Official(ish) 975 chipset will not support Conroe.

Just as well I found this link as I was just about to order the parts for my new pc in the hope of upgrading the cpu when Conroe comes out later this year. Now I won't bother. I dont want to be stuck with a future proof pc which is only future proof for a couple of months rather than at least a year.

Read it and weep if your'e in the same boat as me.
36 answers Last reply
More about official chipset support conroe
  1. All the more reason to use AMD is right however, they both need to stop making so many changes in such a short amount of time.

    I just bought a new Gigabyte board (still in the box) with the Intel 975 chipset in hopes of dropping a conroe chip in it. Well, looks like I'll be sending it back. No point in keeping it if I can't drop the latest and greatest chip in it right?

    The way I look at it is this way, I understand that these companies ( I did say companies) need to progress in technology but they are clearly not thinking about the end user anymore. Its the end user that ultimately suffers from having the pain staking task of going out and buying new equipment every 6 months to support the newest products. While this is going on, they are fattening their wallets because think about this:

    Let's imagine AMD and Intel just stopped progressing and they both have an exactly equal chip. They would battle it out with price wars. Cheaper prices has influence. But yet, with all the new sockets coming out every 6 months and new chips to support that new socket, the prices are sky high and they generally fall. Why do you think Intel in particular makes so much money? How many different chipsets have they had out now in the last year or so? Too many in my opinion.

    The madness needs to stop. Computers nowadays are so fast as it is and I think these chip manufacturers need to take a breather and let the end user soak in the ambience for a while and enjoy what they got. I for one am usually an avid Intel enthusiast but these dumb decisions by Intel are driving me to put more AMD machines on my bench.

    Love, peace and harmony to all

  2. well said.
    But, realistically, it ain't gonna happen. The economist in me knows that no company will sit on its heels and drop prices on current models when it could keep going and convince Joe Consumer to buy the latest and greatest.

    Seeing as AMD has the effectively Northbridgeless HyperTransport, theoretically Any processor can be made to fit into Any board, right? (besides the occasional upping of HT speed). So why aren't more manufacturers coming out with "upgrade slots" like Asrock? I wouldn't mind running an nForce3 with "older" (PCI/AGP) features if it meant i could still plug in an AM2 processor into the same board (albeit at maybe a slower HT speed).

    Like i may have said in another thread, i was planning to get a new 955X/8x0D system sometime last year. But intel seems to almost purposefully not make new processors support old chipsets, forcing you to buy a new mobo (and hence, intel chipset, more $ for them) if you want to upgrade. AMD don't make money every time you buy a new mobo, so it doesn't matter to them if new processors can be used on really old chipsets...
  3. hey luminaris i know your not a fanboy(except to ocing :D )but would you wanna buy an am2 chip if it could oc like your 630?
  4. Heh, its funny you mentioned that cause, I just ordered an AMD Opty 170 Denmark core. I'm gonna drop that in my DFI SLI-Expert board when I get it. I had an X2-3800 for a bit but didn't get to play with it much as it was customers machine I sold.
  5. And yes, I most definately am going to get an AM2 board and chip also to answer your question. Since Intel can't seem to keep things on the right track with their chipsets, I'll just stick with AMD for now.
  6. You did order the right Opty! Interested in your ocs
  7. Thanks man. I can't wait to see how it performs. I will be sure to post pics and specs when I get it tuned up. :wink:
  8. Quote:
    I understand that these companies ( I did say companies) need to progress in technology but they are clearly not thinking about the end user anymore.


    They (the companies...), do think about the end user, profit wise. Small processor/chipset improvements, with the right marketing strategy (read "hype"), makes each new platform into a magnificent, proudly showed off, achievement. And, with it, many millions in revenue. Perhaps third-party MB manufacturers are less to blame: they often offer more than expected...

