No Bulldozer for the AM3 socket!

All about them.

Moderators: NeilBlanchard, Ralf Hutter, sthayashi, Lawrence Lee

Post Reply
Mats
Posts: 3044
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2003 6:54 am
Location: Sweden

No Bulldozer for the AM3 socket!

Post by Mats » Fri Aug 27, 2010 5:54 am

:evil:

http://www.planet3dnow.de/cgi-bin/newsp ... 1282840508
"The existing G34 and C32 server infrastructure will support the new Bulldozer-based server products. In order for AMD’s desktop offering to fully leverage the capabilities of Bulldozer, an enhanced AM3+ socket will be introduced that supports Bulldozer and is backward-compatible with our existing AM3 CPU offerings."

"When we initially set out on the path to Bulldozer we were hoping for AM3 compatibility, but further along the process we realized that we had a choice to make based on some of the features that we wanted to bring with Bulldozer. We could either provide AM3 support and lose some of the capabilities of the new Bulldozer architecture or, we could choose the AM3+ socket which would allow the Bulldozer-base Zambezi to have greater performance and capability.

The majority of the computer buying public will not upgrade their processors, but enthusiasts do. When we did the analysis it was clear that the customers who were most likely to upgrade an AM3 motherboard to a Bulldozer would want the features and capability that would only be delivered in the new AM3+ sockets. A classic Catch-22.

Why not do both you ask? Just make a second model that only works in AM3? First, because that would greatly increase the cost and infrastructure of bringing the product to market, which would drive up the cost of the product (for both AMD and its partners). Secondly, adding an additional product would double the time involved in many of the development steps.

So in the end, delivering an AM3 capability would bring you a less featured product that was more expensive and later to market. Instead we chose the path of the AM3+ socket, which is a path that we hope will bring you a better priced product, with greater performance and more features - on time.

When we looked at the market for AM3 upgrades, it was clear that the folks most interested in an AM3-based product were the enthusiasts. This is one set of customers that we know are not willing to settle for second best when it comes to performance, so we definitely needed to ensure that our new architecture would meet their demanding needs, for both high performance and overclockability. We believe they will see that in AM3+."
So why the h3ll didn't they put AM3+ sockets in the 870/880G/890GX/890FX boards that came just a few months ago?
Those boards came at the same time as the G34 socket, which does have BD support, which shows that AMD knew this all along.. :roll:

frostedflakes
Posts: 1608
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 4:02 pm
Location: United States

Post by frostedflakes » Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:53 am

Kind of disappointing, but not completely unexpected. I wonder if the reason for the new socket is tri or quad channel DDR3 support. Would be a nice feature, but sucks that it breaks backward compatibility for AM3 users.

Mats
Posts: 3044
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2003 6:54 am
Location: Sweden

Post by Mats » Fri Aug 27, 2010 8:02 am

It's pretty much the same socket, given that AM3 CPU's works with it. So no extra pins AFAIK.
I think it's more like when Intel updated the specs for socket 775.
Couldn't care less about more RAM channels tho.

nutball
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 1304
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2003 7:16 am
Location: en.gb.uk

Post by nutball » Fri Aug 27, 2010 9:44 am

*shrugs* I dunno I think peoples expectation for socket longevity and general upgadeability of the fundamental bits of PCs (read: mobo and CPU) has got out of perspective.

Moreover, BD ain't looking like any great shakes from what we've seen so far so it's too early to tell whether or not it's worth wasting the calories worrying over it.

ilovejedd
Posts: 676
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2008 4:14 pm
Location: in the depths of hell

Post by ilovejedd » Fri Aug 27, 2010 10:12 am

nutball wrote:*shrugs* I dunno I think peoples expectation for socket longevity and general upgadeability of the fundamental bits of PCs (read: mobo and CPU) has got out of perspective.
+1. We've had pretty great longevity for socket AM2/AM2+/AM3 already. If moving to AM3+ means considerably greater performance from Bulldozer, then why not? Sure, it can be frustrating for those who just built a PC very recently and expect to be able to upgrade their processors - particularly those who chose AMD instead of Intel for "future-proofing". Just goes to show there's no such thing as future-proofing. Besides, is there really a point to upgrading every year? If you already have a Phenom II X6 1090T, how much more performance will you get from Bulldozer? Somehow, even if you're only buying the processor, I doubt it will be worth the upgrade price.

