• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.

newtekie1

Semi-Retired Folder
Joined
Nov 22, 2005
Messages
28,473 (4.10/day)
Location
Indiana, USA
Processor Intel Core i7 10850K@5.2GHz
Motherboard AsRock Z470 Taichi
Cooling Corsair H115i Pro w/ Noctua NF-A14 Fans
Memory 32GB DDR4-3600
Video Card(s) RTX 2070 Super
Storage 500GB SX8200 Pro + 8TB with 1TB SSD Cache
Display(s) Acer Nitro VG280K 4K 28"
Case Fractal Design Define S
Audio Device(s) Onboard is good enough for me
Power Supply eVGA SuperNOVA 1000w G3
Software Windows 10 Pro x64
The question is if it couldn't have been done differently though.

No, they really couldn't have.

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

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

TheLostSwede

News Editor
Joined
Nov 11, 2004
Messages
17,619 (2.41/day)
Location
Sweden
System Name Overlord Mk MLI
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D
Motherboard Gigabyte X670E Aorus Master
Cooling Noctua NH-D15 SE with offsets
Memory 32GB Team T-Create Expert DDR5 6000 MHz @ CL30-34-34-68
Video Card(s) Gainward GeForce RTX 4080 Phantom GS
Storage 1TB Solidigm P44 Pro, 2 TB Corsair MP600 Pro, 2TB Kingston KC3000
Display(s) Acer XV272K LVbmiipruzx 4K@160Hz
Case Fractal Design Torrent Compact
Audio Device(s) Corsair Virtuoso SE
Power Supply be quiet! Pure Power 12 M 850 W
Mouse Logitech G502 Lightspeed
Keyboard Corsair K70 Max
Software Windows 10 Pro
Benchmark Scores https://valid.x86.fr/yfsd9w
No, they really couldn't have.

And socket 775 was a cluster f*ck of compatibility that lead to more backlash and confusion from customers.
Sorry, but your statement is clearly not true. If AMD could go from a monolithic CPU design to two chiplets and an I/O controller and retain compatibility with the same socket, I'm sure Intel could've done the same. That's unless you're saying that Intel is either incompetent or simply do this as planned obsolesce. But please, go on, defend Intel's business decisions, as I'm sure they have benefited you somehow.

Yet I don't remember Intel users back then sending threats to Intel employees...
Maybe those were just more civilised times before social media took over...
 
Joined
Nov 24, 2017
Messages
853 (0.33/day)
Location
Asia
Processor Intel Core i5 4590
Motherboard Gigabyte Z97x Gaming 3
Cooling Intel Stock Cooler
Memory 8GiB(2x4GiB) DDR3-1600 [800MHz]
Video Card(s) XFX RX 560D 4GiB
Storage Transcend SSD370S 128GB; Toshiba DT01ACA100 1TB HDD
Display(s) Samsung S20D300 20" 768p TN
Case Cooler Master MasterBox E501L
Audio Device(s) Realtek ALC1150
Power Supply Corsair VS450
Mouse A4Tech N-70FX
Software Windows 10 Pro
Benchmark Scores BaseMark GPU : 250 Point in HD 4600
I mostly feel bad for the people who picked up max motherboards. To me they have the most legitimate reason to be upset.
Well they can still update to Ryzen 9 3950X on that board.
 
Joined
Mar 6, 2017
Messages
3,329 (1.18/day)
Location
North East Ohio, USA
System Name My Ryzen 7 7700X Super Computer
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 7700X
Motherboard Gigabyte B650 Aorus Elite AX
Cooling DeepCool AK620 with Arctic Silver 5
Memory 2x16GB G.Skill Trident Z5 NEO DDR5 EXPO (CL30)
Video Card(s) XFX AMD Radeon RX 7900 GRE
Storage Samsung 980 EVO 1 TB NVMe SSD (System Drive), Samsung 970 EVO 500 GB NVMe SSD (Game Drive)
Display(s) Acer Nitro XV272U (DisplayPort) and Acer Nitro XV270U (DisplayPort)
Case Lian Li LANCOOL II MESH C
Audio Device(s) On-Board Sound / Sony WH-XB910N Bluetooth Headphones
Power Supply MSI A850GF
Mouse Logitech M705
Keyboard Steelseries
Software Windows 11 Pro 64-bit
Benchmark Scores https://valid.x86.fr/liwjs3
Maybe those were just more civilised times before social media took over...
Yes. I've always said that social media, especially the likes of Facebook and Twitter, is responsible for bringing out the worst in people.
 

