Question for my Fellow AM3 owners.

[Idontcare]

Yes, they're still there, complete with the typical Financial Analyst's cautionary statement. But considering you seem to think that "may" is synonymous with "will," I guess you read "Investors are cautioned that all forward-looking statements in this release involve risks and uncertainty that could cause actual results to differ materially from current expectations" as "everything in this press release is 100% accurate because AMD has a crystal ball that allows it to predict the development of its products!"

Actually if you read through the linked document you will note it is bereft of any and all such caveats.

 

[podspi]

Did you not read the links I provided earlier? The documents are still on AMD's website.

Every single link you provided are either for investors, or rumors derived from the investor material.

Yes, they're still there, complete with the typical Financial Analyst's cautionary statement. But considering you seem to think that "may" is synonymous with "will," I guess you read "Investors are cautioned that all forward-looking statements in this release involve risks and uncertainty that could cause actual results to differ materially from current expectations" as "everything in this press release is 100% accurate because AMD has a crystal ball that allows it to predict the development of its products!"

Yep. Again, AMD never marketed AM3 as being compatible with Bulldozer. They merely stated compatibility in their roadmaps, which clearly changed. Try to remember that earlier roadmaps had Bulldozer coming out in 2009 That didn't happen either :thumbsdown: AMD didn't promise anything to anybody, they just said they were planning on compatibility, just like they were planning on releasing BD in 2009.


I'm going to make a wild guess and say that AMD didn't WANT to have the ship date of BD slip from 2009 to 2011, and they didn't WANT BD to require AM3r2. Unless 2011 Bulldozer is the same product as 2009 Bulldozer (in which case why delay it?) something about it has changed that necessitated the new socket.

Once BD ships, I have a feeling its going to be pretty easy for us to tell why there is the incompatibility. If it ends up that AMD pulled an Intel and introduced a new socket "because we can" well then feel free to get angry. But right now I'd chalk it up to the product changing in some way they didn't anticipate, hopefully a change that will make it more competitive.

Actually if you read through the linked document you will note it is bereft of any and all such caveats.

But it does have this:

The following document is designed to help decipher publicly referenced codenames associated with the presentations at AMD Financial Analyst Day on November 11, 2009. Codenames are alphabetically listed and/or indicated in “”.

It is a clarification document for a presentation which does have those disclaimers.


If you want to get mad at AMD, don't get angry at them for promising everybody something they didn't. Get angry (or at least frustrated) with them because they are being ridiculously tight-lipped about everything right now. Forget Bulldozer, at this point I'm just trying to figure out when the 990FX chipset will launch, and whether its something needed to guarantee future compatibility or not. Get angry at AMD for not reining in their hardware partners (ASUS, I'm looking at you) for claiming Bulldozer compatibility, while if you ask them about it directly they will admit only that "ES worked, but we can't guarantee shipping product will". AMD is doing a poor job at this launch [for enthusiasts] because right now we don't have any information, and that is frustrating. But I don't feel lied to.

As a consumer that is. As an investor I don't even want to get into it. Ugh.

 

[Munky]

Betting on future-proofing is incredibly naive, especially when you're expecting compatibility with a new cpu architecture. The X58 users were bragging about SB compatibility, and got pwned. The AM3 users betting on BD compatibility were also bound to get pwned. Nothing new here.

The best you can hope for is upgrading to more cores using the same cpu generation. Socket 939 allowed upgrading to a dual core. Socket AM3 allows upgrading to a hex-core.

 

[scbjmshpv]

i build my AM3 system last year and till last month i never paid any attention toward compatibility, and after that i was hopping it was compatibility, but now i'm selling the system so love loss for me.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Actually if you read through the linked document you will note it is bereft of any and all such caveats.

Derp...

 

[Idontcare]

Derp...

Sorry, that link does not appear anywhere in the article that Phynaz linked to.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Sorry, that link does not appear anywhere in the article that Phynaz linked to.

Right, you'd have to actually visit the AMD Financial Analyst Day 2009 website to find it. The document Phynaz linked is not a discrete document, it is part of an entire series of information pieces AMD released. Including...gasp...a disclaimer that everything they were presenting was subject to change.

 

[Tanclearas]

Picking nits at this point of the "who said what" discussion. AMD clearly showed AM3 in the slides. Yes, they have disclaimers, but disclaimers will be present everywhere, in every document, released by every company. Those same disclaimers are likely in the materials that said there would be socket compatibility for servers.

It is unfortunate that AMD changed plans, and regardless of disclaimers, the more changes that actually happen will cause people, including investors, to put less faith in AMD's projections.

Given that, I still agree that it is more important for AMD to ship the best possible product they can rather than make sacrifices just to satisfy a bullet on a slide from many months prior.

I understand the situation some of you are in. I understand that you had hopes for AM3. Now, just for a moment, put yourself in "AMD's shoes". How much, exactly, would you be willing to sacrifice to satisfy the AM3 compatibility?

 

[BTA]

I don't think I've been able to do a simple CPU upgrade without swapping out the motherboard because of a socket (or slot at one point) change, more than maybe two times since 1998.

AMD and Intel have never stuck to one socket for long, I'm not sure why people expect that to change now.

 

[JimKiler]

It is hard to get mad when the price of AMD CPU's and motherboards are so cheap. Although I know you can spend more for the motherboards but the last two I got were <$125. After getting one of the first Nvidia SLI motherboards for $180 I will not spend that much again.

 

[formulav8]

AMD clearly said to much stuff would have needed to be sacrificed for bd to support the legacy AM3 socket. I never recall them releasing any statement saying definitely there will be BD support on current AM3 mobo's.

Just because Asus said their current boards works with a bd es doesn't mean everything is peachy. Who knows what will be sacrificed using bd in typical AM3 boards compared to the new chipset/socket. I could easily see some power management advantages being lost. Its very similar to how AMD doesn't support AM3 sockets being used for AM2/AM2+ cpus. But Asrock has that working ok. So should users be upset about Asrock getting AM2/AM2+ and AM3 cpu's working on the same AM3 socket motherboard which internally directs DDR2 support with AM2/AM2+/AM3 based cpu's and DDR3 for AM3 cpu's although AMD said otherwise?

By looking at the poll more than most people here are not expecting something AMD never actually promised.


Jason

 

[LoneNinja]

Another thing I don't think has been mentioned in this thread.

AM2 supported AM2+ processors, but lost a few features, however many AM2 boards never saw a BIOS update for AM2+ processors.
AM2+ supported AM3 processors, but once again many boards never got the needed BIOS update.

So even if Bulldozer would be fully compatible, many boards would never see official support any ways.

 

[qwertyaas]

I went AM3 because I jumped on the $125 1055T deal when it was released