Mats does have a point with the 800 series boards, though. They were released just recently and if AMD was able to ensure compatibility with their server chipsets, they could have done the same for the consumer market, too.

mkk
Posts: 687
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2004 1:51 pm
Location: Gefle, Sweden
Contact:

Post by mkk » Fri Aug 27, 2010 10:50 am

Personally I would have been fine with a 32nm rehash of the current X6, but I guess I can wait and see. Bulldozer is still a pretty long time away.

m0002a
Posts: 2831
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 2:12 am
Location: USA

Post by m0002a » Fri Aug 27, 2010 12:38 pm

One problem with upgrading a MB is that a license for system builder version of Windows is tied to a specific MB, and they will not allow an upgrade AFAIK.

Greg F.
Posts: 372
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 6:51 am
Location: Seattle

Post by Greg F. » Fri Aug 27, 2010 12:51 pm

m0002a wrote:One problem with upgrading a MB is that a license for system builder version of Windows is tied to a specific MB, and they will not allow an upgrade AFAIK.
I think I have used the same XP OEM for three different MBs. If memory serves I think I activated over the net and it was automatic.

m0002a
Posts: 2831
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 2:12 am
Location: USA

Post by m0002a » Fri Aug 27, 2010 4:57 pm

Greg F. wrote:I think I have used the same XP OEM for three different MBs. If memory serves I think I activated over the net and it was automatic.
That's interesting. Did you keep the same disk drives and memory? Would MS care if you put it on a completely new computer (all components new)?

Mats
Posts: 3044
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2003 6:54 am
Location: Sweden

Post by Mats » Fri Aug 27, 2010 6:33 pm

I don't expect the AM series of sockets to exist forever, I just think AMD fooled customers by removing the AM3 support secretly, and at the same time launch a new series of chipsets with the old AM3 socket.

But that's not all.

The new socket is the worst of both worlds:
- BD doesn't work in AM3 boards, because they made a new socket, but,
- It's still not a new, modern socket, no LGA, no PCIe, no added memory channels, nothing. I'm not saying that AMD would add all these features in BD from the start, but they could've added the pins for future use.
AM3+ is mechanically the same as the seven year old original K8/Sledgehammer/Opteron/Athlon FX-51 socket 940, you can't fit any of those features into it electrically, you need more pins.
And it's not like I want LGA, but AMD is going to, sooner or later, given that their server sockets uses it. So they could just have done the transition to a new socket series now, no point in waiting.

Now we're stuck with yet another AM iteration, which obviously will need a replacement quite soon anyway, because it will be outdated before it gets launched.

All this because of a last minute change of plans, and it all started with AMD wanting to make BD compatible with the original AM3.

Cerb
Posts: 391
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 6:36 pm
Location: GA (US)

Post by Cerb » Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:20 pm

Was "AM3r2" too ambiguous, on their roadmaps? They've done a good job at keeping backwards compatibility, so far, but it's not they've stuck with one socket, or anything. We're now on, what, the 5th socket for K8 and newer CPUs? Trying to be future-proof is silly. The last time it was remotely worth it was back in the slot 1 days. Now, consider yourself lucky if a fast enough new CPU works in your current system (this goes for AM2/AM2+/AM3, too--the mobo compatibility lists are buzzkills, quite often!).

AZBrandon
Friend of SPCR
Posts: 867
Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2004 5:47 pm
Location: Phoenix, AZ

Post by AZBrandon » Sat Aug 28, 2010 9:00 am

Considering Bulldozer is the first all-new architecture in a long time, it makes sense to me that it would get a new socket. I'm not sure what the statistics are, but I'd bet that the percentage of people who replace the CPU on their computer is no more than 5% of the market. Over half of all new computers are laptops now anyway, and nobody is replacing CPU's on those, and of the desktops, a huge number are sold the businesses and individuals who just want something good enough to work for a couple years, then buy a new PC. I was personally amazed that AMD even made the Phenom X6 processors backwards compatible with AM2+ in the first place - it's got to be a very small segment of the overall market.