newtekie1

Semi-Retired Folder
Joined
Nov 22, 2005
Messages
28,473 (4.10/day)
Location
Indiana, USA
Processor Intel Core i7 10850K@5.2GHz
Motherboard AsRock Z470 Taichi
Cooling Corsair H115i Pro w/ Noctua NF-A14 Fans
Memory 32GB DDR4-3600
Video Card(s) RTX 2070 Super
Storage 500GB SX8200 Pro + 8TB with 1TB SSD Cache
Display(s) Acer Nitro VG280K 4K 28"
Case Fractal Design Define S
Audio Device(s) Onboard is good enough for me
Power Supply eVGA SuperNOVA 1000w G3
Software Windows 10 Pro x64
Sorry, but your statement is clearly not true. If AMD could go from a monolithic CPU design to two chiplets and an I/O controller and retain compatibility with the same socket, I'm sure Intel could've done the same. That's unless you're saying that Intel is either incompetent or simply do this as planned obsolesce. But please, go on, defend Intel's business decisions, as I'm sure they have benefited you somehow.

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

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

AMD's change to a chiplet design just requires adapting communication of that to the socket that already exists, and that's the job of the CPU substrate. Intel has physically changed and improved the sockets, that requires a new socket.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 10, 2010
Messages
11,878 (2.21/day)
Location
Manchester uk
System Name RyzenGtEvo/ Asus strix scar II
Processor Amd R5 5900X/ Intel 8750H
Motherboard Crosshair hero8 impact/Asus
Cooling 360EK extreme rad+ 360$EK slim all push, cpu ek suprim Gpu full cover all EK
Memory Corsair Vengeance Rgb pro 3600cas14 16Gb in four sticks./16Gb/16GB
Video Card(s) Powercolour RX7900XT Reference/Rtx 2060
Storage Silicon power 2TB nvme/8Tb external/1Tb samsung Evo nvme 2Tb sata ssd/1Tb nvme
Display(s) Samsung UAE28"850R 4k freesync.dell shiter
Case Lianli 011 dynamic/strix scar2
Audio Device(s) Xfi creative 7.1 on board ,Yamaha dts av setup, corsair void pro headset
Power Supply corsair 1200Hxi/Asus stock
Mouse Roccat Kova/ Logitech G wireless
Keyboard Roccat Aimo 120
VR HMD Oculus rift
Software Win 10 Pro
Benchmark Scores 8726 vega 3dmark timespy/ laptop Timespy 6506
You can't rewire an entire socket to move pads around so motherboard traces are optimized without changing the socket. Sorry, it just can't be done.
While you can't, what you could do is use the multi layered PCB interposer Every CPU chip is mounted into in packaging to route to the required pin out, exactly like they have to anyway.

That's a mythical reason with little weight.
 

newtekie1

Semi-Retired Folder
Joined
Nov 22, 2005
Messages
28,473 (4.10/day)
Location
Indiana, USA
Processor Intel Core i7 10850K@5.2GHz
Motherboard AsRock Z470 Taichi
Cooling Corsair H115i Pro w/ Noctua NF-A14 Fans
Memory 32GB DDR4-3600
Video Card(s) RTX 2070 Super
Storage 500GB SX8200 Pro + 8TB with 1TB SSD Cache
Display(s) Acer Nitro VG280K 4K 28"
Case Fractal Design Define S
Audio Device(s) Onboard is good enough for me
Power Supply eVGA SuperNOVA 1000w G3
Software Windows 10 Pro x64
While you can't, what you could do is use the multi layered PCB interposer Every CPU chip is mounted into in packaging to route to the required pin out, exactly like they have to anyway.

That's a mythical reason with little weight.

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

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

But I'm not going to continue to argue this. If you think you know how to do it, I suggest you apply for a job at Intel, because you know better than any other engineer in the world. You should be making millions.
 
