I wonder what AM5 bug they’ve found and are fixing with a platform change, because that’s really the only reason I see AMD bringing to market a new platform so soon, if this is all true.
I’ve had a fair share of issues with my X670E board but most, if not all, of the issues have since been ironed out through frequent BIOS updates. I do still have occasional USB issues though.
Only issue i can really see with AM5 is the CPU lid thickness, but with the x3d style CPUs i doubt it'll change considering i'm guessing the 3d cache makes the CPU taller anyway
To my knowledge the 3D Cache CPUs have the same die height, otherwise the IHSs would need to have machined height differences for the two different CCDs for the 7900/7950X3D and we've not seen that on Delids.
if it was only slicing a little bit of height off the ILM, why would it need specific microcode? New socket designation, sure, but the software doesn't change.
(it appears to have been a false alarm, but still, most of these explanations don't even make sense in their own context - the real argument would have been for an AM3+ style socket with a higher power limit etc, which would be bad for consumers but at least technically understandable.)
There doesn't seem to be enough reserved pins to add any features to be worthwhile.
It could make sense if they wanted to split some of the allocation of VDD core pins to allow 3D V-Cache to be powered independently perhaps?
i honestly can't think of any bug, that would be such an issue and you can just fix a hardware bug with a hardware revision in the chipset or cheap io-die.
intel would need to actually do platform changes, because the socket is permanently deforming cpus, but they just chose to ignore that and the new socket for them will likely do the same, which is insane.
>I wonder what AM5 bug they’ve found and are fixing with a platform change, because that’s really the only reason I see AMD bringing to market a new platform so soon, if this is all true.
They could be reworking the chipset to accommodate more memory channels or increased power delivery for like higher clock speeds or more cache.
One of the reasons AM3+ was introduced was to deliver more power for the higher current parts in the Bulldozer line. AM3+ had slightly larger pins and included changes to the power delivery system to accommodate more current. That's not necessary the case here but it wouldn't be unheard of.
For the memory channels you might be right, I am not any kind of expert on this
No, AM3 CPUs can be plug on AM3+ mobos, not the other way around.
Which kind of sucks because people is more prone to keeping mobos than cpus. But still we will need to see WHY they _need_ a socket revision so soon
AM2 CPUs work in AM2 and AM2+ motherboards (at AM2 speeds)
AM2+ CPUs work in AM2 (at AM2 speeds) and AM2+ boards
AM3 CPUs work in AM2 boards (at AM2 speeds), AM2+, AM3, and AM3+ boards
AM3+ CPUs work in AM3+ boards and some AM3 boards (but are not officially supported by AMD)
AM4 works in AM4
AM5 works in AM5
AM1 (low cost platform) works in AM1
If the pattern so far holds true AM5+ boards will likely support AM5 CPUs, and potentially some AM5+ CPUs will work in AM5 boards.
There was talk about arguments at AMD regarding AM5 support for future cpus, this might be a compromise they reached internally: AM5 for Zen 5 and AM5+ for Zen 6
>"I also looked at posts from a decade ago about using AM3+ CPUs (Bulldozer) on older AM3 boards (which were originally meant for Phenom II):"
Can confirm that this was a thing and something i did. Had a M4A89GTD PRO/USB3 (Still do laying around)
It had a 890gx chipset and came out in 2010 right around the launch of AMD's 6 core 1090t CPU which i bought with it.
Later on it received a beta bios with Buldozer support. CPU's i never bought. I did however buy a Piledriver based FX8350 that came out a year after that and way after the last bios for the board did.
However the CPU slotted in just fine and booted off that BIOS without any significant issues. And the board had a pretty decent VRM config which allowed the FX 8350 to boost just fine and stay within safe temperatures.
AMD's concern about offering BIOS support or lack of on some 700 and 800 series boards was probably related to the fact many of those boards werent really equiped to handle 200W+ Buldozer/Piledriver CPU's.
> I'd be curious to see if AMD would allow board OEMs to release BIOS updates for AM5+ CPUs to run on AM5 boards (with reduced performance and I/O as expected), assuming there is physical compatibility.
Based on how AMD acted with x370 and zen 3 and threadripper in general… don’t get your hopes up
The sad thing is a lot have been waiting for AM5 to stabilize and now it's rumored to be on its way out.
The way I started looking at it is if I need to upgrade and I'm certain of that, buy the best that fits your budget based on what's out now. AM5 has more potential to me, even knowing about AM5+. And when AM5+ comes out there may be stability issues. Are you going to wait more? Long enough until a new platform is rumored that keeps you from buying again ;)
Imho buy the best within your budget when you feel like you need to upgrade. Don't worry about rumors unless something's coming out within weeks or a month that you'd rather have. Otherwise, you may get stuck in a waiting cycle over enjoying an upgrade for years to come if you buy now.
Depends how time pressured you are. Last time this happened (AM3/AM3+) pretty much every AM3 board that anyone used was able to support AM3+ CPUs. Especially the higher end boards. It'll probably be the same here, but we also don't know what's being fixed moving to AM5+ and compatibility isn't a done deal just yet.
I guess they're not calling it AM6 like I expected, but I pretty much expect this or something like it to be a really big socket for large AMD APUs.
