News AMD Confirms Zen 3 Compatibility on B550, X570 Motherboards

[InvalidError]

As far as back ported - what exactly about that is negative? You think it's somehow less than?

What is "negative" about a back-port is that barring major process problems, smaller transistors are considerably faster, which makes it possible to cram more logic between latches - do more work per clock tick. Rocket Lake based on back-ported Willow Cove may not be anywhere near as fast as intended due to 14nm process limitations.

 

[st379]

Well I assume the Willow Cove IPC gains will be at last as good as the Sunny Coves. The +++ thing makes you look foolish and is based on nothing. I don't care what Intel planned on having years ago - just like AMD planned on having competitive products that would gain a respectable amount of market share -which they haven't. I do not expect the frequency to be in the 5GHz+ range...

As far as back ported - what exactly about that is negative? You think it's somehow less than? Take your AMD wagon and go home.

Will be Rocket Lake and most likely NVlink dual Ampere. You buy what you want and with less ++++ since you think that is a negative.

Really missing the days you were banned. I see you learned nothing about not making a disgusting comment.
Ryzen and skylake have the same ipc.
The clocks of Intel are better and the power consumption of Amd is much better.
You can argue and say that in desktop you don't care about 100 watt or 300 watt but both of the cpu are very competitive and Ryzen has the superior power efficiency.
No one expecting 50% market share and TSMC can't deliever it even if there was demand.
The ++++ is Intel marketing that say they improve the 14nm each generation and that is why it became a joke.

 

[TCA_ChinChin]

Except that people who aren't interested in the X570 still have no "no worry" new stuff (B550) to pick from for another month.

Well then they can buy the old stuff and read up. If they aren't interested in the new stuff, then they can buy the old stuff. Just cause one is budget and one is high end doesn't change the fact that one is old and one is new.

I'm not defending AMD's decision to screw B450 and delay B550, but customers still had more choices than Intel's old stuff only works with old stuff, new stuff only works with new stuff approach. You can turn off reading for both Intel and AMD platform by buying the newest, but at least with AMD, you have the option to use old stuff and new stuff together to some extent.

AMD breaking with their general policy of old stuff and new stuff working together is why some people, myself included, are upset with them. Even if it is completely legally and "financially" sound to do so (just like it is for Intel), doesn't mean it's good for consumers.

 

[InvalidError]

I'm not defending AMD's decision to screw B450 and delay B550

AMD did not delay B550, ASMedia was several months late on design and delivery.

 

[mitch074]

Granted, I swap hardware components for testing more often than ... just about anyone other than a hardware reviewer. But I can absolutely say that I had way more problems with early AM4 boards than anything I've used from Intel. In fact, off the top of my head, I can't think of the last time I had an Intel board fail on me. I've still got at least two or three of the dead AMD boards sittings around somewhere. Anyway, could have been caused by using higher spec RAM maybe (DDR4-3200 CL14), but these weren't budget boards -- MSI and Gigabyte models that were at least $175 at launch.

One of the GB X470 boards died after a BIOS update and took my 2700X CPU with it -- not during the BIOS update, but after. It was super weird. I flashed the BIOS, did some testing, swapped CPUs. Booted and I think I went into the BIOS settings because of the CPU swap. "New CPU detected." Saved and rebooted, and the system never came back. I tried to get it working for hours, finally gave up and tried a different motherboard. That's when I discovered the CPU was dead.

Again, I can't think of the last time I had an Intel CPU die on me when just running stock. The 2700X wasn't overclocked, and it had just booted, but somehow saving and exiting the BIOS glitched out I guess. RIP 2700X.

I'm not disagreeing, and it is true that there was far more bad than good early AM4 motherboards. What I'm saying is that AM4 chipsets weren't inherently bad, and if you got one of the good models (MSI B350) then they would become, and stay, excellent performers. And a board that I got in summer 2017 can, in summer 2020, bear a CPU which is 2 process and 2 generations newer with double the core - think about it, when was the last time we had this? Core 2 comes to mind - and even then it was only with specific chipsets revisions, at a time when the memory controller was not part of the CPU.

 

[JarredWaltonGPU]

I'm not disagreeing, and it is true that there was far more bad than good early AM4 motherboards. What I'm saying is that AM4 chipsets weren't inherently bad, and if you got one of the good models (MSI B350) then they would become, and stay, excellent performers. And a board that I got in summer 2017 can, in summer 2020, bear a CPU which is 2 process and 2 generations newer with double the core - think about it, when was the last time we had this? Core 2 comes to mind - and even then it was only with specific chipsets revisions, at a time when the memory controller was not part of the CPU.