    Anyway, we - end users - have the obligation to be [well] informed, up-to-date & demand the disclosure (should be compulsory!) of any new paltform (CPU/Chipset/MB), down to its significant detail (specs; compatibility; upgradeability; ...), in order to have a true, educated & reliable FREEDOM of CHOICE, when preparing for a purchase.
    There should be a Mandatory Disclosure Report (MDR - just invented it!) to the Press, Resellers & all context-related media.

    As for us, end-users, we're the ones to blame, out of ignorance (as if it were a crime being ignorant!); because we're not ALL engineers, we're not ALL into forums like this and - so it seems - we're ALL «sorry to ask!».

    Wake up, World! Ask for an MDR! NOW! :D

  9. I read a review of the new AM2 socket where somebody got an engineering sample of the chip and an AM2 reference board. The AM2 chips was a 4800+ and they compared it to a 939 4800+ and the 939 one beat it in pretty much all but the synthetic memory bandwidth scores. Granted, this engineering sample only had a DDR2-667 memory controller and the final ones will have a DDR2-800 one, but still, the latency of DDR2 makes it slower than the old DDR400.

    So I am going to buy a Socket 939 X2 and be happy in the fact that until the DDR2 speeds get above about 1GHz and the latencies to 3 or below (most are 5- yuck!), mine will still be faster. Oh, and the 939 stuff is going for cheap as people don't want an "old socket."
  10. While that's true and you won't see any benefit of using DDR2-667, DDR2-800 should bring a greater performance increase. While this RAM generally does have higher latency, its still more efficient because of the performance gains. As long as you have good RAM, you can adjust the timings anyway to help alleviate or offset any latency.
  11. All the more reason to go AMD ;-)

    Not everyone has the 975. I know the 965 will arrive just on time. Besides,you AMD fanboys will have to change mobos and CPUs for the same ol' same ol' with DDR2.
    We will experience a significant performance and a very welcomed clock value boost and best energy/performance!
    And prices seem fair!
    If Intel reaches AMD performance(and it will probably do) most will go for Intel esspecially those in the bussiness market.
  12. I use AMDs because they have a superior architecture, great price performance, consume less energy and generate less heat.

    If I wanted to buy marketing I would go Intel.

    And as I have said before both companies lie cheat and steal. What else is new?

    AMD still has a 25-70% lead in the 64bit arena and since I run 64bit Operating Systems my systems would slow down significantly if I were to switch to Intel.

    So if you like wasting energy, want less performance and like heat hey go with Intel and let OPEC rape you.
  13. Switch to CAPITAL ONE..

    What's in your Wallet?

    Just threw that out there if you plan on buying a new setup.. :lol:
  14. Although I don't really use a 64 bit OS, I will attest that Linux is right about one thing, and that is, AMDs are more efficient. The first thing I noticed when I put together my Opteron system is, it runs almost 10 degrees cooler at idle/load speeds than my 630 Intel. On top of the Opty sits a stock cooler while on my Intel i've got a Zalman cooler.

    Even at stock speeds and cooler, the Intel idles around 35-37C. OC'd and with the zalman cooler, it idles around 33-34.
  15. :D

    Got benches and pix?
  16. DAT's IT!!! I'm gonna buy a stock amd heatsink. And before I put it on my P4 northwood, I'm going to write OPTY on it.


    Then I'm goin to run Sandra Benchmarks and see if I get worse scores!!

    Oh.. should I use home made mayo as a thermal paste?
  17. They're coming .... Probably tonight I'll post all sorts of screenies.

    The only test I've run so far is 3DMark06 on both machines. The Intel scored much higher than the opty did but, that's only because I'm running the opty stock right now and haven't tweaked the settings at all.
  18. hey luminaris did you use stock heatsink with the thermal paste or did you use arctic silver 5
  19. I guess the next quesiton would be...

    "Did you use alcohol to clean the core and heatsink to clean it?"
  20. AS5
  21. LOL i'm talking about what's coming/
    Conroe will not have heat issues,will consume less,will perform at least at the same level.
    AM2 will be 939 on steroids with a buff in clocks.
    Unlike AMD,Intel will not repeat the same mistackes twice. They have a reputation to keep.
  22. :D

    Looking forward to seeing them.

