# AMD Second-generation Ryzen "Pinnacle Ridge" Confirmed to Support AM4



## btarunr (Dec 2, 2017)

AMD, in an interview with Overclockers UK (OCUK), confirmed that its second-generation Ryzen desktop processors will support the existing AM4 socket, so current Ryzen platform users can seamlessly upgrade to the new processors, with a BIOS update. Most current AM4 socket motherboards will require BIOS updates to support Ryzen "Raven Ridge" desktop APUs, and Ryzen "Pinnacle Ridge" CPUs, as the two require an update to the latest AGESA 1.0.0.7 version. In the interview, AMD representative James Prior confirmed that the company plans to keep AM4 its mainstream-desktop processor socket all the way up to 2020, which means at least another two to three generations of processors for it. 

The next generation is "Pinnacle Ridge," which is rumored to be an optical-shrink of the "Summit Ridge" silicon to the 12 nm process, enabling higher clock speeds. The decision to keep AM4 doesn't mean the company's 300-series chipset will be made to stretch over 3 years. The company could release newer chipsets, particularly to address 300-series chipset's main shortcoming, just 6-8 older PCI-Express gen 2.0 general purpose lanes (while Intel chipsets put out up to 24 gen 3.0 lanes).





*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## gmn 17 (Dec 2, 2017)

That’s good news


----------



## RejZoR (Dec 2, 2017)

Another reason to go with AMD instead of Intel. I mean, buying new motherboard because you want CPU upgrade just isn't of any fun... The way Intel is currently handling this is just stupid. They may just as well solder the damn CPU's to motherboards, they change them at such stupid rate.


----------



## Chaitanya (Dec 2, 2017)

I thought AMD themselves had said they are going to stick with AM4 until release of DDR5.


----------



## P4-630 (Dec 2, 2017)

I wouldn't mind switching to AMD in the future. (graphics card is another story though...)
I like the idea that you don't need to upgrade your motherboard for a new gen chip. (unlike intel...)


----------



## TheLostSwede (Dec 2, 2017)

This is both good and bad.

The good is that you can upgrade your CPU without having to touch a single other component in your system.

The bad is you won't get any other system improvements. (By only upgrading the CPU that is)

However, the AM4 platform is far from perfect in my opinion. AMD went a bit too stingy on the PCIe lane count so it's not possible to add a second NVMe drive or other high-speed interface cards such as RAID, 10Gbps etc. which is disappointing. If only there had been support for an additional four PCIe lanes, the overall platform would've been so much better.

Sadly this doesn't look like it's something that can or will be addressed until we have a new socket now, so anyone with an AM4 system is going to be slightly limited to what they can stick in their system. Ok, 10Gbps Ethernet can still go via the chipset, but might be a bottlenecked slightly, but other things will be far too limited to go through there.

The pictured board is actually good example of a very limited product, as you have to chose between M.2 or U.2 and PCIe x4 2.0 or M.2 PCIe 2.0, as you only get one or the other, not both.

So let's hope AMD thinks ahead a little bit more when they make their next socket and does something a little bit more future proof when it comes to expandability, not just CPU upgrades.


----------



## RejZoR (Dec 2, 2017)

Even graphic cards aren't bad quite frankly. Polaris was a huge success for them even though it's only a mid end part. And RX Vega isn't that bad either. It's not king of the hill and prices are not totally in their favor, but tech wise, it's quite a decent chip. Not to mention Vega works exceptionally well at lower clocks where it's not being pushed to its absolute limit. Making it very interesting solution for APU's and embeded systems.


----------



## Zubasa (Dec 2, 2017)

TheLostSwede said:


> This is both good and bad.
> 
> The good is that you can upgrade your CPU without having to touch a single other component in your system.
> 
> ...


What stops them the from making an AM4+ socket to address those issues while maintaining compatibility?


----------



## notb (Dec 2, 2017)

RejZoR said:


> Another reason to go with AMD instead of Intel. I mean, buying new motherboard because you want CPU upgrade just isn't of any fun... The way Intel is currently handling this is just stupid. They may just as well solder the damn CPU's to motherboards, they change them at such stupid rate.



Isn't this topic a bit worn out already?

Do we really need an article every month reminding us that AM4 can't afford to redesign the socket more often? Do we really need the comments stating that it's great?


----------



## efikkan (Dec 2, 2017)

RejZoR said:


> Another reason to go with AMD instead of Intel. I mean, buying new motherboard because you want CPU upgrade just isn't of any fun... The way Intel is currently handling this is just stupid. They may just as well solder the damn CPU's to motherboards, they change them at such stupid rate.


And why would anyone upgrade a one year old system with a new one? Even if they sell the old CPU, it's still a waste of money. Intel chooses to bring new platform features over prioritizing those 0.1% of buyers who want to upgrade to every new iteration. In reality nearly everyone keeps motherboard, CPU and RAM "bundled together" throughout the lifespan of a system. Graphics cards, SSDs, HDDs, etc. are on the other hand easy to swap independently.



RejZoR said:


> Even graphic cards aren't bad quite frankly. Polaris was a huge success for them even though it's only a mid end part. And RX Vega isn't that bad either. It's not king of the hill and prices are not totally in their favor, but tech wise, it's quite a decent chip. Not to mention Vega works exceptionally well at lower clocks where it's not being pushed to its absolute limit. Making it very interesting solution for APU's and embeded systems.


Why are you sugar-coating it?
Vega is the largest failure in many years for AMD, and there is no reason to buy it for gaming. So when a product is inferior, the fans keep focusing on theoretical specs over actual performance…


----------



## Vya Domus (Dec 2, 2017)

TheLostSwede said:


> The pictured board is actually good example of a very limited product, as you have to chose between M.2 or U.2 and PCIe x4 2.0 or M.2 PCIe 2.0, as you only get one or the other, not both.



That's what most people do anyway , they go for one or the other. So , limiting ? Yes. A big deal ? Not really.



RejZoR said:


> Not to mention Vega works exceptionally well at lower clocks where it's not being pushed to its absolute limit.



It's not that Vega works well at lower clocks , it's the node itself that works better at lower clocks. Every expert in the field agrees that TSMC's 16nm is far superior at higher clocks.


----------



## the54thvoid (Dec 2, 2017)

This is exactly why I bought a Ryzen chip.  I kept my x79 for 6 years (?) but had few cost effective upgrade routes that would have improved CPU speed by much.  If the Pinnacle Ridge chips can run at a guaranteed 4-4.2Ghz, that'd be a clean 10%+ uplift.  It'd help games too for that single threaded fps where Ryzen's lower clocks do make a slight difference at higher rates (where I dont notice it on a 60Hz monitor  ).

Anyway, looking forward to seeing what they can do with the shrink.


----------



## HD64G (Dec 2, 2017)

Absolutely predictable move and normal practice for AMD. Customer friendly tactics and more than sensible pricing will help them get more sales in the future when one knows that he will put any upcoming CPU or APU in the same mobo he got from 2017 up to 2020 and even further maybe.


----------



## GreiverBlade (Dec 2, 2017)

as expected ... now i can calmly think about my purple switch


----------



## ZeDestructor (Dec 2, 2017)

Zubasa said:


> What stops them the from making an AM4+ socket to address those issues while maintaining compatibility?



Pin count and assignment for the most part: to increase the PCIe lane count while also keeping performance very high, you need to assign more pins from the socket to PCIe so that you can either connect more stuff directly to the CPU, or have a wider link to the chipset.

Then you have the CPU die itself, where you need to widen the PCIe controller there to talk to more PCIe bits.

In theory, if AMD has left enough unassigned pins in the socket, they could rework the CPU die and chipset/motherboard guidelines to add more lanes and call it AM5 or something, but most likely there are no extra unassigned pins. They could also just increase the socket size a bit like the old 386/486 math coprocessor upgrade bits and have the old chips use a smaller area of the newer socket, but again, annoyingly to deal with.


----------



## Filip Georgievski (Dec 2, 2017)

Friendly cost effective move by AMD here as it is still the underdog in the CPU market.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Dec 2, 2017)

Zubasa said:


> What stops them the from making an AM4+ socket to address those issues while maintaining compatibility?



Not enough pins in the socket? Unless they do an Intel and make a new chipset with more PCIe lanes, which will hopefully use a PCIe 3.0 bridge next time around. Then again, we don't know if they have extra capacity or not to add something like four more PCIe lanes to the socket, but it doesn't seem too likely.



Vya Domus said:


> That's what most people do anyway , they go for one or the other. So , limiting ? Yes. A big deal ? Not really.



Well, it's already limiting for me, as I've got an NVMe M.2 drive and can't add another one to my system unless I want to put in a PCIe 2.0 slot. So yes, it is a big deal for some of us.


----------



## notb (Dec 2, 2017)

Zubasa said:


> What stops them the from making an AM4+ socket to address those issues while maintaining compatibility?


Pins? Physics?
Remember FM2+? It was compatible with FM2 CPUs, but not the other way around. So FM2+ made updating the mobo possible, but if  you wanted a new (FM2+) CPU, you had to get a new mobo as well.
And that was a good move for AMD, because - as some of us have been stating since this AM4 lifespan discussion started - platform's features evolve faster than the raw performance.



HD64G said:


> Absolutely predictable move and normal practice for AMD. Customer friendly tactics and more than sensible pricing will help them get more sales in the future when one knows that he will put any upcoming CPU or APU in the same mobo he got from 2017 up to 2020 and even further maybe.


Absolutely not normal practice for AMD and not really customer-friendly tactics (not if they want to grow outside the gaming/home-tinkering niche).
Comments like this one are based on the FM3 era which lasted long not because AMD was so keen to keep the platform, but because they couldn't afford upgrading it (while working on Zen).
Not so long ago AMD not only was replacing the socket as frequently as Intel, but actually had 2 sockets in the consumer lineup.


----------



## hat (Dec 2, 2017)

notb said:


> Absolutely not normal practice for AMD and not really customer-friendly tactics (not if they want to grow outside the gaming/home-tinkering niche).
> Comments like this one are based on the FM3 era which lasted long not because AMD was so keen to keep the platform, but because they couldn't afford upgrading it (while working on Zen).
> Not so long ago AMD not only was replacing the socket as frequently as Intel, but actually had 2 sockets in the consumer lineup.



When... exactly... was this? I remember AMD being very compatible forwards and backwards since AM2.


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 2, 2017)

hat said:


> When... exactly... was this? I remember AMD being very compatible forwards and backwards since AM2.


s754 and s 939...??  Before am2, but...




Chaitanya said:


> I thought AMD themselves had said they are going to stick with AM4 until release of DDR5.


they did.. its reconfirming.


----------



## Vayra86 (Dec 2, 2017)

This is good because its what Ryzen really needs to remain competitive. The first gen was OK, but is still trailing top performance on quite a lot of situations. Keeping the same socket will increase their sales of Pinnacle Ridge, because people will upgrade more readily, 'flooding' the second hand market with 1st gen Ryzens. 

Great way to gain back market share and regain trust. But, Pinnacle better be a tangible improvement or this whole strategy won't work.


----------



## Darmok N Jalad (Dec 2, 2017)

TheLostSwede said:


> This is both good and bad.
> 
> The good is that you can upgrade your CPU without having to touch a single other component in your system.
> 
> ...


I guess that just depends on if they also introduce a new chipset with 2.0 that addresses those concerns. There's nothing saying that you _can't_ upgrade your motherboard if you upgrade to 2.0, but it's sure nice that you don't have to upgrade. The ability to just drop in a new CPU if you are otherwise content is a nice option.


----------



## notb (Dec 2, 2017)

hat said:


> When... exactly... was this? I remember AMD being very compatible forwards and backwards since AM2.


Oh really? Wasn't AMD selling FM and AM platforms simultaneously? :-D


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 2, 2017)

notb said:


> Oh really? Wasn't AMD selling FM and AM platforms simultaneously? :-D


Intel sells HEDT and Mainstream at the same time. Isnt that APU and 'Mainstream'?


----------



## xkm1948 (Dec 2, 2017)

@RejZoR Good old praising Vega and RyZen while using Intel and just bought a 1080Ti. Very convincing, bro.


----------



## RejZoR (Dec 2, 2017)

xkm1948 said:


> @RejZoR Good old praising Vega and RyZen while using Intel and just bought a 1080Ti. Very convincing, bro.



