I'm just curious I mean, these chips have been held back for so long and I still dont see a ton of DDR3 out yet reasonably priced if anything. So I'm kinda curious if they are going to be based upon working with DDR3? or are they going to be able to run with both DDR2 and 3 like the new Intel chipset. Anyone have a clue?
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
AMD been waiting on DDR3?
- Thread starter Glow
- Start date
(cf)Eclipse
Freelance Overclocker
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2003
- Messages
- 30,027
i presume you mean K10 when you say these chips
and no.
ddr3 will come with a new socket, AM3.. sometime next year probably
and no.
ddr3 will come with a new socket, AM3.. sometime next year probably
i presume you mean K10 when you say these chips
and no.
ddr3 will come with a new socket, AM3.. sometime next year probably
AMD had better not pull the same thing they did with S754 and S939 on AM2 vs. AM3. I just upgraded to a X2 6000, b/c it was cheap as hell and AMD promises a nice upgrade path when Barcelona comes out. If AMD just releases a few low end Barcelona parts for AM2 then forgets it and moves on to AM3 and DDR3 exclusively I will not be happy!
Granted, their marketing materials suggest otherwise, but some part of me can't throw the sneaking suspicion that once AMD is on top again performance-wise they'll all too quickly feel they have the power to make their "loyal" AM2 users move up to AM3. I'm probably just being paranoid though.
I have heard that AM3 chips will have a DDR2 memory controller built in, and as such will be socket compatible with AM2.... However AM2 chips will not be compatible with AM3 boards due to the lack of a DDR3 memory controller....
Take this with a grain of salt... AM3 is still far enough out that any information we have today is very likely to change before launch.
Though in the end it is my opinion that if your going to be buying a new chip, you should also buy a new board. Backwards compatibility is no more then a convenience in my opinion. But it is nice for those folks that are happy with there boards they currently own. I just think that backwards compatibility tends to hold technology back. In order to maintain compatibility, how many untold compromises must there be in the design?
Take this with a grain of salt... AM3 is still far enough out that any information we have today is very likely to change before launch.
Though in the end it is my opinion that if your going to be buying a new chip, you should also buy a new board. Backwards compatibility is no more then a convenience in my opinion. But it is nice for those folks that are happy with there boards they currently own. I just think that backwards compatibility tends to hold technology back. In order to maintain compatibility, how many untold compromises must there be in the design?
Buying a new board, RAM and CPU? At that point it's even not so much the financial cost of upgrading all of that stuff. It's the cost in my time of testing to make sure the new RAM has no problems, installing everything and possibly having to go through RMA as well as selling the old parts.
From what I've heard the primary advantage for AM3 is power saving, at least in the near term. Obviously the extra bandwidth in AM3 will eventually make a big difference in performance. The other question is of course, how many untold sales would be lost to Intel if people thought AM2 was a dead end socket whose chips are already outdated?
A serious lack of money will really result in some "compromises" in design.
From what I gather about AMD's plans is this:
AM2+ is a transitional platform in that both the CPU and the motherboards will support but not require HTT 3.0 and split power planes.
AM2 obviously supports neither, AM3 will require both.
An AM2+ board or chip with work with an AM2 or AM3 counterpart, but AM2 and AM3 are not compatible.
Buying a new board, RAM and CPU? At that point it's even not so much the financial cost of upgrading all of that stuff. It's the cost in my time of testing to make sure the new RAM has no problems, installing everything and possibly having to go through RMA as well as selling the old parts.
From what I've heard the primary advantage for AM3 is power saving, at least in the near term. Obviously the extra bandwidth in AM3 will eventually make a big difference in performance. The other question is of course, how many untold sales would be lost to Intel if people thought AM2 was a dead end socket whose chips are already outdated?
A serious lack of money will really result in some "compromises" in design.
That depends on your viewpoint I guess.... Most sales come from System builders, and OEMS.... Where upgradability means nothing at all. Whether it is upgradeable or not is not going to effect AMD's bottom line much, if at at all.
With that in mind, think about the technological compromises. Dont get me wrong though, I think upgradeability is a nice gester towards the enthusiast crowd. I just dont think it should be the first, second, or third consideration.
According to DailyTech:
DDR3 support will come with AM3. AM3 will come at the 45nm process node. Therefore, DDR3 support will come when AMD gets to 45nm.
DailyTech said:
DailyTech said:
DDR3 support will come with AM3. AM3 will come at the 45nm process node. Therefore, DDR3 support will come when AMD gets to 45nm.
stoney_titan
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2007
- Messages
- 2,018
Thumbs up their asses, thumbs up their asses. ~ Office space.
