Confirmed: ASRock Says Intel's Coffee Lake CPUs Will Require New Motherboards

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.

TMTOWTSAC

Honorable
Jun 27, 2015
1,461
4
11,965
225
I'm not sure why it's surprising that a major redesign will also require a different socket. Is it even physically possible for their 6 core die size to match their 4 core without a process shrink? Have any previous 6 (or greater) core processors shared a socket with their mainstream counterparts?
 

jkhoward

Distinguished
Nov 24, 2011
1,221
14
19,665
158
Sad. I won't be buying Intel or NVIDIA anytime soon. AMD for my next build regardless of performance. I'll get the best bang for the buck anyways. (Refferring to NVIDIA tampering with the Titan X drivers).
 

TJ Hooker

Champion
Ambassador

The difference is that in the past every 2nd generation would be a new u-arch. Given Intel's new 3 step (well, I guess sort of 4 step now) rather than 2 step cadence, I don't think it was unreasonable to hope that a given platform could support an extra generation or two. Although on the other hand, the launch of a 6 core CPU on a mainstream socket is a pretty big shift for Intel, so it's maybe not surprising that it wouldn't be backwards compatible.
 

DocBones

Reputable
Apr 9, 2015
27
0
4,530
0
Intel also still has not addressed their heat spreader issue on x299. so really puts to question what they are going to do next.
 

Glock24

Honorable
Sep 5, 2014
74
7
10,635
0
I suppose this was an arbitrary decision by Intel, as CoffeeLake is supposed to be the same architecture as KabyLake and SkyLake. If not for Intel's stupid forced upgrades CoffeeLake should also work with 100 series chipsets. But maybe they can revert their decision and allow the use of current chipsets. We'll know when an official announcement is made.
 

bit_user

Splendid
Ambassador

I'm sure people said the same thing about Haswell... and were left hanging for over 2 years.

The solution is just to delay upgrades until they're either necessary or you decide the performance delta is worth the cost. Otherwise, you can get stuck waiting forever.
 

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator

If we're talking purely technical reasons for socket changes, the only one that I would consider genuinely worthy of a new socket would be DDR4 to make sure old CPUs don't get paired with incompatible RAM. Practically everything else goes through DMI2.0/3.0 and Intel could have used the same chipsets for everything in-between with the tiniest bit of foresight if it had wanted to.

Intel needs to keep its 22-90nm fabs busy with chipsets and other support components for motherboards. AMD on the other hand hasn't had fabs to worry about in about 10 years. That's one less incentive for AMD to add artificial barriers.
 

PaulAlcorn

Senior Editor
Editor
Feb 24, 2015
784
151
11,160
0


The original rumors of Intel licensing AMD tech began from a forum post, but Intel has since officially denied that the company is licensing AMD tech. There are a few really good reports on the whole fandango at Seeking Alpha.

The more recent rumor began after people noticed "amd64" in a purportedly leaked Cannon Lake screenshot.
 

TJ Hooker

Champion
Ambassador

What IP was Intel licensing from Nvidia?

I would assume the amd64 reference refers to the x86-64 IP that Intel's been cross-licensing (with AMD getting license for x86 IP from Intel) for years.
 

Max_ku

Prominent
Aug 3, 2017
1
0
510
0
thinking about 90's when you had only a few motherboard chipsets, that would work with ANY brand CPU made for specific socket...
 

PaulAlcorn

Senior Editor
Editor
Feb 24, 2015
784
151
11,160
0

Intel licensed GPU tech from Nvidia. The contract expired, but according to many analysts Intel has rights to the existing IP for, well, ever.

Exactly. amd64 is nothing new. People are mistakenly connecting the x86-64 IP and AMD's GPU IP.
 

jdougy

Prominent
Aug 3, 2017
1
0
510
0
That's it for me. I have a z170 and 270 and was really excited about more cores but I'm going with amd on my next one. I don't care if I lose a few frames, amd's ipc has improved enough for my needs and they seem to be more committed to their customers requests. It's is ridiculous that we have to upgrade our Mobo once again.
 

bit_user

Splendid
Ambassador
I don't get all this outrage over Intel just continuing their 2-generation cadence of socket changes.

