AMD Socket AM5 an LGA of 1,718 Pins with DDR5 and PCIe Gen 4

[z1n0x]

It seems to me, one of the main reasons to not opt for PCIe 5.0 is platform cost.
This might aswell end up been a good move by AMD, despite the complaints by some folks.

 

[TheLostSwede]

One cooler mount for AM5 or LGA1700?

We can but dream...

PCIE 5.0 is for DirectStorage

Seemingly not this time around. Could be fake though.
And if I'm reading that correctly, Intel will have support for three generations of PCIe on a single platform.

Tell that to foxconn. Also, it's helluvalot more pins, so if LGA1150 is easy to mess up, then this gold-plated bristle on a whooping 1718 pins is going to be even thinner and even less durable.

But the physical socket is also bigger...

I never bend any socket or CPU pin. How can anybody be so untalented?
Maybe there are people out there poking nose and eyes eveytime washing their face,
or cutting themselves everytime they use a knife.
Maybe some people do not have the ability to get in the state of being calm and just don´t break anything.

I guess you've never dropped anything in your entire life either?

Pci 5 at the moment it seems pointless in the consumer market, even prosumer. There is no gpu able to saturate even the pci 3.0 16x and current nvmes offer plenty of sequential speed, random iops increase is what we need.
Even 8k uncompressed raw video cannot saturate pci 4 nvme speeds. Considering the future cost of ddr5, storage and gpu I'd rather save some money on the motherboard.

And PCIe 5.0 will have even more reduced PCB trace length, which will require ever more expensive redrivers to maintain signal integrity...

 

[TumbleGeorge]

And PCIe 5.0 will have even more reduced PCB trace length, which will require ever more expensive redrivers to maintain signal integrity..

I think that all of system requirements for the signal are adopted in advance to existing MB's PCB wiring?

 

[newtekie1]

I find damaging socket pins easier. But 1718 pins on a PGA I'd probably end up messing up too.

Easier but less likely. If I drop a modern CPU, the pins are bent I guarantee it if the pins are on the CPU. I gotta hit the socket exactly to damage those pins, and that isn't likely.

 

[Chrispy_]

Not sure I'm in a hurry to see PCIe 5.0 just yet; SSDs are barely using the PCIe 4.0 and that assumes you have a high end one, you're doing raw sequential transfers, and that you're using the SLC cache. Realistically it's not that easy to tell whether a machine is on PCIe 4.0 or SATA SSDs in blind testing without running a sequential benchmark.

The reason I'm anti-PCIe 5.0 right now is cost. PCIe 4.0 came at a pretty significant price hike over PCIe 3.0 boards. B450 vs B550 is a pretty good example of 50+% cost increase across all vendors, and the two boards are very similar if you ignore the +1 increment on the PCIe version.

 

[Makaveli]

No word on heatsink compatibility...


You are using AMD64 right now, even on an Intel CPU.
Ignorant shills...

lol shills that can't spell that would be AMDDI. Not sure what is going on these days but the amount of shill post and clueless post have increase 1000x than what i'm use to seeing on this site.

Not sure I'm in a hurry to see PCIe 5.0 just yet; SSDs are barely using the PCIe 4.0 and that assumes you have a high end one, you're doing raw sequential transfers, and that you're using the SLC cache. Realistically it's not that easy to tell whether a machine is on PCIe 4.0 or SATA SSDs in blind testing without running a sequential benchmark.

The reason I'm anti-PCIe 5.0 right now is cost. PCIe 4.0 came at a pretty significant price hike over PCIe 3.0 boards. B450 vs B550 is a pretty good example of 50+% cost increase across all vendors, and the two boards are very similar if you ignore the +1 increment on the PCIe version.

Agreed PCIe 5.0 will have high power requirements and for the majority of consumer hardware and workflows we are not PCIe bottlenecked. The benefit for the Server market and high end workstations are there.

 

[R0H1T]

Maybe they got tired of all the "horror stories" of people ripping(?) their CPUs while trying to remove it from the socket, hence LGA

Shame it's not 1717 pins. Totally nerd out to that lol.

I'm sure you can remove that extra pin, or two, without killing your system

 

[DeathtoGnomes]

For consumers we dont need PCI-E 5.0 really.

what we need or dont need doesnt matter as much was what we want.

 

[silentbogo]

If you are somehow unable to not damage pins on CPU/MOBO leave it to a shop or someone qualified to do it for you then (that goes for untalented people as well).

If you haven't done anything destructive with your hardware, you weren't doing it for a long time, I assume. It happens even with the best of us. I've done many things, including cracked dies on Socket A chips, bent pins on LGA, ripping FM2 with a cooler, and even poking a hole in MoBo while installing the infamous Titan D5TB almost 20 years ago (third PC I've ever built)... and I'm supposed to be the guy that usually fixes stuff after someone else breaks it.
Nowadays there are many cases where ripping a CPU out of PGA socket is unavoidable, even if you don't apply gorilla-force to it. For example, the same shitty low-end foxconn sockets(it's basically a plated copper foil on contacts that suffers wear and tear over time), or when some idiot decides to put Conductonaut on a bare-copper heatsink and fuses it to a heatspreader a year later, or with those stupid clamps on Wraith Prism, which presents you with "chicken and egg" problem (you have to take off clamps in order to twist it, but in order to take off clamps you have to detach it from IHS and tilt it) etc. etc. etc.
I can go on forever without even resorting to "people are stupid" arguments. It's a technical problem, not a human problem.

