DailyTech - AMD to Intel: Your Chipset Woes are Helping Us

Submit News

Hardware AMD to Intel: Your Chipset Woes are Helping Us
Brandon Hill (Blog) - February 9, 2011 8:51 AM

67 comment(s) - last by Lerianis.. on Feb 14 at 8:42 AM

AMD benefitting from Intel's $1B mistake

Intel must be the gift that keeps on giving to AMD. In late 2009, Intel was forced to pay AMD $1.25B for its years of monopolistic behavior in the processor market. Now, AMD is benefiting directly from Intel's Series 6 (Cougar Point) chipset woes.

In late January, Intel explained that it had uncovered a SATA problem with Cougar Point that could cause performance degradation over time. As a result, Intel stopped shipment of the affected chipsets, will take a charge of roughly $1B, and won't start shipping updated chipsets to its partners until later this month (volume shipments to customers will come later).

Not surprisingly, AMD is profiting greatly from Intel's gaffe according to Fox Business News. "We have some customers and retailers who have come to us specifically as a result of Intel's chip problem," stated AMD exec Leslie Sobon. "Some retailers have had to take things off their shelves, so they call us to ask what they could get from our OEMs that's similar. And OEMs are asking us for product, as well."

Fox Business News goes on to report that computer manufacturers that sell both Intel and AMD systems are coming to the latter to supply more processors/chipsets to make up for the shortfall due to the Cougar Point woes.

AMD earlier this year unveiled its Fusion processors that feature onboard DirectX 11 graphics. AMD says that netbooks using the chipset will have over 10 hours of battery life.

AMD has also been in the news recently thanks to the ouster of Dirk Meyer as CEO. Meyer was removed from his position due to a lack of vision when it comes to mobile computing devices like smartphones and tablets.

Comments

Threshold

Username
Password
remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Serves them right...

By quiksilvr on 2/9/2011 9:11:17 AM , Rating: 5

For continually forcing consumers to upgrade their motherboard along with their CPU. If it was a Core 2 Duo to an i# that is understandable. But you can have a perfectly fine Core i# motherboard but it won't work with the newer version of Core i#. WTF. That's one thing I liked about AMD: they made it easier for the consumer.

RE: Serves them right...

By Denigrate on 2/9/11, Rating: -1

RE: Serves them right...

By SSDMaster on 2/9/2011 9:21:03 AM , Rating: 3

quote:
Really? I guess you missed the 3-4 sockets in what seemed like less than a year from AMD not that long ago. AMD and Intel both play the "We're screwing you with the new socket" game.

I guess you never looked into the backwards compatibility of those sockets.

Parent

RE: Serves them right...

By seamonkey79 on 2/9/11, Rating: -1

RE: Serves them right...

By Da W on 2/9/11, Rating: 0

RE: Serves them right...

By Denigrate on 2/9/2011 10:13:28 AM , Rating: 2

939 did NOT last all that long. Not sure what you are smoking.

Parent

RE: Serves them right...

By Shadowmaster625 on 2/9/2011 11:25:51 AM , Rating: 2

Socket 939's life was shortened by forces outside its control. It was Intel that forced the move to DDR2, even though there was no measurable performance increase vs DDR400. The same happened with DDR3. It is amazing that intel has not forced a move to DDR4, to suck some extra money out of everyone after their latest billion dollar debacle.

Parent

RE: Serves them right...

By MonkeyPaw on 2/9/2011 1:03:58 PM , Rating: 2

I think Intels worst concept recently was FB-DIMMs. Hot, inefficient, expensive, and only useful until Intel could get QPI and an IMC in place to catch up to K8 Opteron. Can you even buy FB-DIMMs anymore? So much for top-dollar getting you something better.

Parent

RE: Serves them right...

By Cheesew1z69 on 2/9/2011 1:11:13 PM , Rating: 2

2 years in the computer world is actually quite a long time....

Parent

RE: Serves them right...

By YashBudini on 2/9/2011 4:52:17 PM , Rating: 2

Really, it's 14 dog years and mine isn't running anywhere near 3GHz.

Parent

RE: Serves them right...

By RjBass on 2/9/2011 10:17:08 AM , Rating: 5

I have an AM2/AM2+ board that I just upgraded from and Athlon 64 X2 to a Phenom II X3 and the upgrade was flawless. My buddy just finally switched from a socket 939 board to a AM2/AM2+/AM3 board. He can still use his DDR2 RAM, he got my Athlon 64 X2 and he can upgrade to a Phenom II X6 if he wants using a socket AM3 CPU. AMD has made it so easy to upgrade with their recent boards that switching to Intel for me or most of my friends would cost hundreds if not a thousand more dollars when we can just spend 1 or 2 hundred with a smaller simple upgrade and still achieve awesome performance. The only time in the last ten years that I have complained about AMD's sockets was when i purchased a socket 754 board that they quickly abandoned. Since then it has been all good.

Parent

RE: Serves them right...

By silverblue on 2/9/2011 11:02:22 AM , Rating: 3

754 was single-channel. I think AMD quickly realised that the Athlon64 could really make use of the extra channel.

Parent

RE: Serves them right...

By DanNeely on 2/9/2011 11:22:41 AM , Rating: 1

939 launched when AMD made the first x2 processors. A single DDR1 channel couldn't feed both cores. IIRC there were minimal gains for 939 single core CPUs.

Parent

RE: Serves them right...

