BD + AM3 boards a go ?

[Elixer]

This is getting very confusing, it was said that BD will need new AM3+ boards, then we see this:

Current owners of an AM3-based board* will make their AMD 8-Series motherboards compatible with the latest AM3+ CPUs with a simple BIOS** update from the official ASUS website.

http://event.asus.com/2011/mb/AM3_PLUS_Ready/

However, there is a extra pin on BD CPUs, so how can this work ?
Perhaps AMD is making a version of BD that will work on AM3 boards after all ?
:sneaky:

 

[busydude]

Even GB is advertising their AM3 boards as AM3+ compatible.

http://www.gigabyte.com/products/product-page.aspx?pid=3785#ov

I don't think my 7XX chipset MB is compatible though.

Edit: Apparently only newer revisions of these MB's are compatible with new AM3+ processors.

 

[Elixer]

The plot thickens.
http://translate.google.com/transla...68-darfor-fungerar-amd-bulldozer-i-sockel-am3
(translated text)

However, according to sources, see SweClockers a simple explanation. The bases on the mother board is no reflection of the pins on the processor canister. Socklarna on the motherboard is not a mirror image of pins on the processor the capsule. Although there is room for an extra stick has no corresponding pin processor, which re-bet implies that the models for new socket AM3 + also can be mounted in AM3. Although there is room for an extra PIN does not have a corresponding diocese processors, which means that the next models of the new socket AM3 + also can be mounted in the AM3.

 

[busydude]

The plot thickens.
http://translate.google.com/transla...68-darfor-fungerar-amd-bulldozer-i-sockel-am3
(translated text)

Its really confusing.. AMD has stated that BD based SKU's are not compatible with AM3 sockets and yet we hear about these over and over again. For now, I will take AMD's word for it.. but I do really hope my MB supports BD based processors. ()

 

[JFAMD]

AMD is not supporting BD on AM3 sockets. Period.

 

[RobertPters77]

AMD is not supporting BD on AM3 sockets. Period.

Then why are they supporting BD based chips server side?

Hell the only reason I bought a Phenom II over an i7 was for an upgrade path to bulldozer. If I had known 6 months ago that Amd had no plans for backwards BD support I would've gotten myself an i7 930 instead.

 

[JFAMD]

Everyone knows that on the server side we are supporting C32 and G34. The question was about AM3 and AM3+.

 

[RobertPters77]

Why only on the server side and not on the client side too?

 

[Elixer]

Why only on the server side and not on the client side too?

It costs $$$ to do that.
It was pretty widely known that AM3+ sockets would be required for BD, the only thing the links show is that we may get "unofficial" support from the motherboard makers.

If you would have went the i7 route, then you would have to upgrade again to SB anyway, so what is the difference, besides saving some $$$ ?

I don't like socket changes either, but not much we can do.

 

[CKTurbo128]

Perhaps ASUS and Gigabyte were able to find workarounds to make BD AM3+ CPUs compatible in existing AM3 motherboards. But if AMD is not supporting AM3+ in AM3 socket/chipset scenarios (as JFAMD has said many times), I have to wonder what the potential performance/stability drawbacks are in getting BD AM3+ to work with AM3 sockets/chipsets.

 

[wlee15]

Why only on the server side and not on the client side too?

Maybe because the server sockets are newer?

 

[Rezist]

Or server sockets are more money and AMD really doesn't want to piss any of those clients off, and they probably are selling there current servers with a promise for future cpu compatibility for upgrades.

On the client side AMD needs to make money and they know people will spend the money.

 

[magomago]

Then why are they supporting BD based chips server side?

Hell the only reason I bought a Phenom II over an i7 was for an upgrade path to bulldozer. If I had known 6 months ago that Amd had no plans for backwards BD support I would've gotten myself an i7 930 instead.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/di...rocessors_Will_Require_New_Platforms_AMD.html

Basically - you bought in just before this announcement and never noticed the released press info after your purchase, or just after the announcement and you never noticed it.

Either way, it wasn't clear, so I can't imagine how you expected it. Yeah you could have banked on it considering AMD's history, but then you are playing a game of chance

 

[deimos3428]

AMD is not supporting BD on AM3 sockets. Period.

Ok, I get that. But that's not quite the same thing as saying "BD does not *work* on AM3 sockets."

So...is JFAMD being a clever wordsmith, and we're meant to read between the lines here? For example, I don't recall AMD specifically supporting the unlocking of cores...yet a lot of us have done it and it works great. Guess we'll wait and see.

 

[GlacierFreeze]

Ok, I get that. But that's not quite the same thing as saying "BD does not *work* on AM3 sockets."

