Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

[Official] No socket AM3 support for Bulldozer!?!?

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • Bulldozer
  • Support
  • Socket
  • Product
Last response: in CPUs
Share
a b à CPUs
August 30, 2010 1:28:45 PM

Quote:
"The existing G34 and C32 server infrastructure will support the new Bulldozer-based server products. In order for AMD’s desktop offering to fully leverage the capabilities of Bulldozer, an enhanced AM3+ socket will be introduced that supports Bulldozer and is backward-compatible with our existing AM3 CPU offerings."


"When we initially set out on the path to Bulldozer we were hoping for AM3 compatibility, but further along the process we realized that we had a choice to make based on some of the features that we wanted to bring with Bulldozer. We could either provide AM3 support and lose some of the capabilities of the new Bulldozer architecture or, we could choose the AM3+ socket which would allow the Bulldozer-base Zambezi to have greater performance and capability.

The majority of the computer buying public will not upgrade their processors, but enthusiasts do. When we did the analysis it was clear that the customers who were most likely to upgrade an AM3 motherboard to a Bulldozer would want the features and capability that would only be delivered in the new AM3+ sockets. A classic Catch-22.

Why not do both you ask? Just make a second model that only works in AM3? First, because that would greatly increase the cost and infrastructure of bringing the product to market, which would drive up the cost of the product (for both AMD and its partners). Secondly, adding an additional product would double the time involved in many of the development steps.

So in the end, delivering an AM3 capability would bring you a less featured product that was more expensive and later to market. Instead we chose the path of the AM3+ socket, which is a path that we hope will bring you a better priced product, with greater performance and more features - on time.

When we looked at the market for AM3 upgrades, it was clear that the folks most interested in an AM3-based product were the enthusiasts. This is one set of customers that we know are not willing to settle for second best when it comes to performance, so we definitely needed to ensure that our new architecture would meet their demanding needs, for both high performance and overclockability. We believe they will see that in AM3+."


http://www.planet3dnow.de/cgi-bin/newspub/viewnews.cgi?...

Ouch; so much for the AM3 chipset if true...

More about : official socket am3 support bulldozer

a b à CPUs
August 30, 2010 1:40:55 PM

God damn. Sucks to be all those (me included) that have bought an AM3 and are waiting to upgrade their CPU. I'll have to settle with a 1095T.
a c 103 à CPUs
August 30, 2010 1:45:34 PM

Not so bothered personally, I have plenty of upgrade room from an (unlocked) x3 435 :p 
but when I feel I do need that level of pc performance, I think it will feel like a bigger step and more satisfying somehow,
like the difference between souping up a 600cc bike, and just buying a whole new 1400cc Beast :) 
Moto
Related resources
a b à CPUs
August 30, 2010 5:31:23 PM

I've been hearing roumers of AM3+ for some time, so I guess this kinda confirms it.

That being said, no idea how reputable the site is; was running a search on AM3+ to try and find evidence one way or another, but this has been roumered for some time now...
a b à CPUs
August 30, 2010 6:34:38 PM

gamerk316 said:
I've been hearing roumers of AM3+ for some time, so I guess this kinda confirms it.

That being said, no idea how reputable the site is; was running a search on AM3+ to try and find evidence one way or another, but this has been roumered for some time now...


Actually, JF-AMD (AMD marketing director) has already confirmed here in another thread that Bulldozer will need the AM3r2 mobo and will not be backwards-compatible with AM3:

Quote:
.jf-amd 08-30-2010 at 07:19:37 AM | BBCode | Report .
.Newcomer
More Information
posts : 7 Points : 128 Joined : Wed Mar 03, 2010


dogman_1234 wrote :


Here is what I understand:

Bulldozer will be AM3+( aka Am3r2,{"r" meaning "revised"}) ready. AM3+ will be backwards compatible with AM3 itself, allowing older chipsets to run on the new LGA.
Basically, you can runa Phenom II x6 on AM3+, but you cannot rum A Bulldozer on an AM3 standard