Just because I have NVIDIA that doens't mean it's not shit. Which can be evident from endless bitching about it. Don't have any arguments over 5820K though. It's a good CPU. AMD didn't have anything to offer at the time. Ryzen however is a good choice today. And since this was a long term investment, if 5 years down the path AMD will have something decent in the offerings, I'll probably take that. I don't see a reason why someone with Intel is not allowed to compliment AMD if they have good products.


----------



## cyrand (Dec 2, 2017)

I always see people make a big deal about needing new motherboard for upgrading CPU.  I wonder how many people actually do this.  I have built every computer I ever owned over the past ~20 years now.  I have upgraded ram,GPU,HDD/SSD but in all that time never needed to upgrade a CPU while not also wanting stuff that my current motherboard did not have.  Like newer version of ram, or new PCI-e version, or something else that simply a new CPU would not provide.

My experience is the features of my motherboard become outdated faster then my need for a new CPU therefore it just never seem important to me that AMD or Intel kept backward compatibility on there motherboards.


----------



## iO (Dec 2, 2017)

Vayra86 said:


> Great way to gain back market share and regain trust. But, Pinnacle better be a tangible improvement or this whole strategy won't work.



Shouldnt be too hard. Bulldozer to Piledriver was a ~15% performance gain and that was with just some tweaks of the same Orochi die on the same process.





Now add in some 5-10% higher clocks from the "12nm shrink" and you got a pretty nice CPU.


----------



## TheGuruStud (Dec 2, 2017)

TheLostSwede said:


> Not enough pins in the socket? Unless they do an Intel and make a new chipset with more PCIe lanes, which will hopefully use a PCIe 3.0 bridge next time around. Then again, we don't know if they have extra capacity or not to add something like four more PCIe lanes to the socket, but it doesn't seem too likely.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it's already limiting for me, as I've got an NVMe M.2 drive and can't add another one to my system unless I want to put in a PCIe 2.0 slot. So yes, it is a big deal for some of us.



THREADRIPPAH!  I'm sure you can statistically round the number of people with/wanting more than one nvme down to zero. It's not like more lanes is going to be any priority when they actually did make an HEDT platform.



RejZoR said:


> Just because I have NVIDIA that doens't mean it's not shit. Which can be evident from endless bitching about it. Don't have any arguments over 5820K though. It's a good CPU. AMD didn't have anything to offer at the time. Ryzen however is a good choice today. And since this was a long term investment, if 5 years down the path AMD will have something decent in the offerings, I'll probably take that. I don't see a reason why someone with Intel is not allowed to compliment AMD if they have good products.



It destroys their intel is superior illusion?


----------



## Imsochobo (Dec 2, 2017)

Chaitanya said:


> I thought AMD themselves had said they are going to stick with AM4 until release of DDR5.



They could do phenom II style, where two memory controllers exist for the first revision and I loved it!
I have a Phenom II on an Geforce 2 TI on AGP system, beat that backwards comp-ability!

on the other side I hope they bring out the 4 lost pci-e lanes they've been hiding which requires new socket pinout.
Am1-AM2-AM3 is practically the same just modified it slightly to prevent users from inserting into wrong socket (added or removed a pin)


----------



## Darmok N Jalad (Dec 2, 2017)

cyrand said:


> I always see people make a big deal about needing new motherboard for upgrading CPU.  I wonder how many people actually do this.  I have built every computer I ever owned over the past ~20 years now.  I have upgraded ram,GPU,HDD/SSD but in all that time never needed to upgrade a CPU while not also wanting stuff that my current motherboard did not have.  Like newer version of ram, or new PCI-e version, or something else that simply a new CPU would not provide.
> 
> My experience is the features of my motherboard become outdated faster then my need for a new CPU therefore it just never seem important to me that AMD or Intel kept backward compatibility on there motherboards.



See the 4,1 Mac Pro, which shipped with 45nm quad core Xeons. You could flash that model to 5,1 and then upgrade to 32nm 6 core Xeons (which also supported 1333 DDR3). It was quite an investment, but one could move from 2 x 4C/8T to 2 x 6C/12T without shelling out for the 5,1. An odd example, but back in its day, it was a significant upgrade.

Back when I was right out of college and had limited funds, I used to only upgrade one part at a time. I recall dropping my Dothan 800mhz into a new motherboard that supported the Athlon XP and DDR. When the Athlon XPs got cheaper, I bought one and saw a noticeable performance gain. Granted, today, there isn't as much incentive to upgrade one part at a time other than the GPU, since typically the higher end CPUs mostly offer more cores to gain performance, but those gains are only realized in specific scenarios. In the single (and even dual) core days, the difference was very noticeable across the board.


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 2, 2017)

Well, for those looking to ride out a mobo for several years, I hope nothing new comes out you need or want.

Look at amd the last couple of years... m.2 32 gbps? Usb3.1 10 gbps? Pcie 3.0? Ddr4?

Some pretty big things there for a lot of people.

It just depends on the specific user and if they can or want to live without those (any new) features... or pay to add them via addin cards... which then starts biting into any 'savings' from having to buy another mobo.

Personally, id rather buy a new mobo with all the features than stuff my PC with AICs...to each their own.


----------



## R0H1T (Dec 2, 2017)

cyrand said:


> I always see people make a big deal about needing new motherboard for upgrading CPU.  I wonder how many people actually do this.  I have built every computer I ever owned over the past ~20 years now.  I have upgraded ram,GPU,HDD/SSD but in all that time never needed to upgrade a CPU while not also wanting stuff that my current motherboard did not have.  Like newer version of ram, or new PCI-e version, or something else that simply a new CPU would not provide.
> 
> My experience is the features of my motherboard become outdated faster then my need for a new CPU therefore it just never seem important to me that AMD or Intel kept backward compatibility on there motherboards.


Apart from NVMe & DDR4 what new feature have you seen in the last 2+ years that compels you to upgrade your mobo? Having a choice to keep the same mobo, also memory at times, & upgrade to a better CPU down the road is something that many of us expect from Intel, just like AMD's done in the past.

Also AMD has a superior design now with the SoC style Ryzen, Intel on the other hand is still vastly limited by DMI on their desktop chipsets.


----------



## T1beriu (Dec 2, 2017)

> just 6-8 older PCI-Express gen 2.0 general purpose lanes (while Intel chipsets put out up to 24 gen 3.0 lanes).



You might want to refresh your knowledge about that.


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 2, 2017)

T1beriu said:


> You might want to refresh your knowledge about that.


And you may want to link the info instead of just being snarky.


----------



## nemesis.ie (Dec 2, 2017)

"address 300-series chipset's main shortcoming, just 6-8 older PCI-Express gen 2.0 general purpose lanes (while Intel chipsets put out up to 24 gen 3.0 lanes)."

Is this as bad as it looks at the moment? How much bandwidth do those Intel boards have connecting to the CPU? Much less than 24 3.0 lanes I suspect?

On the flip side, the AM4 platform has 24 lanes from the CPU which in many cases is better via the chipset.  You can at least have one M.2 directly attached to the CPU.

I think the wording should be clarified a bit so folks don't forget about the extra CPU lanes.

Adding a beefier chipset wouldn't be a bad thing though.


----------



## hat (Dec 2, 2017)

notb said:


> Oh really? Wasn't AMD selling FM and AM platforms simultaneously? :-D


To be honest I never followed up on the FM series. It seemed to me like a really cheap, low power solution for your Grandma or your HTPC or something. Looking it up they don't seem exactly cheap either... I wonder what purpose this socket is supposed to serve? Maybe I was remembering something else I saw.

In any case, my comment wasn't about selling multiple platforms at the same time, it was about the longevity and backwards compatibility of at least the AM2 socket on up.


----------



## xkm1948 (Dec 2, 2017)

RejZoR said:


> Just because I have NVIDIA that doens't mean it's not shit. Which can be evident from endless bitching about it. Don't have any arguments over 5820K though. It's a good CPU. AMD didn't have anything to offer at the time. Ryzen however is a good choice today. And since this was a long term investment, if 5 years down the path AMD will have something decent in the offerings, I'll probably take that. I don't see a reason why someone with Intel is not allowed to compliment AMD if they have good products.




Offer still stands man, trading my AmD GPU for your shitty 1080Ti.  Let me know!


----------



## Vayra86 (Dec 2, 2017)

iO said:


> Shouldnt be too hard. Bulldozer to Piledriver was a ~15% performance gain and that was with just some tweaks of the same Orochi die on the same process.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Back then Intel was also adding 10% IPC per gen and Bulldozer was notoriously shitty. So yes, in that day and age, 15% gain is very well doable. Today? Doubtful.


----------



## The Quim Reaper (Dec 2, 2017)

Ryzen at 4.5Ghz with a 5-10% IPC gain would make them a very compelling alternative to a Coffee Lake build.

...Assuming they don't get greedy and start to jack up the prices.


----------



## notb (Dec 2, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> Intel sells HEDT and Mainstream at the same time. Isnt that APU and 'Mainstream'?


Different segmentation.

Intel's mainstream socket really covers mainstream needs: from basic multimedia to gaming / advanced use. And they've all had iGPU for years.
Before AM4 this was not true for AMD. One socket was for APUs, the other one was for more powerful CPUs (without iGPU). So you couldn't easily move between these segments.
And it's not really something I came up with. Both AMD and reviewers made a huge fuss about unification of these 2 lines in one platform.


----------



## cyrand (Dec 2, 2017)

R0H1T said:


> Apart from NVMe & DDR4 what new feature have you seen in the last 2+ years that compels you to upgrade your mobo? Having a choice to keep the same mobo, also memory at times, & upgrade to a better CPU down the road is something that many of us expect from Intel, just like AMD's done in the past.



I guess it a matter of what you want.  I never found a reason to spend money on a new CPU after 2 years.  Usually it 4-5 years before am ready for a new cpu and by that time I usually want a newer chipset then my current motherboard.


----------



## notb (Dec 2, 2017)

R0H1T said:


> Apart from NVMe & DDR4 what new feature have you seen in the last 2+ years that compels you to upgrade your mobo?


NVMe and DDR4 are not enough?
I'd add: USB 3.1 (Gen 2) including Thunderbolt and USB-C.
Generally speaking, "new features" is not the only factor. It's also about typical evolution: interfaces, minor compatibility issues - small things that add up.
Also more and more motherboards have WiFi/BT (finally!).


----------



## RejZoR (Dec 2, 2017)

Also, Stoney Ridge based on Bulldozer tech is anything but slow. They increased the clock dramatically as well as lower consumption and improved IPC, making these excel at single threaded performance (given they are 28nm chips). Power consumption is also down to 15W at highest clocks. It's just a real shame they can't chop these down to 14nm and make them like 7W parts. That would make them interested despite older architecture. I'd still prefer Ryzen based low end parts, but we can't have it all, can we...


----------



## notb (Dec 2, 2017)

hat said:


> To be honest I never followed up on the FM series. It seemed to me like a really cheap, low power solution for your Grandma or your HTPC or something.


What's wrong with "Grandma or HTPC"? 
I've just given my old PC to my grandfather.



> Looking it up they don't seem exactly cheap either... I wonder what purpose this socket is supposed to serve? Maybe I was remembering something else I saw.


Purpose was pretty simple. It was made with APUs in mind. AM CPUs didn't have iGPU.
In other words: FM was for those 90% of buyers who are actually responsible for the financial result. But it was a flop... and here we are few years later: most people on the planet don't know (or don't remember) what AMD is.



> In any case, my comment wasn't about selling multiple platforms at the same time, it was about the longevity and backwards compatibility of at least the AM2 socket on up.


AM2 longevity was rubbish. It was released in 2006 and in 2007 we already got AM2+, which wasn't fully compatible (many mobos didn't get a BIOS update).
AM3 came 3 years later - in 2009.

By comparison, Intel's mainstream socket of the period (775) lasted from 2004 to 2009.


----------



## hat (Dec 2, 2017)

notb said:


> What's wrong with "Grandma or HTPC"?
> I've just given my old PC to my grandfather.



nothing




notb said:


> Purpose was pretty simple. It was made with APUs in mind. AM CPUs didn't have iGPU.
> In other words: FM was for those 90% of buyers who are actually responsible for the financial result. But it was a flop... and here we are few years later: most people on the planet don't know (or don't remember) what AMD is.