That's a solid point. The enthusiast market doesn't have a very large impact on their bottom line. But, it seems that getting more life out of what is a very similar socket design must save AMD some development and manufacturing costs. Instead of supporting two completely different sockets they can move all production over to AM3, while still servicing those who bought large stocks of AM2 boards. Having a single manufacturing target must offer some tangible benefits.
It might also help keep AM2 board prices down because manufacturers can be assured of continued demand. No quick drop off upon the release of AM3, if anything demand may pick up. Outside of that though, you're right. Upon further consideration, I'd go so far as to say that the backwards compatibility isn't a gesture towards the enthusiast community at all, it's probably just a logical business decision. If they had to make any greater technological compromise then I'm sure they would have just moved over to a new socket.
Holy Crap! QFT! And I agree with the Opinion!
If you're using the same/old Technology backwarrd compatiblity makes sense. If you're moving to NEW TECH like a better HTT, DDR3 and etc.. BC doesn't make much sense at all. Then you know there will be Transition or In-Between Platforms. As long as the Companies tell consumers that they are just that, I have no problem with it.
Well, I guess it's a trade-off. You could design a new chipset, socket and bump HTT a little bit for every single new chip released.
Then you don't have to worry about any sort of compatibility, period. One motherboard, one CPU one chipset. You could also come out with specific RAM. DDR2.5 which works with only one CPU. This would really simplify things for RAM manufacturers since they wouldn't have to test compatibility with anything, and new features could be added on for each small chip revision.
These examples are very extreme. But it seems to me that you're always making some kind of compromise. I think AMD's assessement of the situation was that the cost of moving to a totally unique socket would have not justified the development costs. So for the same money you can get a better CPU that is backwards compatible then you could have gotten in a hypothetical universe where AM3 CPUs are not backwards compatible.
But if you were going to buy the top of the line CPU either way then, yeah, backwards compatibility is pretty irrelevant to you (Well, it might save you some money, but if you're going TOP of the line you probably don't care about that).
WHAT WHAT WHAT!?!?
amd ONLY makes money off the cpu not the rest of the crap that comes with an OEM. If they can sell ANOTHER cpu to someone who's looking to upgrade..... That's a double sale... if just 500 people are able to upgrade... that's one THOUSAND cpu's AMD sold. If 5,000 people decide to upgrade..... TEN THOUSAND cpus.
cutting out people wanting to upgrade is a STUPID STUPID mistake
a quick google search finds: http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/31562/137/
AMD has already lost the desktop retail market to Intel. I dont get how cutting out more customers could be anything but bad
Last things first, if you're looking to stay above or in front of the tech curve, you don't buy during Transition Periods and this is one of those times. You especially don't buy with long term upgrades in mind when or as Tech changes. Where I disagreed with the AM2 folks last year. Many of us said then that we thought AMD jumped the Gun with AM2. Yet some folks are trying to have their Cake and eat it too. Too many Contradictions.
On-Die memory controller has Pros and Cons. If you love the Pros, you shouldn't get mad at folks for pointing out the Cons. The IMC is not good for Backward compatibility.
This time if the New processors renders the old ones Obsolete, it is for a good enough reason IMHO. AMD CAN'T depend on only or just the Processor. To take on Intel, AMD needs the whole PLATFORM to get better. By Platform I mean Motherboard, RAM, Connectivity, Compatibility and yes Processor too. That ain't happening running Barkie on AM2. Sure some improvement will be seen on the old boards. I'm betting on better performance with the new boards.
Except that the vast majority of folks who buy systems from OEMS, dont upgrade. Ever... They run the computer into the ground after three or four years, then buy a new one.
The folks that are knowledgeable enough to upgrade only make a very small percent of the market, and even then most dont.....
The reason Intel is on top has nothing to do with upgradeability. It has to do with overall performance..... Just becouse you have a S775 bourd does not mean every S775 chip is going to work with it.
So lets take your ten thousand CPU example and compare that with how many thousands of wafres are produced.... I'm just talking about wafers... Multiply that by how many dies per wafer.....
It minimal at best. It wont have any significant impact on the bottom line
Agreed.
9/10 people who use computers wouldn't know what to replace a core 2 duo (or a64 or any other CPU) with if their lives depended on it.
The people on this forum, and maybe a few others on the internet. That's it. The average consumer doesn't upgrade CPUs. Until you see CPUs stocked en masse at best buy, this is a pointless topic.
Why bind yourself to general rules when you have specific information which contradicts those general rules? AMD will be releasing AM3 processors which are compatible with AM2 boards, so now seems like a fine time to purchase.
Remember, I made the purchase decision based upon AMD's roadmap, AMD didn't make their roadmap based on my purchase decision..
I agree. The reason AMD included backwards compatibility was a manufactuirng decision and financial decision, not one aimed at the enthusiast market. It just happens to be popular with us, but to think they did it for [H]ard Forum users is a mistake. There was no sacrifice made on our part, don't worry.