This is correct.
a b à CPUs
August 30, 2010 7:21:30 PM

Well, If AM3+ boards accept AM3 CPUs I would be happy :D . Then I could get an AM3+ board and DDR3 RAM and then upgrade the CPU latter. Of course, I won't be doing that till I'm looking to buy 16GB of RAM :p 
August 30, 2010 7:22:27 PM

I think AMD users have had a good run with their sockets.
a b à CPUs
August 30, 2010 7:30:37 PM

No suprise to me. I have been saying this for months.
August 30, 2010 10:34:31 PM

acer0169 said:
God damn. Sucks to be all those (me included) that have bought an AM3 and are waiting to upgrade their CPU. I'll have to settle with a 1095T.



Dude, Did You THOUROUGHLY Read It?, It Said That AM3+ Will Be Backward Compatible With AM3 CPUs.

So That Means When The Time Comes You Just Buy A New Board Throw Your, Current AM3 CPU Into The New Board Re-Use All Your Old Stuff An Viola You Have A Cheap Future-Proof Upgrade Path.

Thus I Am Perfectly Happy With The Intorduction Of The New Socket, Witch Means Hell Yes, I Still Have A Cheaper Upgrade Path Than Your Average Intel Enthusest....... F*** You Intel!
a b à CPUs
August 30, 2010 10:50:30 PM

Server/workstation CPU - cannot be bothered by that.

They evidently will keep and expand the AM3 socket CPU range for the mainstream users, there are a few CPUs expected soon (Phenom II x4 965/970, etc etc).

What's that? Is it for real?

http://cgi.ebay.com/AMD-Phenom-II-x4-960T-3-0GHz-8MB-Qu...





a b à CPUs
August 30, 2010 11:00:03 PM

hella-d said:
Dude, Did You THOUROUGHLY Read It?, It Said That AM3+ Will Be Backward Compatible With AM3 CPUs.

So That Means When The Time Comes You Just Buy A New Board Throw Your, Current AM3 CPU Into The New Board Re-Use All Your Old Stuff An Viola You Have A Cheap Future-Proof Upgrade Path.

Thus I Am Perfectly Happy With The Intorduction Of The New Socket, Witch Means Hell Yes, I Still Have A Cheaper Upgrade Path Than Your Average Intel Enthusest....... F*** You Intel!

A real glass half full guy ? lol
a b à CPUs
August 30, 2010 11:12:48 PM

Quote:
Bulldozer will replace the current server and high-end desktop processors from AMD, including the Opteron 4100 and 6100 series and the Phenom II X6, at some time in 2011.


http://techreport.com/articles.x/19514

So, actually they're bringing together their stuff as opposed to someone else I know. A mobo that takes in everything from a cheap single core Sempron up to server CPUs, how is that?
August 30, 2010 11:45:36 PM

mosox said:
Quote:
Bulldozer will replace the current server and high-end desktop processors from AMD, including the Opteron 4100 and 6100 series and the Phenom II X6, at some time in 2011.


http://techreport.com/articles.x/19514

So, actually they're bringing together their stuff as opposed to someone else I know. A mobo that takes in everything from a cheap single core Sempron up to server CPUs, how is that?


No, that is 3 different sockets.

Desktop: AM3+
Server: G34 and C32
a b à CPUs
August 30, 2010 11:49:19 PM

hella-d said:
Dude, Did You THOUROUGHLY Read It?, It Said That AM3+ Will Be Backward Compatible With AM3 CPUs.

So That Means When The Time Comes You Just Buy A New Board Throw Your, Current AM3 CPU Into The New Board Re-Use All Your Old Stuff An Viola You Have A Cheap Future-Proof Upgrade Path.

Thus I Am Perfectly Happy With The Intorduction Of The New Socket, Witch Means Hell Yes, I Still Have A Cheaper Upgrade Path Than Your Average Intel Enthusest....... F*** You Intel!


Hmm...