Joined
Mar 10, 2010
Messages
11,878 (2.21/day)
Location
Manchester uk
System Name RyzenGtEvo/ Asus strix scar II
Processor Amd R5 5900X/ Intel 8750H
Motherboard Crosshair hero8 impact/Asus
Cooling 360EK extreme rad+ 360$EK slim all push, cpu ek suprim Gpu full cover all EK
Memory Corsair Vengeance Rgb pro 3600cas14 16Gb in four sticks./16Gb/16GB
Video Card(s) Powercolour RX7900XT Reference/Rtx 2060
Storage Silicon power 2TB nvme/8Tb external/1Tb samsung Evo nvme 2Tb sata ssd/1Tb nvme
Display(s) Samsung UAE28"850R 4k freesync.dell shiter
Case Lianli 011 dynamic/strix scar2
Audio Device(s) Xfi creative 7.1 on board ,Yamaha dts av setup, corsair void pro headset
Power Supply corsair 1200Hxi/Asus stock
Mouse Roccat Kova/ Logitech G wireless
Keyboard Roccat Aimo 120
VR HMD Oculus rift
Software Win 10 Pro
Benchmark Scores 8726 vega 3dmark timespy/ laptop Timespy 6506
There is only so much you can do with that. If you are moving pins to completely opposite sides of the socket, you can't realistically use the substrate PCB to route those traces. There just isn't the room to do it, the layers required to prevent crosstalk makes it not feasible. Especially in an LGA socket where the PCB can only be so thick.

AMD was able to do it with the chiplet design because, even though they are breaking the CPU cores away from the I/O controller, they are physically still located pretty close to where they were on the old CPUs. They are flipping everything around.
Yet as indi Chinese Dev's manufacturers prove with sub circuit interposer, much more than most imagine given enough layer's.

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

newtekie1

Semi-Retired Folder
Joined
Nov 22, 2005
Messages
28,473 (4.10/day)
Location
Indiana, USA
Processor Intel Core i7 10850K@5.2GHz
Motherboard AsRock Z470 Taichi
Cooling Corsair H115i Pro w/ Noctua NF-A14 Fans
Memory 32GB DDR4-3600
Video Card(s) RTX 2070 Super
Storage 500GB SX8200 Pro + 8TB with 1TB SSD Cache
Display(s) Acer Nitro VG280K 4K 28"
Case Fractal Design Define S
Audio Device(s) Onboard is good enough for me
Power Supply eVGA SuperNOVA 1000w G3
Software Windows 10 Pro x64
Yet as indi Chinese Dev's manufacturers prove with sub circuit interposer, much more than most imagine given enough layer's.

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

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

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

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

TheLostSwede

News Editor
Joined
Nov 11, 2004
Messages
17,619 (2.41/day)
Location
Sweden
System Name Overlord Mk MLI
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D
Motherboard Gigabyte X670E Aorus Master
Cooling Noctua NH-D15 SE with offsets
Memory 32GB Team T-Create Expert DDR5 6000 MHz @ CL30-34-34-68
Video Card(s) Gainward GeForce RTX 4080 Phantom GS
Storage 1TB Solidigm P44 Pro, 2 TB Corsair MP600 Pro, 2TB Kingston KC3000
Display(s) Acer XV272K LVbmiipruzx 4K@160Hz
Case Fractal Design Torrent Compact
Audio Device(s) Corsair Virtuoso SE
Power Supply be quiet! Pure Power 12 M 850 W
Mouse Logitech G502 Lightspeed
Keyboard Corsair K70 Max
Software Windows 10 Pro
Benchmark Scores https://valid.x86.fr/yfsd9w
It's just not feasible. They're moving pins to the completely opposite side of the socket. The phsyical socket was updated to make it better. You can't adapt to that with an interposer. There's more problems involved. You're losing support for older processors that don't have the interpose, defeating the entire support. We're talking about making boards support more newer CPUs here, remember. The socket change on the motherboards to improve the socket, doesn't align with that. Changing the socket makes the old processor incompatible.

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

An interposer is not going to fix the problem going from 1155 to 1150. The pins were physically moved around to make traces on the motherboards easier to router. This isn't something that can be done with a CPU interposer. Please, explain to me how you do that with a CPU interposer. How do you do that, maintain compatibility with old processors that were designed and produced years before the changes to the socket were made and also completely change the layout of pins in the socket. Explain how a CPU interposer solves that problem.
Hang on, are you saying Intel is incompetent here?
I mean, they happily present a three, four, five year roadmap of what they have coming in terms of CPUs, so they must know well ahead of time what they need to do when they're designing these things, no?