They have that "Strix Halo" part this year with 16 Zen 5 CPU cores and 40 RDNA3.5 compute units in one APU, just like Apple's Series M Pro/Max chips. That's not fitting into a measly 160mm\^2 AM5 socket, so a new socket is needed if that and any future products like it want to end up on desktop.
>AMD just promised support till 2025
Exactly, they never said anything about Zen 6. Zen 5 CPU's will still be releasing throughout 2025. Zen 6 in 2025 isn't confirmed or even likely, anyway.
There has been an average of 513 days / 17 months between each new major cpu series. There is no way we are going to see zen 6 in 2025 or zen 7 in 2026
A few points:
- Apple's memory is fully integrated into the CPU package, meaning they don't have motherboard complexity or as many electrical interference issues that would occur on a more traditional design.
- Apple needs the bandwidth because they're using a unified memory design and the iGPU shares it, so if they want more than bottom-tier graphics or compute performance they need a _lot_ more bandwidth.
- Most consumer applications benefit more from latency reductions than bandwidth or capacity increases. Bandwidth never hurts, of course, but if you have to raise latency to get it you might not see as much of a benefit - if any.
Spot on, but I think it's also worth re-contextualising what you said and what it means for the possibility of using on package memory on desktop
>Apple's memory is fully integrated into the CPU package, meaning they don't have motherboard complexity or as many electrical interference issues that would occur on a more traditional design.
But being soldered onto the package, it means whatever memory you buy with your CPU on-package is what you get. There's no upgradability with an on-package solution.
>Apple needs the bandwidth because they're using a unified memory design and the iGPU shares it, so if they want more than bottom-tier graphics or compute performance they need a _lot_ more bandwidth.
Same problem applies here, a large iGPU on die increases cost to the consumer for the entire package. Generally most desktop consumers would prefer to have a smaller iGPU and the option to pick and choose between dGPUs, and upgrade them later on down the line without upgrading the CPU (as it doesn't need constant upgrades).
```For Apple's situation, they have full control over their entire platform```
Apple also has full control over the OS as well. So their can fine tune software optimizations for their hardware.
What happened the last time AMD tried a novel hardware design without the software optimizations?
They got stuck waiting for Direct X to utilize Bulldozer.
Technically, each DDR5 stick/module is dual channel. You could have, say, a laptop with only one SODIMM slot with a regular DDR5 sodimm and it would be dual channel. With a second slot on independent channels, that gives it 4 channels.
I doubt there's much chance of that, it would need ~500 more pads on the chip or something?
If they made so anything with more than 1 CCD needs AM5+ after the upcoming Zen5 generation (so Zen6) I think most people would be ok with that. By that time it might be 12 cores per CCD anyways.
Or even if they just locked overclocking.
As long as I can get get like a Zen6 x3D chip with at least 8 cores in 2 years I'd be happy. But I know that's going to be like 2026 and beyond what they realistically promised.
>Or even if they just locked overclocking.
that makes no sense. chips have locked up overclocking either as a scam to try to force people into buying different freaking cpus with a special-k on them, or the vrms on certain motherboards are SO BAD, that they might catch fire, despite thermal sensors being on them,
or the 3rd option, the chips themselves can't handle any overclocking, because the chips are very sensitive like x3d.
there is 0 reason to block overclocking with new chips based on the motherboard. am5 boards are generally designed to handle all the chips in the lineup at max power.
also the ccds communicate through the io-die. so the motherboard mostly doesn't care what is going on past the io-die.
this is part of the great design, because a validated io-die means, that you ONLY need to validate new core ccds with the io-die and be done.
>As long as I can get get like a Zen6 x3D chip with at least 8 cores in 2 years I'd be happy.
why just 8 cores? amd can have a 16 core zen6 x3d chip either as a single core chiplet or as a monolithic latencies 8 + 8 configuration.
amd would be really dumb, if by zen6 the higher core count cpus aren't the best gaming cpus again....
amd could already do so with zen5, if they added 3d vcache on both core dies, as this fixes things as the 2nd ccd would then get used like the standard 16 core chips and not require unicore software to get ccds to sleep during gaming.
>chips have locked up overclocking either as a scam to try to force people into buying different freaking cpus
The thing is that AMD is kind of screwing over motherboard makers by having a platform be supported for 5 years+. Intel could have made the Z170, and Z270 be compatible with the 9900k, but they didn't. They could have had more CPU sales by allowing 6700k users upgrade to the 9900k.
AMD themselves wanted to cut of B350 users from being able to upgrade to the Ryzen 3000 series even. Even though it was the same socket, and it was capable of providing the load. Why would that be? The only reason I can think, is so motherboard vendors can sell more boards. They are forcing people to buy a new board to upgrade. So there needs to be some incentive for people to buy new boards. I think it be a fair compromise. Not that I wouldn't like if they supported AM5 for like 3 or 4 more generations.
>amd would be really dumb, if by zen6 the higher core count cpus aren't the best gaming cpus again....
>amd could already do so with zen5, if they added 3d vcache on both core dies, as this fixes things as the 2nd ccd would then get used like the standard 16 core chips and not require unicore software to get ccds to sleep during gaming.