So, if I want a new Intel CPU, I have to buy:
A motherboard (assuming I wait for Sandy Bridge)
A Processor

If I want a new AMD CPU (assuming I already have an AM3 setup), I have to buy:
A Motherboard
A Processor


Where is this cheaper upgrade path again?
a b à CPUs
August 31, 2010 12:40:04 AM

jf-amd said:
No, that is 3 different sockets.
Desktop: AM3+
Server: G34 and C32


I don't understand. If Bulldozer will replace the Opterons, that means no more Opterons and no more G34 and C32 sockets. Everything on AM3+.
a b à CPUs
August 31, 2010 12:57:37 AM

are you serious?
a b à CPUs
August 31, 2010 1:17:07 AM

OK, after reading some more they will keep those two sockets but this doesn't mean one won't be able to run a server on AM3+ like they run Thuban servers now.

The line between "server-grade" and "desktop" is really blurry already and that trend will continue.
a b à CPUs
August 31, 2010 1:34:15 AM

mosox said:
OK, after reading some more they will keep those two sockets but this doesn't mean one won't be able to run a server on AM3+ like they run Thuban servers now.

The line between "server-grade" and "desktop" is really blurry already and that trend will continue.



I repeat "Are you serious?"

a b à CPUs
August 31, 2010 1:50:12 AM

Give some input or go hiking.
a b à CPUs
August 31, 2010 5:18:23 AM

hella-d said:
Dude, Did You THOUROUGHLY Read It?, It Said That AM3+ Will Be Backward Compatible With AM3 CPUs.

So That Means When The Time Comes You Just Buy A New Board Throw Your, Current AM3 CPU Into The New Board Re-Use All Your Old Stuff An Viola You Have A Cheap Future-Proof Upgrade Path.

Thus I Am Perfectly Happy With The Intorduction Of The New Socket, Witch Means Hell Yes, I Still Have A Cheaper Upgrade Path Than Your Average Intel Enthusest....... F*** You Intel!



So you are saying that when the time comes for people with current AM3 systems to upgrade they can just buy a new board and re-use there current hardware? That is nonsense. Nobody will buy a new board and keep the older chip in it.
a c 88 à CPUs
August 31, 2010 7:21:44 AM

Probably, but at least with AMD you have the option. If you have an AM3 setup now you can get the AM3+ board and reuse the CPU and RAM. Then when you save up the $$$ for the CPU you can get that. For budget limited people it will work. Not ideal, but it allows the upgrade to BD without having to drop all the money up front.

A bit sad, but AMDs socket life couldn't last forever. Eventually you have to make the big jump to support all the new stuff.
a c 103 à CPUs
August 31, 2010 7:38:55 AM

Maybe a odd pov but,

Possibly a part of the reason for the long socket life was that AMD thought it out a bit more when designing the socket and foresaw its 'bigger picture' for the long run?
Design a socket that will last a while, then you can focus your efforts and resources on the next,
(which due to the extra attention and time, will likely be as long a runner)
instead of just making one socket for now, they envisioned it as part of a stepping stone bridge.
Rather than Intels seemingly 'ooh new chip new socket' protocol, great if you can afford to be so blasé with your hard-earned, not so when you build a system with hopes of it lasting you a while and maybe upgrade one thing at a time.
Just an odd thought I had.
Moto
August 31, 2010 7:39:46 AM

hella-d said:
Dude, Did You THOUROUGHLY Read It?, It Said That AM3+ Will Be Backward Compatible With AM3 CPUs.

So That Means When The Time Comes You Just Buy A New Board Throw Your, Current AM3 CPU Into The New Board Re-Use All Your Old Stuff An Viola You Have A Cheap Future-Proof Upgrade Path.

Thus I Am Perfectly Happy With The Intorduction Of The New Socket, Witch Means Hell Yes, I Still Have A Cheaper Upgrade Path Than Your Average Intel Enthusest....... F*** You Intel!



