Asrock stepped over the others with supporting zen 2 on A320

eidairaman1Asrock stepped over the others with supporting zen 2 on A320

AsRock's website says 3000 Series Picasso APU, not Zen2 on A320 Chipset.
www.asrock.com/news/index.asp?iD=4238

IceShroomAsRock's website says 3000 Series Picasso APU, not Zen2 on A320 Chipset.
www.asrock.com/news/index.asp?iD=4238

Nice catch, noticed that only after you mentioned it. The exact text from that page: "Supports AMD Next-Gen Ryzen series APU only. "

I'm sure others will have pointed this out but the Ryzen 3xxx APUs are not 7nm and therefore compatibility with the A320 chipset is reasonable.

too bad. That really seems to confirm that the A320 won’t be supporting 3000 series 7nm chips. It would have been nice for AMD or the motherboard manufacturers to list this limitation on the features. Because I’m assuming there is a technical limitation for this to happen.
If not, then it’s just wrong.

If the AsRock's AMD boards are anything like the Intel boards, you can update the BIOS/UEFI straight from BIOS/UEFI ;)

bugIf the AsRock's AMD boards are anything like the Intel boards, you can update the BIOS/UEFI straight from BIOS/UEFI ;)

What am I going to do with that "if"?
If my grandpa had 3 balls it would have been a pinball machine...

tony359too bad. That really seems to confirm that the A320 won’t be supporting 3000 series 7nm chips. It would have been nice for AMD or the motherboard manufacturers to list this limitation on the features. Because I’m assuming there is a technical limitation for this to happen.
If not, then it’s just wrong.

I would agree with you if the A320 were the go to chipset for AM4 boards but it's actually been constantly consider a rip off compared to b350, x370, b450, and x470. I think I've seen some prebuilt gaming PCs use the a320 which should be considered a crime. A320 has been a throwaway board/chipset since the start, hope no one bought them over b350.

My point is that when I selected my motherboard I checked the comparison table and - correct me if I’m mistaken - I could only see less sata ports, no overclocking abilities etc. As I didn’t need those features, why on earth should have I purchased the ‘better’ chipset?
If the comparison table said ‘max TDP xyz’ and that was lower than other chipsets, rest assured I would have spent the extra quid to be more future proof.
I wasn’t given that information. I feel it’s unfair. The fact that the A320 was the cheapest is totally not relevant.

tony359My point is that when I selected my motherboard I checked the comparison table and - correct me if I’m mistaken - I could only see less sata ports, no overclocking abilities etc. As I didn’t need those features, why on earth should have I purchased the ‘better’ chipset?
If the comparison table said ‘max TDP xyz’ and that was lower than other chipsets, rest assured I would have spent the extra quid to be more future proof.
I wasn’t given that information. I feel it’s unfair. The fact that the A320 was the cheapest is totally not relevant.

The reason you weren'r given the max TDP in the chipset's spec sheet is because the chipset doesn't dictate the max TDP of the CPU.

tony359My point is that when I selected my motherboard I checked the comparison table and - correct me if I’m mistaken - I could only see less sata ports, no overclocking abilities etc. As I didn’t need those features, why on earth should have I purchased the ‘better’ chipset?
If the comparison table said ‘max TDP xyz’ and that was lower than other chipsets, rest assured I would have spent the extra quid to be more future proof.
I wasn’t given that information. I feel it’s unfair. The fact that the A320 was the cheapest is totally not relevant.

Well luckily there is still Ryzen 7 2700x for you if you need an upgrade, which is a great CPU currently.

Bug - what I’m trying to say is that if there is a technical limitation, it should have been advertised.
If there isn’t, then manufacturers are being greedy.
Either way, it’s wrong.

Indeed the 2700X is a nice CPU but I would have definitely paid those few extra quid to get onto the 3000 bandwagon.

tony359Bug - what I’m trying to say is that if there is a technical limitation, it should have been advertised.
If there isn’t, then manufacturers are being greedy.
Either way, it’s wrong.

Indeed the 2700X is a nice CPU but I would have definitely paid those few extra quid to get onto the 3000 bandwagon.

What I was trying to say is the difference was probably advertised. You just look at the wrong place.
You looked at a comparison between chipsets, but you are now complaining about a motherboard limitation.

That’s an interesting point. My MB is an MSI BTW so not all is lost.
I’ve just checked at the website and I do not see any specific limitations mentioned.