 

[Panther_Seraphin]

I am completely fine with Consumer stuff being PCI-E 4 at the moment especially if it may be possible to get more PCI-E lanes from the mainstream CPU chips

Most of the time its not the Speed of the PCI-E lanes that are a bottleneck on a more mainstream build but the amount of lanes available to add in all the things people want (Graphics cards, PCI-E SSDs, WiFi, Sounds cards etc etc etc etc)

Being able to use something like:

HYPER M.2 X16 CARD V2 | M.2 Expansion Card | ASUS UK

Power-up your RAID. Hyper M.2 x 16 card V2 is compatible with Intel® Virtual RAID on CPU (VROC) and the AMD Ryzen™ Threadripper™ platform for NVMe RAID support.

www.asus.com

That fully populated uses 66% of the available PCI-E lanes in a current "mainstream" build

If we can get up to 32-36 or 40 lanes on a mainstream build, yes it will cut into Threadripper sales, but a LOT or Threadripper builds arent really being purchase JUST because of the PCI-E lanes.

 

[Athlonite]

If AMD are going LGA for mainstream desktop CPU's I'll be down with that if they use an installation style like that of Threadripper

 

[TheLostSwede]

I think that all of system requirements for the signal are adopted in advance to existing MB's PCB wiring?

I don't think you understand the issue.
Shorter trace length equals fewer possible lane placements.
There were concerns when PCIe 4.0 launched and the cost of boards went up, partially due to the redrivers, partially due to new PCB materials being needed etc.
With PCIe 5.0 this is only going to get worse.
But yeah, it's not really a problem, as the requirements are built into the motherboard

 

[Chrispy_]

I am completely fine with Consumer stuff being PCI-E 4 at the moment especially if it may be possible to get more PCI-E lanes from the mainstream CPU chips

Most of the time its not the Speed of the PCI-E lanes that are a bottleneck on a more mainstream build but the amount of lanes available to add in all the things people want (Graphics cards, PCI-E SSDs, WiFi, Sounds cards etc etc etc etc)

Being able to use something like:

HYPER M.2 X16 CARD V2 | M.2 Expansion Card | ASUS UK

Power-up your RAID. Hyper M.2 x 16 card V2 is compatible with Intel® Virtual RAID on CPU (VROC) and the AMD Ryzen™ Threadripper™ platform for NVMe RAID support.

www.asus.com

That fully populated uses 66% of the available PCI-E lanes in a current "mainstream" build

If we can get up to 32-36 or 40 lanes on a mainstream build, yes it will cut into Threadripper sales, but a LOT or Threadripper builds arent really being purchase JUST because of the PCI-E lanes.

B550 seems like the ideal consumer platform. It's cheap enough because most of the lanes are PCIe 3.0 and yet it has the PCIe 4.0 graphics and storage for those few people who might actually be able to use it.

The cost and power savings over X570 are hard to argue with, and I definitely appreciate the lack of a chipset fan.

 

[GerKNG]

lets just hope they can make enough of this so we can actually buy it atleast at MSRP

you can buy zen 3 under MSRP like 24/7 since months.
i'd say it's the same after a few months with zen 4

 

[Athlonite]

and I definitely appreciate the lack of a chipset fan.

I can't even hear the Chipset fan on my X570 even at 2200 odd rpm it's still quiet AF

 

[Wirko]

Does anyone have the slightest idea why it was necessary to increase the number of pins by ~400 - 500 on both Intel and AMD platforms? It's a huge number. PCIe 5 still needs two wires per lane and DDR5 still needs one wire per bit, and the number and width of other interfaces doesn't seem to be going up substantially.

I can only see increased number of power pins and wider DRAM interface as possible reasons. Neither will be a necessity in the beginning but both would be good for some future-proofing if the number of cores on consumer platforms keeps growing.

 

[Nike_486DX]

Lets just hope it would offer more than 20 pcie lanes

 

[TheLostSwede]

B550 seems like the ideal consumer platform. It's cheap enough because most of the lanes are PCIe 3.0 and yet it has the PCIe 4.0 graphics and storage for those few people who might actually be able to use it.

The cost and power savings over X570 are hard to argue with, and I definitely appreciate the lack of a chipset fan.

It needed a few more PCIe lanes, 3.0 is fine, but eight lanes is a bit on the low side. Another four would be the bare minimum.

you can buy zen 3 under MSRP like 24/7 since months.
i'd say it's the same after a few months with zen 4

Maybe where you live. Not everywhere else.