    Would you please include specviewperf and some Linux benches?

    3DMark is known to be biased.

  23. How do you know this?

    Do you have a Conroe?

    Where is the 64bit support?

    Got some unbiased benchmarks?
  24. I think one thing that we're missing here is that us enthusiasts are such a teeny tiny part of the market.

    The normal computer owner buys a box from Dell, Gateway, whoever. They hardly even know what's in it. They believe that when it says Extreme graphics, they really will be extreme. Then in a year, or two, depending on how much spyware, viruses, and crap is slowing down their system, they get a whole new box.

    I mean, hell, actually know someone who went out and bought a whole new PC simply because they got a virus. (That was easily removed BTW.) :lol:

    This is who the companies are targetting.

    And as the rare enthusiast, we should be smart enough to do our own research. :lol: And we should know better.

    I mean, come on, how many times has a new proc meant a new mobo?

    Even AMD's super-long-lived SocketA was most definately not a forward-looking future-proof purchase. You had to worry about voltage requirements, FSB support, etc. You had to actually get BIOS updates from the mobo manu. And even then you had RAM and AGP limitations to deal with.

    It's just a pretty safe bet that unless you're the kind of person buying a new proc every two months, the majority of new proc purchases are going to require a new mobo, even if the socket itself still is the same. So we should be fairly expecting that, especially when significant architecture changes such as Conroe are involved.

    Is it nice to not have such great future-proofing? No. But it's certainly noting new, and it's definately a heck of a lot cheaper than buying a whole new box from Dell every time we're hit by a virus. :lol:
  25. ok dude what were the temps with the stock themal paste?
  26. 64 bit programs will surely work on it
    I don't really care about Linux nor 64 bit. If Intel gives better or equal performance in 32 bit benchies Intel will be the way to go.
    Woodcrest WILL have 64 bit fully enabled.
    As for now,Intel's new technology is already showing results. Core Duo is by far the best laptop CPU out there.
  27. Quote:
    As for now,Intel's new technology is already showing results. Core Duo is by far the best laptop CPU out there.

    unless you have any USB devices...


    anyway, you probably never jumped on intel rambus / i850 / willamette / slot platforms did ya?

    if you did you would probably not be singing like that unless you're getting a monthly paycheck from intel HQ to troll the forums with that manner...

  28. I have no idea man. I always take the stock paste off and install using AS5. I know this morning it was sitting there idling at a chilly 25C which to me, is amazing.
  29. Quote:
    As for now,Intel's new technology is already showing results. Core Duo is by far the best laptop CPU out there.

    unless you have any USB devices...

    :roll:Actually, from the reviews I've read, even with the USB2.0 bug in M$'s software causing the loss of battery life, the power results are still better than anything else out there. They're just not as good as what they could be. But even still, there also are already workarounds that mostly fix the power problem, which if used by far makes it the best in terms of power.

    And that's all a software issue. The CPU itself is still the best.

    And the power usage issue doesn't in any way hinder its awesome performance.
  30. I agree :D

    RAMBUS was one of the biggest mistakes Intel ever made and to be honest the people that remember about RAMBUS are still mad about it and for good reason.

    I have said this before and I will say it again:

    The P3 was actually a decent CPU ( I own a bunch of them ). The P4 was and still is terrible in many respects ( I built some for clients who insisted on Intel but otherwise wouldn't touch one with a 10ft pole ).
  31. Would you touch one with a 9.5ft pole? :wink:
  32. Negative.
  33. Quote:
    RAMBUS was one of the biggest mistakes Intel ever made
    :lol: You're comparing the option to use RDRAM to the P3 1.13GHz debacle and the memory translator hub mess? Sorry, but WTF?