Perhaps what you're really upset about is that we're getting yet another 14 nm CPU - their 4th, if you count Broadwell?

BTW, do we know for sure there will be no additional PCIe lanes? It'd be nice for M.2 NVMe...
 

ta152h

Distinguished
Apr 1, 2009
1,207
2
19,285
0
Intel is already better than AMD, this will only extend it.

Besides, the vast majority of people buy new motherboards when they get a new processor. Why would someone with a Kaby Lake or Skylake buy a Coffee Lake anyway, outside of mental issues? Let's be real, the improvement will be incremental.

You'd need at least a few generations for this to make any sense, and they expect to buy a new motherboard. Also, they can now give their existing computer someone else, rather than rip it apart to re-use old parts.
 

darth_adversor

Distinguished
Jan 16, 2012
74
1
18,635
0
"AMD handing Intel their ass" seems a bit exaggerated. Depends on the workload. Gaming is my priority, and from what I've seen, the question is still the same one I've been asking myself the last ten years: should I save some money by going with AMD, or spend more and get a better minimum (and more consistent) framerate with Intel?
 

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator

Two extra cores on the mainstream platform may be enough to convince the less budget-constrained buyers to upgrade - that's a ~50% peak performance bump even if there is no change in clocks or IPC.

I personally don't bother upgrading until I can get at least twice the performance per buck compared to my current system, so I may still be a few years away from ditching my Ivy Bridge.
 

kinggremlin

Distinguished
Jul 14, 2009
574
41
19,010
0


Only it wasn't. Just because a CPU fit in a socket 7 didn't mean the motherboard supported it which created significant headaches for people who assumed it would. Memory compatibility was a nightmare due to all the different chipset makers choosing different configurations Some supported FPM, some EDO, other SDRAM, and just to make it more confusing, some boards supported multiple memory types, and even more fun, some supported multiple memory types that could be used at the same time, while others didn't, and then you also had to make sure you didn't exceed the cachable RAM limit which varied depending on chipset.

Speaking of chipsets, how many companies were producing them? 5 or 6? VIA, SiS, ALi, Pcchips, I'm sure I'm forgetting some. And they all sucked unless they were from Intel. It was a miracle if all the PCI slots worked on non-Intel boards and AGP performance usually was awful on them too.

You missed those days? Not a chance. No one who actually built their own computers in the 90's would say that.

CPU sockets have always changed frequently from both Intel and AMD. I don't get why there is so much moaning about it now. Back in the day when new generations of CPU's brought tangible performance gains, supporting multiple generations made more sense. Now, the performance gains from one generation to next are so small, that there is no reason to upgrade every generation, so what difference does it make if Intel keeps changing sockets? After skipping 3 or 4 generations, you're going to want a new motherboard anyway that supports all the newest features (m.2,USB 3.1, DDR4, Wifi, or whatever else). We've gotten to the point where system upgrades are being driven more by a need to replace the motherboard than the CPU.
 

Karadjgne

Titan
Ambassador
Hmm, maybe. But then again, maybe not. I'm gonna assume most users are like me. Cpu, gpu, ssd, hdd. Not really much else is needed for most. There's nothing I need that requires anything more than what my Z77 mobo can supply. So it really boils down to 2 types of ppl. Those who have a use for the best of the gimmicks and the vast majority who don't. Very few need native NVMe support on board, very few have a use for usb-c etc. But if you are one of the few who do buy newest tech, bragging rights, need etc, then changing sockets to fit changing cpu really doesn't amount to much as you'll not be trying to fit a coffee-lake cpu on a older gen mobo anyways as you'll not have the connections or support available anyways.
 

chaosmassive

Distinguished
Nov 2, 2012
152
0
18,690
1
LGA 775, CPU sockets that compatible from hot and slow CPU all the way to Core 2 Quad... that was the last thing you make things right, the rest onward is sh*t
 

ima_nerd

Reputable
Dec 1, 2015
3
0
4,510
0
like anyone has ever upgraded a processor without a new motherboard. im sure some cheap bastard out there has and he will cry hard.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY