News Third-Gen Ryzen Not Fully Backward Compatible, X570 Chipset Doesn't Support First-Gen Models, AMD Explains

[PaulAlcorn]

AMD's Socket AM4 compatibility matrix just got very confusing.

Third-Gen Ryzen Not Fully Backward Compatible, X570 Chipset Doesn't Support First-Gen Models, AMD Explains : Read more

 

[drivinfast247]

Well, I doubt many people would buy a $300 motherboard to put a sub $100 CPU in it. Especially when that CPU cannot take advantage of any of the features of said motherboard.

 

[TechyInAZ]

AMD, really? How hard is it to add a 1st gen Ryzen support to a motherboard?

 

[setx]

Well, I don't think anyone knowledgeable expected perfect forward compatibility from motherboard vendors. (Just look at the state of microcode updates for older Intel CPUs.)

There are probably real issues preventing compatibility in said places. (Unlike Intel scam with z170/z270/z370 chipsets.)

 

[salgado18]

Based on this, could they have removed 1st gen support to leave space for 4th gen? Since some B350 and X370 can support three gens, maybe it's forward thinking into next generation.

Also could mean A520 in the future.

 

[mdd1963]

At least 4 people in the USA are possibly upset that their $49 Ryzen 3-1200 will not drop into the latest $400 X570 board!

 

[Ncogneto]

This is such a non-issue I can't believe Tom's keeps bringing it up. The answer is clear, Bios size limitations only prevent so much data. anyone that wants to drop a Ryzen 3000 into a A320 chipset need to serious recconsider life in general. And who is going to but a 570 MB and then drop in a raven ridge processor?

 

[King Dranzer]

AMD, really? How hard is it to add a 1st gen Ryzen support to a motherboard?

It is not the matter of it being hard to add. It is simply useless for AMD to add that additional feature. Two reasons one they don't want person who is spending on X570 board to settle for comparatively low performing 1st gen CPU. Second is that they already stopped producing 1st gen Ryzen it doesn't makes sense to add support to new gen board for hardware that they are no more producing.

If one has to argue that what if a person is upgrading his PC from Gen1 ryzen to gen3 ryzen it is expected to get both CPU and Motherboard upgraded. If budget is not allowing at-least upgrade CPU first and then jump the motherboard. If not all many X370 and B350 boards will be supporting Ryzen gen3 CPUs.

 

[alextheblue]

AMD, really? How hard is it to add a 1st gen Ryzen support to a motherboard?

It is not the matter of it being hard to add. It is simply useless for AMD to add that additional feature.

Most of this is on mainboard OEMs. AMD hands them the microcode, what happens next is up to them. They're in the business of selling motherboards. If you've got an old first-gen board that's no longer being sold, good luck - if it's a high end board it might get support. 400 series boards are still on the market, so they'll get support almost universally. In the case of A320, even IF a motherboard manufacturer was interested in adding support, a lot of those boards would still have limitations (some would be 65W and under only, virtually all would only support fairly slow RAM, no overclocking, poor overall performance, etc).

That doesn't even address the BIOS chip size limitations. One thing AMD probably should do is set a minimum standard there when they introduce AM5.

 

[mitch074]

AMD, really? How hard is it to add a 1st gen Ryzen support to a motherboard?

Most of this is on mainboard OEMs. AMD hands them the microcode, what happens next is up to them. They're in the business of selling motherboards. If you've got an old first-gen board that's no longer being sold, good luck - if it's a high end board it might get support. 400 series boards are still on the market, so they'll get support almost universally. In the case of A320, even IF a motherboard manufacturer was interested in adding support, a lot of those boards would still have limitations (some would be 65W and under only, virtually all would only support fairly slow RAM, no overclocking, poor overall performance, etc).

That doesn't even address the BIOS chip size limitations. One thing AMD probably should do is set a minimum standard there when they introduce AM5.

Sockets became much more annoying when the memory controller got embedded in the CPU - because while older motherboard BIOSes only had to deal with connecting a single MC with several memory types, now they have to connect several CPUs with several memory types - complexity shot up.

 

[Eskimonster]

Nobody with their right mind would use those two comboes, its a nonissue issue.

 

[gdmaclew]

Why would anyone seriously think of upgrading their motherboard first? So Tom's thinks it's an issue that people with first gen AMD CPU's would have a problem doing that.
The first upgrade path is usually your CPU within the generations that your motherboard supports. It's an easy upgrade.
Then if you are up for a serious upgrade you swap out your motherboard and CPU for the latest gen.
Why does Tom's concentrate on such trivial (and unrealistic) issues?
Beats me.

 

[BulkZerker]

Why does Tom's concentrate on such trivial (and unrealistic) issues?
Beats me.

"Lisa Sue said in the beginning there will he full compatibility with chips and motherboards, reee!"

It is an issue, though one should see it coming with the 3000 series supporting a new pcie standard. If the final gen zen processors are going to support DDR5 you can only imagine the murky waters that will introduce.

 

[justin.m.beauvais]

Plainly stated, AMD did the best they could to keep their promise. That said, they have done a HECK of a lot better than Intel. 3 generations on the majority of boards is nothing to sneeze at. It does seem highly unlikely that someone will buy a Ryzen 5 3600 to drop into an A320 board. The good news is that most people will be just fine as long as manufacturers play ball, though honestly it always comes down to manufacturer support. AMD did their best to offer it, it is up to the motherboard partners to implement it. Not exactly AMD's fault. Lest we forget Intel's shenanigans with the i9 CPUs using the same socket as the i7 8th gen, but needing a different chipset, making what should be a drop in upgrade a motherboard replacement.

As for future CPUs and sockets, I'm expecting Zen 2+ to be on a new socket, AM4+ or AM5. This will allow them to move to DDR5, provide better PCI-E 4.0 support, and optimize power delivery for revised CPUs.

 

[cryoburner]

...so enthusiasts with first-gen Ryzen chips won't be able to step up to the latest and greatest motherboards.

Who actually does this? : P

I agree that this seems like largely a non-issue. I can't say I really see the need for new generations of motherboards to support older CPUs. Existing boards getting support for new processors is definitely useful, since many will want to upgrade their CPU at some point, but not the other way around. Few people are going to want to buy a new-generation motherboard to go with their old processor, since without a new CPU there is not much to gain from it.

So, the only potential concern here would be the possibly mixed support for the new CPUs on first-generation boards, and perhaps the question of how compatible next years processors will be with second-generation boards.

As for future CPUs and sockets, I'm expecting Zen 2+ to be on a new socket, AM4+ or AM5. This will allow them to move to DDR5, provide better PCI-E 4.0 support, and optimize power delivery for revised CPUs.

AMD said they would support the AM4 socket through 2020, though I don't think it was ever publicly specified whether that would include the chips getting released in 2020. Based on roadmaps leaked over a year ago though, it sounds like the plan is to have four generations on AM4, with next year's processors continuing to support the socket...

https://videocardz.com/75217/amd-ry...astle-peak-matisse-picasso-vermeer-and-renoir

If I had to guess, DDR5 support will likely be added for their 2021 chips on a new socket, perhaps along with PCIe 5.0 as well. Leaks have suggested Intel may be planning to move to DDR5 and PCIe 5.0 in 2021, and AMD would likely want to keep up with that. I don't see AMD jumping to new RAM for their consumer platform before Intel does though, as it will probably be more expensive until there is a large enough market for it.

 

[justin.m.beauvais]

AMD said they would support the AM4 socket through 2020, though I don't think it was ever publicly specified whether that would include the chips getting released in 2020. Based on roadmaps leaked over a year ago though, it sounds like the plan is to have four generations on AM4, with next year's processors continuing to support the socket...

https://videocardz.com/75217/amd-ry...astle-peak-matisse-picasso-vermeer-and-renoir

If I had to guess, DDR5 support will likely be added for their 2021 chips on a new socket, perhaps along with PCIe 5.0 as well. Leaks have suggested Intel may be planning to move to DDR5 and PCIe 5.0 in 2021, and AMD would likely want to keep up with that. I don't see AMD jumping to new RAM for their consumer platform before Intel does though, as it will probably be more expensive until there is a large enough market for it.

If AMD is only doing a revision on Zen 2 with the next release, I can see them "supporting (mostly)" through 2020, but if they keep adding features then AM4 is going to have to be revised or replaced. Power delivery won't be an issue like people keep saying. Zen 2 is very efficient I doubt the "power limit" will even be reached by the 16 core version. I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of the power use is still the Infinity Fabric. If that is the case, then switching on 4 more cores isn't going to increase power usage a whole lot.

I don't know... I feel like AM4 is holding AMD back. I feel like even AMD didn't even foresee their improvements 3+ years ago when all the plans were laid out.

 

[jimmysmitty]

AMD, really? How hard is it to add a 1st gen Ryzen support to a motherboard?

Hard actually. There is a reason why Intel never holds onto a socket or chipset for too long. Its also why Intel typically could stay ahead of AMD. Instead of holding back on features and design they design a chipset and CPU around each other and it allows for better design.