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

So if AMD knows, Intel knows, no?

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

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

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

I'm not saying socket changes don't need to happen from time to time, as obviously it does once you run out of pins for various interfaces, or the socket design is no longer suitable for new high-speed interfaces. However, I believe there's also no need for a two year cycle, with some forward thinking.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 10, 2010
Messages
11,878 (2.21/day)
Location
Manchester uk
System Name RyzenGtEvo/ Asus strix scar II
Processor Amd R5 5900X/ Intel 8750H
Motherboard Crosshair hero8 impact/Asus
Cooling 360EK extreme rad+ 360$EK slim all push, cpu ek suprim Gpu full cover all EK
Memory Corsair Vengeance Rgb pro 3600cas14 16Gb in four sticks./16Gb/16GB
Video Card(s) Powercolour RX7900XT Reference/Rtx 2060
Storage Silicon power 2TB nvme/8Tb external/1Tb samsung Evo nvme 2Tb sata ssd/1Tb nvme
Display(s) Samsung UAE28"850R 4k freesync.dell shiter
Case Lianli 011 dynamic/strix scar2
Audio Device(s) Xfi creative 7.1 on board ,Yamaha dts av setup, corsair void pro headset
Power Supply corsair 1200Hxi/Asus stock
Mouse Roccat Kova/ Logitech G wireless
Keyboard Roccat Aimo 120
VR HMD Oculus rift
Software Win 10 Pro
Benchmark Scores 8726 vega 3dmark timespy/ laptop Timespy 6506
It's just not feasible. They're moving pins to the completely opposite side of the socket. The phsyical socket was updated to make it better. You can't adapt to that with an interposer. There's more problems involved. You're losing support for older processors that don't have the interpose, defeating the entire support. We're talking about making boards support more newer CPUs here, remember. The socket change on the motherboards to improve the socket, doesn't align with that. Changing the socket makes the old processor incompatible.

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

An interposer is not going to fix the problem going from 1155 to 1150. The pins were physically moved around to make traces on the motherboards easier to router. This isn't something that can be done with a CPU interposer. Please, explain to me how you do that with a CPU interposer. How do you do that, maintain compatibility with old processors that were designed and produced years before the changes to the socket were made and also completely change the layout of pins in the socket. Explain how a CPU interposer solves that problem.
Well, with no idea at this point what Ryzen 4000 is going to Actually bring I think your points are slightly moot, if the simple bios argument is it then sure , I will argue that's shit but.
I still heartily disagree on a interposer, we will set that asside I have worked with OEM systems that retained socket's with differing intel cores.

Since they're not fully disclosing Ryzen 4### specs ,I'll check for now, maybe go all in on the argument ,maybe fold later.
 
Joined
Oct 21, 2005
Messages
7,061 (1.01/day)
Location
USA
System Name Computer of Theseus
Processor Intel i9-12900KS: 50x Pcore multi @ 1.18Vcore (target 1.275V -100mv offset)
Motherboard EVGA Z690 Classified
Cooling Noctua NH-D15S, 2xThermalRight TY-143, 4xNoctua NF-A12x25,3xNF-A12x15, 2xAquacomputer Splitty9Active
Memory G-Skill Trident Z5 (32GB) DDR5-6000 C36 F5-6000J3636F16GX2-TZ5RK
Video Card(s) ASUS PROART RTX 4070 Ti-Super OC 16GB, 2670MHz, 0.93V
Storage 1x Samsung 970 Pro 512GB NVMe (OS), 2x Samsung 970 Evo Plus 2TB (data), ASUS BW-16D1HT (BluRay)
Display(s) Dell S3220DGF 32" 2560x1440 165Hz Primary, Dell P2017H 19.5" 1600x900 Secondary, Ergotron LX arms.
Case Lian Li O11 Air Mini
Audio Device(s) Audiotechnica ATR2100X-USB, El Gato Wave XLR Mic Preamp, ATH M50X Headphones, Behringer 302USB Mixer
Power Supply Super Flower Leadex Platinum SE 1000W 80+ Platinum White, MODDIY 12VHPWR Cable
Mouse Zowie EC3-C
Keyboard Vortex Multix 87 Winter TKL (Gateron G Pro Yellow)
Software Win 10 LTSC 21H2
Hang on, are you saying Intel is incompetent here?
I mean, they happily present a three, four, five year roadmap of what they have coming in terms of CPUs, so they must know well ahead of time what they need to do when they're designing these things, no?

