ASRock: Coffee Lake CPUs not compatible with 200 series motherboards

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Sonikku

Lifer
Jun 23, 2005
15,749
4,558
136
I hope so. How backwards is it that Intel is rushing out a better line of processors with features they could have had long ago just for the sake of dealing with Ryzen at the same time they're trying to sell consumers on buying a completely different mother board just for "voltage" differences?

The cpu side of things is screaming "Oh god, we have to actually try to compete for once!" while the motherboard socket side is like "We know it's lame but we're the only choice so suck it up schmucks."
 

crashtech

Lifer
Jan 4, 2013
10,521
2,111
146
I'm going to wait for more detailed information before passing judgement. It's plausible that the amperage demands of an unlocked 6C CPU unfortunately exceeded what was allocated in the present pin layout. Even though the socket is remaining the same, unused pins can be pressed into service to supply additional current to the die.
 

BigDaveX

Senior member
Jun 12, 2014
440
216
116
I'm going to wait for more detailed information before passing judgement. It's plausible that the amperage demands of an unlocked 6C CPU unfortunately exceeded what was allocated in the present pin layout. Even though the socket is remaining the same, unused pins can be pressed into service to supply additional current to the die.

Wouldn't surprise me if the power delivery profile of Skylake's socket is essentially still the same as Sandy Bridge's (possibly even Lynnfield's), and now that Intel want to push up clockspeeds so as to put some distance between them and Ryzen and/or leave the possibility of 8C desktop chips open in the future, it needs a major overhaul.
 
  • Like
Reactions: beginner99

Shivansps

Diamond Member
Sep 11, 2013
3,835
1,514
136
The reason 775 supported DDR(1)-trough-DDR3 was the memory controller was in the northbridge rather then CPU. It connected via FSB to the CPU, so it was rather "easy" to support newer memory standards on 775. You just needed a new chipset with a new memory controller. AMD sockets newer then Socket 462 had the memory controller integrated into the CPU. A disadvantage in compatibility terms, but a very potent advantage in performance. Result was you got Socket 754 (64-bit single channel DDR), Socket 939 (128-bit dual channel DDR) and AM2 (128-bit dual channel DDR2).

I disagree it was 939 that should not have existed, rather it was 754. But I can see why they did it for cost reasons. You're not mixing the whole Socket 940 debacle with Socket 939?

As a side note, because of 775 having the memory controller in the northbridge, a rare few motherboards can run Pentium4/Ds with DDR3 memory. A little interesting quirk... :)
I knew that about 775, 939 and 754 one of the two should have not existed. 754 came out first and 939 what? a year later? maybe less. They did 754 to cash in Athlon64 fast because 939 was not ready, i dont think there is other explanation for that.

Yup. Those early dual cores ran hot. A little Arctic Silver 5 or similar fixed that quickly.
TIM becomes useless on some on them starting about a year or two of use, personally im still seeing AM2 cpus coming with that issue, so on most of them lasted a lot more.
But when that happens you will be facing 70°C+ at idle, the only way is to delid and remove the TIM.

Both AMD and Intel are equally bad in that respect, except for the corner cases.
I dont what to say about it, it looks like some people may have bad memory, but even if i consider that people dont remember about the older sockets, until 7 months ago, AMD had 3 different mainstream sockets completely incompatible with each other at the same time, and it has been like this for at least 3 years.

I dont know, that just my opinion.
 

Insert_Nickname

Diamond Member
May 6, 2012
4,971
1,691
136
I knew that about 775, 939 and 754 one of the two should have not existed. 754 came out first and 939 what? a year later? maybe less. They did 754 to cash in Athlon64 fast because 939 was not ready, i dont think there is other explanation for that.

This is getting slightly OT but...

First-gen Athlon64 FX used Socket 940. Because they were thinly disguised Opterons. AMD needed a flagship desktop chip, so re-branding an Opteron was the obvious quick solution. I did mean anyone investing in such a system was effectively locked-in with zero upgrade options. That was the reason AMD didn't introduce 939 straight away, instead waiting for the second-gen FXs.

Socket 939 was really just the earlier Socket 940 minus a pin and the need for buffered memory. AMD -could- have launched 939 as the "general purpose" desktop socket. There is no technical reason, just cost. Heck, AMD even made a rare few Semprons (the budget brand after Duron) for 939...

But I digress... :)