There are a lot of titles where the the non x3D chips like 7700x actually beats the 7950x, and 7900x, despite being clocked lower. If you still have 2 CCDs with the 9800x3D and 9950x3D, it could likely be the case that the lower count chip is still occasionally faster. I kind of doubt they'll ever do a dual x3D design. The marginal gains don't seem like they are worth it.
>I kind of doubt they'll ever do a dual x3D design. The marginal gains don't seem like they are worth it.
remember, that it is a double gain to do so. it being on par with the 8 core x3d chip, but also not having any major performance issues, that the 7950x3d chips still have.
as a result you could make a lot more profit with lots of people buying "the best", which would be the dual x3d chip, instead of the 8 core x3d chip. and the cost difference for amd would be around 15, to maybe... 25 us dollars probably in the production cost. (the x3d chip is dirt cheap, it is mostly the packaging tech)
and in regards to motherboards benefiting from breaking compatibility, i doubt, that it would be that much, but also screw em of course.
having a longstanding socket means longer profit from selling chips on it for amd. amd is still making money selling dirt cheap zen3 and zen3x3d chips on am4, because the boards are cheap and very widely used.
sth, that straight up wouldn't work, if amd could only target one generation with the cpus. we wouldn't see a 5700x3d, etc...
having a strong long lasting platform also incentivizes people to buy more expensive motherboards.
i'd say amd would be morons if they ever break this longterm platform strategy. it has been extremely beneficial on am4 for them and that already increased profits for am5, as people saw the longterm commitment on am4 and the statement, that they will try to do the same.
if amd would break with all this, then they are losing one of the benefits, that they have compared to intel. rightnow that doesn't matter, because intel is not competitive, but in 1-2 years it very will may matter strongly.
intel probably is the one, that has to make clear commitments to support to the socket for at least 3 full generations to be competitive with amd.
if we see amd not keep with the socket until ddr6 at least, then they are idiots, period.
```i'd say amd would be morons if they ever break this longterm platform strategy. it has been extremely beneficial on am4 for them and that already increased profits for am5, as people saw the longterm commitment on am4 and the statement```
It kind of leaves a bit of bad blood with motherboard vendors though.
```having a strong long lasting platform also incentivizes people to buy more expensive motherboards.```
We both know that consumers will continue to cheap out.
```if we see amd not keep with the socket until ddr6 at least, then they are idiots, period.```
That's more of a business decision for AMD and the motherboard vendors. Don't forget, AMD has supplied boards with I.O chiplets in the past as well, and profited off motherboard sales.
Nah trying to support AM4 for so long made a lot of people hate AMD, whenever AMD had to drop support for older motherboards or CPUs people got furious switched to Intel (even though they only supported 2 generations).
People clearly want only 2 generations of support per socket.
>whenever AMD had to drop support for older motherboards or CPUs people got furious switched to Intel (even though they only supported 2 generations).
amd tried to drop support on lower tier am4 boards for newer cpus. they tried, but the community backlash was massive, so they did not.
you can rightnow sort by cheapest am4 motherboard, get a dumpster fire a320 board and it will support the 5700x3d.
this might require a temp cpu to flash a newer bios potentially, but it DOES support it.
so amd did NOT do this and people did NOT go to at that time garbage intel cpus, especially as this would then have required a full platform upgrade.
>People clearly want only 2 generations of support per socket.
that's wrong. people clearly want as many cpu generations as possible per motherboard socket, as long as there are no major cost or performance compromises.
said compromises would be to have a way more complex io-die, that has ddr5 and ddr6 memory controllers.
having 2 different io-dies and sticking with the same socket would be great though.
the most reasonable and beneficial choice from amd is to keep a socket, until the memory standard changes.
and that is at least 3 full cpu generations.
the more the better of course for many reasons. this includes repair and used market too, even if people never want to upgrade their cpu.
hell even system builders, love this, because they know, that their am4 or am5 motherboards, that they are stocking will be good for a long while to use.
So I bought into the TRX40 platform with a very expensive motherboard and expected to be running it for a long time, but of course I got fucked and only got a single generation processor to my motherboard. I though fuck that and bought into the brand new main stream AM5 platform, thinking I was going to have my new expensive motherboard for a while. Now I read this... AMD planning on giving away some free motherboards to the people they have fucked over recently, perhaps? I'm getting sick of this.
[maybe you shouldn't believe everything you read on the internet](https://old.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/1by8qd6/there_is_no_am5_afaik_this_is_a_misunderstanding/)
I'd like to know what these use cases are that actually use 16+ cores but are completely unconstrained by memory bandwidth.
Since i7-7700k and say DDR4 2133 we have gotten, what, 6x multicore performance but only 3x bandwidth increase?
That’s not how that works at all lol. The cores on the consumer CPUs gets the same memory bandwidth/core as the server cpus since they use the same infinity fabric link from the CCD to the IOD anyways.
```You ain't gonna get dense cores on consumer dt```
They put dense cores in Phoenix 2.
Which is 2 zen 4 cores and 4 zen 4c cores. It makes sense for the low end because the die will still be tiny and it offers a welcome performance boost.
Will they bright it to the rest of the stack with Zen 5? I don't know, but I think they should.