ilovejedd
Posts: 676
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2008 4:14 pm
Location: in the depths of hell

Post by ilovejedd » Sat Aug 28, 2010 1:15 pm

AZBrandon wrote:I was personally amazed that AMD even made the Phenom X6 processors backwards compatible with AM2+ in the first place - it's got to be a very small segment of the overall market.
True, but they're also the ones who make the most noise. :P

~El~Jefe~
Friend of SPCR
Posts: 2887
Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 4:21 pm
Location: New York City zzzz
Contact:

Post by ~El~Jefe~ » Sun Aug 29, 2010 11:36 am

AMD only makes sometimes 10-12% in profit.....

half of it from us then!

Mats
Posts: 3044
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2003 6:54 am
Location: Sweden

Post by Mats » Sun Aug 29, 2010 1:11 pm

Cerb wrote:Was "AM3r2" too ambiguous, on their roadmaps? They've done a good job at keeping backwards compatibility, so far, but it's not they've stuck with one socket, or anything. We're now on, what, the 5th socket for K8 and newer CPUs? Trying to be future-proof is silly. The last time it was remotely worth it was back in the slot 1 days. Now, consider yourself lucky if a fast enough new CPU works in your current system (this goes for AM2/AM2+/AM3, too--the mobo compatibility lists are buzzkills, quite often!).
The reason is called IMC.
Since the introduction of K8, three different standards of RAM has been used, and boards with the new RAM slots is needed every time.

754

939 (adding dual memory channels, faster HTT)

AM2 (DDR2)

AM2+ (split power planes, HTT 3.0)

AM3 (DDR3, HTT 3.2)

Those sockets marked in red include improvements that are IMC related. HTT improvements doesn't require a new socket, not in any of the red marked at least.
IMO, the two remaining sockets would have been the the only ones necessary if AMD still used old school a MC placed in the northbridge, but yeah, it's quite a theoretical scenario.
You'd probably have seen more than two sockets under all there years anyway, and I've probably forgotten some feature somewhere.

It doesn't matter, in the old days you had FSB jumps instead that rendered old boards outdated, including slot 1, socket 478, and socket 462, but people tend to forget that.

Greg F.
Posts: 372
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 6:51 am
Location: Seattle

Post by Greg F. » Sun Aug 29, 2010 2:31 pm

m0002a wrote:
Greg F. wrote:I think I have used the same XP OEM for three different MBs. If memory serves I think I activated over the net and it was automatic.
That's interesting. Did you keep the same disk drives and memory? Would MS care if you put it on a completely new computer (all components new)?
I think I used the same memory on at least two of them. With the drives I don't exactly remember, but I have been using some of my old, small drives over and over as O/S and app drives. Some are IDE. So they've been used quite a bit. I do a clean install.

m0002a
Posts: 2831
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 2:12 am
Location: USA

Post by m0002a » Sun Aug 29, 2010 3:20 pm

Greg F. wrote:I think I used the same memory on at least two of them. With the drives I don't exactly remember, but I have been using some of my old, small drives over and over as O/S and app drives. Some are IDE. So they've been used quite a bit. I do a clean install.
The reason I asked is that I thought that MS tries to verify whether it is the same computer when you switch out some components. It is my understanding that the System Builder versions of the OS can only be used on that one computer, but they do allow some incremental upgrades to take place with the memory, disk drives, etc. Not sure about motherboards though.

ilovejedd
Posts: 676
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2008 4:14 pm
Location: in the depths of hell

Post by ilovejedd » Mon Aug 30, 2010 4:52 am

m0002a wrote:The reason I asked is that I thought that MS tries to verify whether it is the same computer when you switch out some components. It is my understanding that the System Builder versions of the OS can only be used on that one computer, but they do allow some incremental upgrades to take place with the memory, disk drives, etc. Not sure about motherboards though.
Purely based on license, yes. And yes, the PC does get a hardware ID (probably based on the motherboard). However, Microsoft actually seems to be pretty lax with regards to actual implementation as long as you're not abusing it.

Post Reply