And most people think i7 means 7 cores. Most people just aren't too well informed or don't care very much about PC hardware. 




notb said:


> AM2 longevity was rubbish. It was released in 2006 and in 2007 we already got AM2+, which wasn't fully compatible (many mobos didn't get a BIOS update).
> AM3 came 3 years later - in 2009.
> 
> By comparison, Intel's mainstream socket of the period (775) lasted from 2004 to 2009.



Maybe AM2 wasn't around too long... but it was at least forwards compatible. I don't think it was AMD's fault that those mobo manufacturers were reluctant to release a BIOS update for the new processors.


----------



## Darmok N Jalad (Dec 2, 2017)

notb said:


> AM2 longevity was rubbish. It was released in 2006 and in 2007 we already got AM2+, which wasn't fully compatible (many mobos didn't get a BIOS update).
> AM3 came 3 years later - in 2009.
> 
> By comparison, Intel's mainstream socket of the period (775) lasted from 2004 to 2009.



775 is not really much better of an example. Yes, the socket stayed the same, but the netburst Pentiums and Celerons didn't play nicely with the Core series. Most boards would either take one or the other, unless a BIOS update added support (and I don't believe that was very common). 775 was introduced with the awful Prescott series, and I suspect Intel kept the socket/cooler setup in an effort to keep their OEM partners committed while they rolled out something better. That was the last time AMD really caught Intel with its pants down. Intel had to scramble, dumping Netburst and scaling their mobile CPU (Yonah) architecture up to desktop class. By the time Intel had an answer for AMD with the IMC, they were transitioning to 1366.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Dec 2, 2017)

cyrand said:


> I always see people make a big deal about needing new motherboard for upgrading CPU.  I wonder how many people actually do this.  I have built every computer I ever owned over the past ~20 years now.  I have upgraded ram,GPU,HDD/SSD but in all that time never needed to upgrade a CPU while not also wanting stuff that my current motherboard did not have.  Like newer version of ram, or new PCI-e version, or something else that simply a new CPU would not provide.
> 
> My experience is the features of my motherboard become outdated faster then my need for a new CPU therefore it just never seem important to me that AMD or Intel kept backward compatibility on there motherboards.



It opens up options across pricing. Also a CPU drop in means no having to reinstall drivers etc.


----------



## newtekie1 (Dec 2, 2017)

TheLostSwede said:


> Sadly this doesn't look like it's something that can or will be addressed until we have a new socket now, so anyone with an AM4 system is going to be slightly limited to what they can stick in their system. Ok, 10Gbps Ethernet can still go via the chipset, but might be a bottlenecked slightly, but other things will be far too limited to go through there.



This is completely untrue.  Intel's link to the PCH is 3.94GB/s, it essentially uses a PCI-E 3.0 x4 link to the PCH.  AM4's link is the same thing, with the same bandwidth.  Intel's PCH not only does 24 extra PCI-E 3.0 lanes, but it also handles all the SATA ports.

There is no reason AMD can't add more PCI-E lanes as well as a bigger SATA controller to their chipset without any need to change the socket.



EarthDog said:


> Intel sells HEDT and Mainstream at the same time. Isnt that APU and 'Mainstream'?



Hell, AMD had 3 sockets at the same exact time.  AM1, AM3+ and FM2+.


----------



## Hood (Dec 2, 2017)

cyrand said:


> I always see people make a big deal about needing new motherboard for upgrading CPU.  I wonder how many people actually do this.  I have built every computer I ever owned over the past ~20 years now.  I have upgraded ram,GPU,HDD/SSD but in all that time never needed to upgrade a CPU while not also wanting stuff that my current motherboard did not have.  Like newer version of ram, or new PCI-e version, or something else that simply a new CPU would not provide.
> 
> My experience is the features of my motherboard become outdated faster then my need for a new CPU therefore it just never seem important to me that AMD or Intel kept backward compatibility on there motherboards.


Good points.  The people bitching are mostly AMD users (they're usually budget-limited, or they'd buy Intel).  Amd users feel the need for a new CPU the minute they build a system, because they don't buy top parts, and are hoping for a pencil mod to magically make their CPU twice as fast for free!  The frequent motherboard change is one of the strengths of Intel, not a weakness at all.  Intel users want top performance, not a bargain deal.  Using a board for multiple generations is just another compromise, sacrificing performance or connectivity just to save a few bucks.  I always sold my old Intel parts as a working system, and that covered half to 2/3 the cost of the new rig, and now all my friends have better gaming rigs for a lower price, and free lifetime support (parts extra!).


----------



## RejZoR (Dec 2, 2017)

"Intel users want top performance" Ends up buying Core i3 or Core i5... A what?


----------



## eidairaman1 (Dec 2, 2017)

Hood said:


> Good points.  The people bitching are mostly AMD users (they're usually budget-limited, or they'd buy Intel).  Amd users feel the need for a new CPU the minute they build a system, because they don't buy top parts, and are hoping for a pencil mod to magically make their CPU twice as fast for free!  The frequent motherboard change is one of the strengths of Intel, not a weakness at all.  Intel users want top performance, not a bargain deal.  Using a board for multiple generations is just another compromise, sacrificing performance or connectivity just to save a few bucks.  I always sold my old Intel parts as a working system, and that covered half to 2/3 the cost of the new rig, and now all my friends have better gaming rigs for a lower price, and free lifetime support (parts extra!).



Shallow minded, you are

There's a reason we have choices. Sorry I built my rig the way I wanted. At least Boards don't have to be upgraded every other year to support a new cpu, easy drop ins Like Super 7 was in the day, on top of that I'm not in debt because of a build. On another note there are better things in life than being at the computer 24/7.


----------



## Xzibit (Dec 2, 2017)

RejZoR said:


> "Intel users want top performance" Ends up buying Core i3 or Core i5... A what?



I like the part where he sells his old system to his "Friends". I thought cool nice dude then read his post again and it sounds more like keeping them under that bus.



Hood said:


> Good points.  The people bitching are mostly AMD users (they're usually budget-limited, or they'd buy Intel).  Amd users feel the need for a new CPU the minute they build a system, because they don't buy top parts, and are hoping for a pencil mod to magically make their CPU twice as fast for free!  *The frequent motherboard change is one of the strengths of Intel,* not a weakness at all.  *Intel users want top performance*, not a bargain deal.  *Using a board for multiple generations is just another compromise*, *sacrificing performance or connectivity just to save a few bucks*.  I always sold my old Intel parts as a working system, *and that covered half to 2/3 the cost of the new rig*, and *now all my friends have better gaming rigs for a lower price*, and free lifetime support (parts extra!).



The same stereotype hes complaining about, hes actively perpetuating for his own benefit.  Hey friend here is a deal on my 3gen+ old hardware stay back there and don't think about new ram, connectivity and all the other stuff i'm saying that are benefits.

If its covering 2/3 of the new system wouldn't it be more "friendly" to advise them towards a current gen system with all the benefits you spouted. Doesn't need to be top end.

Seams so contradictory


----------



## Darmok N Jalad (Dec 2, 2017)

Xzibit said:


> I like the part where he sells his old system to his "Friends". I thought cool nice dude then read his post again and it sounds more like keeping them under that bus.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Nice catch. I was distracted by the generalizations made against all AMD and Intel buyers. It's almost like there's more to it than that.


----------



## cyrand (Dec 3, 2017)

My comments was not meant to be about AMD vs Intel.  I was honestly curious if people was actually upgrading there CPU without changing there motherboard or they just like the idea of having that option but never actually did it.  I guess if people are upgrading they just doing more CPU dependent things then I do.  For my needs I can keep the same CPU 4-5 years and don't find my bottle neck ever being the CPU.  I can understand if people are getting bottle neck by a CPU after only a year or two why this would be a issue.  For me it a none factor when making my buying decisions.


----------



## Zubasa (Dec 3, 2017)

cyrand said:


> My comments was not meant to be about AMD vs Intel.  I was honestly curious if people was actually upgrading there CPU without changing there motherboard or they just like the idea of having that option but never actually did it.  I guess if people are upgrading they just doing more CPU dependent things then I do.  For my needs I can keep the same CPU 4-5 years and don't find my bottle neck ever being the CPU.  I can understand if people are getting bottle neck by a CPU after only a year or two why this would be a issue.  For me it a none factor when making my buying decisions.


TBH the point is not about if most users opt to upgrade or not, but some people with the weird mentality that somehow having an option to upgrade is a bad thing.
There are almost always unused or non-essential pins in the socket, which is why often people with broken pins on the cpu / mobo is still able to run their PC seemingly without issue.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Dec 3, 2017)

cyrand said:


> My comments was not meant to be about AMD vs Intel.  I was honestly curious if people was actually upgrading there CPU without changing there motherboard or they just like the idea of having that option but never actually did it.  I guess if people are upgrading they just doing more CPU dependent things then I do.  For my needs I can keep the same CPU 4-5 years and don't find my bottle neck ever being the CPU.  I can understand if people are getting bottle neck by a CPU after only a year or two why this would be a issue.  For me it a none factor when making my buying decisions.



At this point for me it's more of a want than a need to upgrade. A friend of mine needs an upgrade bad from a P4.


----------



## Hood (Dec 3, 2017)

eidairaman1 said:


> Shallow minded, you are
> 
> There's a reason we have choices. Sorry I built my rig the way I wanted. At least Boards don't have to be upgraded every other year to support a new cpu, easy drop ins Like Super 7 was in the day, on top of that I'm not in debt because of a build. On another note there are better things in life than being at the computer 24/7.


Okay, forget brand loyalty - who are all these people who build gaming rigs, then feel the need to update ONLY their CPU, with every new generation or refresh?  I just don't see the reasoning behind this, besides the "upgrade itch" for it's own sake.


----------



## ur6beersaway (Dec 3, 2017)

RejZoR said:


> Another reason to go with AMD instead of Intel. I mean, buying new motherboard because you want CPU upgrade just isn't of any fun... The way Intel is currently handling this is just stupid. They may just as well *solder* the damn CPU's to motherboards, they change them at such stupid rate.



Ha Ha, "solder"  I see what you did there....Maybe they can "glue" the CPU with their shitty "paste" instead.


----------



## Totally (Dec 3, 2017)

xkm1948 said:


> @RejZoR Good old praising Vega and RyZen while using Intel and just bought a 1080Ti. Very convincing, bro.



These forums use :smh: make a pro-AMD, or anti-other guy comment: if you use their stuff, get called a fanboy; don't use their stuff, get called out anyway.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Dec 3, 2017)

Hood said:


> Good points.  The people bitching are mostly AMD users (they're usually budget-limited, or they'd buy Intel).  Amd users feel the need for a new CPU the minute they build a system, because they don't buy top parts, and are hoping for a pencil mod to magically make their CPU twice as fast for free!  The frequent motherboard change is one of the strengths of Intel, not a weakness at all.  Intel users want top performance, not a bargain deal.  Using a board for multiple generations is just another compromise, sacrificing performance or connectivity just to save a few bucks.  I always sold my old Intel parts as a working system, and that covered half to 2/3 the cost of the new rig, and now all my friends have better gaming rigs for a lower price, and free lifetime support (parts extra!).



You think? Then you might have to rethink as I went from Intel to AMD when Ryzen launched. Nothing to do with budget, as I could've gotten either or.

I used to to give away my old parts, as I'm not cheap like you...


----------



## Hood (Dec 3, 2017)

TheLostSwede said:


> I went from Intel to AMD when Ryzen launched. Nothing to do with budget, as I could've gotten either or


Is there some reason you did this?  You like solving driver problems? Is your favorite hobby buying lots of RAM until you find a kit that works? Did you feel like an elitist asshole when you had the fast Intel rig?  Were your frame rates too high?  Or some weird "I support the underdog, I'm a better person than you" thing?  We all do strange things sometimes...


----------



## evernessince (Dec 3, 2017)

TheLostSwede said:


> This is both good and bad.
> 
> The good is that you can upgrade your CPU without having to touch a single other component in your system.
> 
> ...



"AMD went a bit too stingy on the PCIe lane count"

and yet threadripper, which destroys Intel in PCIe lane count.  FYI most consumer motherboards don't even have 2 M.2 slots so you are going to need to buy something like a threadripper regardless.

"The bad is you won't get any other system improvements."

What?  You do realize that AMD is still going to release a new chipset with each new Zen generation right?  Other system improvements are completely possible.

"Ok, 10Gbps Ethernet can still go via the chipset, but might be a bottlenecked slightly, but other things will be far too limited to go through there."