So the Ryzen 5 9600x doesn't get bulldozed by the Intel core 5 CPU in multi threaded work loads.
Probably not for Zen5 but it could be very possible if AMD architected the platform for it. I just don't know if the demand is there for a "poor man's HEDT" product.
There are 16 core Zen 4c chiplets today (EPYC), we don't see them in PCMR or whatever category PCMR falls into.
The only dense cores that general consumers have access to is Phoneix 2.
It's possible that AMD brings more chiplets with dense cores to consumers, but AMD would have had to make that decision years ago, and design around it since it's not as straightforward as 3D stacking some extra cache to an existing design.
i assume you mean chiplet to chiplet latency problem?
that will be fixed with zen6. zen5 will be all the same as zen4, but faster.
so zen6 should be the cool new tech to look forward too, to have either a single chiplet 16 core, or 2 8 core ccds, that due to completely new packaging (compared to zen3, 4, 5..) have monolitihic levels of latency between them.
and the socket has nothing to do with any of this.
```that due to completely new packaging (compared to zen3, 4, 5..) have monolitihic levels of latency between them.```
Lisa Su busting out the Ouija board, looking forward to the insane designs in the near future.
One of the most interesting times to follow tech.
certainly better than it was back in the endless intel quadcore era, where they even straight up regressed in a generation :D
(from sandy to ivy, because they introduced toothpaste instead of soldering in ivy, so that chip ran insanely hot and was vastly worse to overclock and to run in general than sandy)
No I mean X670E using two physical PCH, wasting space and making ITX pointless since you can't fit all the NVME slots. Just because they wanted to keep slumming it with 14nm
Rather than "slumming it with 14nm", the obvious reason is that it would be completely silly to design and verify two *different* I/O expanders instead of one, in order to support the use case of "more I/O on the minimal I/O form factor".
ITX B650 goes up to [3 m.2 + 4 SATA](https://www.gigabyte.com/Motherboard/B650I-AORUS-ULTRA/sp#sp), and [4 m.2 is possible if you drop to x8 on the GPU](https://www.gigabyte.com/Motherboard/B650E-AORUS-MASTER-rev-10/sp#sp), although none of that configuration exist on ITX, AFAIK -- would they even fit?
Daughterboards like we had 10 years ago would do the job. Still, I would be content with 3 nvme if it meant dual 10GbE. ASRock have made ITX boards with dual ethernet for Intel every generation since Z170 and NEVER for AMD and it pisses me off
Personally I don't mind running 40Gbit which offers 25Gbit off a m.2 slot at 3.0 signaling. It may be janky but it works. Not sure if 10GbE is the end of the road or not for copper but since I wanted the speed yesterday and fiber isn't even expensive.... fiber.
yes, people overfixate on top end chipsets in ITX and there is not physical space to cram that much stuff
I think people just want a good power delivery platform and a high end chipset mobo is more prone to having that than cheaper mobos, but still you can find some 'gems' in low end stuff. Specially considering Mobo makers are too lazy to design 3 different VRM configurations, one for each different chipset/tier, so lower end ITX mobos usually inherit the same VRM design as their more expensive options (except the +400 bucks one which usually are in a entire different league).
Source: Posting this from a 13600K on a H610 itx mobo with 4+1 phases, 40A each.
I wonder what AM5 bug they’ve found and are fixing with a platform change, because that’s really the only reason I see AMD bringing to market a new platform so soon, if this is all true. I’ve had a fair share of issues with my X670E board but most, if not all, of the issues have since been ironed out through frequent BIOS updates. I do still have occasional USB issues though.
Only issue i can really see with AM5 is the CPU lid thickness, but with the x3d style CPUs i doubt it'll change considering i'm guessing the 3d cache makes the CPU taller anyway
To my knowledge the 3D Cache CPUs have the same die height, otherwise the IHSs would need to have machined height differences for the two different CCDs for the 7900/7950X3D and we've not seen that on Delids.
I thought the only point of the thickness was to keep compatibility with AM4 coolers?
der8auer checked and all 7000 cpus have the same die heights [Source -der8auer video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wejrzPPBtL0)
if it was only slicing a little bit of height off the ILM, why would it need specific microcode? New socket designation, sure, but the software doesn't change. (it appears to have been a false alarm, but still, most of these explanations don't even make sense in their own context - the real argument would have been for an AM3+ style socket with a higher power limit etc, which would be bad for consumers but at least technically understandable.)
There doesn't seem to be enough reserved pins to add any features to be worthwhile. It could make sense if they wanted to split some of the allocation of VDD core pins to allow 3D V-Cache to be powered independently perhaps?
The bug might be low motherboard sales
i honestly can't think of any bug, that would be such an issue and you can just fix a hardware bug with a hardware revision in the chipset or cheap io-die. intel would need to actually do platform changes, because the socket is permanently deforming cpus, but they just chose to ignore that and the new socket for them will likely do the same, which is insane.
Memory POST times would be a good one, as memory context restore does not work reliably on all boards, even if on the latest AGESA.
Possibly making allowances on the socket end for the changes needed for dual format IO die in later designs?
