9 ms·

The biggest part of this announcement is the bios updates for 300 series motherboards in my opinion. People who bought into the AM4 ecosystem 5 years ago should

The biggest part of this announcement is the bios updates for 300 series motherboards in my opinion. People who bought into the AM4 ecosystem 5 years ago should be able to update to these brand new zen3 cpus. Have we ever had such a long lived socket and chipset before? Supporting brand new products for 5 years?

belval 5y ago
I bought a 1700 in 2017 when they launched, upgraded to a 3800X 2 years ago and now I might even get to run a 5800X on my B350 board that I paid CA$130 for. This is what good competition looks like. As a customer I love it!
- mikepurvis 5y ago
  Seriously, yeah— this is great for consumers. Though I wonder if the mobo manufacturers feel quite as thrilled about it.
  - belval 5y ago
    I am sure they aren't BUT it might push them to innovate to make the motherboard itself more interesting? Alternatively, money-wise if I had known that the board might last me 7-8 years I probably would've bought a better one that (probably) has a better margin for Gigabyte. For example, my B350 doesn't have a USB-C port, LAN is only 1Gbps, only one M.2 SSD slot.
    - bayindirh 5y ago
      > LAN is only 1Gbps, only one M.2 SSD slot. How far we've come. I remember having a semi-decent on board 100mbps LAN was only reserved for highest end. Same for M.2.
      - nullc 5y ago
        > How far we've come. I remember having a semi-decent on board 100mbps LAN was only reserved for highest end. These cpus are much more than 10x faster than the CPUs you would have used then. Networking speeds in desktop devices haven't kept pace. Not just with cpu speeds but with storage speeds-- which is particularly obnoxious when you want to use network attached storage. I assume this is due to a mixture of internet and wireless creating an extremely low bandwidth least common denominator and that running >1GB over copper is kinda problematic (finicky, power hungry, etc) -- and the industry seems to reason (perhaps correctly) the the customers in this segment can't handle fiber. I personally have 40GBE attached desktops (and 100gbe attached stuff within the server rack)-- thankfully quite economically due to surplus enterprise hardware, so I'm well aware that it can be done... but to do it in a small formfactor system is still a problem, e.g. for any of these non-apu systems your normal mini itx systems will use all their slot space for a graphics card and not have room for a mellanox adapter.
        bayindirh 5y ago
        > These cpus are much more than 10x faster than the CPUs you would have used then. Actually, it's not only about the CPU performance, because NIC performance drew a cosine wave w.r.t. processor power over the years. Earlier NICs had much more machinery inside them and were expensive. Then Realtek came and we witnessed the era of (almost) software LAN adapters, then the silicon became cheap, and some of the stuff moved back into the LAN controller. So modern, higher end cards do not do significantly more offloading, but they handle other things like virtualization of cards between many VMs, or other higher level tasks. From what I've seen, making a faster CPU is easy, but a faster and wider fabric is harder to weave due to distance, switching related noise and other physics related phenomena. Cache and good memory controllers are also relatively easy, but expensive. Also, RAM and higher voltage doesn't go well together, because RAM uses a lot of energy for its size, so it comes with heat and stability problems and other lifetime related problems (yes, you can fry RAMs). Storage is another hard technology. Spinning rust is limited by physics, vibration, rotation speed and other mechanical stuff. SSDs came crashing, but before they were cheap and Sun didn't got swallowed by Oracle, they did nice ZFS arrays with some very expensive SSD caches and spinning drives combined. I've seen whattheheckisthat amount of speed from an array with a size of 6-8U total and a couple of IB interfaces fitted to it at the factory. Currently we get that amount of speed from Lustre arrays with some SSDs and a lot of spinning disks. With the current backbone capacity of a standard desktop computer, even on the high end, 40Gbps network is overkill unless you're going to ingest that data directly at the CPU. Yes, absorbing the data at the disks are possible, for what cost and what use case? 10Gbps is understandable, but I still consider 1Gbps as a sweet spot for general purpose computing. If you're going to transfer vast amounts of data from a storage array to a local system, yes you can go higher, but it's still a niche. Also as you've said, going over 1Gbps is problematic from a signal integrity point of view, and fiber is too fragile and expensive for average customer. These Mellanox cards get quite hot when they're constantly utilized, so in a little ITX box, both the card and the system will be cooked. The process becomes faster if you use active fiber cables, because connectors sink the heat inside the case via heat sinks attached to the connectors on the cards. Even if you use them in a system room, building a large network with them requires expensive equipment which has adequate bandwidth and cable length. Also, running an IB network needs other software machinery to keep the network up. You can directly run ethernet, or TCP over IB, which kinda defeats the purpose and adds additional penalty and reduces the performance. All in all, higher speed network is still doesn't bring too much of a value to the home of the average user, and is not still that cheap for the enthusiast. Also the hardware is not scaled down for the home. Cards are big & hot, connectors/cables are bulky and the fabric gear is noisy, bulky and high maintenance for home. Yes they work rather nicely, but I'd not want them at home. I have enough of them at the system room already.
    - mattferderer 5y ago
      I try to push my builds as close to 10 years as possible. I've had good luck by trying to time it around important motherboard features that make a big difference & allow for minor upgrades over time. - Caveats - These are software dev & light multimedia editing computers. By the time I get rid of one, it's had as much RAM added as possible. I've done this twice now. Would not work on a gaming rig.
      - bipson 5y ago