    I'll grant that Intel pushed RDRAM too early. Though the 800MHz stuff performed great on the P3, there really wasn't a need for it. And I'll readily hand you on a silver platter how $#!77^ it was of Intel to not support DDR (and DC-DDR) sooner.

    Still, I'd hardly call that a mistake. More just a nuisance and a point of frustration. :lol: And I definately wouldn't rate it as "one of the biggest". I mean anyone who was willing to spend the money got some great performance. Offering an option is hardly something to bitch about.

    And had Rambus the company not been such $#!7s, to this day we'd probably be seeing RDRAM (or Rambus-designed RAM anyway) still used in PCs. They had some very interesting technologies, and their prices would have improved had more manufacturers gotten on board, but their corporate ethics really drove the nail into the coffin.

    and to be honest the people that remember about RAMBUS are still mad about it and for good reason.
    I'm totally not following you there. What good reason? Because they didn't research a major purchase before buying? Because they had great performance so long as they avoided the cheapest RDRAM available? :?: :?: :?: Sure, it cost a fair bit, and had a rather limited upgrade option, but then when isn't that true of Intel?

    The P3 was actually a decent CPU
    The first thing I agree with you on in this post. :o I'm glad to see Intel going back to a P3-related architecture. I want lower heat and power.

    The P4 was and still is terrible in many respects
    I can only partly agree with you on this. Willy sucked. There's just no getting around that. And the first Scotties really sucked too. Recent Scotties are okay-ish, now that their heat output and power usage are down. Still not great though. And the duals suck, of course. But there was that magical time (AKA Northy) where the P4 was quite the awesome chip.

    Were I buying a system today, it'd be AMD all the way. (Well, unless it was a laptop.) But the P4 certainly had its moments, and still isn't necessarily a bad choice today, in the right situations. It's just not the best choice. :lol:
  34. Hehe :D

    I too agree with you for the most part :D

    Some of us suffered more due to RDRAM than others.
  35. Too bad you don't actually read before post. I'm not into laptops really( i have a crappy Celeron M 1.6GHZ) but power consumption was still awsome and things can only improve with the coming of the new chips and BTW do you know what Apple is using now?
    As for P4 i really do not get it.
    Everything earlier than Prescott blew AMD away. AMD was either too hot or not competitive enough.
    Probably it was a wrong way from the start BUT they learned during all this time. P3, why was it so special? It just continued the succes of P2.
    P4 had high expectations and it didn't meet them but it still brought them millions and experience and a 70% of the time lead.
    Before passing the 3 ghz barrier all seem fine and Intel kicked AMD but.
    So AMD has finally arrived with something competitive. Good for them. It was about time after all these years. But all good things come to an end and this particular ending is not far away.
    Every technology has a life. Important is getting the most out of a technology. Intel couldn't have done a better job with Net burst.
    With such "poor" arhitecture they were still beating AMD's "efficient" arhitecture in most benchies in the past.
    Intel has the ability to exploit a technology to its limits in a very short time. That's why AMD(that has chosen the better road let's say,but that isn't bright enough to fully take advantage of it) without their main advantage will not stand much of a chance.
    Here are my predictions based not on what i favour but on what i have read :

    Q3 2006 Conroe matches Am2 performance and clock per clock speed
    Q3-4 2006 Merom totally anihilates the Turion dual core on simply all frontiers!
    Q1 2007 The heavy weights of the 2 chip manefacteurs duel in an great epic. The Conroe EE against FX 64. Performance wise the conroe has a minor lead but it is a lot more energy efficient
    Q1-2 2007 Woodcrest finally arives after all this time. It's closely matched with Opteron. Hard decision indeed.
    Q1 45 mn by Intel 65 AMD
    Q2 Intel is slowly gaining lead
    The war after Conroe release would be like one between too guners using the same weapon but one with more bullets.
    Yonah on desktop will be quite simillar to what AMD is making but Intel as always will be faster on its work.
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs Chipsets Support