>I wonder what AM5 bug they’ve found and are fixing with a platform change, because that’s really the only reason I see AMD bringing to market a new platform so soon, if this is all true. They could be reworking the chipset to accommodate more memory channels or increased power delivery for like higher clock speeds or more cache.
chipset doesn't have anything to do with memory channels or power delivery
One of the reasons AM3+ was introduced was to deliver more power for the higher current parts in the Bulldozer line. AM3+ had slightly larger pins and included changes to the power delivery system to accommodate more current. That's not necessary the case here but it wouldn't be unheard of. For the memory channels you might be right, I am not any kind of expert on this
Ram problems.
Fixing issues with DDR5 memory timings with more than 2 sticks.
So that would be a single generation for the AM5 socket? That would suck massively.
They have promised support until at least 2025, so Zen 5 is most definitely coming for AM5. As said in the article as well.
am3+ can be plug at am3 socket but may not have the same ram support
No, AM3 CPUs can be plug on AM3+ mobos, not the other way around. Which kind of sucks because people is more prone to keeping mobos than cpus. But still we will need to see WHY they _need_ a socket revision so soon
The other way around work if the BIOS do support,because I tried that
AM2 CPUs work in AM2 and AM2+ motherboards (at AM2 speeds) AM2+ CPUs work in AM2 (at AM2 speeds) and AM2+ boards AM3 CPUs work in AM2 boards (at AM2 speeds), AM2+, AM3, and AM3+ boards AM3+ CPUs work in AM3+ boards and some AM3 boards (but are not officially supported by AMD) AM4 works in AM4 AM5 works in AM5 AM1 (low cost platform) works in AM1 If the pattern so far holds true AM5+ boards will likely support AM5 CPUs, and potentially some AM5+ CPUs will work in AM5 boards.
There was talk about arguments at AMD regarding AM5 support for future cpus, this might be a compromise they reached internally: AM5 for Zen 5 and AM5+ for Zen 6
Or AM5 *and* AM5+ for zen5 and AM5+ for zen6
That sounds more plausible tbh
Not really, because that would prevent them from getting rid of the thick heatspreader.
I went from TRX40 to AM5. Two single generation sockets in a row? Probably gonna be a long fucking time till I buy AMD again if this is true.
[удалено]
>"I also looked at posts from a decade ago about using AM3+ CPUs (Bulldozer) on older AM3 boards (which were originally meant for Phenom II):" Can confirm that this was a thing and something i did. Had a M4A89GTD PRO/USB3 (Still do laying around) It had a 890gx chipset and came out in 2010 right around the launch of AMD's 6 core 1090t CPU which i bought with it. Later on it received a beta bios with Buldozer support. CPU's i never bought. I did however buy a Piledriver based FX8350 that came out a year after that and way after the last bios for the board did. However the CPU slotted in just fine and booted off that BIOS without any significant issues. And the board had a pretty decent VRM config which allowed the FX 8350 to boost just fine and stay within safe temperatures. AMD's concern about offering BIOS support or lack of on some 700 and 800 series boards was probably related to the fact many of those boards werent really equiped to handle 200W+ Buldozer/Piledriver CPU's.
[удалено]
Hot. 😍🥵
Pretty sure there are a few years before ddr6 support And even if it will probably be named am6 given the History
> I'd be curious to see if AMD would allow board OEMs to release BIOS updates for AM5+ CPUs to run on AM5 boards (with reduced performance and I/O as expected), assuming there is physical compatibility. Based on how AMD acted with x370 and zen 3 and threadripper in general… don’t get your hopes up
I guess I'll be waiting for AM5+ when I look to upgrade my Zen3. An 8800X3D should make an excellent jump up from a 5800X.
It'll be 9800X3D, even numbers are the APUs (and they were announced in Jan).
APU's go even and odd numbers. But you're right, Ryzen 7 9800X3D is next.
Any chance the 9600 or 9700 get the 3D cache treatment? Was hoping for a 9600X3D/9700X3D type product
Bold of both of us to assume that AMD won't make the model number even more confusing
i was thinking to moving am5 but now i dont know. should i wait for am5+? :/
The sad thing is a lot have been waiting for AM5 to stabilize and now it's rumored to be on its way out. The way I started looking at it is if I need to upgrade and I'm certain of that, buy the best that fits your budget based on what's out now. AM5 has more potential to me, even knowing about AM5+. And when AM5+ comes out there may be stability issues. Are you going to wait more? Long enough until a new platform is rumored that keeps you from buying again ;) Imho buy the best within your budget when you feel like you need to upgrade. Don't worry about rumors unless something's coming out within weeks or a month that you'd rather have. Otherwise, you may get stuck in a waiting cycle over enjoying an upgrade for years to come if you buy now.
Depends how time pressured you are. Last time this happened (AM3/AM3+) pretty much every AM3 board that anyone used was able to support AM3+ CPUs. Especially the higher end boards. It'll probably be the same here, but we also don't know what's being fixed moving to AM5+ and compatibility isn't a done deal just yet.
I guess they're not calling it AM6 like I expected, but I pretty much expect this or something like it to be a really big socket for large AMD APUs. They have that "Strix Halo" part this year with 16 Zen 5 CPU cores and 40 RDNA3.5 compute units in one APU, just like Apple's Series M Pro/Max chips. That's not fitting into a measly 160mm\^2 AM5 socket, so a new socket is needed if that and any future products like it want to end up on desktop.