        Hm, also some features (e.g. USB C/3.1 headers) were only available on high-end gaming MoBos for quite a long time, making the whole build power-hungry and needlessly fragile. Before that, MoBo manufacturers even made extensive use of additional chips for networking, USB, mora SATA ports, RAID and what not, which could make the whole system more complicated/fragile (all the additional drivers!). I nowadays try to avoid that and aim for boards close to "reference" (whatever the chipset offers out of the box).
        mattferderer 5y ago
        I didn't mean to call out anything against gaming rigs. Some of my components have been marketed towards gamers. Many of the better motherboards often are, excluding the very serious motherboards. I just never bought a very expensive video card & I can't comment on how long a good one would last. I imagine it depends on to many variables from the games you play, the settings of the games you're okay with, the card, etc..
      - sliken 5y ago
        I go for more like 8 years, because I like some overlap so I'm not stuck without a system. Generally I'd buy midrange parts, from well known vendors, and pay a bit extra for SSD, ram, etc. Avoid anything with a small muffin fan (primarily chipsets these days), get a quality case, 140mm or bigger fans, quality power supply (a 5 year warranty is a good start). My current system is from 2015 and was a Xeon E3-1230 v5, 32GB ECC ram, GTX 1070, and a M.2 NVMe. The E3-1230 was cheaper with ECC then the similar i7 was without and just slightly slower (3.2 vs 3.4 GHz). Had no problems so far, and I'm just starting to look at a replacement. Looking closely at the expectations for Zen 4 CPUs and the current Alder Lake (or follow on ). I'm definitely sold on DDR5, especially since with a 2 dimm system (128 bits wide) you get 4 channels instead of 2 with DDR4. Should be that much better at not stalling your cores on cache misses. If I bought today it would be tough decision between the AMD 5700x (8c/16T with a 65 watt TDP) vs the similar Intel Alder Lake. I do think AMD has the edge for systems that are low power and Intel the advantage for high power. Personally I'd rather have quiet, cool, and reliable instead of an extra bit of performance that nobody will care about in a few years. I'd consider a Apple M1 mini ... if it had the M1 pro or Max. Don't think the studio is quite worth it, but I am chipping in few $ a month to Marcan for a linux port.
    - paulmd 5y ago
      you can always get a 10gbe (or 2.5gbe, 5gbe, etc) network card for $50 or so, and M.2 NVMe can be added with $10 pcie addon cards as well (it's just a physical adapter to the pcie slot, electrically it's still nvme). unfortunately now we get into the discussion about 3.5 slot GPUs that overhang all but 1 or 2 of your pcie slots, and the general lack of PCIe connectivity on consumer boards... you can sorta work around it sometimes with vertical mounts/etc. But it's annoying and takes work/planning. I miss the days of X99 and having 28 lanes at my disposal, and every GPU being 2-slot or at most 2.5 slot such that I could actually use those lanes. It's also been really annoying watching the arms race between GPUs and motherboard slot spacing. For a long time, GPUs were 2 and 2.5 slot, so motherboards went to 3-slot spacing for their slots. But then 3-slot and 3.5-slot GPUs became common, which overhangs the middle slot (or puts the GPU right up against a card placed in the middle slot). What we really need now is for motherboards to go back to 2-slot spacing so you get a slot in the #4 spot to give 3- and 3.5-slot cards some breathing room...
- delusional 5y ago
  This isn't just good competition. It's damn good engineering. We have to remember that this wasn't something that AMD was forced to do by the competitive landscape. Someone pushed hard for this decision internally, and that person or team deserve recognition. Someone also had to actually build it, and they deserve even more recognition. Competition is fantastic, but the people who rise to the competition are, in my opinion, the real heroes.
  - deckard1 5y ago
    ASRock already did this in 2020. https://wccftech.com/asrock-amd-ryzen-5000-cpu-bios-support-on-x370-b350-a320-motherboards/ https://wccftech.com/asrock-amd-ryzen-5000-cpu-bios-support-... Then AMD told them to stop it. Which is why that BIOS never got an official release and never appeared on ASRock's website. There are people that have been running 5000 CPUs on ASRock for over a year now. Conversely, you can run first gen Ryzen on B550/X570. Which many people seem to bizarrely think is impossible. Possibly due to AMD's marketing.
    - bipson 5y ago
      I remember something that there was a technical issue with that "compatibility"... Was it something about power ratings or the chipset/MoBo becoming such a bottleneck that this was essentially useless? Or am I just thinking about an entirely different thing...? It really does not fit the narrative of what AMD did with Zen so far, that's for sure.
      - deckard1 5y ago
        If you go back to last year you will see a lot of AMD fanboys arguing such a thing, based on pure conjecture. One person replied to one of my comments saying 5000 can not run on 300 series BIOS because of [insert-technical-hypothetical-nonsense] reasons. But suddenly... it can! https://wccftech.com/amd-warns-motherboard-makers-offering-ryzen-5000-desktop-cpu-bios-support-on-am4-x370/ https://wccftech.com/amd-warns-motherboard-makers-offering-r... The reality is that AMD fanboys haven't woken up to the fact that AMD is no different than Intel. All the same marketing and segmenting games exist on AMD. They were the underdog and then suddenly, they are on top and acting just like Intel. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h74mZp0SvyE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h74mZp0SvyE
toast0 5y ago
Socket 7 was around for a long time and supported a multitude of different processors from different companies. You could usually put a socket 5 processor into a socket 7 board as well (but not the other way). And that was a lot larger jump between the first and last processor.
- kemotep 5y ago
  It looks like AM3+ went from 2011 to the first generation of Ryzen launch in 2017. Still you are right, socket 7 takes the crown for longevity and performance boost. Anecdotally, the increase in performance from my Ryzen 5 1600 to the Ryzen 7 5700G was roughly a 70% increase in performance. Despite that feeling like a solid upgrade it is nothing on the practical doubling between Original Pentium/AMD k6 releases in performance year over year.
  - formerly_proven 5y ago
    AM2 was also very long-lived.
xattt 5y ago
What was the shortest lived socket? Socket 423?
- flatiron 5y ago
  That would be my guess as well. Only a single p4 generation iirc
- rsynnott 5y ago