Dude are you serious ?? who would buy a new AM3+ board and use an older cpu?? there is absolutly no reason to get a new board for that.

even if you want to buy the bulldozer after its better to just wait until you can buy it then get a mobo+cpu as we all know the pc market by the time you want to get the cpu better/cheaper mobos will exsist which make it dumb to get the mobo soon and use an older cpu until you can get the new cpu !!

it is a plus if you think about it but not that much of an anvantage.

a c 103 à CPUs
August 31, 2010 7:45:00 AM

I would, main reason, I might not be able to afford a full upgrade all at once, If I buy the chip, it sits there until I have a compatible Mobo, if I buy the Mobo I get to use it and then I'd pass down my current plate to a refurb system to sell and help raise funds for the chip, whilst still having a running system.
Which I suspect a few people will do, either through choice or necessity.
Moto
a b à CPUs
August 31, 2010 8:17:08 AM

Board plus chip does not equal full system.


Now don't get me wrong. I am not giving AMD any grief what so ever for bulldozer needing a new board.
a c 103 à CPUs
August 31, 2010 8:27:41 AM

Not taking any offence at all mate,
I only started to chip in more because the debates getting interesting now :) 

Just playing devils advocate I guess, but the logic of my statement is sound, if/when it came to the choice and money was tight I would get the board first and chip later, purely because I can use the board while I save up, it may not be ideal/full performance but it would be a working system, whereas if I bought the chip, I'd beat myself up for having £300+ sat there in a box when I could have spent it on my bike/house maintenance/romantic dinner/funding my new fledgling business,

Moto
August 31, 2010 10:13:06 AM

...the full development path for "Dozer" will take a while for all specs and revisions to become known. Buy early and you tend to be limited for options as the range expands. Like a new car model I think it's more often better to buy the best of the last generation than get caught up in the teething problems that every new platform invariably experiences.

Could also be that the performace of Dozer could/should be such that it could, no, probably will be, sadly, a lot more expensive. CPU/MOBO combo would make a resonable upgrade....looks like we can carry the RAM and graphics across at this stage and that alone is a big help.

AMD have done a fantastic job through the AM2 revolution, the honeymoon had to end at some point, and if "Dozer" is compromised by backwards compatability, then I think they got that decision right to... I know when I went for the new mobo/RAM combo rather than run my 965 and 1090T on my AM2 boards even though they were recognised as the right chip and ran stable, but were compromised in reaching their max performance and as an enthusiast I wanted to unleash their full power.. so for me AMD have got their strategy spot on...

18 months usually sees me out and I start seriously looking for something new... I am really looking at these new eyefinity setups...trying to find the argument as to why I need one?...short ans is I don't....but can I resist? that is the question...

To "Dozer and beyond..." :wahoo: 
a b à CPUs
August 31, 2010 11:55:34 AM

I sunk $800 into a complete i7 920 rig. It was worth every dollar. I can happily watch Bulldozer and Sandy Bridge go by and sit on my investment until such a time as I need more computing power.
a b à CPUs
August 31, 2010 12:34:50 PM

cjl said:
Hmm...

So, if I want a new Intel CPU, I have to buy:
A motherboard (assuming I wait for Sandy Bridge)
A Processor

If I want a new AMD CPU (assuming I already have an AM3 setup), I have to buy:
A Motherboard
A Processor


Where is this cheaper upgrade path again?


Hence the irony.

That being said, I'm still trying to figure out where AMD got its rep for a long socket life:
Socket 754: Summer/Fall 2003
Socket 939: June 2004
Socket AM2: May 2006
Socket AM2+: Summer 2008
Socket AM3: February 2009
Socket AM3+: Spring/Summer 2011

So you consistently have 2 year upgrade cycles with AMD. The is no different then the upgrades made to socket 775 over the same time span to allow for new generations of CPU's (Duo's and Quads), while maintaining compatability with older chips (Petium 4, Pentium D, Celeron).

1366 and 1066 lasted about 2 years, or about the same length of time as AMD's sockets. I fail to see how one brand offers a "longer lasting" system, when both replace their sockets at about the same rate.
a b à CPUs
August 31, 2010 12:40:34 PM

randomizer said:
I sunk $800 into a complete i7 920 rig. It was worth every dollar. I can happily watch Bulldozer and Sandy Bridge go by and sit on my investment until such a time as I need more computing power.