Yes, but what I'm saying is that determining which motherboards would work well for the foreseeable future back in 2017 was basically impossible. Some extremely high-end X370 boards did fine, others like some that I had for testing failed, and some budget-to-midrange B350 did great. It was a total craps shoot.

Plus, I just don't think backward/forward CPU compatibility is that big of a deal. If you could guarantee proper support of all CPUs, sure, it's a nice checkbox. But if I owned a 'good' B350 board with a Ryzen 7 1700 for example, and then I wanted to upgrade to a Ryzen 7 3700X, I wouldn't stick with the B350. Or even going from Ryzen 5 1600 to Ryzen 5 3600, I wouldn't want to stay on the older chipset and motherboards. I'd upgrade both mobo and CPU -- it's what I've always done.

The only time backward compatibility has ever really mattered to me was when a motherboard failed. It's way easier to find reasonably priced new motherboards for an older CPU if they're backward compatible. I had a friend with an Ivy Bridge board die maybe ... five or six years ago? Anyway, it's been a while. Even going through eBay, getting a moderate replacement board was $125. They just weren't commonly available any longer.

 

[mitch074]

Yes, but what I'm saying is that determining which motherboards would work well for the foreseeable future back in 2017 was basically impossible. Some extremely high-end X370 boards did fine, others like some that I had for testing failed, and some budget-to-midrange B350 did great. It was a total craps shoot.

Plus, I just don't think backward/forward CPU compatibility is that big of a deal. If you could guarantee proper support of all CPUs, sure, it's a nice checkbox. But if I owned a 'good' B350 board with a Ryzen 7 1700 for example, and then I wanted to upgrade to a Ryzen 7 3700X, I wouldn't stick with the B350. Or even going from Ryzen 5 1600 to Ryzen 5 3600, I wouldn't want to stay on the older chipset and motherboards. I'd upgrade both mobo and CPU -- it's what I've always done.

The only time backward compatibility has ever really mattered to me was when a motherboard failed. It's way easier to find reasonably priced new motherboards for an older CPU if they're backward compatible. I had a friend with an Ivy Bridge board die maybe ... five or six years ago? Anyway, it's been a while. Even going through eBay, getting a moderate replacement board was $125. They just weren't commonly available any longer.

It's not that big a deal to you, or I, or many enthusiasts who are ready to sink a thousand bucks or more in a new rig every couple of years. But it does have a huge importance in other cases, like some projects I built professionally that validated a given platform (format, I/O, or simply an OEM license for Windows) but will want to increase CPU power in the future, or simply a friend of mine who at the time could only afford a quad core for a family PC and is slowly but surely reaching the point where the CPU needs an upgrade while the rest of the system is still good to go and who won't spend more than $ 250 to upgrade the machine.

 

[PCWarrior]

If this were Intel, the headline of the article would have probably been “Greedy Intel breaks motherboard backward and forward compatibility despite promises for continual LGA 1151 socket support, citing falsifiable reasons as an excuse”. But as it is AMD, the headline is given a positive spin: “AMD Confirms Zen 3 compatibility on B550, X570 motherboard”. Sigh...

That BIOS capacity excuse is such a bull. They can make BIOS that supports the newer chips and removes support for the older ones. For example for the X470 boards they can issue a BIOS that removes support for 1000 series cpus but supports 2000, 3000 and 4000 series or 2000 & 4000 series or any other feasible combination.

Look, I am familiar with the many good reasons that a CPU manufacturer and its board partners would want to break support at some point. The problem is that these reasons are not new and have equally applied to Intel all along. Intel was not given the same understanding though. During this whole time Intel received nothing but hate and contempt for breaking compatibility every 2 generations. The argument was always that “AMD can do it so it is doable”. So when AMD gains competitive advantage over Intel based on a misleading impression they created to the public that you won’t be required to upgrade your motherboard to get a meaningful processor upgrade (and by meaningful is after 2 true generations) then this deserves to be heavily criticised.

The worst of all though in this story are the die-hard AMD fanboys who are now advocating AMD’s decision despite previously constantly attacking and hating Intel for doing exactly what AMD does now. “But they only promised socket support” some truly blind AMD fanboys will say… Socket support my a**. If that is how you count socket support, Intel supported LGA1151 from 6th gen to 9th gen, from 2015 to 2019, just as long as AMD will be supporting AM4 (2017-2021). These die-hard fanboys clearly prove the following quote: “It's easier to fool people than it is to convince them that they have been fooled.” Here is my message to these die-hard AMD fanboys. Just admit that you are double-standard biased hypocrites and promise to never speak publicly about cpus again. Your opinion is not just worthless but also misleading, dangerous, poisonous and cancerous.