  Socket 4 or 5, probably (first two Pentium sockets). Socket 5 had a new socket replace it faster than 4 did, but new chips were made for 5 for longer.
- paulmd 5y ago
  Probably depends on your definition of "shortest lived". There's quite a few sockets that only got one generation. AM1 comes to mind, there were only ever about 5 processors compatible with it and really only two were ever intended for retail market and only one of them ever really existed off the drawing board. That's probably one of the rarest consumer sockets ever produced, at least recently. There have also been a few HEDT sockets that saw short life and small numbers. The W-3175X platform and AMD Quad FX (Quadfather) both were exceptionally short lived in themselves, but on paper supported a decent number of server processors due to socket compatibility. They are probably some of the smallest numbers sold. Quadfather never lived past a single board and neither of them probably sold more than a few thousand units. TR4 and TRX40 both went down as exceptionally short-lived HEDT sockets with only one generation each and no cross-compatibility with server chips that share their sockets. But they probably sold higher numbers than W-3175X and Quadfather. WRX80 is probably one of the lowest-volume sockets around since it's basically OEM only and a niche of the niche HEDT market, but again then you've got two generations, even if the volume sold is small. Most Intel products really aren't contenders here, "one generation for the socket" is table-stakes here, it's volume that really decides it imo. Nobody can really say Intel doesn't produce volume for their stuff, a short-lived socket for Intel probably sold 100x the amount that Quadfather sold. Weird niche products like W-3175X or Kaby Lake-X are the exception but again then you've got other products in the same socket.
- fomine3 5y ago
tehbeard 5y ago
> People who bought into the AM4 ecosystem 5 years ago should be able to update to these brand new zen3 cpus. As long as people recognise thay a brand new CPU in a 5 year old board will have some compromises... Which given the rates of #internetdrama these days, is probably not likely.
- kemotep 5y ago
  It reduces potential e-waste but depending on the board there certainly will be issues getting the best performance out of the newer zen 3 cpus. No pcie 4.0 support being a big one.
  - belval 5y ago
    I see this line repeated a lot, but in practice is there any hard data that PCIe 3.0 is bottlenecking reasonably priced hardware? Doesn't seem like it (RTX 3090 is probably at the edge of what I'd consider "reasonably priced" anyway): https://www.reddit.com/r/hardware/comments/ikrteg/nvidia_rep_on_pcie_30_vs_40_for_the_rtx_3090_the/ https://www.reddit.com/r/hardware/comments/ikrteg/nvidia_rep...
    - bcrosby95 5y ago
      I wouldn't call a $1400 graphics card anywhere close to "reasonably priced". $400 maybe.
      - belval 5y ago
        Right, but that's my point, if PICe 3.0 is not a significant bottleneck to an RTX 3090, it can hardly be seen as one for anyone running non-enthusiast builds.
    - kmeisthax 5y ago
      Most games can run fine on Thunderbolt external GPUs, and that's a PCIe 3.0x4 link (roughly) that, on most Intel implementations, is also bottlenecked by the chipset[0]. Game assets are typically static, so available bandwidth mainly impacts how fast you can stream data into VRAM. Of course, with things like DirectStorage and consoles all embracing SSD-to-GPU streaming and hardware decompression, game developers might actually bother to actually use the extra bandwidth they've been given. However, that's still a way's off and definitely not a requirement to enjoy most games today. The reason why PCIe 4.0 actually became a thing was because of enterprise storage arrays. M.2 slots and U.2 connectors don't have enough pins for 16 lanes, and using up so many of those lanes for one device makes no sense if you need to stick 10 or 20 of them in a server. That's also a use case that doesn't really make sense on AM4, unless you have a bifurcation[1]-capable motherboard or are spending way too much money on M.2 carriers with PLX chips in them. [0] AFAIK, Intel wanted Thunderbolt direct-to-CPU but there was some weird driver/certification nonsense with Microsoft or something, and going through the chipset apparently made it easier for vendors not named Apple to support it. I don't remember the details. [1] The ability to drive multiple PCIe devices off the same slot by splitting the slot's lanes. Most M.2 carrier boards are wired up to work this way because proper PCIe hubs are absurdly expensive... because the entire market for such chips are just storage array vendors.
awill 5y ago
I get it's good, but what took them so long? Wouldn't many people who had 300 series motherboards already have upgraded? They were stuck for 18 months without a path forward.
- blihp 5y ago
  They're trying make switching to Intel less appealing when upgrade time comes. Until 12th gen, they didn't seem to view that as much of a threat. Now it apparently is. Competition is good!
  - awill 5y ago
    interesting. I hadn't considered AMD doing this due to Intel 12th gen. If true, that's a sign that AMD isn't doing this to help customers, but to hurt intel
    - jatone 5y ago
      which helps customers. hence why competition is good.
    - deckard1 5y ago
      > AMD isn't doing this to help customers, but to hurt intel Seems correct. ASRock already allowed 5000 series CPUs on their X370/B350/A320 motherboards with a beta BIOS released in 2020[1]. AMD told them to stop[2]. That beta BIOS was never officially released. https://wccftech.com/asrock-amd-ryzen-5000-cpu-bios-support-on-x370-b350-a320-motherboards/ https://wccftech.com/asrock-amd-ryzen-5000-cpu-bios-support-... https://wccftech.com/amd-warns-motherboard-makers-offering-ryzen-5000-desktop-cpu-bios-support-on-am4-x370/ https://wccftech.com/amd-warns-motherboard-makers-offering-r...
    - thawaya3113 5y ago
      AMD, like Intel, was almost certainly gonna take advantage of a lack of competition to try and maximize their returns from their existing chips. Without competitive pressure from Intel they have no incentive to release better chips. It’s not that AMD is good and Intel is bad, or vice versa. It’s that only Intel is bad and only AMD is bad. What we need is a healthy back and forth competition between both the companies (and some ARM sprinkled in as well).
Tomte 5y ago
So please help me understand: I have an MSI X370 mainboard, and as far as I understood until now, the Ryzen 7 3700X processor for around 300 Euros is the newest one I can get that still runs on my system (that would be relevant for being able to update to Windows 11, since I have a Ryzen 1700 now). Now I can use the 5800X3D, but nothing in between those, or is there some other wrinkle I haven't understood?