Um no, 10Gbps is completely possible with zero bottleneck.  The ASRock x370 gaming pro has a 5Gbps LAN right now.


----------



## sinnedone (Dec 3, 2017)

notb said:


> Isn't this topic a bit worn out already?
> 
> Do we really need an article every month reminding us that AM4 can't afford to redesign the socket more often? Do we really need the comments stating that it's great?



Upgrade sockets you say.... List all the changes in the socket since say Z87/Z97. Not much really, I think the biggest change was DMI 3.0.

I like to hear tech news in general. It's very easy to not read it judging by the title of the article. 




efikkan said:


> And why would anyone upgrade a one year old system with a new one? Even if they sell the old CPU, it's still a waste of money. Intel chooses to bring new platform features over prioritizing those 0.1% of buyers who want to upgrade to every new iteration. In reality nearly everyone keeps motherboard, CPU and RAM "bundled together" throughout the lifespan of a system. Graphics cards, SSDs, HDDs, etc. are on the other hand easy to swap independently.
> 
> 
> Why are you sugar-coating it?
> Vega is the largest failure in many years for AMD, and there is no reason to buy it for gaming. So when a product is inferior, the fans keep focusing on theoretical specs over actual performance…



Freesync with 1080 like performance. That's a pretty good reason if you can find them priced accordingly.


----------



## ZeDestructor (Dec 3, 2017)

sinnedone said:


> Upgrade sockets you say.... List all the changes in the socket since say Z87/Z97. Not much really, I think the biggest change was DMI 3.0.
> 
> I like to hear tech news in general. It's very easy to not read it judging by the title of the article.



Move back to fully external VRMs on Skylake is the major one, then the later pin-reassignment from LGA1151-1 of 200-series to LGA1151-2 of 300-series (now there's one that could have used a new socket...).

Really, as far a DT platforms go, Intel has been very reasonable with socket changes and compatibility overall.


----------



## sinnedone (Dec 3, 2017)

ZeDestructor said:


> Move back to fully external VRMs on Skylake is the major one, then the later pin-reassignment from LGA1151-1 of 200-series to LGA1151-2 of 300-series (now there's one that could have used a new socket...).
> 
> Really, as far a DT platforms go, Intel has been very reasonable with socket changes and compatibility overall.




I do believe motherboard manufacturers have come out and said that Z370 was not necessary and could have worked on Z270.

Correct me if I'm wrong though as the specifics slip my mind at the moment.


----------



## notb (Dec 3, 2017)

evernessince said:


> FYI most consumer motherboards don't even have 2 M.2 slots so you are going to need to buy something like a threadripper regardless.


This might be true for AMD Zen platform. Since 200-series dual M.2 became pretty pedestrian in the Intel world (possibly because of Optane).



> What?  You do realize that AMD is still going to release a new chipset with each new Zen generation right?  Other system improvements are completely possible.



No one said that new chipsets won't be released and AMD users won't have access to new or fixed tech (although it is a possibility, obviously).

It's exactly these new features and system improvements that will push current Ryzen users to update the mobo as well - not just the CPU. So the AM4 longevity is a little overrated.



> Um no, 10Gbps is completely possible with zero bottleneck. The ASRock x370 gaming pro has a 5Gbps LAN right now.


Says you?

I'm looking at the top of the range ASRock X370 Fatal1ty Professional. Next to the ASRock Z370 Fatal1ty Professional, which is just $40 more, it looks like it came from a lower segment.

Z370 has 10Gbit LAN and dual 1GBit (X370: 5GBit + 1GBit)
Z370 has 3 fast M.2 (X370: 1 fast, 1 slow)
Z370 has 3 PCIe 3.0 x16 (X370: 2)
Z370 has 3 USB 3.1 Gen2 (X370: 2)


----------



## R0H1T (Dec 3, 2017)

TheLostSwede said:


> *So you're suggesting adding M.2*, 10Gbps Ethernet and anything that's going through the chipset today and don't think there will be a bottleneck between the chipset and CPU if multiple things are used at once? Good luck with that, as it's already been shown to be a bottleneck on Intel's platforms.
> 
> The comment about no other system improvements was with regards to only upgrading the CPU and I'm sorry if this wasn't clear.


The M.2 drives IIRC connect directly with the CPU, for AMD, & only 5/10G ethernet need to be routed via chipset.

The next year or two we'll see PCIe 4.0 (or 5.0) getting adopted so the question of lanes becomes moot. Especially for AMD since Ryzen is an SoC, Intel as we know is limited by DMI.


----------



## R0H1T (Dec 3, 2017)

TheLostSwede said:


> Please read the post I replied to. Yes, one M.2 goes directly via the CPU, but the whole thing is based on my first post stating that AMD missed out by not adding four more PCIe lanes from the CPU and him saying that it'll work just fine using AMD's yet unknown next gen chipset as it'll surely be PCIe 3.0 and there won't be a bottleneck connecting all these things at the same time through the chipset.
> 
> I really wish people could read before posting arguments for or against something without know where the discussion started...


I'm countering part of what you're saying by adding that Ryzen is an SoC, so for instance if the upcoming PR or RR have PCIe 4.0 then M.2 or even 5/10G will not be bottlenecked (by limited amount of PCIe lanes) to the extent we're seeing today with first gen Ryzen.


----------



## Patriot (Dec 3, 2017)

Nothing theoretical about vega gaming performance.   It is 1080ish without async and use of packed math.

I have a 1080ti for gaming and 4 vega64s for compute.  Why?  Because that gives me 100Tflops of tensorflow compute.   Vega is probably rop limited for gaming... but it excels at compute.

Hoping the die shrink leads to higher clocked R7s.


----------



## newtekie1 (Dec 3, 2017)

TheLostSwede said:


> This is not what we were discussing if you'd actually read the posts. The discussion was about adding more lanes directly from the CPU, not via the chipset, so there's nothing untrue about it.
> 
> Going via a multiplexed solution via the chipset is an option, but the bandwidth to the CPU is then shared by all devices which can be a bottleneck. For most people it won't be and as I mentioned in another post in this thread, at least as far as NVMe drives are concerned, it doesn't seem to benefit AMD to have a direct link to the CPU as long as you only have one drive.



No, that's not what we are discussing.  Re-read the original post, what lanes btarunr is talking about, and what you responded to on the first page, the post I responded to.  We are talking about the lanes off the chipset.



btarunr said:


> particularly to address 300-series *chipset's* main shortcoming, just *6-8 older PCI-Express gen 2.0 general purpose lanes* (while Intel *chipsets* put out up to *24 gen 3.0 lanes*).



We are specifically talking about the chipset lanes.  The actual fact is that Ryzen has more PCI-E lanes coming off the CPU than Intel does.  The Ryzen CPU provides 24 PCI-E 3.0 lanes, Intel's Coffee/Kaby/Sky Lake only provide 20 PCI-E 3.0 lanes.

Ryzen = 24 lanes = 16 for Graphics, 4 for NVMe, 4 for link to Chipset
Intel CFL = 20 lanes = 16 for Graphics, 4 for link to Chipset

With Intel, none of the NVMe drives are running from the CPU itself because of the limited PCI-E lanes from the CPU.

So, there are two options:

1.) We were talking about the PCI-E lanes coming off the CPU, in which case you were wrong in your statement about AMD being too stingy, because they obviously were not since they have more lanes than Intel.

OR

2.) We were talking about the lanes coming from the chipset(we were) in which AMD has the same bandwidth between the chipset and the CPU, which means they have plenty of room to expand the lanes provided by the chipset and you were wrong.

You can pick which situations you think we were actually talking about, but either way, you were wrong.



TheLostSwede said:


> So you're suggesting adding M.2, 10Gbps Ethernet and anything that's going through the chipset today and don't think there will be a bottleneck between the chipset and CPU if multiple things are used at once? Good luck with that, as it's already been shown to be a bottleneck on Intel's platforms.



Except it hasn't really been shown to be a bottleneck in Intel's system, not that I've seen.  I've run NVMe and 10Gb/s network through the chipset just fine.  The link between the CPU and chipset is a 31.5Gb/s link.  If you use 10Gb/s ethernet, that still leaves 21.5Gb/s for everything else.  That is still an insane amount of bandwidth.  Yeah, that might slightly bottleneck the fastest NVMe drives, but not to a noticeable degree.  It's still 2.6GB/s of bandwidth!  That's enough for an NVMe drive, a SATA storage drive, and some USB 3.0 ports to be active without any noticeable slowdown.



TheLostSwede said:


> I really wish people could read before posting arguments for or against something without know where the discussion started...



Yes, indeed it would be nice if people wouldn't post without knowing where the discussion started...

Because, the fact is we were talking about the chipset lanes.  Nothing in your original post suggests you, for whatever reason, were talking about the CPU other than you stating they need a new socket for more PCI-E lanes, which doesn't make any sense when you actually know what you're talking about.  No one before you was talking about the CPU lanes, and you never mention in your post you were talking about the CPU.  Everyone else in this thread is talking about the chipset.

And the fact is, AMD could actually make the link to the Chipset twice as fast an Intel very easily.  They have 8 extra PCI-E lanes on their CPU while Intel only has 4.  Right now, AMD divides the 8 lanes as 4+4, 4 for the chipset and 4 for an NVMe drive.  However, if they develop a more capable chipset with more PCI-E 3.0 lanes, they could take the 4 lanes currently used for NVMe connection and instead use those for the connection to the chipset, giving twice the bandwidth between the CPU and chipset that Intel has. That would be 63Gb/s, or 7.8GB/s.  More than enough for an NVMe RAID array, 10Gb/s ethernet, all the USB ports you would want, and plenty of SATA ports.

This likely could be done with the current processors too. The motherboard would decided where the PCI-E lanes are directed.  If a CPU is put in an older board, then the current configuration is used.  If the CPU is put in a motherboard with a newer chipset, then all 8 lanes are used for the chipset connection, and the chipset then provides more lanes for NVMe and other expansion cards.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Dec 3, 2017)

Hood said:


> Okay, forget brand loyalty - who are all these people who build gaming rigs, then feel the need to update ONLY their CPU, with every new generation or refresh?  I just don't see the reasoning behind this, besides the "upgrade itch" for it's own sake.



I feel sorry for how lost you are


----------



## newtekie1 (Dec 3, 2017)

eidairaman1 said:


> I feel sorry for how lost you are



I have to agree with Hood here.  Back in the day, yeah, a lot more people upgraded just their CPUs.  But back in the day, most computers were owned by enthusiasts.  It wasn't a household appliance.

But now, the overwhelming majority of people do not upgrade just their CPU.  So ensuring that feature isn't something the CPU manufacturers have to consider anymore.  Even gamers and people that build their own systems rarely upgrade just the CPU because they want the new generation.  Yes, there are some, a small some, that do it to because they originally bought a Pentium 2c/2t and want to upgrade to an i5 or i7, or an FX 4c/4t and wand to upgrade to 8c/8t, etc.   But at the same time, a large reasoning for the lack of interested to upgrade to new new generation CPU is the gap between generations has greatly decreased.  Back in the day, there was a pretty significant bump in performance going from a 386 to a 486, and that is why a pin compatible 486 was released for 386 motherboards.  But today, we see tiny generation improvements.  I mean, that's why I'm still running a 4 generation old i7 in my gaming rig.  There was no compelling improvement for me to upgrade to the new generations, even if they were compatible with my motherboard, it really wouldn't have even been worth the wasted effort of pulling things apart to put in a new processor.  An hour of my time isn't worth a performance improvement that I won't even notice.  And I'm an enthusiast and a gamer.  Normal people don't upgrade their CPUs.  And in the 15+ years I've been working in and running computer repair shops, I've only ever had one person come in asking for just a cpu upgrade.  While most people would rather just go out and buy a whole new computer than spend the money on a CPU upgrade.


----------



## Norton (Dec 3, 2017)

TheLostSwede said:


> This is not what we were discussing if you'd actually read the posts. The discussion was about adding more lanes directly from the CPU, not via the chipset, so there's nothing untrue about it.
> 
> Going via a multiplexed solution via the chipset is an option, but the bandwidth to the CPU is then shared by all devices which can be a bottleneck. For most people it won't be and as I mentioned in another post in this thread, at least as far as NVMe drives are concerned, it doesn't seem to benefit AMD to have a direct link to the CPU as long as you only have one drive.