+1. Socket 1366 has been out since what - December 2008? So if obsoleted in December 2011 by no new upgrade CPUs, that makes it a solid 3 years and beyond if your 920 still suffices.
a b à CPUs
August 31, 2010 1:00:26 PM

I actually bought it in June 2009 and only because of a nice little tax incentive :)  I have no plans to upgrade it in the next year though. There's simply no need. What does BD or SB give me other than a smaller bank balance?
August 31, 2010 2:58:53 PM

gamerk316 said:
The is no different then the upgrades made to socket 775 over the same time span to allow for new generations of CPU's (Duo's and Quads), while maintaining compatability with older chips (Petium 4, Pentium D, Celeron).


The difference is in the design philosophy:

Intel has generally designed new sockets to work with older CPU. But you can't put newer CPU into an older motherboard. Zero upgrade ability.

AMD has generally designed new CPU to work with older sockets even though the CPU changed to a new socket. But you couldn't use older CPU in the newest motherboards. Zero backward compatibility.

With the newer Bulldozer chips AMD will be changing from one design method to the other. If AMD just called the newer AM3r2/AM3+ motherboards "AM3" and didn't change the socket name then they would be doing the same thing Intel did for years with the LGA775.
a c 88 à CPUs
August 31, 2010 6:33:40 PM

^ BS. At least as I read it.
a c 127 à CPUs
September 1, 2010 12:30:17 AM

keithlm said:
The difference is in the design philosophy:

Intel has generally designed new sockets to work with older CPU. But you can't put newer CPU into an older motherboard. Zero upgrade ability.

AMD has generally designed new CPU to work with older sockets even though the CPU changed to a new socket. But you couldn't use older CPU in the newest motherboards. Zero backward compatibility.

With the newer Bulldozer chips AMD will be changing from one design method to the other. If AMD just called the newer AM3r2/AM3+ motherboards "AM3" and didn't change the socket name then they would be doing the same thing Intel did for years with the LGA775.


The majority of CPU compatability is based on the mobo maker and you know that. If you go with a cheap mobo for Intel or AMD, you tend to get crappy capacitors and voltage regulators that do not offer the flexibility that is needed when the new CPU needs a different set of voltage.

Then there is the BIOS support. The mobo makers normally has to code the BIOS to understand the CPU itself.

Now you go and buy a decent mobo and most of the time, the BIOS is updated for support and the capacitors and voltage regulators can go a much wider range and ensure stability.

AMDs compatability issues with BD do not stem from a different process but more of a complete change in the CPU itself.

BTW, I can still put ANY LGA775 CPU into my mobo. Even CPUs that came out 1.5 years after my mobo was released. Then again I don't buy low end crap brand mobos.
a c 88 à CPUs
September 1, 2010 4:09:03 AM

Its still the same socket which is why I called BS. Only AMD has come out with a new socket that still supports older CPU. The pin count is different, but the older CPU will still work. Intel has never done this that I can recall.
a b à CPUs
September 1, 2010 4:48:55 AM

A hundred years ago, I used a Abit slot I motherboard, socket 370 adapter,with the Celeron 300(a)/Pentium II's, which Pentium III transitioned to , Believe I used that for 5 years with pc100 ram.
a c 127 à CPUs
September 1, 2010 5:05:31 AM

4745454b said:
Its still the same socket which is why I called BS. Only AMD has come out with a new socket that still supports older CPU. The pin count is different, but the older CPU will still work. Intel has never done this that I can recall.


To date, no. But thats mainly because the older setup with the FSB prevented that in a lot of ways. The FSB setup did allow for a choice of memory though which was nice. I can throw my Q6600 into a P45 mobo with DDR3 if I wanted to since the MC is on the chipset.

I don't forsee Intel doing what AMD does though. For AMD, its how they get their name. Albiet its not always 100% true (they went through a lot of sockets pretty fast pre AM2+) its still how they do it. Intel is not the same. The way they do a lot of their new arch in their CPUs requires a socket change. If we look at it this way: Core 2 and its 45nm version both supported LGA775. Nehalem and its 32nm version supported both LGA1366 and LGA1156.