- neogodless 5y ago
  https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/03/amd-reverses-course-will-support-ryzen-5000-in-old-b350-and-x370-motherboards/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/03/amd-reverses-course-... Basically all Ryzen 5000 series chips can become compatible if your motherboard OEM releases an updated BIOS.
  - iszomer 5y ago
    If your OEM really does provide an update to the BIOS to accomodate the 5000 then it sounds like a relatively good incremental upgrade path. I currently have a 2600 paired with an X370 and have been meaning to try APUs and play around with passthroughs more with the RX580.
    - neogodless 5y ago
      I was pleasantly surprised after I checked my Asus Prime X470-Pro driver page today, and noticed they released a BIOS update for 5800X3D! Not to say for certain I plan to get it, but it's great that the support is there the day AMD announces it!
- zekica 5y ago
  What do you mean nothing in between. They should support ALL Ryzen desktop CPUs.
jotm 5y ago
Yeah, people who didn't get a board with the best VRMs must be kicking themselves :D Really though, there's some cheap mATX boards with high quality VRMs that can run a Ryzen 9 with no issues. Though tbf, if the processor starts but is not stable, an undervolt or maybe clock cap could work, at the cost of a slight performance drop. It's nice to have the option to just upgrade the processor.
phkahler 5y ago
>> The biggest part of this announcement is the bios updates for 300 series motherboards... A great upgrade for the old Mellori-ITX running a 2400G. https://github.com/phkahler/mellori_ITX https://github.com/phkahler/mellori_ITX BTW my system is limited to 4K30hz on the HDMI for reasons I never figured out. Haven't found a good Displayport->HDMI adapter to fix it, and not sure why the CPU/mobo combination won't do it on HDMI. I don't do gaming on it so not much of a problem, but I'd prefer 60hz.
- matja 5y ago
  Is it because the mainboard is not HDMI 2.0 or does not support DSC (Display Stream Compression?) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI#Refresh_frequency_limits_for_standard_video https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI#Refresh_frequency_limits_...). Raven Ridge supports 2.0, but it's down to the mainboard to also support that.
  - phkahler 5y ago
    That linked table indicates even 4k30fps (at 4:4:4) requires 6.18Gbps, while the motherboard page here: https://www.gigabyte.com/Motherboard/GA-AB350N-Gaming-WIFI-rev-10#kf https://www.gigabyte.com/Motherboard/GA-AB350N-Gaming-WIFI-r... Under the HDMI section indicates up to 5Gbps video bandwidth (in addition to 8 channel audio). So on the surface it sounds like I shouldn't even get 30fps, but I do. Thank you for the info, it looks like the board isn't up to the task via HDMI so I will make the effort to find a Displayport adapter. That PC has a LOT of life left in it and I'd like to get the most out of it ;-)
cehrlich 5y ago
Socket A made it from the first Athlon all the way to right before AMD went 64bit, but there were several different chipsets IIRC
- freeAgent 5y ago
  The first Athlons used Slot A. Socket A came later.
  - cehrlich 5y ago
    Yeah you're right, looks like the first Socket A CPU was the Athlon 650 [1] [1] https://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/K7/AMD-Athlon%20650%20-%20A0650APT3B.html https://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/K7/AMD-Athlon%20650%20-%20A06...
rocky1138 5y ago
This has been my biggest pain point with Intel. Why are sockets changed, seemingly, every generation? There's no point in having a socket in that case. Might as well solder the CPU right to the board.
- eric__cartman 5y ago
  Money!
  - fomine3 5y ago
    I don't think so. Selling CPU and chipset for DIY market isn't very profitable part of business (but customers are vocal and likely influencer). It adds compatibility test cost so somewhat for money.
    - rasz 5y ago
      Selling chipsets is soo unprofitable Intel stopped licensing the ISA to take over the market ...
- cogman10 5y ago
  Part of the answer there is it's easier from an engineering standpoint to get a new socket than it is to make a new architecture work with an existing socket. Sort of the same way in the software world where it's easier to add a new method then it is to enhance an existing method. New methods have no legacy baggage to worry about. Tweak an old one wrong and you run the risk of breaking a bunch of people. AMD's commitment to forward compatibility is pretty nice, but definitely more work on their part. Then again, AMD's legacy is making sockets/slots work for their processors :D (That was the whole point of the original athlon)
Nexxxeh 5y ago
Does this mean A300 boards may get official support for the Ryzen 5 4600G? Because I'd love to slap one into my DeskMini A300. With a (now pulled) Beta BIOS, an A300 ran a Ryzen 7 Pro 4750G just fine, and it'd be a big jump from my R3 3200G.
- kemotep 5y ago
  It sounds like it depends on your board’s manufacture providing it for your system but it looks like AMD is releasing the BIOS firmware to allow x370, b350, and a320 boards to support all the new cpus just announced today. In some cases your existing cpu might not be supported using the new firmware. So if you update the bios, you might have to swap the processor before you can boot the computer again.
- paulmd 5y ago
  A300/A320/X300 were always the exception to the Zen3 lockout code. You could run a 5950X on a $30 trash A320 board with a 16MB BIOS and a 3-phase VRM, but not a Crosshair VI Hero. anyway, there's nothing stopping vendors from releasing support for A300, Asrock simply has abandoned the Deskmini A300 and doesn't want to support it anymore. That one isn't on AMD, Asrock just seems to have abandoned it.
bipson 5y ago
AMD was aiming for that when AM4/Zen was announced, knowing that this was a major pain point for enthusiasts and builders/"upgraders". This would have been my main reason to build an AMD system, although I was easy to win, I always built AMD systems IIRC... And I ended up postponing it again and again, since I don't game and the reasonable (budget) options were always lagging behind regarding technology/efficiency - most of all, my Phenom (actually a rebranded Athlon with 2/6 cores disabled) was still doing OK. Now there will be AM5... Didn't follow the news, is it supposed to live as long as AM4? Would it even pay off for AMD to repeat that effort?