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

So if AMD knows, Intel knows, no?

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

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

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

I'm not saying socket changes don't need to happen from time to time, as obviously it does once you run out of pins for various interfaces, or the socket design is no longer suitable for new high-speed interfaces. However, I believe there's also no need for a two year cycle, with some forward thinking.
Some of it may be that with 2066 pins they had some future planning on the socket. The Intel Z170, 270, 370 'Lake era had a lot of complaints about not carrying forward compatibility when it was probably possible to do so. No one excused Intel for doing this, it was panned. However it was somewhat expected because Intel has done this before. The Z170 AsRock OC Formula was one of the best boards of that period, and with modification, achieved some of the most impressive 8700K overclocks. The difference with AMD was the marketing about promised future compatibility.
 

TheLostSwede

News Editor
Joined
Nov 11, 2004
Messages
17,619 (2.41/day)
Location
Sweden
System Name Overlord Mk MLI
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D
Motherboard Gigabyte X670E Aorus Master
Cooling Noctua NH-D15 SE with offsets
Memory 32GB Team T-Create Expert DDR5 6000 MHz @ CL30-34-34-68
Video Card(s) Gainward GeForce RTX 4080 Phantom GS
Storage 1TB Solidigm P44 Pro, 2 TB Corsair MP600 Pro, 2TB Kingston KC3000
Display(s) Acer XV272K LVbmiipruzx 4K@160Hz
Case Fractal Design Torrent Compact
Audio Device(s) Corsair Virtuoso SE
Power Supply be quiet! Pure Power 12 M 850 W
Mouse Logitech G502 Lightspeed
Keyboard Corsair K70 Max
Software Windows 10 Pro
Benchmark Scores https://valid.x86.fr/yfsd9w
The difference with AMD was the marketing about promised future compatibility.
Sure and I'm not excusing them for that. However, something has clearly gone wrong in some people's heads, when they send threats to staff of a company based on a PR screw-up. Not saying anyone here did that, but some people did.
This has never happened to Intel afaik.

At the same time, AMD wasn't that specific about what that future compatibility meant. As I've stated elsewhere, AMD seems to have screwed up their message to their partners with their message to consumers, which is poor management, but clearly doesn't deserve the kind of reaction it has had.
 
Joined
Jun 2, 2017
Messages
9,134 (3.34/day)
System Name Best AMD Computer
Processor AMD 7900X3D
Motherboard Asus X670E E Strix
Cooling In Win SR36
Memory GSKILL DDR5 32GB 5200 30
Video Card(s) Sapphire Pulse 7900XT (Watercooled)
Storage Corsair MP 700, Seagate 530 2Tb, Adata SX8200 2TBx2, Kingston 2 TBx2, Micron 8 TB, WD AN 1500
Display(s) GIGABYTE FV43U
Case Corsair 7000D Airflow
Audio Device(s) Corsair Void Pro, Logitch Z523 5.1
Power Supply Deepcool 1000M
Mouse Logitech g7 gaming mouse
Keyboard Logitech G510
Software Windows 11 Pro 64 Steam. GOG, Uplay, Origin
Benchmark Scores Firestrike: 46183 Time Spy: 25121
Wow I can't believe this thread was posted on Friday. I ag ree with most of what the author postulates. Unfortunately (it may have already been said) the biggest no no for me was the non release of B550 boards. The X470 and B450 boards launched the same day and it was the same for the 3 series too. From what I have seen of B550 boards they seem to be more interesting than X570 with the way that PCIe has been implemented on some boards.
 