If the pattern remains the same then SB and Ivy Bridge, the 22nm CPU, should support LGA1155 and LGA2011.

It means that if Intel keeps up the same pace then every tock might have a socket change while every tick would have the same socket as its tock. Its kinda the same with AMD. Phenom started at 65nm on AM2+ and moved to 45nm with AM2+/AM3. So far BD will only be AM3+ and its both a new arch and process though. Technically a tick-tock combo.
a c 88 à CPUs
September 1, 2010 5:19:36 AM

I remember the slockets. I'm not sure if they count or not. I wasn't meaning adapters or any special mobos (Asrock) that allowed crazy things to happen.

I was only making reference to what keithlm was claiming. Intel has never brought about a new socket that you could go back or forward with. (not counting the afore mentioned slockets.) AMD has done it, and even then only recently.
a c 127 à CPUs
September 1, 2010 6:01:41 AM

4745454b said:
I remember the slockets. I'm not sure if they count or not. I wasn't meaning adapters or any special mobos (Asrock) that allowed crazy things to happen.

I was only making reference to what keithlm was claiming. Intel has never brought about a new socket that you could go back or forward with. (not counting the afore mentioned slockets.) AMD has done it, and even then only recently.


I would wonder if Intel did the slockets myself though.

A bit ago with the S478 CPUs when Intel debut Core on the laptops in the form of its first iteration, Pentium M, Asus created a adapter that allowed you to put a 479 pin Pentum M into almost any of their S478 mobos, I know because my P4P800 was supported.

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/178/1/

It was sort of a way to preview the Core arch on a desktop since it allowed you to clock it higher and it performed better than the equally clocked Athlon 64 and higher clocked Pentium desktop part:



http://www.anandtech.com/show/1650/1

There we go.

But you are right. Thus far only AMD has had such a long line of backwards compatable CPUs.
September 1, 2010 2:29:46 PM

I hope this is wrong but either way, I'm going AM3. When Bulldozer comes out, AM3 will just got down further in price. I win! :lol: 
a b à CPUs
September 1, 2010 2:33:22 PM

It isn't wrong.
September 1, 2010 2:37:52 PM

jimmysmitty said:
The majority of CPU compatability is based on the mobo maker and you know that. If you go with a cheap mobo for Intel or AMD, you tend to get crappy capacitors and voltage regulators that do not offer the flexibility that is needed when the new CPU needs a different set of voltage.

Then there is the BIOS support. The mobo makers normally has to code the BIOS to understand the CPU itself.

Now you go and buy a decent mobo and most of the time, the BIOS is updated for support and the capacitors and voltage regulators can go a much wider range and ensure stability.

AMDs compatability issues with BD do not stem from a different process but more of a complete change in the CPU itself.

BTW, I can still put ANY LGA775 CPU into my mobo. Even CPUs that came out 1.5 years after my mobo was released. Then again I don't buy low end crap brand mobos.


I must have hit a nerve... the fanboys are out in bulk to hopelessly defend against something that Intel is known to do.

Or perhaps you are going pretend that if you bought the best quality motherboard LGA775 motherboard when the socket was launched that it will support the newest chips?

Perhaps you were unaware that Intel changed the electrical characteristics of the socket and the newer chips didn't support the older LGA775 sockets regardless of power needs or bios updates. But I can't buy that you were unaware since there have been at least half a dozen threads from the past where people mentioned this and you somehow didn't seem to understand.

You're fighting a losing battle. Yet again.

4745454b said:
^ BS. At least as I read it.


Yes... complete BS.

Not my post... which merely stated reality. I meant your post.
September 1, 2010 2:45:17 PM

jimmysmitty said:

If the pattern remains the same then SB and Ivy Bridge, the 22nm CPU, should support LGA1155 and LGA2011.


