AMD 1090FX, 1070 Chipset Info Leaked; Missing PCIe 3.0

News
By Doug Crowthers
published

In 2012, AMD will introduce its AMD 1090FX and 1070 Chipsets, as replacements to its current 990X and 970. The most interesting part is the new chipsets still will not support PCI-Express 3.0.

The 1090FX will be the top tier 10-series chipset, replacing the 990FX. The 1090FX northbridge will support two PCI-Express X16 links and up to four graphics cards. The 1070 provides one PCI-Express link for two graphics cards. The "Chipset Competitive Landscape" slide shows the new 10-series set to go against Intel's new Ivy Bridge chipset. AMD breaks down what it sees as advantages (more SATA connectivity and 2X16 XF) and disadvantages (PCIE 3.0 and SRT) against the Ivy Bridge. The 10-series chipset will be compatible with current processors, which adds to AM3+'s longevity. 

The 10-series chipset most surprisingly will not support PCI-Express 3.0. This is a disappointment to this writer, with Intel already gearing up PCI-Express 3.0 support for the Ivy Bridge release. What is still to be seen is how will this affect AMD's Radeon HD 7000 series graphics cards supporting PCI-Express 3.0. This question should be answered by in the end of the year, as the Radeon HD 7000 expected to release around the holidays.  

The new SB1060 southbridge does provide an improvement over current gen motherboards. The SB1060 will support an eight SATA 6 Gb/s RAID controller, all ports running at 6 Gb/s. This outpaces Intel's 7-series in terms of SATA 6 Gb/s ports. The SB1060 will offer for the first time a native USB 3.0 SuperSpeed controller. Currently, 990FX & 970 don't natively support USB 3.0 but is offered through a third-party controller. 

Doug Crowthers
58 Comments Comment from the forums
  • SirGCal
    I'm a fan (though not a fanboy) of AMD but this still disappoints me. Why do they wait so long to pickup the newer standards on chip instead of third party...?!? I want AMD to succeed so bad but... How many SATA ports do we really need?!? If we need a dozen drives, we'd likely have some sort of RAID controller anyhow for off-chip handling anyhow. For a performance rig, half a dozen is plenty for most any user. Give us PCI 3... 16X crossfire might be interesting but where's the real advantage over 8x... Have to wait for those benchmarks... But I'm not as excited considering the differences from 4-8 were minimal already.
    Reply
  • Parsian
    If I remembered correctly, HD5870 running in Crossfire on two 8x PCI E 2.0 would encounter bandwidth limit (roughly performs about 93%?) So if they have 2x PCI E @ 16x each, with current gen, shouldnt they be still good for a while? unless one wants to run two of 6990s in cross fire...

    correct me please. Thanks



    Reply
  • EXT64
    Yep - PCI-E 3 isn't really needed yet, however I am still shocked. Normally marketing like to have the latest and greatest as it looks good in the advertisements, even if not really important. I hope they aren't losing enthusiasm for the enthusiast market.
    Reply
  • gladosiri
    Forget the PCI-E 3.0 or 1090FX or whatnot..fix the current bulldozer already.
    Reply
  • Shin-san
    Usually when PCI Express goes to the next version, the performance gain is like 1-3% due to the extra burst performance capability. It's not going to be a big deal for at least 1-2 years, so I don't blame them for not focusing on that right-away.

    Reply
  • palladin9479
    Yeah PCIe 3.0 will be just a marketing term for the next two years give or take. Current cards can barely use 8x, much less 16x bandwidth for 2.0. It'll be just like when they want from PCI to AGP 1.0, and from AGP 8x to PCIe, hardware usage will take a few years to catch up.
    Reply
  • beenthere
    There is no present or near term need for PCIe 3.0. It's just a marketing ploy for those who don't know better. When it's actually needed AMD will incorporate it into it's chipsets.
    Reply
  • SirGCal
    And that's what everyone said about 2... A year or so later benefits to 2 were very obvious. And even enthusiasts, I know few who keep their motherboards less then a year... They spend more on the better board cause that's going to be their base for quite a few upgrades. This is AMD's problem... And every single system in my home (8 right now) is AMD right now accept the wife's laptop. But they don't look ahead far enough. This is why they are always playing catchup, save the early Athlon 64 era. Build it ready for the future...
    Reply
  • iam2thecrowe
    beenthereThere is no present or near term need for PCIe 3.0. It's just a marketing ploy for those who don't know better. When it's actually needed AMD will incorporate it into it's chipsets.its not a marketing ploy. Do you want to end up like one of those people with a pcie 1.x slot that doesnt work with a pcie 2.1 card? I dont, so i would get the pcie-3, if not for added bandwidth, then for future compatability. Not to mention boards running an 8x/8x pcie setup with pcie3 gives them the effective bandwidth of a 2.0 16x/16x slot, so not such a need for the 16x slots on expensive motherboards. I agree with gladosiri, fix bulldozer, then think about motherboards.
    Reply
  • SirGCal
    iam2thecroweits not a marketing ploy. Do you want to end up like one of those people with a pcie 1.x slot that doesnt work with a pcie 2.1 card? I dont, so i would get the pcie-3, if not for added bandwidth, then for future compatability. Not to mention boards running an 8x/8x pcie setup with pcie3 gives them the effective bandwidth of a 2.0 16x/16x slot, so not such a need for the 16x slots on expensive motherboards. I agree with gladosiri, fix bulldozer, then think about motherboards.Exactly... I wasn't as clear perhaps, but this is what I was trying to get acrossed... And yes, though I didn't mention it. BD was a big letdown... And their other current business decisions in the market also frighten me in terms of end-consumer future prospect if Intel runs away with a huge lead... (Not to mention what Intel would do with their prices... It amazes me some people think that nothing would change if Intel was the only game in town...)
    Reply