belval 5y ago

I bought a 1700 in 2017 when they launched, upgraded to a 3800X 2 years ago and now I might even get to run a 5800X on my B350 board that I paid CA$130 for. This is what good competition looks like. As a customer I love it!

mikepurvis 5y ago
Seriously, yeah— this is great for consumers. Though I wonder if the mobo manufacturers feel quite as thrilled about it.
- belval 5y ago
  I am sure they aren't BUT it might push them to innovate to make the motherboard itself more interesting? Alternatively, money-wise if I had known that the board might last me 7-8 years I probably would've bought a better one that (probably) has a better margin for Gigabyte. For example, my B350 doesn't have a USB-C port, LAN is only 1Gbps, only one M.2 SSD slot.
  - bayindirh 5y ago
    > LAN is only 1Gbps, only one M.2 SSD slot. How far we've come. I remember having a semi-decent on board 100mbps LAN was only reserved for highest end. Same for M.2.
    - nullc 5y ago
      > How far we've come. I remember having a semi-decent on board 100mbps LAN was only reserved for highest end. These cpus are much more than 10x faster than the CPUs you would have used then. Networking speeds in desktop devices haven't kept pace. Not just with cpu speeds but with storage speeds-- which is particularly obnoxious when you want to use network attached storage. I assume this is due to a mixture of internet and wireless creating an extremely low bandwidth least common denominator and that running >1GB over copper is kinda problematic (finicky, power hungry, etc) -- and the industry seems to reason (perhaps correctly) the the customers in this segment can't handle fiber. I personally have 40GBE attached desktops (and 100gbe attached stuff within the server rack)-- thankfully quite economically due to surplus enterprise hardware, so I'm well aware that it can be done... but to do it in a small formfactor system is still a problem, e.g. for any of these non-apu systems your normal mini itx systems will use all their slot space for a graphics card and not have room for a mellanox adapter.
      - bayindirh 5y ago
        > These cpus are much more than 10x faster than the CPUs you would have used then. Actually, it's not only about the CPU performance, because NIC performance drew a cosine wave w.r.t. processor power over the years. Earlier NICs had much more machinery inside them and were expensive. Then Realtek came and we witnessed the era of (almost) software LAN adapters, then the silicon became cheap, and some of the stuff moved back into the LAN controller. So modern, higher end cards do not do significantly more offloading, but they handle other things like virtualization of cards between many VMs, or other higher level tasks. From what I've seen, making a faster CPU is easy, but a faster and wider fabric is harder to weave due to distance, switching related noise and other physics related phenomena. Cache and good memory controllers are also relatively easy, but expensive. Also, RAM and higher voltage doesn't go well together, because RAM uses a lot of energy for its size, so it comes with heat and stability problems and other lifetime related problems (yes, you can fry RAMs). Storage is another hard technology. Spinning rust is limited by physics, vibration, rotation speed and other mechanical stuff. SSDs came crashing, but before they were cheap and Sun didn't got swallowed by Oracle, they did nice ZFS arrays with some very expensive SSD caches and spinning drives combined. I've seen whattheheckisthat amount of speed from an array with a size of 6-8U total and a couple of IB interfaces fitted to it at the factory. Currently we get that amount of speed from Lustre arrays with some SSDs and a lot of spinning disks. With the current backbone capacity of a standard desktop computer, even on the high end, 40Gbps network is overkill unless you're going to ingest that data directly at the CPU. Yes, absorbing the data at the disks are possible, for what cost and what use case? 10Gbps is understandable, but I still consider 1Gbps as a sweet spot for general purpose computing. If you're going to transfer vast amounts of data from a storage array to a local system, yes you can go higher, but it's still a niche. Also as you've said, going over 1Gbps is problematic from a signal integrity point of view, and fiber is too fragile and expensive for average customer. These Mellanox cards get quite hot when they're constantly utilized, so in a little ITX box, both the card and the system will be cooked. The process becomes faster if you use active fiber cables, because connectors sink the heat inside the case via heat sinks attached to the connectors on the cards. Even if you use them in a system room, building a large network with them requires expensive equipment which has adequate bandwidth and cable length. Also, running an IB network needs other software machinery to keep the network up. You can directly run ethernet, or TCP over IB, which kinda defeats the purpose and adds additional penalty and reduces the performance. All in all, higher speed network is still doesn't bring too much of a value to the home of the average user, and is not still that cheap for the enthusiast. Also the hardware is not scaled down for the home. Cards are big & hot, connectors/cables are bulky and the fabric gear is noisy, bulky and high maintenance for home. Yes they work rather nicely, but I'd not want them at home. I have enough of them at the system room already.
  - mattferderer 5y ago
    I try to push my builds as close to 10 years as possible. I've had good luck by trying to time it around important motherboard features that make a big difference & allow for minor upgrades over time. - Caveats - These are software dev & light multimedia editing computers. By the time I get rid of one, it's had as much RAM added as possible. I've done this twice now. Would not work on a gaming rig.