So...is JFAMD being a clever wordsmith, and we're meant to read between the lines here? For example, I don't recall AMD specifically supporting the unlocking of cores...yet a lot of us have done it and it works great. Guess we'll wait and see.

No word play. AMD isn't supporting it. They don't exactly have total control over what boards makers do so how can he speak for them? And why would he?

And it's not hard to read between the lines, even if it is just based off of an assumption at this point, which could easily turn out to be false later on.

 

[nenforcer]

Does anyone know what is suppose to be the difference between the AMD 890 FX / GX chipsets and the 990 FX / GX?

Supposedely there was a holdup with the 900 chipsets but as far as I know they add no new features compared to the 800 series. The 800 already had native SATA 3 6GBps and I'm pretty sure the 900 series chipsets aren't adding native USB3.

It seems to me there is little to no difference between the 800 and 900 series chipsets which probably explains why ASUS and Gigabyte were able to claim BD support on them.

 

[drizek]

Yes, that is my impression as well. But remember how SB 750 added ACC while being otherwise almost identical to SB 700. That might explain some of the performance differences between AM3 and AM3+

 

[bryanW1995]

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/di...rocessors_Will_Require_New_Platforms_AMD.html

Basically - you bought in just before this announcement and never noticed the released press info after your purchase, or just after the announcement and you never noticed it.

Either way, it wasn't clear, so I can't imagine how you expected it. Yeah you could have banked on it considering AMD's history, but then you are playing a game of chance

when was the last time amd came out with a completely new architecture that was socket compatible with the previous older/slower family?

 

[RobertPters77]

when was the last time amd came out with a completely new architecture that was socket compatible with the previous older/slower family?

Intel 2006. I forgot which but the first gen C2D chipsets could run both P4 and C2D.

 

[sandorski]

Even GB is advertising their AM3 boards as AM3+ compatible.

http://www.gigabyte.com/products/product-page.aspx?pid=3785#ov

I don't think my 7XX chipset MB is compatible though.

Edit: Apparently only newer revisions of these MB's are compatible with new AM3+ processors.

I'm not sure how accurate that statement is. My Model has a AM3+(Ver 3.1) capable board, but my Ver 2.0 doesn't appear to have AM3+ capability. The Socket is also different in the Ver 3.1

 

[drizek]

when was the last time amd came out with a completely new architecture that was socket compatible with the previous older/slower family?

There was socket compatibility from AM2 all the way to AM3 and potentially AM3+. Not across multiple generations, but definitely from Athlon to Phenom to Phenom II, and across DDR2 and DDR3, which is pretty impressive.

 

[sandorski]

I think what's happening here is that previous Models have just been changed to AM3+ capable with new Versions of that Model. Everything except the Socket has been kept, so they're essentially the same, but they have BD capability whereas older Versions do not.

 

[drizek]

I'm not sure how accurate that statement is. My Model has a AM3+(Ver 3.1) capable board, but my Ver 2.0 doesn't appear to have AM3+ capability. The Socket is also different in the Ver 3.1

Yes, 3.1 has a black socket and all the others are white.

http://www.gigabyte.com/fileupload/product/2/3785/4029_big.jpg
and
http://www.gigabyte.com/fileupload/product/2/3756/3894_big.jpg

They are the same size, you can switch between them to see the differences. Like with MSI, you can see AM3+ right on the board.

Edit: I think I see the extra pin. The blocked out part close to the upper right corner in the AM3 board has two pins blocked out but in the AM3+ board only one pin is blocked. The socket type is printed on to the top of it. Someone with photoshop can mess around with that and see what it reads.

 

[hans007]

Does anyone know what is suppose to be the difference between the AMD 890 FX / GX chipsets and the 990 FX / GX?

Supposedely there was a holdup with the 900 chipsets but as far as I know they add no new features compared to the 800 series. The 800 already had native SATA 3 6GBps and I'm pretty sure the 900 series chipsets aren't adding native USB3.

It seems to me there is little to no difference between the 800 and 900 series chipsets which probably explains why ASUS and Gigabyte were able to claim BD support on them.

supposedly nothing. i mean if anything the 800 series is really pretty much the same as the 700 series as well outside of the south bridge (which is where the sata 3 came from anyway)

 

[Soulkeeper]

I for one would love to see an excellent new chipset and motherboards for bulldozer.
It would be much more exciting to have the latest features and process tech in the design.
No way would I want to purchase the older chipsets even if they did work.
I can understand people with existing boards, but starting fresh has it's benefits too.