But then if the pattern remains the same... it is likely that the oldest motherboards that support those specifications won't support the newer chips.
a c 88 à CPUs
September 1, 2010 4:16:19 PM

States reality? I still don't see how.

Quote:
Intel has generally designed new sockets to work with older CPU.


Care to tell me when this happened? When did Intel come out with a new socket that supported an older CPU? When they went from S370 to S423? S478 to S775? Again, I don't remember this EVER happening, at least from intel. They "generally design" a new socket to work with only new CPUs. Older CPUs are out in the cold.

Its not clear from my post, who am I a fanboy of?
a c 127 à CPUs
September 1, 2010 5:19:07 PM

keithlm said:
I must have hit a nerve... the fanboys are out in bulk to hopelessly defend against something that Intel is known to do.

Or perhaps you are going pretend that if you bought the best quality motherboard LGA775 motherboard when the socket was launched that it will support the newest chips?

Perhaps you were unaware that Intel changed the electrical characteristics of the socket and the newer chips didn't support the older LGA775 sockets regardless of power needs or bios updates. But I can't buy that you were unaware since there have been at least half a dozen threads from the past where people mentioned this and you somehow didn't seem to understand.

You're fighting a losing battle. Yet again.



Yes... complete BS.

Not my post... which merely stated reality. I meant your post.


SO according to you, a P35 based mobo that was designed for Core 2 Duo 65nm should not support a Core 2 Duo thats 45nm since the voltage changed greatly? Yet my mobo is P35 and supports every 45nm Core 2 and I can find older than P35 chipsets that support it, well decent end mobos. Its just like with AMD. I have seen high end AM2s that support almost every Phenom II and some low end ones that don't support anything beyond Phenom I.
September 1, 2010 7:51:13 PM

4745454b said:
When did Intel come out with a new socket that supported an older CPU?

Its not clear from my post, who am I a fanboy of?


How about when Intel went from LGA775 (as was initially released) to the socket LGA775 with a different specification? In reality they released a new socket that happened to support older chips. But to make things easier on some buyers they continued to use the same socket name and pretend it was the same socket. This also allows forum posters to pretend that it is one socket.

BTW: You are adamantly defending a failed cause; that makes you a fanboy by one of the main definitions of the word.

jimmysmitty said:
SO according to you, a P35 based mobo that was designed for Core 2 Duo 65nm should not support a Core 2 Duo thats 45nm since the voltage changed greatly? Yet my mobo is P35 and supports every 45nm Core 2 and I can find older than P35 chipsets that support it, well decent end mobos. Its just like with AMD. I have seen high end AM2s that support almost every Phenom II and some low end ones that don't support anything beyond Phenom I.


It's all about you you you you you. Oh and you. And you some more.

I did not mention the P35. Especially since that is actually one of the later LGA775 chipsets that supports the newer socket specifications. DUH.

But how about the 845, 848, 865, 915, 925, 945, 955, and 975 chipsets that use the LGA775 socket? Are you going to pretend that all of those chipsets support all of the newer processors if the motherboards have the power capacity and a bios update? Please say yes. (I think the 975 might unofficially support some of the newer chips.)

Intel changed the specification for the socket LGA775 several times. They just didn't bother renaming the socket so that Intel fans such as yourself could feign ignorance years later and conveniently forget reality and what actually happened. You seem to not comprehend that a socket specification includes how the socket works electrically and not just what physical socket the chip will actually fit.
a c 127 à CPUs
September 1, 2010 8:21:01 PM

^Check your chipsets first off. The 845 was specifically built for S478. I can't find any LGA775 mobos with the 845 chipset. There are some 865 LGA775 chipset mobos but who in their right mind would want to use DDR over DDR2? It was more of a transition from DDR to DDR2 which is where the 9XX series came in.

There are a few 915/925 mobos that were made with decent parts that support everything from the first Pentium 4 HT LGA775 CPU all the way to the last Q9650 LGA775 CPU. 945/955 have a decent amount of boards that support the entire line of Core 2. 975 is hard to say since there were very few mobos made with it.