TheLostSwede said:


> You think? Then you might have to rethink as I went from Intel to AMD when Ryzen launched. Nothing to do with budget, as I could've gotten either or.
> 
> I used to to give away my old parts, as I'm not cheap like you...




@TheLostSwede - please to edit the first post rather than replying multiple times in a row from now on- recommend you edit your posts before a section or super mod has to come in and do it.

See guide below for reference:
https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/...osts-and-use-the-multi-quote-features.234427/


----------



## TheLostSwede (Dec 3, 2017)

Norton said:


> @TheLostSwede - please to edit the first post rather than replying multiple times in a row from now on- recommend you edit your posts before a section or super mod has to come in and do it.
> 
> See guide below for reference:
> https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/...osts-and-use-the-multi-quote-features.234427/



You know, it's fine, I've removed the posts I could, please remove the rest and I'll stay out of this "discussion" where apparently only some people have the right to an opinion. Apparently I'm an idiot that knows nothing, not even what I wrote.


----------



## ZeDestructor (Dec 3, 2017)

sinnedone said:


> I do believe motherboard manufacturers have come out and said that Z370 was not necessary and could have worked on Z270.
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong though as the specifics slip my mind at the moment.



Intel claims to have needed a new socket (and did in fact change the pin assignments in the socket in question). May as well do some badge engineering (Z370 is the exact same die as Z270 iirc) along the way since users will need a new motherboard anyways.

Now, whether the socket itself needed changing is up for debate: some people say yes, others say no. I personally reckon Intel wasn't happy with the safety margin of an unmodified LGA1151 socket, which resulted in the update. The basic engineering premise is sound however: more power leads to more current (since you never want to raise the voltage), which leads to more power pins. Adding more power pins is exactly what Intel did with the updated Z370-based 1151 boards.


----------



## Norton (Dec 3, 2017)

Watch the language- insulting other members will result in thread bans, infractions, and other unpleasantness if it continues.

This is the only public warning- points to follow past this point


----------



## trparky (Dec 3, 2017)

Is there any firm news about this or are we still going on rumors?


----------



## MrMilli (Dec 4, 2017)

efikkan said:


> Why are you sugar-coating it?
> Vega is the largest failure in many years for AMD, and there is no reason to buy it for gaming. So when a product is inferior, the fans keep focusing on theoretical specs over actual performance…



Funny how a chip that beats the GTX1080 in almost every new game, is such a failure and not worth buying for gaming.


----------



## notb (Dec 4, 2017)

MrMilli said:


> Funny how a chip that beats the GTX1080 in almost every new game, is such a failure and not worth buying for gaming.


It's not that hard to beat another card in raw performance. Just this doesn't make Vega 64 great.
Look at the cost of this: power consumption, heat, size, loudness.
Yes, performance is there. But should you buy this card? No. 1080 is better.

Is Vega 56 more sensible choice - worth considering? It was at the time of release, but NVIDIA - thanks to a much better tech and way more flexibility - answered it in matter of months.

Expectations were great and AMD told us many things about what Vega would be. And they failed to deliver.


----------



## Durvelle27 (Dec 4, 2017)

notb said:


> It's not that hard to beat another card in raw performance. Just this doesn't make Vega 64 great.
> Look at the cost of this: power consumption, heat, size, loudness.
> Yes, performance is there. But should you buy this card? No. 1080 is better.
> 
> ...


Power consumption is no higher than a GTX 1080 Ti

Temperatures run about on average around the same as most 1070s and 1080s 

Noise is almost non existent 

Idk where you guys find your information


----------



## newtekie1 (Dec 4, 2017)

Durvelle27 said:


> Power consumption is no higher than a GTX 1080 Ti



Actually, power consumption is quite a bit higher than a GTX 1080Ti.








Durvelle27 said:


> Temperatures run about on average around the same as most 1070s and 1080s



Temperature is not the same as heat.  The heat output is significantly higher on Vega, that is the point.  The temperatures are pretty close because Vega has higher noise because of the fans running faster to keep the temps under control.



Durvelle27 said:


> Noise is almost non existent








By "non-existatnt" do you mean almost twice as loud as nVidia's cards?

But, yeah, Vega is such a success and such a great GPU.  Just look at all the card manufactures that are releasing all their custom designed Vega cards.  The manufacturers are really embracing Vega and running with it...oh wait...


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 4, 2017)

Durvelle27 said:


> Power consumption is no higher than a GTX 1080 Ti





Durvelle27 said:


> Idk where you guys find your information


ehhh... from your own graph?


The data you posted shows it uses 10%-15% more power (and its 25% slower than a 1080ti). For those who care, thats a problem.


----------



## btarunr (Dec 4, 2017)

newtekie1 said:


> Ryzen = 24 lanes = 16 for Graphics, 4 for NVMe, 4 for link to Chipset
> Intel CFL = 20 lanes = 16 for Graphics, 4 for link to Chipset
> 
> With Intel, none of the NVMe drives are running from the CPU itself because of the limited PCI-E lanes from the CPU.



Sorry mate, the lane config is like this: 






M.2 gen 3.0 slots on X370 boards are wired to the CPU, and unlike Z370 boards, you can't have three gen 3.0 M.2 slots. That's the shortcoming.


----------



## dicktracy (Dec 4, 2017)

Or, you could buy Intel now and get better performance today rather than paying more in the long run by constantly upgrading your CPU just to “maybe” keep up with current Intel’s offerings.


----------



## Readlight (Dec 4, 2017)

I upgraded only because something broken, all this takes time and money + electricity bill is rising. to 40 Euro for one home.


----------



## Basard (Dec 4, 2017)

Hell, I've still gotta machine in the house running a 770 chipset with Vishera.  Sure, Vishera support on the 770 chipset is kinda weird, but it still works.  USB 3.0+ is so overrated---who needs 10x the speed?


----------



## Kissamies (Dec 4, 2017)

Good thing.


----------



## TheinsanegamerN (Dec 4, 2017)

> Having a choice to keep the same mobo, also memory at times, & upgrade to a better CPU down the road is *something that many of us expect from Intel*, just like AMD's done in the past.


Why would you expect such behavior from intel, when intel has not been doing that for almost a decade now?


R0H1T said:


> Apart from NVMe & DDR4 what new feature have you seen in the last 2+ years that compels you to upgrade your mobo?
> 
> Also AMD has a superior design now with the SoC style Ryzen, Intel on the other hand is still vastly limited by DMI on their desktop chipsets.


Counter-point, what tech in the CPU world makes you want to upgrade while sticking to an older motherboard? I have an ivy bridge i5. There is 0 performance upgrade in me moving to much of anything else for gaming, as it maintains over 60FPS in every title that isnt GPU limited. I sure wouldnt want to put a coffee lake CPU into my now outdated mobo, with only 2 USB 3 ports, no M.2, no PCIE boot, ece. 

May want to make a huge deal about upgrading CPUs, but when the now 5 year old i5 2500k can still play every new game properly, what is the point of upgrading and keeping your ancient z68 motherboard?

Alternatively, by making a backwards compatible design, you hamstring future improvement, as AMD has done. AM4 is PCIE limited, and only a new socket will fix that, which would break backwards compatibility. This is not an issue for intel, whom can change their socket whenever they like. 

In an era of decade old CPUs, the ability to upgrade just the CPU doesnt have the necessity that it did back in 2005.


----------



## newtekie1 (Dec 4, 2017)

btarunr said:


> Sorry mate, the lane config is like this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That chart isn't right.  Ryzen processors only provide 24 lanes, 4 of which are used for the connection to the chipset, leaving 4 lanes for an NVMe drive and 16 for graphics, for 20 total usable lanes from the CPU.  I'm guessing the error is that whoever made that chart took the platform total, 28, and mistakenly put that in as the number coming from the CPU.  Then they added the 8 from the chipset to that wrong 28 number to get 36.  But there are still other issues with the chart, like including lanes used for the chipset into the number of lanes provided by the AMD platform, but not on the Intel, making Intel look even worse than it really is.  It basically makes AMD look like they have 4 more lanes than they should compared to Intel, since they both use 4 lanes for the connection to the chipset.  So it should list either 24 for AMD and 20 for Intel if you are including the chipset lanes, or 20 for AMD and 16 for Intel if you aren't including chipset lanes.

AMD's own information confirms the lane counts:





They show 28 lanes total, 8 of which are Gen2 from the Chipset, that leaves 20 from the CPU.  They also show that Threadripper gives 68 lanes total, not 72, 8 of which are Gen2 from the chipset, leaving 60 from the CPU not 64.

And ASUS's block digram for the Crosshair VI Hero also shows 24 lanes:






Also, there is threadripper, which again is way off. 

Don't get me wrong, I completely agree with you on the shortcomings.  But they aren't with the CPU, they are with the chipset, again agreeing with you.  And an updated chipset is all that is necessary, one that provides more PCI-E 3.0 lanes for the platform, again agreeing with you.  But I'm right on the lane configs, the chart you posted is way off.


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 4, 2017)

Is the DMI included in the CPU lanes though?


----------



## Fx (Dec 4, 2017)

notb said:


> Isn't this topic a bit worn out already?
> 
> Do we really need an article every month reminding us that AM4 can't afford to redesign the socket more often? Do we really need the comments stating that it's great?



Then do not read or participate in the article or conversation. Problem solved.


----------



## newtekie1 (Dec 4, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> Is the DMI included in the CPU lanes though?



That's the question.  The chart btarunr posted includes the "DMI" between the CPU and chipset for the AMD platforms, but doesn't for the Intel.  Yes, AMD comes right out and says they are using PCI-E lanes, and Intel doesn't. But come on, we all know Intel is just using PCI-E lanes.  It isn't a coincidence that the DMI bandwidth is exactly the same as 4 PCI-E lanes and the DMI version goes up the same time the PCI-E version goes up.


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 4, 2017)

newtekie1 said:


> That's the question.  The chart btarunr posted includes the "DMI" between the CPU and chipset for the AMD platforms, but doesn't for the Intel.  Yes, AMD comes right out and says they are using PCI-E lanes, and Intel doesn't. But come on, we all know Intel is just using PCI-E lanes.  It isn't a coincidence that the DMI bandwidth is exactly the same as 4 PCI-E lanes and the DMI version goes up the same time the PCI-E version goes up.



Pretty sure its not included. For example, x299 sli with kaby lake. A 16 lane cpu still goes to x8/x8 and the other devices are not affected. If they were included in that count, it would stand to reason x8/x8 isnt possible.


----------



## GoldenX (Dec 4, 2017)

Great news for us people that can't afford to change everything for an upgrade. This will be great for APU users, ¿you want more CPU and GPU power? Just change the CPU, no new chipset+socket needed.


----------



## newtekie1 (Dec 4, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> Pretty sure its not included. For example, x299 sli with kaby lake. A 16 lane cpu still goes to x8/x8 and the other devices are not affected. If they were included in that count, it would stand to reason x8/x8 isnt possible.



Yeah, but that is Intel's advertising.  They say the CPU has 16, but it really has 20, but 4 are used for the chipset link.  On the chart bta posted, the chipset link is being included in the AMD count, but not in the Intel.  We just have to pick one.  In the end, it doesn't change the point that AMD offers 4 more CPU lanes than Intel.  So they really aren't being that stingy with the PCI-E lanes, they just need a better chipset that adds more lanes, they don't have to do anything to the CPU or socket to get more PCI-E lanes to compete with Intel.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Dec 4, 2017)

dicktracy said:


> Or, you could buy Intel now and get better performance today rather than paying more in the long run by constantly upgrading your CPU just to “maybe” keep up with current Intel’s offerings.



 good luck with that replacing your board every time


----------



## GoldenX (Dec 4, 2017)

dicktracy said:


> Or, you could buy Intel now and get better performance today rather than paying more in the long run by constantly upgrading your CPU just to “maybe” keep up with current Intel’s offerings.



If performance is your only relevant metric, go get a server. The joke of upgrading boards every time is finally over.


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 4, 2017)

eidairaman1 said:


> good luck with that replacing your board every time


since you want to brandish a sword...

Enjoy missing out features just to keep your cpu to date? See my earlier post. 

Really, the cpu is the last thing people actually need to upgrade, yet, suddenly its a huge issue, we need to upgrade our cpus every 3 years? After 4/5, when most people actually want/need a cpu upgrade, ill want what the new chipset has to offer anyway. If you are sticking with a mobo for 6-8 years, chances are one may get an AIC or two which again cuts into any cost savings from hanging on to a mobo. Its also well past their 3 year warranty and more prone for failure the older it gets so...

