- Apr 27, 2000
Depends on a lot of factors. Sure they could support Vista on up, but . . .What exactly would prevent AMD from supporting the chipsets of AM4 platform on, let's say Vista and newer? IMO exactly nothing.
Are we talking people buying servers or workplace desktops? I would think AMD would be quickest to offer "legacy" OS support for firms with numerous old Windows Server licenses. For large buyers with major Win7 desktop installations, they might do custom jobs the same way MS offers support for XP on a demand basis.That would be a real freaking shame, IMHO. If true, that would also mean next to no traction for AM4 platform among business buyers.
For everyday schmucks trying to hold on to Win7 just a little bit longer . . . frankly I don't know what incentive AMD has to cater to that audience. MS is probably going to pay them under the table to move primary support to Win10 anyway. Something is pushing Intel in that direction. It wouldn't surprise me if there's a quid pro quo of some kind.
That's exactly what I was thinking. Intel's going that route now, and AMD will probably follow suit.You realize Kaby Lake will have no support for Windows 10 either?
Even Skylake will lose all but critical security support after July 2018
In other words, ALL businesses will have to move to windows 10 very shortly if they intend to purchase anything new in 2017
Well, the other thing is . . . if you don't want to undercut Broadwell-C with Skylake-C (or whatever it would be called), why release a new chip that's actually slower than the old one? The only reason I could see had to do with margins. Intel knew they could get away with it due to supply constraints (that you cited in your post), and they probably figured they could reap greater profits selling a non-eDRAM part as their flagship consumer CPU.The argument that Skylake was purposefully designed to not step on Broadwell's toes seems contradicted by pretty much everything I've read, including the fact that Skylake shipped with an EDRAM controller.
Broadwell-C sort of let the cat out of the bag on what Intel could be doing to keep pushing performance. They're deliberately not doing it because they see no reason to outdo themselves by more than %5 per generation. What they don't seem to understand is that their penny-wise, pound-foolish approach has made the desktop profoundly uninteresting to many buyers who just see no need to participate in the desktop market, period. One could argue that Intel's decisions wrt Skylake etc. are driving down industry sales. AMD isn't helping matters either, really. Maybe with Zen, they can change that. Maybe.