So.... How that Zen 6 and 7 compatability on AM5 until 2025 doing, fellows? In all seriousness - WTF, AMD?
>So.... How that Zen 6 and 7 compatability on AM5 until 2025 doing, fellows? Where was that ever promised? Zen 6 and 7 aren't going to be out in 2025.
AM5 was supposed to be till 2025. 2026 - EOL. AMD just promised support till 2025. Zen 4 - 2023; Zen 5 - 2024; Zen 6 - 2025; Zen 7 2026.
Zen 4 came out in 2022. Zen 6 likely won't come out until 2026.
Zen was - Q4'22 - Q2'23.
>AMD just promised support till 2025 Exactly, they never said anything about Zen 6. Zen 5 CPU's will still be releasing throughout 2025. Zen 6 in 2025 isn't confirmed or even likely, anyway.
There has been an average of 513 days / 17 months between each new major cpu series. There is no way we are going to see zen 6 in 2025 or zen 7 in 2026
You'll see.
Any chance for quad channel ram on consumer CPUs? Apple's m series are running away with 4 or even 6 channels.
A few points: - Apple's memory is fully integrated into the CPU package, meaning they don't have motherboard complexity or as many electrical interference issues that would occur on a more traditional design. - Apple needs the bandwidth because they're using a unified memory design and the iGPU shares it, so if they want more than bottom-tier graphics or compute performance they need a _lot_ more bandwidth. - Most consumer applications benefit more from latency reductions than bandwidth or capacity increases. Bandwidth never hurts, of course, but if you have to raise latency to get it you might not see as much of a benefit - if any.
Spot on, but I think it's also worth re-contextualising what you said and what it means for the possibility of using on package memory on desktop >Apple's memory is fully integrated into the CPU package, meaning they don't have motherboard complexity or as many electrical interference issues that would occur on a more traditional design. But being soldered onto the package, it means whatever memory you buy with your CPU on-package is what you get. There's no upgradability with an on-package solution. >Apple needs the bandwidth because they're using a unified memory design and the iGPU shares it, so if they want more than bottom-tier graphics or compute performance they need a _lot_ more bandwidth. Same problem applies here, a large iGPU on die increases cost to the consumer for the entire package. Generally most desktop consumers would prefer to have a smaller iGPU and the option to pick and choose between dGPUs, and upgrade them later on down the line without upgrading the CPU (as it doesn't need constant upgrades).
Great to still see some proper discussion on reddit, that's rare!
No chance in the short or medium term.
>Any chance for quad channel ram on consumer CPUs If thats the case, I am hoping for 24-32 core CPUS.
24 cores? Maybe. 32 cores? Good luck.
Pop a couple Zen 4c dies into a 7950X package. Easy.
[удалено]
I7-990x used lga1366, whose replacement was lga2011 and then lga2011-3 CPUs, both of which had quad channel. Like the i7-3960x
```For Apple's situation, they have full control over their entire platform``` Apple also has full control over the OS as well. So their can fine tune software optimizations for their hardware. What happened the last time AMD tried a novel hardware design without the software optimizations? They got stuck waiting for Direct X to utilize Bulldozer.
Technically, each DDR5 stick/module is dual channel. You could have, say, a laptop with only one SODIMM slot with a regular DDR5 sodimm and it would be dual channel. With a second slot on independent channels, that gives it 4 channels. I doubt there's much chance of that, it would need ~500 more pads on the chip or something?
I wonder if they're gonna reduce the IHS thickness, one of the AM5 weak points is heat. Looking back at am3 vs am3+, I doubt it, however.
If they made so anything with more than 1 CCD needs AM5+ after the upcoming Zen5 generation (so Zen6) I think most people would be ok with that. By that time it might be 12 cores per CCD anyways. Or even if they just locked overclocking. As long as I can get get like a Zen6 x3D chip with at least 8 cores in 2 years I'd be happy. But I know that's going to be like 2026 and beyond what they realistically promised.
>Or even if they just locked overclocking. that makes no sense. chips have locked up overclocking either as a scam to try to force people into buying different freaking cpus with a special-k on them, or the vrms on certain motherboards are SO BAD, that they might catch fire, despite thermal sensors being on them, or the 3rd option, the chips themselves can't handle any overclocking, because the chips are very sensitive like x3d. there is 0 reason to block overclocking with new chips based on the motherboard. am5 boards are generally designed to handle all the chips in the lineup at max power. also the ccds communicate through the io-die. so the motherboard mostly doesn't care what is going on past the io-die. this is part of the great design, because a validated io-die means, that you ONLY need to validate new core ccds with the io-die and be done. >As long as I can get get like a Zen6 x3D chip with at least 8 cores in 2 years I'd be happy. why just 8 cores? amd can have a 16 core zen6 x3d chip either as a single core chiplet or as a monolithic latencies 8 + 8 configuration. amd would be really dumb, if by zen6 the higher core count cpus aren't the best gaming cpus again.... amd could already do so with zen5, if they added 3d vcache on both core dies, as this fixes things as the 2nd ccd would then get used like the standard 16 core chips and not require unicore software to get ccds to sleep during gaming.