....while i agree there fan be benefits from hanging onto a motherboard, i dont feel its benefits are as strong/worthwile as some people want it to be. 



newtekie1 said:


> Yeah, but that is Intel's advertising.  They say l CPU has 16, but it really has 20, but 4 are used for the chipset link.  On the chart bta posted, the chipset link is being included in the AMD count, but not in the Intel.  We just have to pick one.  In the end, it doesn't change the point that AMD offers 4 more CPU lanes than Intel.


ok, its wiki...so...

They say its SIMILAR to pcie in how it works, but doesnt mention anything about source of the bandwidth.

This anand review says amds x4 can be used for other things as well.. so maybe it is different?? Y9u cant touch those lanes for intel. 
https://www.anandtech.com/show/1117...review-a-deep-dive-on-1800x-1700x-and-1700/13


----------



## Xzibit (Dec 4, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> Really, the cpu is the last thing people actually need to upgrade, yet, suddenly its a huge issue, we need to upgrade our cpus every 3 years? After 4/5, when most people actually want/need a cpu upgrade, ill want what the new chipset has to offer anyway. If you are sticking with a mobo for 6-8 years, chances are one may get an AIC or two which again cuts into any cost savings from hanging on to a mobo.



What about phase outs. Last gen or 2 gens down that CPU might still be functioning fine but something on the motherboard be it connectors or DIMM slot fails. Retailers don't keep old inventory around and for a replacement one has to turn to flee market/e-bay or second hand.

Now we are seeing a quicker turn over from Blue.

Motherboards get revision updates as well.



EarthDog said:


> ok, its wiki...so...
> 
> They say its SIMILAR to pcie in how it works, but doesnt mention anything about source of the bandwidth.



Check there white paper its 4 (2-T x 2-R ) lanes


----------



## eidairaman1 (Dec 4, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> since you want to brandish a sword...
> 
> Enjoy missing out features just to keep your cpu to date? See my earlier post.
> 
> ...



Who says I was brandishing a sword?If I did it would be literally with a .45  (who brings a sword to a gun fight lol)

What I don't understand is all the hate.

Thought all y'all liked competition to lower prices, guess not...

I think this thread has run its course.

I'm glad AMD merged 2 platforms that didn't happen previously.

Amd made Intel panic, which is progress, vs sitting on a platform from 2012.

/thread


----------



## GoldenX (Dec 4, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> Really, the cpu is the last thing people actually need to upgrade, yet, suddenly its a huge issue, we need to upgrade our cpus every 3 years? After 4/5, when most people actually want/need a cpu upgrade, ill want what the new chipset has to offer anyway. If you are sticking with a mobo for 6-8 years, chances are one may get an AIC or two which again cuts into any cost savings from hanging on to a mobo. Its also well past their 3 year warranty and more prone for failure the older it gets so...



Upgrading a CPU is a big deal if you start with a cheap one, and the upgrade is not compatible with your board due to "reasons".


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 4, 2017)

GoldenX said:


> Upgrading a CPU is a big deal if you start with a cheap one, and the upgrade is not compatible with your board due to "reasons".


And? I dont understand that argument... if you dropped in a quad intel, i can upgrade to a hex with ht tripling the threads on the same mobo. Or lower than that even...so.....


----------



## Xzibit (Dec 4, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> And? I dont understamd that argument... if you dropped in a quad intel, i can upgrade to a hex with ht tripling the threads on the same mobo. Or lower than that even...so.....



He might be talking over time and you might be talking with-in the same generation.

Budget aspect as well. Maybe a buyer doesn't have the flexibility to buy a higher core count now but is hoping he will have the capability down the road months/1-2years down the road. When that opportunity comes those cpu/mb combos might not be available anymore and will have to purchase all new CPU/MB combo.


----------



## GoldenX (Dec 5, 2017)

Xzibit said:


> He might be talking over time and you might be talking with-in the same generation.
> 
> Budget aspect as well. Maybe a buyer doesn't have the flexibility to buy a higher core count now but is hoping he will have the capability down the road months/1-2years down the road. When that opportunity comes those cpu/mb combos might not be available anymore and will have to purchase a new combo.



Exactly. For example I can't go for a 1700 or a 8700k now, but I can for example go for a R3-1200, or an i3-8100 and upgrade along the way. Surprise, the same AM4 is fine in a couple of years, and with the i3, you have to go for an expensive, used, discontinued i7, because the mother is not compatible with the current offerings.


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 5, 2017)

Yep, different generations will likely not work on intel... you would lose out on the generational IPC increase...whatever that may be. 

That said, doesnt change anything, really. I can see it worth it to some, but... the way some talk, its like the second coming having that ability. 



GoldenX said:


> you have to go for an expensive, used, discontinued i7, because the mother is not compatible with the current offerings.


and you only lose out on IPC. A couple to several percent. Not a huge deal. Particularly when intel has the ipc lead by the same amount.


----------



## GoldenX (Dec 5, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> Yep, different generations will likely not work on intel... you would lose out on the generational IPC increase...whatever that may be.
> 
> That said, doesnt change anything, really. I can see it worth it to some, but... the way some talk, its like the second coming habimg that ability.



That is a Vega level promise, not even the IGP has been upgraded in the last 3 generations.

It's a big deal because in the past if you wanted an upgrade path you had to go with the AMD FM2 and AM3+ crappy products (going from a dual core APU to a quad core, or a Phenom II/Athlon II/Sempron to an FX), now with AM4 you can finally have a proper upgrade path AND good performance, something Intel doesn't offer since the socket 775 days.


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 5, 2017)

Xzibit said:


> What about phase outs. Last gen or 2 gens down that CPU might still be functioning fine but something on the motherboard be it connectors or DIMM slot fails. Retailers don't keep old inventory around and for a replacement one has to turn to flee market/e-bay or second hand.
> 
> Now we are seeing a quicker turn over from Blue.
> 
> ...


failures happen to all boards...

...mobos are revised on both sides...

...i dont get it.

Can you link the whitepaper? Pretty sure pcie lanes are bidirectional, which would certainly differentiate how those work, no?




GoldenX said:


> That is a Vega level promise, not even the IGP has been upgraded in the last 3 generations.
> 
> It's a big deal because in the past if you wanted an upgrade path you had to go with the AMD FM2 and AM3+ crappy products (going from a dual core APU to a quad core, or a Phenom II/Athlon II/Sempron to an FX), now with AM4 you can finally have a proper upgrade path AND good performance, something Intel doesn't offer since the socket 775 days.


vega level promise? WTH?? IPC increases on intel have been a couple percent the past few gens, no doubt small increases..but they are there. That said, i was talking about amd IPC. Nobody knows what that will be with zen 2. Id gather 10% or so... but maybe its more... maybe less. Plenty of truths of amd resting on their laurels as well. Only time will tell.

Intel has an upgrade path. It doesnt have a generational upgrade path, correct. But how much you are really gaining seems to fet blown out of proportion. It really is situation specfic if its worth it or not.


----------



## Xzibit (Dec 5, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> failures happen to all boards...
> 
> ...mobos are revised on both sides...
> 
> ...



*Page 11 has a diagram*


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 5, 2017)

Awesome..appreciate the link. It shows dmi is separate from the rest of the PCIe lanes as suspected.

That said, I was thinking you were providing a whitepaper to support the 2Tx2R (MIMO??!! LOL!) comment. Did i miss it??? 

...looking again...

EDIT: I saw nothing about the lanes being divided up to 2T/2R...


----------



## Xzibit (Dec 5, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> Awesome..appreciate the link. It shows dmi is separate from the rest of the PCIe lanes as suspected.
> 
> That said, I was thinking you were providing a whitepaper to support the 2Tx2R (MIMO??!! LOL!) comment. Did i miss it???
> 
> ...



Had too many WP open. Benefits or not of 21:9 screens

No just knew i seen the answer before in one of those WP. Didn't really want to look through them.



			
				 Introduction to Intel Archtecture said:
			
		

> DMI is 4 lanes x Transmit and Receive 2 x differential signaling 2 = 16 pin



Lazy bastards.


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 5, 2017)

Sorry, I read that as 4x T/R and 2x diff signaling? Also, is that DMI2.0/3.0?

Can you link that so I can read it myself? I'm not getting it without surrounding context... and I'm tired.


----------



## Xzibit (Dec 5, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> Sorry, I read that as 4x T/R and 2x diff signaling?
> 
> Can you link that so I can read it myself? I'm not getting it without surrounding context... and I'm tired.



Oh yeah sure. I'll get back to you in 5-8 business days.


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 5, 2017)

OoooooooooooooooooooooK??????


----------



## newtekie1 (Dec 5, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> ok, its wiki...so...
> 
> They say its SIMILAR to pcie in how it works, but doesnt mention anything about source of the bandwidth.
> 
> ...



On the AMD side, the lanes can be used for other things if the CPU is put in a motherboard with no chipset at all.  Ryzen being designed as a SoC makes this possible.  While Intel must have a chipset, so those lanes will never be used for anything other than the chipset link.

However, the chart bta posted is about the CPUs paired with chipsets.  So those 4 lanes must be used for the chipset in those cases.


----------



## Jism (Dec 5, 2017)

People complaining about an outdated chipset... How much progression has the chipset offered the last few years? If you'd buy a high-end AMD AM4+ motherboard, that sets you for a few years ahead already in time. And there's no difference in PCI-E 2.0 X16 vs PCI-E 3.0 X8. Like if you need that huge bandwidth for graphics anyway. There's plenty of a decent high-end board. The socket being available untill 2020 is good news.

Intel simply forces you to buy a new motherboard to use the latest cpu's.


----------



## newtekie1 (Dec 5, 2017)

Jism said:


> People complaining about an outdated chipset... How much progression has the chipset offered the last few years? If you'd buy a high-end AMD AM4+ motherboard, that sets you for a few years ahead already in time. And there's no difference in PCI-E 2.0 X16 vs PCI-E 3.0 X8. Like if you need that huge bandwidth for graphics anyway. There's plenty of a decent high-end board.



That's the thing, AMD's chipset is ages behind the times.  It only provides x8 2.0, not 3.0.  This isn't a discussion about graphics, the lanes provided for that are fine, but the rest of the devices need PCI-E lanes too, and that is where AMD is coming up short.  Especially with the move towards PCI-E based storage.



Jism said:


> The socket being available untill 2020 is good news.



It certainly is, but it doesn't mean that AMD's platform in its current form is perfect.  It needs a lot of improving.


----------



## Xzibit (Dec 5, 2017)

newtekie1 said:


> That's the thing, AMD's chipset is ages behind the times. * It only provides x8 2.0, not 3.0*.  This isn't a discussion about graphics, the lanes provided for that are fine, but the rest of the devices need PCI-E lanes too, and that is where AMD is coming up short.  Especially with the move towards PCI-E based storage.
> 
> It certainly is, but it doesn't mean that AMD's platform in its current form is perfect.  It needs a lot of improving.



I'm not familiar with AMD side but isn't that similar bandwidth. Intel DMI3 runs at PCIe x4 speeds.  DMI3 started with 1xx

AMD WP is 600+ pages.. maybe i'll read it sometime.



			
				Intel said:
			
		

> The DMI3 port supports x4 link width and only operates in a x4 mode when in DMI3
> Operates at PCI Express 1.0, 2.0, 3.0 speeds



Since its inception its been x4 tied to PCIe speed

Most of the tech sites are claiming the same for AMD side x4 3.0 like the diagram you posted.  Only difference would be connectivity option via the chipset.

This graph btarunr posted is wrong because AMD and Intel only allocate x4 lanes to chipset.



btarunr said:


> Sorry mate, the lane config is like this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Lanes *TO* from chipset should all be Gen 3.0 x4. Connectivity from those 4 lanes will vary by chipset.


----------



## GoldenX (Dec 5, 2017)

We know you can run a 1080Ti in PCI-E 2.0 and still get the same performance than on a PCI-E 3.0. That's not a big deal.
I think RAID and overclock options a bigger deal than the internal bandwidth of the motherboard, the CPU covers that perfectly fine even on Intel.

Take a look at the H110: https://ark.intel.com/products/90590/Intel-H110-Chipset
Not even RAID 0 or 1, not even on the B250 chipset.