One major design choice is power delivery. That alone makes it hard to support an older socket, especially when they are now moving from 8 to 12 core flagship CPUs.

If AMD is only doing a revision on Zen 2 with the next release, I can see them "supporting (mostly)" through 2020, but if they keep adding features then AM4 is going to have to be revised or replaced. Power delivery won't be an issue like people keep saying. Zen 2 is very efficient I doubt the "power limit" will even be reached by the 16 core version. I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of the power use is still the Infinity Fabric. If that is the case, then switching on 4 more cores isn't going to increase power usage a whole lot.

I don't know... I feel like AM4 is holding AMD back. I feel like even AMD didn't even foresee their improvements 3+ years ago when all the plans were laid out.

Trying to support every CPU for a socket is what would hold them back. I am actually quite glad that the new chipset will not support the older CPUs. It means they are focusing the new chipset on the new CPUs which is how they always should design it.

As for efficiency, I will wait to see third party numbers. There were some rumors that clock speed was a bit of an issue on 7nm but rumors are rumors. And adding more cores would increase the power draw. If there is 12 adding 4 more would increase is at least 20% I would assume. But there are also thermals you have to worry about and more cores gets hotter faster.

I highly doubt AMD did not have this planend out. Most CPU and socket designs are started many years in advance. People like to assume they just spit one out in a few months but there is a lot to work out.

 

[maddogfargo]

Pretty sure you guys got it backward. Think about this for a sec before you draw any conclusions...

From the start, the issue was always that you shouldn't need to buy a new MOTHERBOARD just to UPGRADE your CPU. This it the pattern with Intel that AMD wanted to avoid.

The goal was you could buy a high end motherboard now and upgrade it to FUTURE CPUs when they come out. It was not to buy a NEW motherboard but put an OLD CPU, that you may not even be able to BUY in the future, in it. That makes little sense and is not what the majority of builders would recommend.

 

[gdmaclew]

Right on Mad Dog.
Exactly.

 

[CountMike]

A320 motherboards were problematic even with first gen Ryzen, they were/are a bottleneck for any Ryzen above R5 1600. Hell, even 2400g couldn't get full performance.

 

[justin.m.beauvais]

If there is 12 adding 4 more would increase is at least 20% I would assume.

Nah, not with Ryzen. I think it was Gamers Nexus that did an analysis of it a while back and found that on the lower core count chips the Infinity Fabric could account for up to half the power usage of the chip and the power usage by Infinity Fabric stayed pretty constant as core count increased.

 

[jimmysmitty]

Nah, not with Ryzen. I think it was Gamers Nexus that did an analysis of it a while back and found that on the lower core count chips the Infinity Fabric could account for up to half the power usage of the chip and the power usage by Infinity Fabric stayed pretty constant as core count increased.

There is still an increase in power draw with more cores and there is also thermals and power distribution.

I think the biggest reason AMD has not pushed 16 cores to mainstream is because they don't want to cannibalize TR sales. Why would anyone pay more for TR and buy a more expensive board if you can get a Ryzen 16 core for less?

 

[justin.m.beauvais]

There is still an increase in power draw with more cores and there is also thermals and power distribution.

Oh, wow. I look like an idiot. I wasn't claiming that there wouldn't be an increase in power draw, only that the 20% figure wouldn't be the case. It would likely be well less than that, necessitating a drop in clocks to keep it at the same power and thermal levels. Either that or it might end up being a 120W-ish TDP part.

 

[jimmysmitty]

Oh, wow. I look like an idiot. I wasn't claiming that there wouldn't be an increase in power draw, only that the 20% figure wouldn't be the case. It would likely be well less than that, necessitating a drop in clocks to keep it at the same power and thermal levels. Either that or it might end up being a 120W-ish TDP part.

Agreed I just always go over estimation as its better to be higher than lower.

That said I don't think 16 cores would be an easy thorw in due to power distribution. Might have caused more incompatibilities with older chipsets. I could be wrong though and AMD might have one in the rafters waiting to swoop in at the right moment.

 

[SkOrPn]

This is why I feel its more imperative then ever to make sure your board is high enough tier built with overkill VRM's so that your motherboard maker doesn't have an excuse to not support it when a new class of CPU is released. That's why my B350 will be replaced with a X570, something like the Crosshair VIII Hero, or Ultimate if its released. Nothing I hate more than to constantly replace my motherboard when the next CPU I am using has the same pin count and socket type. I hope my next AM4 board can handle 32 cores out of the box, lol.