 

[jeremyj_83]

Ryzen and skylake have the same ipc.

Zen 2 has a higher IPC than Skylake. Currently Zen 2 is about 7-8% faster clock for clock on single threaded applications than Skylake derivatives. Zen 1's IPC was about that of Broadwell or 5% lower than Skylake and Zen+ was about 2-3% lower than Skylake.

If this were Intel, the headline of the article would have probably been “Greedy Intel breaks motherboard backward and forward compatibility despite promises for continual LGA 1151 socket support, citing falsifiable reasons as an excuse”. But as it is AMD, the headline is given a positive spin: “AMD Confirms Zen 3 compatibility on B550, X570 motherboard”. Sigh...

That BIOS capacity excuse is such a bull. They can make BIOS that supports the newer chips and removes support for the older ones. For example for the X470 boards they can issue a BIOS that removes support for 1000 series cpus but supports 2000, 3000 and 4000 series or 2000 & 4000 series or any other feasible combination.

Look, I am familiar with the many good reasons that a CPU manufacturer and its board partners would want to break support at some point. The problem is that these reasons are not new and have equally applied to Intel all along. Intel was not given the same understanding though. During this whole time Intel received nothing but hate and contempt for breaking compatibility every 2 generations. The argument was always that “AMD can do it so it is doable”. So when AMD gains competitive advantage over Intel based on a misleading impression they created to the public that you won’t be required to upgrade your motherboard to get a meaningful processor upgrade (and by meaningful is after 2 true generations) then this deserves to be heavily criticised.

The worst of all though in this story are the die-hard AMD fanboys who are now advocating AMD’s decision despite previously constantly attacking and hating Intel for doing exactly what AMD does now. “But they only promised socket support” some truly blind AMD fanboys will say… Socket support my a**. If that is how you count socket support, Intel supported LGA1151 from 6th gen to 9th gen, from 2015 to 2019, just as long as AMD will be supporting AM4 (2017-2021). These die-hard fanboys clearly prove the following quote: “It's easier to fool people than it is to convince them that they have been fooled.” Here is my message to these die-hard AMD fanboys. Just admit that you are double-standard biased hypocrites and promise to never speak publicly about cpus again. Your opinion is not just worthless but also misleading, dangerous, poisonous and cancerous.

AMD stated back in late 2016/early 2017 that AM4 will be supported until 2020. There is a chance that 300 & 400 series of motherboards will get BIOS updates to support Zen 3 CPUs, but that isn't a guarantee. While Intel's LGA1151 socket is still used, what pins do is different. "he latest information reveals that despite the same pin-count and layout, it seems that it will be impossible. Or even with firmware modification. This is due to the fact that the pins themselves are different between Coffee Lake and Kaby Lake. The VSS pins move from 377 to 391, with the addition of 14 pins providing that function. The VCC pin count move up from 128 to 146, adding 18. Some of the formerly reserved (RSVD) pins are used up, leaving 25 pins from formerly 46. It is not just the actual power supply on the motherboard, but the pin functions themselves that had to change in order to support Coffee Lake LGA1151 CPUs. " https://www.eteknix.com/kabylake-vs-coffee-lake-lga1151-pinout-differences-revealed/ That means that while the CPU can physically fit into the motherboard, a CPU from the wrong generation won't work and will probably be damaged if powered on. That is totally different that what AMD did in allowing 3 generations of CPUs to work in the same motherboard.

 

[PCWarrior]

AMD stated back in late 2016/early 2017 that AM4 will be supported until 2020. There is a chance that 300 & 400 series of motherboards will get BIOS updates to support Zen 3 CPUs, but that isn't a guarantee. While Intel's LGA1151 socket is still used, what pins do is different. "he latest information reveals that despite the same pin-count and layout, it seems that it will be impossible. Or even with firmware modification. This is due to the fact that the pins themselves are different between Coffee Lake and Kaby Lake. The VSS pins move from 377 to 391, with the addition of 14 pins providing that function. The VCC pin count move up from 128 to 146, adding 18. Some of the formerly reserved (RSVD) pins are used up, leaving 25 pins from formerly 46. It is not just the actual power supply on the motherboard, but the pin functions themselves that had to change in order to support Coffee Lake LGA1151 CPUs. " https://www.eteknix.com/kabylake-vs-coffee-lake-lga1151-pinout-differences-revealed/ That means that while the CPU can physically fit into the motherboard, a CPU from the wrong generation won't work and will probably be damaged if powered on. That is totally different that what AMD did in allowing 3 generations of CPUs to work in the same motherboard.

Oh dear… I knew that one such person would appear. First of all what you say is false but more on that later. Even if what you are saying were true (which is not) it wouldn’t make any difference whatsoever to my argument. Your counter-argument is a clutching-at-straws argument, desperately trying to hold on a minor technicality (and a false one at that) to make a paper-thin and ultimately pointless distinction. So if Intel didn’t make that pin changes you claim it did and the broken compatibility was entirely due to BIOS lack of support (as is the case now with AMD), do you honestly believe that Intel would have caught less flak and less hate b? It would have taken even HEAVIER flak and MORE hate.

But in any case, your claim is incorrect in the first place. The changes Intel made to pins when they moved from Z270 to Z370 were entirely auxiliary. All they did was to enable pins that were previously (e.g. on Z270) reserved, into power (Vcc) and ground (Vss) in order to reduce (power) load on the used (power) pins (a move which, as proven by Der8auer, was entirely unnecessary anyway). Here watch-read and learn:

1. Der8auer proves that Intel’s LGA-1151v2, Z370 and Z390 are pointless
2. Der8auer We analysed the Z390 socket

But why talk about pins anyway. Here is a tutorial of how to run 8th gen and 9th gen cpus on Z170 and Z270 motherboards. For a lot of Gigabyte and MSI boards all you need is to flash a modified bios (instructions here). For some ASUS and ASROCK boards you may also need to short a pin on an IC on the board (on ASUS it is Nuvoton's NCT6106D chip, pin 102 that stands of SKTOCC). Watch and learn:

How to run a Coffee Lake CPU (8700K/9700K/9900K) on Z170/Z270 Motherboard, 2020 Update:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hghT2iOvWTU

 

[gg83]

Well I assume the Willow Cove IPC gains will be at last as good as the Sunny Coves. The +++ thing makes you look foolish and is based on nothing. I don't care what Intel planned on having years ago - just like AMD planned on having competitive products that would gain a respectable amount of market share -which they haven't. I do not expect the frequency to be in the 5GHz+ range...

As far as back ported - what exactly about that is negative? You think it's somehow less than? Take your AMD wagon and go home.

Will be Rocket Lake and most likely NVlink dual Ampere. You buy what you want and with less ++++ since you think that is a negative.

Why don't you like the +++++? It seems like an accurate way of describing the process. They've had how many 14nm generations?

 

[gg83]

Really missing the days you were banned. I see you learned nothing about not making a disgusting comment.
Ryzen and skylake have the same ipc.
The clocks of Intel are better and the power consumption of Amd is much better.
You can argue and say that in desktop you don't care about 100 watt or 300 watt but both of the cpu are very competitive and Ryzen has the superior power efficiency.
No one expecting 50% market share and TSMC can't deliever it even if there was demand.
The ++++ is Intel marketing that say they improve the 14nm each generation and that is why it became a joke.

Why is he so mad and aggressive? He was banned before too? Lol

 

[JarredWaltonGPU]

Zen 2 has a higher IPC than Skylake. Currently Zen 2 is about 7-8% faster clock for clock on single threaded applications than Skylake derivatives. Zen 1's IPC was about that of Broadwell or 5% lower than Skylake and Zen+ was about 2-3% lower than Skylake.

Just to be clear, this is not universally true. The problem is that IPC isn't some easily defined metric. It varies, sometimes quite a lot, based on the instruction mix and code that the CPU is running. IPC tries to encapsulate the cache hierarchy, CPU front-end and back-end, compiler optimizations, etc. in some abstract way. It's not like you can find a published IPC for each CPU.

So, Cinebench R20 1T might show higher IPC on Zen 2, 7zip might show higher IPC on Zen 2, but many games do not. I'm not saying Intel has higher IPC either, in the general case. Overall, yes, I believe Zen 2 is now showing higher IPC than Coffee Lake. But there are still plenty of exceptions you'll encounter in the real world. And also, IPC and clock speed often go hand in hand, so building a higher IPC architecture may reduce your maximum clock speed.

Ultimately, I think the best measure of how good an architecture is combines IPC, clock speed, and power use. IPC * clock / Power or something. Which still varies by workload, naturally. And Zen 2 definitely wins in the overall performance and efficiency metric right now.