I consider the quality of a product based on it's low end offering, as that is what I will be selling more often, if not always (my country is not precisely in an economic boom), and the low end on Intel is worse than VIA, you get nothing. Now compare an A320 chipset.


----------



## Xzibit (Dec 5, 2017)

GoldenX said:


> We know you can run a 1080Ti in PCI-E 2.0 and still get the same performance than on a PCI-E 3.0. That's not a big deal.
> I think RAID and overclock options a bigger deal than the internal bandwidth of the motherboard, the CPU covers that perfectly fine even on Intel.
> 
> *Take a look at the H110*: https://ark.intel.com/products/90590/Intel-H110-Chipset
> ...



The thing about H110 was that Ryzen had not yet launched.

If one is comparing Intel and AMD offering it should be to current available offerings. 2xx & 3xx on Intel side. Either way its being made a fuzz over when both are limited to the same bandwidth.

Its all e-pen measuring if the current CPUs-to-Chipsets are x4 3.0 from both camps. Its what connections it offers through that which vary.


----------



## notb (Dec 5, 2017)

GoldenX said:


> Great news for us people that can't afford to change everything for an upgrade. This will be great for APU users, ¿you want more CPU and GPU power? Just change the CPU, no new chipset+socket needed.


The tiny issue being that AM4 didn't get APU months after the high-end Ryzen started selling. And these are still older gen CPUs, not Zen-based.
So it's pretty unlikely that many AM4 users will buy with with APU and upgrade to faster CPU after few years.
I mean: when AMD first said that AM4 will be active until 2020 (mid 2016?), it was quite impressive. But at this point 2020 is just 2 years away. It's really shocking how slowly AMD releases stuff.

OK, you might be interested in AM4 Zen, but lets say you're one of the people that don't buy into new, unproven stuff. So you're still not on this platform - you're waiting for Zen+ or something. This effectively takes the 3.5-4 year lifespan down to 2 at best.

Compare all that to Intel, who:
1) doesn't serve us such revolutions in consumer segment very often (and if they do, it's usually stuff already tested in server chips),
2) floods us with new chips fairly quickly: usually the whole range is available within half a year from original release.


Xzibit said:


> What about phase outs. Last gen or 2 gens down that CPU might still be functioning fine but something on the motherboard be it connectors or DIMM slot fails. Retailers don't keep old inventory around and for a replacement one has to turn to flee market/e-bay or second hand.


Actually it's pretty unlikely that motherboard fails on its own, if you don't tinker with it (OC, modding etc).

But when it does... well, it's not that bad. As far as Intel goes, motherboards supporting CPUs from the last 4-5 years are usually fairly easy to find in stores. I.e. today you'd have no problem buying a 1150 mobo (not any model ever made, obviously).
And lets be honest: after 4-5 years some general changes in PCs are already visible and should convince you to upgrade to newer platform.
I recently moved from a 7-year-old 775 to 1151 (Kaby Lake). The last 2 years were really a struggle. I was still on DDR2, on USB 2.0 and on early PCIe, so no new GPU worked very well.




GoldenX said:


> Exactly. For example I can't go for a 1700 or a 8700k now, but I can for example go for a R3-1200, or an i3-8100 and upgrade along the way. Surprise, the same AM4 is fine in a couple of years, and with the i3, you have to go for an expensive, used, discontinued i7, because the mother is not compatible with the current offerings.



I find this argument pretty weak.  i7-4790K is still available today - 3.5 years since it's release (and 4.5 years from 1150 launch).
CPUs (especially the higher ones) are usually available for a long time. Compared to mobos there are way less variants, the production is centralized and they're smaller (smaller storage cost).


----------



## Frick (Dec 5, 2017)

I've obviously not followed the thread, but This matters less now than when you could upgrade from a low end Athlon II to an AMD FX on the same motherboard, but it's still a nice thing to have.


----------



## notb (Dec 5, 2017)

Frick said:


> I've obviously not followed the thread, but This matters less now than when you could upgrade from a low end Athlon II to an AMD FX on the same motherboard, but it's still a nice thing to have.


But aren't we overrating the importance of CPU upgrade? In the end it's just a CPU. The purpose of a PC is not to have a processor (even an up-to-date one).
PC (and motherboard in particular) is just a weird box that you connect other things to (the really useful ones). Sure: it's great to have a fast CPU, so sometimes an upgrade is worth it. But at the same time having an old motherboard is a proper limitation of how you can use your PC. And it's a huge cost generator, when you start buying add-on cards.

*General remark / dreaming:*

To be honest, I'm kind of disappointed by how all this turned out to be. It's almost 2018 and we're still approaching the same issues we had 20 years ago - even though the whole environment changed. I really though we'd already be past the whole "replaceable CPU" idea - at least to a point, where you have a choice.
We got NUCs (some pretty powerful ones even), but this is still not what I hoped for.

Think about how much of the CPU + mobo cost stems from the fact that they aren't soldered together in the factory. And if you're on SoC (like Ryzen), think about how pointless your motherboard is. It just connects things, half of which you don't use. And the interfaces got so fast that PC should have already been made out of separate modules, not parts put on the same PCB. And you can do that by getting a Thunderbolt 3 connected NUC + exGPU + drive case.


----------



## Xzibit (Dec 5, 2017)

notb said:


> Actually it's pretty unlikely that motherboard fails on its own, if you don't tinker with it (OC, modding etc).
> 
> But when it does... well, it's not that bad. As far as Intel goes, motherboards supporting CPUs from the last 4-5 years are usually fairly easy to find in stores. I.e. today you'd have no problem buying a 1150 mobo (not any model ever made, obviously).
> And lets be honest: *after 4-5 years *some general changes in PCs are already visible and should convince you to upgrade to newer platform.
> I recently moved from a* 7-year-old 775 to 1151* (Kaby Lake). The last 2 years were really a struggle. I was still on DDR2, on USB 2.0 and on early PCIe, so no new GPU worked very well.



Its been several gens that Intel MB OC on their own or as simple as a click/selection from different board members.

If your not running the latest connections a 1150 is still fine. Heck some here still run 775. Every once in awhile you'll see a member asking for parts in the forum that he cant find because stores don't stock nor keep things after 2 gens if they don't sell, Maybe its different in Poland but here in the states after the new gen is released most chains get rid of last gen stock. Plus most of the stuff online is from 3rd party vendors that get put up  close to initial selling price.

The sillyness is people don't want others to have that longevity of a socket.  I never bought an AMD CPU but if I could still find new (not used or refurbished) boards for my old Intel sockets i'd probably buy them and keep them longer instead of moving to a new system and giving the oldest away.

Socket 775 was 2006.  You bought 4yrs into it and it lasted you 7 years. Let that sink in 11yrs. Yet some how find a way to complain about a socket projected to last from 2017-2020. That's 3 years.  *Remember you bought into socket 775 4yrs after it was released.*


----------



## T1beriu (Dec 5, 2017)

TechPowerUp's Front Page said:
			
		

> AM4 to remain AMD's workhorse CPU socket till 2020



We knew this because AMD told this almost a year ago when they presented Ryzen and kept repeating it since then.


----------



## newtekie1 (Dec 5, 2017)

Xzibit said:


> I'm not familiar with AMD side but isn't that similar bandwidth. Intel DMI3 runs at PCIe x4 speeds. DMI3 started with 1xx
> 
> AMD WP is 600+ pages.. maybe i'll read it sometime.




We aren't talking about the link to the chipset being the problem, the problem is the chipset itself.  AMD's link to the chipset is PCI-E x4 3.0.  However, the chipset itself only provides 8 PCI-E 2.0 lanes for the system to use for connected devices.  This is not enough.


----------



## trparky (Dec 5, 2017)

newtekie1 said:


> It only provides x8 2.0, not 3.0.


Wait. What? Where are you seeing that AMD is still using PCI Express v2.0?


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 5, 2017)

For its chipset lanes. NOT for the communication line between CPU and chipset.

See chipset block diagram somewhere in this thread for details.


----------



## Xzibit (Dec 5, 2017)

newtekie1 said:


> We aren't talking about the link to the chipset being the problem, the problem is the chipset itself.  AMD's link to the chipset is PCI-E x4 3.0.  However, the chipset itself only provides 8 PCI-E 2.0 lanes for the system to use for connected devices.  This is not enough.


Its the same bandwidth to saturate the Cpu-to-chipset. If your adding more then it can transfer its for connectivity options.

Your going to have to pick and choose which connections are priority. You obviously cant have more data being shoved to the Cpu then it can handle at x4 3.0.


----------



## notb (Dec 5, 2017)

Xzibit said:


> Its been several gens that Intel MB OC on their own or as simple as a click/selection from different board members.


I meant manual adjustments. Auto OC works within manufacturers' limits. PCs are designed for this kind of treatment.
The whole idea of manual OC is to go beyond these limits.



> If your not running the latest connections a 1150 is still fine. Heck some here still run 775. Every once in awhile you'll see a member asking for parts in the forum that he cant find because stores don't stock nor keep things after 2 gens if they don't sell, Maybe its different in Poland but here in the states after the new gen is released most chains get rid of last gen stock. Plus most of the stuff online is from 3rd party vendors that get put up  close to initial selling price.


The whole idea of shopping for consumer electronics in Poland is different (and not just electronics). We don't use local shops that much. The market is dominated by online stores and auctions, so they can keep stock for a long time (and quickly import something rare).
So it's much like with amazon and ebay in US. The difference is: if you don't like buying online and you'd like to buy something in a local PC store in Poland... you can't. It went bankrupt 10 years ago.

So yeah... 1150 boards are quite easy to get. 775 is much harder, but 2 years ago it wasn't that bad. I've even seen some Asus P5Q and other high-end models available back then (new, sealed boxes). Usually it's the mid-range "business" stuff that stays in shops for longer (like ASUS CSM lineup).



> The sillyness is people don't want others to have that longevity of a socket.


Why is that silly?
I am fine with you being able to get a motherboard for many years. But I'm hardly happy about the fact that it probably slows the development cycle and - more importantly - raises the price of my mobo.


> Socket 775 was 2006.  You bought 4yrs into it and it lasted you 7 years. Let that sink in 11yrs. Yet some how find a way to complain about a socket projected to last from 2017-2020. That's 3 years.  *Remember you bought into socket 775 4yrs after it was released.*


Actually socket 775 was introduced in 2004. Moreover, 1156 came out in 2009, so in 2010 I bought an obsolete, 6-year-old platform. But it was very cheap and I needed just that. I was using a notebook most of the time, anyway. But few years later it became my main PC and managed pretty well.

The fact that I used it for 7 years has nothing to do with longevity. I've doubled RAM at some point and replaced disks, but all other parts were from the original build.
I didn't need a faster desktop and that one didn't want to break down.

The point is: it doesn't matter how long-lasting a platform is. I simply buy whatever matches my needs at particular moment and I use it for as long as possible. This is a typical, most common consumer behavior and it strongly favors a quicker replacement cycle.


----------



## newtekie1 (Dec 5, 2017)

trparky said:


> Wait. What? Where are you seeing that AMD is still using PCI Express v2.0?



Everywhere that lists the specs for AMD's chipsets.  If you want, look a few posts up, I post AMD's slides that show it as well as block diagrams that also show it.



Xzibit said:


> Its the same bandwidth to saturate the Cpu-to-chipset. If your adding more then it can transfer its for connectivity options.
> 
> Your going to have to pick and choose which connections are priority. You obviously cant have more data being shoved to the Cpu then it can handle at x4 3.0.



Of course you can't, but that is what the chipset is for.  That is why Intel puts out 24! PCI-E 3.0 lanes from their chipset, as well as all the SATA connections, all with a PCI-E x4 3.0 link back to the CPU.  It works just fine.

AMD just made their chipset too shitty, that is what it comes down to.  The chipset is where they need to improve, not the CPU and its socket.


----------



## Xzibit (Dec 5, 2017)

newtekie1 said:


> Of course you can't, but that is what the chipset is for.  That is why Intel puts out 24! PCI-E 3.0 lanes from their chipset, as well as all the SATA connections, all with a PCI-E x4 3.0 link back to the CPU.  *It works just fine*.
> 
> AMD just made their chipset too shitty, that is what it comes down to.  The chipset is where they need to improve, not the CPU and its socket.



If you understand how it works.  Have you read your manual lately?

