijacked the thread with their ego-fest as usual.


----------