    - bipson 5y ago
      Hm, also some features (e.g. USB C/3.1 headers) were only available on high-end gaming MoBos for quite a long time, making the whole build power-hungry and needlessly fragile. Before that, MoBo manufacturers even made extensive use of additional chips for networking, USB, mora SATA ports, RAID and what not, which could make the whole system more complicated/fragile (all the additional drivers!). I nowadays try to avoid that and aim for boards close to "reference" (whatever the chipset offers out of the box).
      - mattferderer 5y ago
        I didn't mean to call out anything against gaming rigs. Some of my components have been marketed towards gamers. Many of the better motherboards often are, excluding the very serious motherboards. I just never bought a very expensive video card & I can't comment on how long a good one would last. I imagine it depends on to many variables from the games you play, the settings of the games you're okay with, the card, etc..
    - sliken 5y ago
      I go for more like 8 years, because I like some overlap so I'm not stuck without a system. Generally I'd buy midrange parts, from well known vendors, and pay a bit extra for SSD, ram, etc. Avoid anything with a small muffin fan (primarily chipsets these days), get a quality case, 140mm or bigger fans, quality power supply (a 5 year warranty is a good start). My current system is from 2015 and was a Xeon E3-1230 v5, 32GB ECC ram, GTX 1070, and a M.2 NVMe. The E3-1230 was cheaper with ECC then the similar i7 was without and just slightly slower (3.2 vs 3.4 GHz). Had no problems so far, and I'm just starting to look at a replacement. Looking closely at the expectations for Zen 4 CPUs and the current Alder Lake (or follow on ). I'm definitely sold on DDR5, especially since with a 2 dimm system (128 bits wide) you get 4 channels instead of 2 with DDR4. Should be that much better at not stalling your cores on cache misses. If I bought today it would be tough decision between the AMD 5700x (8c/16T with a 65 watt TDP) vs the similar Intel Alder Lake. I do think AMD has the edge for systems that are low power and Intel the advantage for high power. Personally I'd rather have quiet, cool, and reliable instead of an extra bit of performance that nobody will care about in a few years. I'd consider a Apple M1 mini ... if it had the M1 pro or Max. Don't think the studio is quite worth it, but I am chipping in few $ a month to Marcan for a linux port.
  - paulmd 5y ago
    you can always get a 10gbe (or 2.5gbe, 5gbe, etc) network card for $50 or so, and M.2 NVMe can be added with $10 pcie addon cards as well (it's just a physical adapter to the pcie slot, electrically it's still nvme). unfortunately now we get into the discussion about 3.5 slot GPUs that overhang all but 1 or 2 of your pcie slots, and the general lack of PCIe connectivity on consumer boards... you can sorta work around it sometimes with vertical mounts/etc. But it's annoying and takes work/planning. I miss the days of X99 and having 28 lanes at my disposal, and every GPU being 2-slot or at most 2.5 slot such that I could actually use those lanes. It's also been really annoying watching the arms race between GPUs and motherboard slot spacing. For a long time, GPUs were 2 and 2.5 slot, so motherboards went to 3-slot spacing for their slots. But then 3-slot and 3.5-slot GPUs became common, which overhangs the middle slot (or puts the GPU right up against a card placed in the middle slot). What we really need now is for motherboards to go back to 2-slot spacing so you get a slot in the #4 spot to give 3- and 3.5-slot cards some breathing room...
delusional 5y ago
This isn't just good competition. It's damn good engineering. We have to remember that this wasn't something that AMD was forced to do by the competitive landscape. Someone pushed hard for this decision internally, and that person or team deserve recognition. Someone also had to actually build it, and they deserve even more recognition. Competition is fantastic, but the people who rise to the competition are, in my opinion, the real heroes.
- deckard1 5y ago
  ASRock already did this in 2020. https://wccftech.com/asrock-amd-ryzen-5000-cpu-bios-support-on-x370-b350-a320-motherboards/ https://wccftech.com/asrock-amd-ryzen-5000-cpu-bios-support-... Then AMD told them to stop it. Which is why that BIOS never got an official release and never appeared on ASRock's website. There are people that have been running 5000 CPUs on ASRock for over a year now. Conversely, you can run first gen Ryzen on B550/X570. Which many people seem to bizarrely think is impossible. Possibly due to AMD's marketing.
  - bipson 5y ago
    I remember something that there was a technical issue with that "compatibility"... Was it something about power ratings or the chipset/MoBo becoming such a bottleneck that this was essentially useless? Or am I just thinking about an entirely different thing...? It really does not fit the narrative of what AMD did with Zen so far, that's for sure.
    - deckard1 5y ago
      If you go back to last year you will see a lot of AMD fanboys arguing such a thing, based on pure conjecture. One person replied to one of my comments saying 5000 can not run on 300 series BIOS because of [insert-technical-hypothetical-nonsense] reasons. But suddenly... it can! https://wccftech.com/amd-warns-motherboard-makers-offering-ryzen-5000-desktop-cpu-bios-support-on-am4-x370/ https://wccftech.com/amd-warns-motherboard-makers-offering-r... The reality is that AMD fanboys haven't woken up to the fact that AMD is no different than Intel. All the same marketing and segmenting games exist on AMD. They were the underdog and then suddenly, they are on top and acting just like Intel. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h74mZp0SvyE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h74mZp0SvyE