Look for the *** and the shared bandwidth between devices.  If the manual is comprehensive it will let you know what turns off or what downgrades to what when certain slots are used especially on the higher boards.


----------



## newtekie1 (Dec 5, 2017)

Xzibit said:


> If you understand how it works.  Have you read your manual lately?
> 
> Look for the *** and the shared bandwidth between devices.  If the manual is comprehensive it will let you know what turns off or what downgrades to what when certain slots are used especially on the higher boards.



The 24 PCI-E lanes is 24 PCI-E lanes, they are never disabled.  They are shared between things like the M.2 slots and such, but it is still providing 24 functional PCI-E 3.0 lanes that can all be used at the same time.

The Z370 Taichi for example, has 3 M.2 slots that all run at PCI-E x4 3.0, as well as two PCI-E x1 3.0 slots, a PCI-E M.2 x2 slot for the wirless card.  These can all be used at the same time.  And there are even more devices than that running off the PCI-E lanes from the chipset.  The sound card runs off a PCI-E lane, as well as the second 1Gb/s network adapter, and the AsMedia USB3.1 controller.  All running off the PCI-E lanes provided by the chipset, with no lane sharing.

The only thing shared is the SATA ports with the M.2 slots.  If SATA based M.2 drives are used, then some of the normal SATA ports are disabled, because the M.2 slots share SATA connections with the standard ports.  But that is a limitation of the number of SATA ports on the chipset, not PCI-E lanes.  None of the PCI-E lanes on the Z370 Taichi are shared, because the Z370 chipset offers 24 fully functional PCI-E 3.0 lanes.

So, yes, I know exactly how it works, and there is no bandwidth sharing between devices.


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 6, 2017)

The SATA ports disable on this board when m.2 devices are in use.



> *M2_1, SATA3_0 and SATA3_1 share lanes. If either one of them is in use, the others will be disabled.
> M2_2, SATA3_4 and SATA3_5 share lanes. If either one of them is in use, the others will be disabled.
> If M2_3 is occupied by a SATA-type M.2 device, SATA3_3 will be disabled.



Boards with that much connectivity have to share the bandwidth.


----------



## newtekie1 (Dec 6, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> The SATA ports disable on this board when m.2 devices are in use.
> 
> 
> 
> Boards with that much connectivity have to share the bandwidth.



I said that.  They aren't sharing PCI-E bandwidth though, they are sharing SATA connections from the chipset, there are only 6 of those to go around from the chipset.

But we aren't talking about SATA ports!  How is this hard to understand?

Intel's chipset provides 24 PCI-E 3.0 Lanes!  They aren't shared, some aren't disabled.  The Z370 chipset provides 24 fully functional PCI-E 3.0 lanes! 

AMD's chipset only provides 8 PCI-E 2.0 lanes.  Do you all see where the problem is?  Is it that hard to figure out?


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 6, 2017)

To be more clear, you are specifically talking CPU connected PCIe Lanes (16 in Coffee Lake). Because the lanes attached to the chipset, are also PCIe lanes as you know and have said. So do understand my confusion. When I see this:


newtekie1 said:


> All running of the PCI-E lanes provided by the chipset, with no lane sharing.


...do understand why I brought up SATA because some will disable when M.2 is used... and they use the PCIe lanes provided by the chipset (24).


----------



## newtekie1 (Dec 6, 2017)

Ok, lets recap and then I'm done, because I feel like I'm talking to brick walls here.


The original claim, by TheLostSwede, was that AMD can't improve the AM4 platform without changing the socket.
I pointed out that this is false because they use the same x4 link to the chipset that Intel does, so there is no reason AMD couldn't add more PCI-E lanes and SATA ports to their chipset without the need for a socket change and the problem is AMD didn't put enough lanes on the chipset.

Then TheLostSwede tried to say everyone was talking about the CPU lanes.
I pointed out that Ryzen has 4 more CPU lanes than Z370, so that is also wrong if that was what he was talking about.
I also pointed out that everyone up until his post was talking about chipset lanes.  Btarunr even says AMD chipset shortcomings.

Then there is a big discussion about the actual number of lanes for each platform, with btarunr posting an inaccurate chart showing AMD actually having more lanes than they really do.
I cleared that up.
Intel has 20 PCI-E 3.0 lanes provided by the CPU, with 4 used for the link to the chipset.  Then the chipset provides another 24 PCI-E 3.0 lanes.
AMD has 24 PCI-E 3.0 lanes provided by the CPU, with 4 used for the link to the chipset.  Then the chipset provides another 8 PCI-E 2.0 lanes.

Then for some reason Xzibit chimed in and said that you can't actually use all 24 PCI-E lanes on the Intel chipset at the same time, that they are for some reason shared and some lanes are disabled when others are in use.
This is completely false.  All 24 lanes provided by the chipset are able to be used at the same time.
The only thing that is shared is SATA ports, as the Intel chipset only provides 6 SATA ports. So if a SATA M.2 is inserted, it disabled SATA ports.  This is not in any way related to the number of PCI-E lanes provided by the chipset.

In conclusion, and I'm only going to say this this last time, if people don't get it, I guess too bad; AMD's problem is their shitty weak chipset.  They need to increase the number of PCI-E lanes it provides, as well as make them PCI-E 3.0.  This can all be done by updating the chipset alone, it does not require a new socket or even CPU.  The number of lanes coming from the CPU is adequate, and the PCI-E x4 link between the CPU and the chipset is more than sufficient to handle a chipset with a lot more PCI-E lanes than AMD's X370 currently provides.


----------



## Mussels (Dec 6, 2017)

AMD actually told me this on facebook, they've been pretty public about the 2020 goal for AM4.

Its why i went ryzen - when a better clocking chip comes out, this goes to my wife and i get an upgrade - no intel shenanigans required.


----------



## Vlada011 (Dec 8, 2017)

Customers like to here such things.
At least bigger part of customers.
They don't like when their chipset and special socket is outdated after 12 months.
But with Intel chipset and socket are same, they don't want to allow support even when motherboard BIOS update could fix everything. Than new chipset on same socket mean new motherboard if you want to upgrade CPU only.
That's game when Intel make favor to motherboard manufacturers and they make favor to Intels.
How? Agressive advertasing of extremely nice motherboards force you on upgrade for 10% improvement.
X99>X299. And people upgrade even if no reason.
They would not upgrade for 10% better CPU on same motherboard, but if you present new generation with new name, some little details they are hypnotized. And Intel allow to motherboards sell two motherboard instead to customers use 2 CPU on same mobo.
Because of that AM4 will be "working horse" until 2020 and X99 will be mine working horse until 2020 and DDR5. No reason to buy 400$+ motherboards if you can't use two generation of CPU and models with more cores than first generation.


----------



## GoldenX (Dec 8, 2017)

I don't understand why some people say this is bad, that it slows development. AMD said AM4 last until 2020, not that Z370 lasts until 2020, they can and more certainly will release newer better chipsets. You as the user have the option of keeping the motherboard, or change it for a new one.


----------



## newtekie1 (Dec 8, 2017)

GoldenX said:


> I don't understand why some people say this is bad, that it slows development. AMD said AM4 last until 2020, not that Z370 lasts until 2020, they can and more certainly will release newer better chipsets. You as the user have the option of keeping the motherboard, or change it for a new one.



Agreed, sticking with the same socket isn't a problem.  I think a lot of people seem to think the socket is AMD's weak link, but the chipset is, and that can be updated without changing the socket.


----------



## notb (Dec 8, 2017)

GoldenX said:


> I don't understand why some people say this is bad, that it slows development. AMD said AM4 last until 2020, not that Z370 lasts until 2020, they can and more certainly will release newer better chipsets. You as the user have the option of keeping the motherboard, or change it for a new one.


First of all: changing sockets frequently raises Intel's earning! (isn't that obvious? )
Second: new socket means new motherboards. All vendors will propose something, with all the latest tech they can include. Does this stimulate mobo evolution? Maybe yes, maybe not. It sure doesn't hurt.
Look at AMD AM3+ lineup from before Ryzen came out. Sure, there were some new motherboards, but quite a lot of "current" models were really long in the tooth.


----------



## GoldenX (Dec 8, 2017)

notb said:


> First of all: changing sockets frequently raises Intel's earning! (isn't that obvious? )
> Second: new socket means new motherboards. All vendors will propose something, with all the latest tech they can include. Does this stimulate mobo evolution? Maybe yes, maybe not. It sure doesn't hurt.
> Look at AMD AM3+ lineup from before Ryzen came out. Sure, there were some new motherboards, but quite a lot of "current" models were really long in the tooth.



We hat tons of chipsets for socket 775, even from different vendors like VIA, ATI or Nvidia, starting from DDR1 and AGP all the way to DDR3 and PCI-E 2.0, it's processor performance that limits innovation, not the socket. FX was DOA, there was no incentive to make good motherboards for it. With Ryzen giving good performance, core count and for example M.2 to the masses, we can expect better products in the future.
I've said it before, look at the A320 chipset and compare it to the B250 or H110 chipset, suddenly a lot better.

Of course Intel makes more money by making their platforms a closed garden, they are one step away of being Apple, I'm sure we would love that. In fact they hinted at that with Broadwell.


----------



## johnnyfiive (Dec 11, 2017)

efikkan said:


> And why would anyone upgrade a one year old system with a new one? Even if they sell the old CPU, it's still a waste of money. Intel chooses to bring new platform features over prioritizing those 0.1% of buyers who want to upgrade to every new iteration. In reality nearly everyone keeps motherboard, CPU and RAM "bundled together" throughout the lifespan of a system. Graphics cards, SSDs, HDDs, etc. are on the other hand easy to swap independently.
> 
> 
> Why are you sugar-coating it?
> *Vega is the largest failure in many years for AMD, and there is no reason to buy it for gaming*. So when a product is inferior, the fans keep focusing on theoretical specs over actual performance…



I gotta disagree with ya there. If you're a fan of FreeSync and are familiar with how AMD does their drivers (performance gains over time), then the Vega cards are pretty good cards (At their normal pricing). Both Vega 56 and 64 are good buys at $399 and $499, especially if you have a FreeSync monitor. Last I checked the Vega 64 is trading blows with the 1080, and they're about the same price. The failure part was allowing these cards to be so scare that sellers could charge $100-$200 over MSRP. That's the biggest failure with Vega, the pricing bullshit. The actual product, is pretty good (IMO).


----------



## GoldenX (Dec 11, 2017)

efikkan said:


> Why are you sugar-coating it?
> Vega is the largest failure in many years for AMD, and there is no reason to buy it for gaming. So when a product is inferior, the fans keep focusing on theoretical specs over actual performance…



You can say the same about the Titan cards, that gaming performance at that price is totally stupid.


----------



## CandymanGR (Dec 26, 2017)

Chaitanya said:


> I thought AMD themselves had said they are going to stick with AM4 until release of DDR5.



DDR5 will definitely be out until 2020.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jan 3, 2018)

https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/...ded-from-intel-vt-flaw-kernel-patches.240187/


----------



## Vinay (Jan 12, 2018)

Guys! It will be great could help me out!
I have bought a b350 mobo(asus strix) in the month of November!
After purchasing my mobo, i have realized ryzen pinnacle ridge is arriving in feb-march!!
So i have postponed my build to march!
According to many sources i have got to know that it will support b350 mobos n x370 mobos! So i guess im on the safe side!
But its known that we need to update bios!
Could some1 lemme know how to update bios!
More precisely we can directly update after using 2nd gen CPUs or do we need to first put 1st gen CPUs n then update it n then replace it with 2nd gen!
If some1 could sort this out!! I'd really thankful..
Thanks. :")


----------



## Mussels (Jan 12, 2018)

Vinay said:


> Guys! It will be great could help me out!
> I have bought a b350 mobo(asus strix) in the month of November!
> After purchasing my mobo, i have realized ryzen pinnacle ridge is arriving in feb-march!!
> So i have postponed my build to march!
> ...



you need a 1st gen CPU to update the BIOS, only a very VERY limited number of boards offer BIOS updates without a CPU


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jan 12, 2018)

Vinay said:


> Guys! It will be great could help me out!
> I have bought a b350 mobo(asus strix) in the month of November!
> After purchasing my mobo, i have realized ryzen pinnacle ridge is arriving in feb-march!!
> So i have postponed my build to march!
> ...



Read your motherboard manual it has everything in there


----------

