Skip to main content

Gigabyte Supports First-Gen Ryzen AF CPUs On X570 Motherboards

AMD Ryzen Processor

AMD Ryzen Processor (Image credit: AMD)

Gigabyte Japan has confirmed via Twitter that the Ryzen 5 1600 AF is compatible with X570 motherboards. Consequently, the Ryzen 3 1300 AF is also supported.

When AMD launched the X570 chipset last year, the chipmaker made it pretty clear that the corresponding motherboards wouldn't support the first generation of Ryzen processors (codenamed Summit Ridge). Some X570 motherboards have been found to work fine with a Ryzen 1000-series chip, but that's stepping into a grey area, and you're running it under your own risk. This begs the question of how Gigabyte was able to circumvent AMD's impediment with the Ryzen 5 1600 AF and Ryzen 3 1300 AF? The answer is evidently hidden inside the silicon itself.

Despite the fact the Ryzen 5 1600 AF and Ryzen 3 1300 AF carry the Ryzen 1000-series branding, AMD doesn't make them with the same ingredients as the vanilla versions. The original models were based on AMD's Zen microarchitecture and fabricated with the GlobalFoundries 14nm manufacturing process. The AF models, on the other hand, hopped on the Zen+ microarchitecture and 12nm process node.

In case you've forgotten, that's the same combination that AMD utilizes for the Ryzen 2000-series (codenamed Pinnacle Ridge) chips. Even though AMD might not officially confirm it, the Ryzen 5 1600 AF and Ryzen 3 1300 AF are essentially underclocked versions of the Ryzen 5 2600 and Ryzen 3 2300X, respectively.

The Ryzen 5 1600 AF and Ryzen 3 1300 AF might not be official members of the Pinnacle Ridge family, but they meet all the requirements. As a reminder, AMD still supports Pinnacle Ridge parts on the X570 chipset so, technically, Gigabyte isn't breaking any of AMD's rules. As a matter of fact, AMD is aware that these AF models work on most X570 motherboards and is fine with it. Sadly, AMD can't guarantee that processors will work without a hiccup, which is why the chipmaker doesn't publicly advertise it.

More recently, AMD broke the news that the 500-series chipset is ready for the future Zen 3 processors. However, the chipmaker's stance on Summit Ridge remains firm as the chart revealed that B550 chipset only supports Ryzen 3000-series (codename Matisse) or newer chips. As a result, support for Ryzen 1000-series AF models will not translate over to the B550 chipset. Without proper support for Zen+, the B550 motherboards will never welcome the Ryzen 5 1600 AF or Ryzen 3 1300 AF, officially at least.

  • InvalidError
    Misleading title, misleading premise. 500-series motherboards supporting 1xxx-AF CPUs which are Zen+/Ryzen 2000 parts in everything but marketing name and pricing as acknowledged later on in the article does not constitute first-gen support in any way, shape or form.
    Reply
  • NightHawkRMX
    The 1200af and 1600af are not first-generation CPUs, period. They came out in 2020 and 2019 respectively, where actual first-generation CPUs came out in 2017.

    The only thing they share with 1st gen CPUs is the name. They are fundamentally 2nd generation CPUs.

    I would bet money that if you put a 1600af or a 1200af in any other brand of X570 is would also work, since these CPUs are just Ryzen 2000 in disguise, and all Ryzen 2000 CPUs are supported in X570.
    Reply
  • JamesSneed
    InvalidError said:
    Misleading title, misleading premise. 500-series motherboards supporting 1xxx-AF CPUs which are Zen+/Ryzen 2000 parts in everything but marketing name and pricing as acknowledged later on in the article does not constitute first-gen support in any way, shape or form.

    I found that odd as well. The author goes into why these are second generation chips then proceeds to call them first generation chips in the title.
    ¯\(ツ)
    Reply
  • RodroX
    The title is indeed wierd, and AMD has confirmed that Ryzen 1600 AF is on 12nm node, and thus 2nd gen:

    It said that on thier oficial website, under specification:

    https://www.amd.com/en/products/cpu/amd-ryzen-5-1600
    "NOTE: The specifications below reflect the Ryzen 5 1600 as originally launched. It has since been refreshed to OPN# YD1600BBAFBOX, which has identical specifications except that it is made on the 12nm manufacturing process, and features the low-profile Wraith Stealth cooler. "

    Cheers!
    Reply
  • salgado18
    I think the problem is with AMD's name, not the article. It's not a first gen cpu, its a second gen, so the 1600F should be called something like Ryzen 5 2600e. They really need better people for their naming.
    Reply
  • InvalidError
    salgado18 said:
    I think the problem is with AMD's name, not the article.
    The problem with the article is the author obviously knowing from the second paragraph that the 1xxxAF are Zen+ yet still opens by portraying it as first-gen. This is entirely on the author and whichever editor let this otherwise non-story through.
    Reply
  • watzupken
    salgado18 said:
    I think the problem is with AMD's name, not the article. It's not a first gen cpu, its a second gen, so the 1600F should be called something like Ryzen 5 2600e. They really need better people for their naming.
    I think to clarify, its Gigabyte that tweeted this. Nothing to do with AMD giving misleading information which I feel some of the comments here are leading toward. While I agree the naming could be better with the product, if the product is cheaper and just as good as the 2xxx series, I can't be bothered even if they gave it a Bulldozer model number.
    Reply
  • InvalidError
    watzupken said:
    While I agree the naming could be better with the product, if the product is cheaper and just as good as the 2xxx series, I can't be bothered even if they gave it a Bulldozer model number.
    Mixing model family numbers causes completely unnecessary and trivially avoidable confusion and trouble.

    If you label AM4 products with model names that resemble AM3 products too much, expect people to call tech support asking why their "FX4600" does not fit their AM3+ socket which is supposed to be compatible with FX4000-9000.
    Reply