toast0 5y ago

Socket 7 was around for a long time and supported a multitude of different processors from different companies. You could usually put a socket 5 processor into a socket 7 board as well (but not the other way). And that was a lot larger jump between the first and last processor.

kemotep 5y ago
It looks like AM3+ went from 2011 to the first generation of Ryzen launch in 2017. Still you are right, socket 7 takes the crown for longevity and performance boost. Anecdotally, the increase in performance from my Ryzen 5 1600 to the Ryzen 7 5700G was roughly a 70% increase in performance. Despite that feeling like a solid upgrade it is nothing on the practical doubling between Original Pentium/AMD k6 releases in performance year over year.
- formerly_proven 5y ago
  AM2 was also very long-lived.

xattt 5y ago

What was the shortest lived socket? Socket 423?

flatiron 5y ago
That would be my guess as well. Only a single p4 generation iirc
rsynnott 5y ago
Socket 4 or 5, probably (first two Pentium sockets). Socket 5 had a new socket replace it faster than 4 did, but new chips were made for 5 for longer.
paulmd 5y ago
Probably depends on your definition of "shortest lived". There's quite a few sockets that only got one generation. AM1 comes to mind, there were only ever about 5 processors compatible with it and really only two were ever intended for retail market and only one of them ever really existed off the drawing board. That's probably one of the rarest consumer sockets ever produced, at least recently. There have also been a few HEDT sockets that saw short life and small numbers. The W-3175X platform and AMD Quad FX (Quadfather) both were exceptionally short lived in themselves, but on paper supported a decent number of server processors due to socket compatibility. They are probably some of the smallest numbers sold. Quadfather never lived past a single board and neither of them probably sold more than a few thousand units. TR4 and TRX40 both went down as exceptionally short-lived HEDT sockets with only one generation each and no cross-compatibility with server chips that share their sockets. But they probably sold higher numbers than W-3175X and Quadfather. WRX80 is probably one of the lowest-volume sockets around since it's basically OEM only and a niche of the niche HEDT market, but again then you've got two generations, even if the volume sold is small. Most Intel products really aren't contenders here, "one generation for the socket" is table-stakes here, it's volume that really decides it imo. Nobody can really say Intel doesn't produce volume for their stuff, a short-lived socket for Intel probably sold 100x the amount that Quadfather sold. Weird niche products like W-3175X or Kaby Lake-X are the exception but again then you've got other products in the same socket.
fomine3 5y ago

tehbeard 5y ago

> People who bought into the AM4 ecosystem 5 years ago should be able to update to these brand new zen3 cpus. As long as people recognise thay a brand new CPU in a 5 year old board will have some compromises... Which given the rates of #internetdrama these days, is probably not likely.

kemotep 5y ago
It reduces potential e-waste but depending on the board there certainly will be issues getting the best performance out of the newer zen 3 cpus. No pcie 4.0 support being a big one.
- belval 5y ago
  I see this line repeated a lot, but in practice is there any hard data that PCIe 3.0 is bottlenecking reasonably priced hardware? Doesn't seem like it (RTX 3090 is probably at the edge of what I'd consider "reasonably priced" anyway): https://www.reddit.com/r/hardware/comments/ikrteg/nvidia_rep_on_pcie_30_vs_40_for_the_rtx_3090_the/ https://www.reddit.com/r/hardware/comments/ikrteg/nvidia_rep...
  - bcrosby95 5y ago
    I wouldn't call a $1400 graphics card anywhere close to "reasonably priced". $400 maybe.
    - belval 5y ago
      Right, but that's my point, if PICe 3.0 is not a significant bottleneck to an RTX 3090, it can hardly be seen as one for anyone running non-enthusiast builds.
  - kmeisthax 5y ago
    Most games can run fine on Thunderbolt external GPUs, and that's a PCIe 3.0x4 link (roughly) that, on most Intel implementations, is also bottlenecked by the chipset[0]. Game assets are typically static, so available bandwidth mainly impacts how fast you can stream data into VRAM. Of course, with things like DirectStorage and consoles all embracing SSD-to-GPU streaming and hardware decompression, game developers might actually bother to actually use the extra bandwidth they've been given. However, that's still a way's off and definitely not a requirement to enjoy most games today. The reason why PCIe 4.0 actually became a thing was because of enterprise storage arrays. M.2 slots and U.2 connectors don't have enough pins for 16 lanes, and using up so many of those lanes for one device makes no sense if you need to stick 10 or 20 of them in a server. That's also a use case that doesn't really make sense on AM4, unless you have a bifurcation[1]-capable motherboard or are spending way too much money on M.2 carriers with PLX chips in them. [0] AFAIK, Intel wanted Thunderbolt direct-to-CPU but there was some weird driver/certification nonsense with Microsoft or something, and going through the chipset apparently made it easier for vendors not named Apple to support it. I don't remember the details. [1] The ability to drive multiple PCIe devices off the same slot by splitting the slot's lanes. Most M.2 carrier boards are wired up to work this way because proper PCIe hubs are absurdly expensive... because the entire market for such chips are just storage array vendors.

awill 5y ago

I get it's good, but what took them so long? Wouldn't many people who had 300 series motherboards already have upgraded? They were stuck for 18 months without a path forward.

blihp 5y ago
They're trying make switching to Intel less appealing when upgrade time comes. Until 12th gen, they didn't seem to view that as much of a threat. Now it apparently is. Competition is good!
- awill 5y ago
  interesting. I hadn't considered AMD doing this due to Intel 12th gen. If true, that's a sign that AMD isn't doing this to help customers, but to hurt intel
  - jatone 5y ago
    which helps customers. hence why competition is good.
  - deckard1 5y ago
    > AMD isn't doing this to help customers, but to hurt intel Seems correct. ASRock already allowed 5000 series CPUs on their X370/B350/A320 motherboards with a beta BIOS released in 2020[1]. AMD told them to stop[2]. That beta BIOS was never officially released. https://wccftech.com/asrock-amd-ryzen-5000-cpu-bios-support-on-x370-b350-a320-motherboards/ https://wccftech.com/asrock-amd-ryzen-5000-cpu-bios-support-... https://wccftech.com/amd-warns-motherboard-makers-offering-ryzen-5000-desktop-cpu-bios-support-on-am4-x370/ https://wccftech.com/amd-warns-motherboard-makers-offering-r...
  - thawaya3113 5y ago
    AMD, like Intel, was almost certainly gonna take advantage of a lack of competition to try and maximize their returns from their existing chips. Without competitive pressure from Intel they have no incentive to release better chips. It’s not that AMD is good and Intel is bad, or vice versa. It’s that only Intel is bad and only AMD is bad. What we need is a healthy back and forth competition between both the companies (and some ARM sprinkled in as well).