newtekie1

Semi-Retired Folder
Joined
Nov 22, 2005
Messages
28,473 (4.10/day)
Location
Indiana, USA
Processor Intel Core i7 10850K@5.2GHz
Motherboard AsRock Z470 Taichi
Cooling Corsair H115i Pro w/ Noctua NF-A14 Fans
Memory 32GB DDR4-3600
Video Card(s) RTX 2070 Super
Storage 500GB SX8200 Pro + 8TB with 1TB SSD Cache
Display(s) Acer Nitro VG280K 4K 28"
Case Fractal Design Define S
Audio Device(s) Onboard is good enough for me
Power Supply eVGA SuperNOVA 1000w G3
Software Windows 10 Pro x64
Hang on, are you saying Intel is incompetent here?
I mean, they happily present a three, four, five year roadmap of what they have coming in terms of CPUs, so they must know well ahead of time what they need to do when they're designing these things, no?
Roadmaps have nothing to do with sockets, or for that matter even what is really coming. They get changed and updated all the time. I mean, if roadmaps actually were true, we'd have Intel 10nm on the deakop market by now. And roadmaps are a guide to what processor features we expect to see, but nothing to do with the sockets. The design teams are updating the sockets as they go along with the designs of the new CPUs. But there comes a point when you have to stop refining and get the product to market. Then you keep improving and eventually release a new iteration. It's how things work.

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

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

So if AMD knows, Intel knows, no?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sure and I'm not excusing them for that.

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

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

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

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

Anyway, this is my last post on the subject. I think I've said enough.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 12, 2013
Messages
1,192 (0.28/day)
Processor 11700
Motherboard TUF z590
Memory G.Skill 32gb 3600mhz
Video Card(s) ROG Vega 56
Case Deepcool
Power Supply RM 850
Checked my X370-a cpu support list there are 12 obsolete 28nm cpus that could be removed, very few use these A6-A12 and X4 cpus these days.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Dec 14, 2013
Messages
2,719 (0.68/day)
Location
Alabama
Processor Ryzen 2600
Motherboard X470 Tachi Ultimate
Cooling AM3+ Wraith CPU cooler
Memory C.R.S.
Video Card(s) GTX 970
Software Linux Peppermint 10
Benchmark Scores Never high enough
Hopefully this will help clarify things with the socket as in the possibilites.
Do remember how they did sockets AM2, AM2+, AM3 and AM3+ and how each chip gen interchanged with what socket.

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

Socket AM4.jpg
 
Joined
Mar 10, 2010
Messages
11,878 (2.21/day)
Location
Manchester uk
System Name RyzenGtEvo/ Asus strix scar II
Processor Amd R5 5900X/ Intel 8750H
Motherboard Crosshair hero8 impact/Asus
Cooling 360EK extreme rad+ 360$EK slim all push, cpu ek suprim Gpu full cover all EK
Memory Corsair Vengeance Rgb pro 3600cas14 16Gb in four sticks./16Gb/16GB
Video Card(s) Powercolour RX7900XT Reference/Rtx 2060
Storage Silicon power 2TB nvme/8Tb external/1Tb samsung Evo nvme 2Tb sata ssd/1Tb nvme
Display(s) Samsung UAE28"850R 4k freesync.dell shiter
Case Lianli 011 dynamic/strix scar2
Audio Device(s) Xfi creative 7.1 on board ,Yamaha dts av setup, corsair void pro headset
Power Supply corsair 1200Hxi/Asus stock
Mouse Roccat Kova/ Logitech G wireless
Keyboard Roccat Aimo 120
VR HMD Oculus rift
Software Win 10 Pro
Benchmark Scores 8726 vega 3dmark timespy/ laptop Timespy 6506
Roadmaps have nothing to do with sockets, or for that matter even what is really coming. They get changed and updated all the time. I mean, if roadmaps actually were true, we'd have Intel 10nm on the deakop market by now. And roadmaps are a guide to what processor features we expect to see, but nothing to do with the sockets. The design teams are updating the sockets as they go along with the designs of the new CPUs. But there comes a point when you have to stop refining and get the product to market. Then you keep improving and eventually release a new iteration. It's how things work.



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



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



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

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



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

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

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



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



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

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

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



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



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

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

Anyway, this is my last post on the subject. I think I've said enough.
You said too much, I still heartily disagree , luckily I have STILL set it asside.
 