I use the P35 because from the P35 to P45 there was a major change in the CPU itself and the socket changed again. The 45nm part used less power and had a different layout as you say, yet the decent higher end mobos have the support.

I think you fail to comprehend the difference between a lower end mobo and a higher end mobo. You can go on and buy a cheap $40 dollar mobo and it will only support the CPUs out at the time due to inferior parts outside of the socket. Phenom I/II is a great example in this area. A lot of the lower end cheap mobos that were AM2 or even AM2+ would only support CPUs that ran up to a 95W TDP due to crappy voltage regulators.
a b à CPUs
September 1, 2010 8:21:47 PM

keithlm said:
How about when Intel went from LGA775 (as was initially released) to the socket LGA775 with a different specification? In reality they released a new socket that happened to support older chips. But to make things easier on some buyers they continued to use the same socket name and pretend it was the same socket. This also allows forum posters to pretend that it is one socket.

BTW: You are adamantly defending a failed cause; that makes you a fanboy by one of the main definitions of the word.



It's all about you you you you you. Oh and you. And you some more.

I did not mention the P35. Especially since that is actually one of the later LGA775 chipsets that supports the newer socket specifications. DUH.

But how about the 845, 848, 865, 915, 925, 945, 955, and 975 chipsets that use the LGA775 socket? Are you going to pretend that all of those chipsets support all of the newer processors if the motherboards have the power capacity and a bios update? Please say yes. (I think the 975 might unofficially support some of the newer chips.)

Intel changed the specification for the socket LGA775 several times. They just didn't bother renaming the socket so that Intel fans such as yourself could feign ignorance years later and conveniently forget reality and what actually happened. You seem to not comprehend that a socket specification includes how the socket works electrically and not just what physical socket the chip will actually fit.


Errr care to explain and show how the there where multiple LGA 775 sockets when there was only 1? :heink: 

Even electricly, they were the same. It was the chipset that limited the range of cpu's....... :pfff: 


Intel fanboys, Amd fanboys, Uggg...... Whats next? All round fanboy? :pfff:  So immature of people these days......
a b à CPUs
September 1, 2010 9:19:57 PM

fazers_on_stun said:
Actually, JF-AMD (AMD marketing director) has already confirmed here in another thread that Bulldozer will need the AM3r2 mobo and will not be backwards-compatible with AM3:

Quote:
.jf-amd 08-30-2010 at 07:19:37 AM | BBCode | Report .
.Newcomer
More Information
posts : 7 Points : 128 Joined : Wed Mar 03, 2010


dogman_1234 wrote :


Here is what I understand:

Bulldozer will be AM3+( aka Am3r2,{"r" meaning "revised"}) ready. AM3+ will be backwards compatible with AM3 itself, allowing older chipsets to run on the new LGA.
Basically, you can runa Phenom II x6 on AM3+, but you cannot rum A Bulldozer on an AM3 standard


This is correct.



yo fazer gunnies :) 

why didnt they just change it to AM4 and be done with it...

AM3r2

AM 3 really number 2 honestly

AMD have dropped ATI... bad in my opinion and now inventing r....s

Who actually runs AMD's marketting department.. George Bush...
a b à CPUs
September 1, 2010 9:30:43 PM

warmon6 said:
Errr care to explain and show how the there where multiple LGA 775 sockets when there was only 1? :heink: 

Even electricly, they were the same. It was the chipset that limited the range of cpu's....... :pfff: 


Intel fanboys, Amd fanboys, Uggg...... Whats next? All round fanboy? :pfff:  So immature of people these days......



Sniffff Sniffff hey Warmondy,,,, can you smell something..... is it Dog Sh.. no cat s.it...... no its Bull Shi..


AMD have made more false promises from AM2 to AM2 + to AM3 and now AM3+


do the decent thing call it AM4 and just get on with it... wasnt every next chip upgrade gonna be compatible with the old one... gloat gloat... how long socket 775 been around and its still around... its the chipset that supports it that makes the difference ...
      • 1 / 3
      • 2
      • 3
      • Newest
!