Tomte 5y ago

So please help me understand: I have an MSI X370 mainboard, and as far as I understood until now, the Ryzen 7 3700X processor for around 300 Euros is the newest one I can get that still runs on my system (that would be relevant for being able to update to Windows 11, since I have a Ryzen 1700 now). Now I can use the 5800X3D, but nothing in between those, or is there some other wrinkle I haven't understood?

neogodless 5y ago
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/03/amd-reverses-course-will-support-ryzen-5000-in-old-b350-and-x370-motherboards/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/03/amd-reverses-course-... Basically all Ryzen 5000 series chips can become compatible if your motherboard OEM releases an updated BIOS.
- iszomer 5y ago
  If your OEM really does provide an update to the BIOS to accomodate the 5000 then it sounds like a relatively good incremental upgrade path. I currently have a 2600 paired with an X370 and have been meaning to try APUs and play around with passthroughs more with the RX580.
  - neogodless 5y ago
    I was pleasantly surprised after I checked my Asus Prime X470-Pro driver page today, and noticed they released a BIOS update for 5800X3D! Not to say for certain I plan to get it, but it's great that the support is there the day AMD announces it!
zekica 5y ago
What do you mean nothing in between. They should support ALL Ryzen desktop CPUs.

jotm 5y ago

Yeah, people who didn't get a board with the best VRMs must be kicking themselves :D Really though, there's some cheap mATX boards with high quality VRMs that can run a Ryzen 9 with no issues. Though tbf, if the processor starts but is not stable, an undervolt or maybe clock cap could work, at the cost of a slight performance drop. It's nice to have the option to just upgrade the processor.

phkahler 5y ago

>> The biggest part of this announcement is the bios updates for 300 series motherboards... A great upgrade for the old Mellori-ITX running a 2400G. https://github.com/phkahler/mellori_ITX https://github.com/phkahler/mellori_ITX BTW my system is limited to 4K30hz on the HDMI for reasons I never figured out. Haven't found a good Displayport->HDMI adapter to fix it, and not sure why the CPU/mobo combination won't do it on HDMI. I don't do gaming on it so not much of a problem, but I'd prefer 60hz.

matja 5y ago
Is it because the mainboard is not HDMI 2.0 or does not support DSC (Display Stream Compression?) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI#Refresh_frequency_limits_for_standard_video https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI#Refresh_frequency_limits_...). Raven Ridge supports 2.0, but it's down to the mainboard to also support that.
- phkahler 5y ago
  That linked table indicates even 4k30fps (at 4:4:4) requires 6.18Gbps, while the motherboard page here: https://www.gigabyte.com/Motherboard/GA-AB350N-Gaming-WIFI-rev-10#kf https://www.gigabyte.com/Motherboard/GA-AB350N-Gaming-WIFI-r... Under the HDMI section indicates up to 5Gbps video bandwidth (in addition to 8 channel audio). So on the surface it sounds like I shouldn't even get 30fps, but I do. Thank you for the info, it looks like the board isn't up to the task via HDMI so I will make the effort to find a Displayport adapter. That PC has a LOT of life left in it and I'd like to get the most out of it ;-)

cehrlich 5y ago

Socket A made it from the first Athlon all the way to right before AMD went 64bit, but there were several different chipsets IIRC

freeAgent 5y ago
The first Athlons used Slot A. Socket A came later.
- cehrlich 5y ago
  Yeah you're right, looks like the first Socket A CPU was the Athlon 650 [1] [1] https://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/K7/AMD-Athlon%20650%20-%20A0650APT3B.html https://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/K7/AMD-Athlon%20650%20-%20A06...

rocky1138 5y ago

This has been my biggest pain point with Intel. Why are sockets changed, seemingly, every generation? There's no point in having a socket in that case. Might as well solder the CPU right to the board.

eric__cartman 5y ago
Money!
- fomine3 5y ago
  I don't think so. Selling CPU and chipset for DIY market isn't very profitable part of business (but customers are vocal and likely influencer). It adds compatibility test cost so somewhat for money.
  - rasz 5y ago
    Selling chipsets is soo unprofitable Intel stopped licensing the ISA to take over the market ...
cogman10 5y ago
Part of the answer there is it's easier from an engineering standpoint to get a new socket than it is to make a new architecture work with an existing socket. Sort of the same way in the software world where it's easier to add a new method then it is to enhance an existing method. New methods have no legacy baggage to worry about. Tweak an old one wrong and you run the risk of breaking a bunch of people. AMD's commitment to forward compatibility is pretty nice, but definitely more work on their part. Then again, AMD's legacy is making sockets/slots work for their processors :D (That was the whole point of the original athlon)

Nexxxeh 5y ago

Does this mean A300 boards may get official support for the Ryzen 5 4600G? Because I'd love to slap one into my DeskMini A300. With a (now pulled) Beta BIOS, an A300 ran a Ryzen 7 Pro 4750G just fine, and it'd be a big jump from my R3 3200G.

kemotep 5y ago
It sounds like it depends on your board’s manufacture providing it for your system but it looks like AMD is releasing the BIOS firmware to allow x370, b350, and a320 boards to support all the new cpus just announced today. In some cases your existing cpu might not be supported using the new firmware. So if you update the bios, you might have to swap the processor before you can boot the computer again.
paulmd 5y ago
A300/A320/X300 were always the exception to the Zen3 lockout code. You could run a 5950X on a $30 trash A320 board with a 16MB BIOS and a 3-phase VRM, but not a Crosshair VI Hero. anyway, there's nothing stopping vendors from releasing support for A300, Asrock simply has abandoned the Deskmini A300 and doesn't want to support it anymore. That one isn't on AMD, Asrock just seems to have abandoned it.

bipson 5y ago

AMD was aiming for that when AM4/Zen was announced, knowing that this was a major pain point for enthusiasts and builders/"upgraders". This would have been my main reason to build an AMD system, although I was easy to win, I always built AMD systems IIRC... And I ended up postponing it again and again, since I don't game and the reasonable (budget) options were always lagging behind regarding technology/efficiency - most of all, my Phenom (actually a rebranded Athlon with 2/6 cores disabled) was still doing OK. Now there will be AM5... Didn't follow the news, is it supposed to live as long as AM4? Would it even pay off for AMD to repeat that effort?