Joined
Jan 8, 2017
Messages
9,436 (3.28/day)
System Name Good enough
Processor AMD Ryzen R9 7900 - Alphacool Eisblock XPX Aurora Edge
Motherboard ASRock B650 Pro RS
Cooling 2x 360mm NexXxoS ST30 X-Flow, 1x 360mm NexXxoS ST30, 1x 240mm NexXxoS ST30
Memory 32GB - FURY Beast RGB 5600 Mhz
Video Card(s) Sapphire RX 7900 XT - Alphacool Eisblock Aurora
Storage 1x Kingston KC3000 1TB 1x Kingston A2000 1TB, 1x Samsung 850 EVO 250GB , 1x Samsung 860 EVO 500GB
Display(s) LG UltraGear 32GN650-B + 4K Samsung TV
Case Phanteks NV7
Power Supply GPS-750C
The only "solution" that I can see for all this would be that board manufactures would just send upon request a BIOS with specific CPUs removed or maybe every CPU removed except the ones you need. This ensures that people wont just brick their systems updating to a new official BIOS where their CPUs are removed and that the ones who really want to run a new 4000 series CPU can do it.

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

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

Just stop, it's already being made very clear it's an issue of ROM space. It's not a software lockout, it's not a socket limitation.
 
Joined
Jul 25, 2006
Messages
13,131 (1.96/day)
Location
Nebraska, USA
System Name Brightworks Systems BWS-6 E-IV
Processor Intel Core i5-6600 @ 3.9GHz
Motherboard Gigabyte GA-Z170-HD3 Rev 1.0
Cooling Quality case, 2 x Fractal Design 140mm fans, stock CPU HSF
Memory 32GB (4 x 8GB) DDR4 3000 Corsair Vengeance
Video Card(s) EVGA GEForce GTX 1050Ti 4Gb GDDR5
Storage Samsung 850 Pro 256GB SSD, Samsung 860 Evo 500GB SSD
Display(s) Samsung S24E650BW LED x 2
Case Fractal Design Define R4
Power Supply EVGA Supernova 550W G2 Gold
Mouse Logitech M190
Keyboard Microsoft Wireless Comfort 5050
Software W10 Pro 64-bit
I think this thread is getting too far OT.

I also think it absurd to suggest Intel changes sockets just to force consumers to buy all new platforms. It is also absurd to expect a company to cater to small niche markets - and for sure, the number of users who upgrade their CPUs is but a tiny fraction of all users. And those wanting to upgrade their CPU to a different family of CPUs is an even smaller niche market.
Yes, it costs money to design a whole new socket, but to modify existing sockets to accommodate new CPUs is costly too, and may force compromises.
If you are moving pins to completely opposite sides of the socket, you can't realistically use the substrate PCB to route those traces. There just isn't the room to do it, the layers required to prevent crosstalk makes it not feasible.
It is not just about room, but distance too. There are also add resistance, RFI/EMI, latency and wait-state issues to consider when distances between Point A and Point B are dramatically (microscopically speaking) increased too.
 
Joined
Feb 3, 2017
Messages
3,753 (1.32/day)
Processor Ryzen 7800X3D
Motherboard ROG STRIX B650E-F GAMING WIFI
Memory 2x16GB G.Skill Flare X5 DDR5-6000 CL36 (F5-6000J3636F16GX2-FX5)
Video Card(s) INNO3D GeForce RTX™ 4070 Ti SUPER TWIN X2
Storage 2TB Samsung 980 PRO, 4TB WD Black SN850X
Display(s) 42" LG C2 OLED, 27" ASUS PG279Q
Case Thermaltake Core P5
Power Supply Fractal Design Ion+ Platinum 760W
Mouse Corsair Dark Core RGB Pro SE
Keyboard Corsair K100 RGB
VR HMD HTC Vive Cosmos
The only "solution" that I can see for all this would be that board manufactures would just send upon request a BIOS with specific CPUs removed or maybe every CPU removed except the ones you need. This ensures that people wont just brick their systems updating to a new official BIOS where their CPUs are removed and that the ones who really want to run a new 4000 series CPU can do it.
Can you imagine the headaches to support this type of solution? You would have had to make CPUless BIOS update a requirement since day1 before even attempting something like this.
 