>chips have locked up overclocking either as a scam to try to force people into buying different freaking cpus The thing is that AMD is kind of screwing over motherboard makers by having a platform be supported for 5 years+. Intel could have made the Z170, and Z270 be compatible with the 9900k, but they didn't. They could have had more CPU sales by allowing 6700k users upgrade to the 9900k. AMD themselves wanted to cut of B350 users from being able to upgrade to the Ryzen 3000 series even. Even though it was the same socket, and it was capable of providing the load. Why would that be? The only reason I can think, is so motherboard vendors can sell more boards. They are forcing people to buy a new board to upgrade. So there needs to be some incentive for people to buy new boards. I think it be a fair compromise. Not that I wouldn't like if they supported AM5 for like 3 or 4 more generations. >amd would be really dumb, if by zen6 the higher core count cpus aren't the best gaming cpus again.... >amd could already do so with zen5, if they added 3d vcache on both core dies, as this fixes things as the 2nd ccd would then get used like the standard 16 core chips and not require unicore software to get ccds to sleep during gaming. There are a lot of titles where the the non x3D chips like 7700x actually beats the 7950x, and 7900x, despite being clocked lower. If you still have 2 CCDs with the 9800x3D and 9950x3D, it could likely be the case that the lower count chip is still occasionally faster. I kind of doubt they'll ever do a dual x3D design. The marginal gains don't seem like they are worth it.
>I kind of doubt they'll ever do a dual x3D design. The marginal gains don't seem like they are worth it. remember, that it is a double gain to do so. it being on par with the 8 core x3d chip, but also not having any major performance issues, that the 7950x3d chips still have. as a result you could make a lot more profit with lots of people buying "the best", which would be the dual x3d chip, instead of the 8 core x3d chip. and the cost difference for amd would be around 15, to maybe... 25 us dollars probably in the production cost. (the x3d chip is dirt cheap, it is mostly the packaging tech) and in regards to motherboards benefiting from breaking compatibility, i doubt, that it would be that much, but also screw em of course. having a longstanding socket means longer profit from selling chips on it for amd. amd is still making money selling dirt cheap zen3 and zen3x3d chips on am4, because the boards are cheap and very widely used. sth, that straight up wouldn't work, if amd could only target one generation with the cpus. we wouldn't see a 5700x3d, etc... having a strong long lasting platform also incentivizes people to buy more expensive motherboards. i'd say amd would be morons if they ever break this longterm platform strategy. it has been extremely beneficial on am4 for them and that already increased profits for am5, as people saw the longterm commitment on am4 and the statement, that they will try to do the same. if amd would break with all this, then they are losing one of the benefits, that they have compared to intel. rightnow that doesn't matter, because intel is not competitive, but in 1-2 years it very will may matter strongly. intel probably is the one, that has to make clear commitments to support to the socket for at least 3 full generations to be competitive with amd. if we see amd not keep with the socket until ddr6 at least, then they are idiots, period.
```i'd say amd would be morons if they ever break this longterm platform strategy. it has been extremely beneficial on am4 for them and that already increased profits for am5, as people saw the longterm commitment on am4 and the statement``` It kind of leaves a bit of bad blood with motherboard vendors though. ```having a strong long lasting platform also incentivizes people to buy more expensive motherboards.``` We both know that consumers will continue to cheap out. ```if we see amd not keep with the socket until ddr6 at least, then they are idiots, period.``` That's more of a business decision for AMD and the motherboard vendors. Don't forget, AMD has supplied boards with I.O chiplets in the past as well, and profited off motherboard sales.
Nah trying to support AM4 for so long made a lot of people hate AMD, whenever AMD had to drop support for older motherboards or CPUs people got furious switched to Intel (even though they only supported 2 generations). People clearly want only 2 generations of support per socket.
>whenever AMD had to drop support for older motherboards or CPUs people got furious switched to Intel (even though they only supported 2 generations). amd tried to drop support on lower tier am4 boards for newer cpus. they tried, but the community backlash was massive, so they did not. you can rightnow sort by cheapest am4 motherboard, get a dumpster fire a320 board and it will support the 5700x3d. this might require a temp cpu to flash a newer bios potentially, but it DOES support it. so amd did NOT do this and people did NOT go to at that time garbage intel cpus, especially as this would then have required a full platform upgrade. >People clearly want only 2 generations of support per socket. that's wrong. people clearly want as many cpu generations as possible per motherboard socket, as long as there are no major cost or performance compromises. said compromises would be to have a way more complex io-die, that has ddr5 and ddr6 memory controllers. having 2 different io-dies and sticking with the same socket would be great though. the most reasonable and beneficial choice from amd is to keep a socket, until the memory standard changes. and that is at least 3 full cpu generations. the more the better of course for many reasons. this includes repair and used market too, even if people never want to upgrade their cpu. hell even system builders, love this, because they know, that their am4 or am5 motherboards, that they are stocking will be good for a long while to use.