Does anyone have the slightest idea why it was necessary to increase the number of pins by ~400 - 500 on both Intel and AMD platforms? It's a huge number. PCIe 5 still needs two wires per lane and DDR5 still needs one wire per bit, and the number and width of other interfaces doesn't seem to be going up substantially.

I can only see increased number of power pins and wider DRAM interface as possible reasons. Neither will be a necessity in the beginning but both would be good for some future-proofing if the number of cores on consumer platforms keeps growing.

DDR5 is only going to be one part of it. Keep in mind that at least Intel has support for DDR4 and DDR5, so some of those pins aren't going to be entirely muxable.
We don't know enough about either platform to be sure what else comes with it.
As you can see from the presumably leaked diagram from Intel above, it looks like Intel is planning a fatter pipe between the CPU and chipset, which also takes up a lot of pins.
Intel is seemingly planning more display outputs as well, which again requires more pins.

 

[Chrispy_]

I can't even hear the Chipset fan on my X570 even at 2200 odd rpm it's still quiet AF

My watercooled machine is really, really quiet. The chipset fan is the only thing I can hear over the pump.

 

[Totally]

When AMD eventually decides to start supporting PCIe 5, what will they do? Change sockets again and introduce AM5.5? No way. I'm very sure they've designed AM5 for PCIe 5.

This latest leak just indicates that the first generation of AM5 CPUs, chipsets and boards will support version 4 only.

They don't change sockets for pci-e, they really only change sockets when moving from on memory standard to the next and even then they don't change sockets unless the absolutely have to do so. They're not like Intel in this regard where a minor change "requires" a new socket.

 

[Chrispy_]

It needed a few more PCIe lanes, 3.0 is fine, but eight lanes is a bit on the low side. Another four would be the bare minimum.

B550 has 10 lanes, it's just that some motherboard vendors choose to use two for additional SATA ports.

In isolation it doesn't sound like much but don't forget that most of the lifting is done by the CPU, something the B550 board (not the chipset) is responsible for delivering. The CPU holds the majority of the 10Gbps, PCIe lanes, and NVMe lanes that were locked away without PCIe 4.0 slots/connectivity on B450 boards.

The job of the B550 is to be cheap for the masses, not all-encompassing for high-end systems. That's what X570 is for.

 

[Makaveli]

My watercooled machine is really, really quiet. The chipset fan is the only thing I can hear over the pump.

I'm starting to think its your specific motherboard. Also from what I see Gigabyte offers these three profiles "silent," "balanced," and "performance for the chipset fan. What setting are you using?

I've never heard my chipset fan in the year and half I've been on this platform and my system is also very quiet.

 

[Chrispy_]

I'm starting to think its your specific motherboard.

i've never heard my chipset fan in the year and half i've been on this platform and my system is also very quiet.

Possibly. I suspect it's worn too as most of its life was pre-watercooling and the GPU dumped warm air at idle and hot air under load onto the chipset triggering the startup temperature of the fan. I reckon the chipset fan was running 24/7 for a year at least.

Tiny chipset fans have shitty bearings because they're tiny and cheap. Can't beat the laws of physics!

 

[Totally]

DDR5 is only going to be one part of it. Keep in mind that at least Intel has support for DDR4 and DDR5, so some of those pins aren't going to be entirely muxable.
We don't know enough about either platform to be sure what else comes with it.
As you can see from the presumably leaked diagram from Intel above, it looks like Intel is planning a fatter pipe between the CPU and chipset, which also takes up a lot of pins.
Intel is seemingly planning more display outputs as well, which again requires more pins.

If I had to guess DDR5 is the reason the are changing sockets, as for the number of pins they're adding some for DDR5, some more pins that were already needed on the current socket, ditching the workarounds and a some extras so they don't outgrow the socket too quickly again.

I'm starting to think its your specific motherboard. Also from what I see Gigabyte offers these three profiles "silent," "balanced," and "performance for the chipset fan. What setting are you using?

I've never heard my chipset fan in the year and half I've been on this platform and my system is also very quiet.

Same, I thought mine didn't run at all until I noticed the dust on the grill when I was cleaning it proved otherwise.

 

[TheLostSwede]

B550 has 10 lanes, it's just that some motherboard vendors choose to use two for additional SATA ports.

In isolation it doesn't sound like much but don't forget that most of the lifting is done by the CPU, something the B550 board (not the chipset) is responsible for delivering. The CPU holds the majority of the 10Gbps, PCIe lanes, and NVMe lanes that were locked away without PCIe 4.0 slots/connectivity on B450 boards.

The job of the B550 is to be cheap for the masses, not all-encompassing for high-end systems. That's what X570 is for.

Well, that's the problem, not some, most do that, as SATA is still a thing.

Considering how "feature light" the chipset is, most of those eight lanes then go to things like Ethernet, Wi-Fi, another M.2 and another USB 3.x controller, so that means if you want to plug in just about anything into the PCIe slots, you're going to lose something else. Hence why it needs another four PCIe lanes.