Joined
Jan 8, 2017
Messages
9,436 (3.28/day)
System Name Good enough
Processor AMD Ryzen R9 7900 - Alphacool Eisblock XPX Aurora Edge
Motherboard ASRock B650 Pro RS
Cooling 2x 360mm NexXxoS ST30 X-Flow, 1x 360mm NexXxoS ST30, 1x 240mm NexXxoS ST30
Memory 32GB - FURY Beast RGB 5600 Mhz
Video Card(s) Sapphire RX 7900 XT - Alphacool Eisblock Aurora
Storage 1x Kingston KC3000 1TB 1x Kingston A2000 1TB, 1x Samsung 850 EVO 250GB , 1x Samsung 860 EVO 500GB
Display(s) LG UltraGear 32GN650-B + 4K Samsung TV
Case Phanteks NV7
Power Supply GPS-750C
Can you imagine the headaches to support this type of solution? You would have had to make CPUless BIOS update a requirement since day1 before even attempting something like this.

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

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

And it's not like these older boards will get a heap load of new BIOS revisions in the future, realistically you would need to do this just once.
 
Last edited:
Joined
May 31, 2017
Messages
878 (0.32/day)
Location
Home
System Name Blackbox
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 3700X
Motherboard Asus TUF B550-Plus WiFi
Cooling Scythe Fuma 2
Memory 2x8GB DDR4 G.Skill FlareX 3200Mhz CL16
Video Card(s) MSI RTX 3060 Ti Gaming Z
Storage Kingston KC3000 1TB + WD SN550 1TB + Samsung 860 QVO 1TB
Display(s) LG 27GP850-B
Case Lian Li O11 Air Mini
Audio Device(s) Logitech Z200
Power Supply Seasonic Focus+ Gold 750W
Mouse Logitech G305
Keyboard MasterKeys Pro S White (MX Brown)
Software Windows 10
Benchmark Scores It plays games.
Of course that would require a non zero amount of extra effort from manufactures but it totally feasible to make let's say 4 versions of each new BIOS revision each with one of the CPU series support removed. It just would't be complicated at all for them.
4 versions multiplied by every motherboard model with the AM4 socket, plus testing/validation sounds like a real nightmare.
 
Joined
Jan 8, 2017
Messages
9,436 (3.28/day)
System Name Good enough
Processor AMD Ryzen R9 7900 - Alphacool Eisblock XPX Aurora Edge
Motherboard ASRock B650 Pro RS
Cooling 2x 360mm NexXxoS ST30 X-Flow, 1x 360mm NexXxoS ST30, 1x 240mm NexXxoS ST30
Memory 32GB - FURY Beast RGB 5600 Mhz
Video Card(s) Sapphire RX 7900 XT - Alphacool Eisblock Aurora
Storage 1x Kingston KC3000 1TB 1x Kingston A2000 1TB, 1x Samsung 850 EVO 250GB , 1x Samsung 860 EVO 500GB
Display(s) LG UltraGear 32GN650-B + 4K Samsung TV
Case Phanteks NV7
Power Supply GPS-750C
4 versions multiplied by every motherboard model with the AM4 socket, plus testing/validation sounds like a real nightmare.

It's not, you'd just have to test support for 4000 series because you already know the rest of the CPU support list is fine. After that it's as simple as removing unwanted CPUs from the support list. And like I said these older boards wont really get new BIOSes in the future, so you would need to do this once for each board. They've already done this with some APUs and obscure CPUs and it seems like that wasn't a nighmare.
 
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
2,912 (1.15/day)
System Name System V
Processor AMD Ryzen 5 3600
Motherboard Asus Prime X570-P
Cooling Cooler Master Hyper 212 // a bunch of 120 mm Xigmatek 1500 RPM fans (2 ins, 3 outs)
Memory 2x8GB Ballistix Sport LT 3200 MHz (BLS8G4D32AESCK.M8FE) (CL16-18-18-36)
Video Card(s) Gigabyte AORUS Radeon RX 580 8 GB
Storage SHFS37A240G / DT01ACA200 / ST10000VN0008 / ST8000VN004 / SA400S37960G / SNV21000G / NM620 2TB
Display(s) LG 22MP55 IPS Display
Case NZXT Source 210
Audio Device(s) Logitech G430 Headset
Power Supply Corsair CX650M
Software Whatever build of Windows 11 is being served in Canary channel at the time.
Benchmark Scores Corona 1.3: 3120620 r/s Cinebench R20: 3355 FireStrike: 12490 TimeSpy: 4624
4 versions multiplied by every motherboard model with the AM4 socket, plus testing/validation sounds like a real nightmare.

And on top of all that, from what Steve from GN found out, there is at most 2 guys in any given company that are legit BIOS programmers. Sometimes only one.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top