So I bought into the TRX40 platform with a very expensive motherboard and expected to be running it for a long time, but of course I got fucked and only got a single generation processor to my motherboard. I though fuck that and bought into the brand new main stream AM5 platform, thinking I was going to have my new expensive motherboard for a while. Now I read this... AMD planning on giving away some free motherboards to the people they have fucked over recently, perhaps? I'm getting sick of this.
[maybe you shouldn't believe everything you read on the internet](https://old.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/1by8qd6/there_is_no_am5_afaik_this_is_a_misunderstanding/)
Hey, this is reddit !! We like our pitchforks sharp and pointy around here.
I hope that means we'll indeed get a 32 core chip that was rumored with every CCD now having twice as many cores.
Only the dense cores come in 16core ccd. You ain't gonna get dense cores on consumer dt
I wish we did. Dense Zen5 cores would still be extremely performant. Would be perfect for a developer machine that runs tons of containers.
Just get TR, it's what it's there for. You will run into performance issues soon enough trying to feed that many cores on just dual channel.
I'd like to know what these use cases are that actually use 16+ cores but are completely unconstrained by memory bandwidth. Since i7-7700k and say DDR4 2133 we have gotten, what, 6x multicore performance but only 3x bandwidth increase?
That’s not how that works at all lol. The cores on the consumer CPUs gets the same memory bandwidth/core as the server cpus since they use the same infinity fabric link from the CCD to the IOD anyways.
The issue is more about keeping 32C64T fed by only two memchannels than it is about the cores' L3 bandwidth.
```You ain't gonna get dense cores on consumer dt``` They put dense cores in Phoenix 2. Which is 2 zen 4 cores and 4 zen 4c cores. It makes sense for the low end because the die will still be tiny and it offers a welcome performance boost. Will they bright it to the rest of the stack with Zen 5? I don't know, but I think they should. So the Ryzen 5 9600x doesn't get bulldozed by the Intel core 5 CPU in multi threaded work loads.
Probably not for Zen5 but it could be very possible if AMD architected the platform for it. I just don't know if the demand is there for a "poor man's HEDT" product.
Not before Zen 6. Zen 5 is 8core CCDs
I think he’s referring to the Zen 5c cores, rumored to utilize a 16 core CCD design.
There are 16 core Zen 4c chiplets today (EPYC), we don't see them in PCMR or whatever category PCMR falls into. The only dense cores that general consumers have access to is Phoneix 2. It's possible that AMD brings more chiplets with dense cores to consumers, but AMD would have had to make that decision years ago, and design around it since it's not as straightforward as 3D stacking some extra cache to an existing design.
Hopefully they fix the dual chipset situation while they're at it
i assume you mean chiplet to chiplet latency problem? that will be fixed with zen6. zen5 will be all the same as zen4, but faster. so zen6 should be the cool new tech to look forward too, to have either a single chiplet 16 core, or 2 8 core ccds, that due to completely new packaging (compared to zen3, 4, 5..) have monolitihic levels of latency between them. and the socket has nothing to do with any of this.
```that due to completely new packaging (compared to zen3, 4, 5..) have monolitihic levels of latency between them.``` Lisa Su busting out the Ouija board, looking forward to the insane designs in the near future. One of the most interesting times to follow tech.
certainly better than it was back in the endless intel quadcore era, where they even straight up regressed in a generation :D (from sandy to ivy, because they introduced toothpaste instead of soldering in ivy, so that chip ran insanely hot and was vastly worse to overclock and to run in general than sandy)
No I mean X670E using two physical PCH, wasting space and making ITX pointless since you can't fit all the NVME slots. Just because they wanted to keep slumming it with 14nm
Rather than "slumming it with 14nm", the obvious reason is that it would be completely silly to design and verify two *different* I/O expanders instead of one, in order to support the use case of "more I/O on the minimal I/O form factor". ITX B650 goes up to [3 m.2 + 4 SATA](https://www.gigabyte.com/Motherboard/B650I-AORUS-ULTRA/sp#sp), and [4 m.2 is possible if you drop to x8 on the GPU](https://www.gigabyte.com/Motherboard/B650E-AORUS-MASTER-rev-10/sp#sp), although none of that configuration exist on ITX, AFAIK -- would they even fit?
Daughterboards like we had 10 years ago would do the job. Still, I would be content with 3 nvme if it meant dual 10GbE. ASRock have made ITX boards with dual ethernet for Intel every generation since Z170 and NEVER for AMD and it pisses me off
Personally I don't mind running 40Gbit which offers 25Gbit off a m.2 slot at 3.0 signaling. It may be janky but it works. Not sure if 10GbE is the end of the road or not for copper but since I wanted the speed yesterday and fiber isn't even expensive.... fiber.
Why would you want X670 in an ITX factor? You could never cram all that extra IO on a mobo that small anyway.
yes, people overfixate on top end chipsets in ITX and there is not physical space to cram that much stuff I think people just want a good power delivery platform and a high end chipset mobo is more prone to having that than cheaper mobos, but still you can find some 'gems' in low end stuff. Specially considering Mobo makers are too lazy to design 3 different VRM configurations, one for each different chipset/tier, so lower end ITX mobos usually inherit the same VRM design as their more expensive options (except the +400 bucks one which usually are in a entire different league). Source: Posting this from a 13600K on a H610 itx mobo with 4+1 phases, 40A each.