By Cheesew1z69 on 2/9/2011 1:14:27 PM , Rating: 2

So you are saying it came out when X2 was released? I am pretty sure it came out before the X2 as they released single core when 939 was out.

Parent

RE: Serves them right...

By Indigo64 on 2/9/2011 4:33:28 PM , Rating: 3

Almost accurate.

Socket 939 was the answer to AMD's socket 754 "negative" of being able to only use one channel of memory at the time. Since Intel was using dual channels on the P4 platform, AMD needed an answer to fulfill the enthusiast market (more or less) and thus came Socket 939.

Since AMD had just perfected the Opteron at the time (Socket 940) and wanted to give folks on the non-server side an option for dual channel loving without needing to use Registered RAM meant for servers, Socket 939 was introduced.

The first Athlon 64's that inhabited 939 were the slightly faster (both in terms of clock and cache) single core Athlon 64's. The dual cores then followed, such as the Athlon 64 X2 3800+, 4200, 4400, 4600, etc.

On a personal note, It was a great platform at the time. I owned several 939 chips, and my current server 2008 R2 box uses a 4600+ to this day.

Parent

RE: Serves them right...

By Taft12 on 2/9/11, Rating: -1

RE: Serves them right...

By Tegrat on 2/9/2011 11:44:30 AM , Rating: 2

Asrock 939DualSata2 had an AM2 Riser card that supported DDR2 and AM2.....

Parent

RE: Serves them right...

By RjBass on 2/9/2011 11:48:27 AM , Rating: 2

Not true at all. Later 939 boards including boards manufactured in 2008 and 2009 supported both DDR and DDR2 as the 939 chips had the memory controllers for both, or it was written into the chipset (not sure which). Regardless my buddies old board had two slots for DDR RAM and two slots for DDR2.

Parent

RE: Serves them right...

By Alexvrb on 2/9/2011 4:33:08 PM , Rating: 3

No, he's right. Google is your friend. Socket 939 CPUs have an IMC that only supports DDR1. This has NOTHING to do with the motherboard. The IMC (integrated memory controller) is built into the socket 939 CPU itself and WILL NOT support DDR2. I should know, I still have a box with an FX-60, the fastest Socket 939 processor AMD released.

Your friend either had an early AM2 board, or a riser card, or you're mistaken altogether.

By the way, riser cards for socket 939 boards don't really count as "DDR2 support for socket 939", since they DO NOT add DDR2 support to your existing Socket 939 processor. Instead, you have to add a completely new AM2 CPU (which has a new, DDR2 IMC built in) to the riser card alongside the new memory. Basically the riser card was just a secondary (AM2) motherboard that shares some components with the primary board. You can't run both processors at the same time, either.

Parent

RE: Serves them right...

By BSMonitor on 2/9/11, Rating: -1

RE: Serves them right...

By RjBass on 2/9/2011 2:26:48 PM , Rating: 2

I can understand your argument, but seeing as how AMD is doing just that, and people seem to be loving it, I don't see how your argument is valid.

Parent

RE: Serves them right...

By Belard on 2/9/2011 10:24:41 AM , Rating: 5

UH.... your AMD history is screwed up.

Your talking about CPU types, If a new CPU comes out in which its FSB exceeded a chipsets ability, then its a problem that requires a new board. But overall, for Socket-A - the last Socket A type boards would run every Socket A cpu ever made.

754 was a stupid thing, not as bad as 940. This was time to market issues. 754 wasn't crap and actually lasted about 3 years, far longer than intel's 1st gen i3-5-7. Socket 939 lasted a very very long time and the reason it retired was that it didn't support DDR2, how could it?

AMD's AM2~AM2+~AM3 have worked great. If you bought an AM2 CPU, it would work on AM2~AM2+ boards. AM2 CPUs don't work with DDR3. See?
AM3 CPUs work on AM2+ and AM3 boards. Thats pretty cool.

So, unlike intel - AMD keeps their sockets far more compatible and longer than intel.

How about the first Pentium 4 CPUs? It was the dumbest thing people bought. Really, it was marketed by intel fans and corp "Buy the P4 for the future". uh, okay... not.
A) P4s were slower than AMD and P3 CPUs, until it hit at least 2Ghz.
B) You paid out the nose for RD-RAM
C) First Socket 423 (sp?) had about a 9month life-span... no CPU or mobo support after socket 478.

So how exactly was buying the first P4s, an investment into the future? It wasn't. Intel made a boat load of money off junk.

The i3-5-7 sockets are a nice mess. I5 or i7 series CPUs can fit into two different types of sockets, depending on which one you got. For many, the 6core option wasn't going to happen. Meanwhile, AMD AM3 sockets works with 6core CPUs.

Now a 2nd gen of i3-5-7 CPUs which require totally incompatible socket & motherboards are out. Making that $300 ASUS mobo totally USELESS for an upgrade. A typical upper end AMD mobo, with similar feature sets go for $100.

When AMD's Bulldozer comes out, it will require a new socket... AM3+
Its a vastly different chip than the current AMD Line, but still uses DDR3. Bulldozer won't work on AM3 boards, but AM3 CPUs will work in AM3+ boards. So getting SATA 6GB, USB3, modern mobo to work with a complete range of CPUs... is good for the industry and the consumer. Why? As a PC manufacture, a single board/socket model is needed to sell AMD products. Low-end to high end.

For the intel line, there are currently 4 different Socket types for gen1 and gen2 i3-5-7 CPUs that have to be managed. Run out of one type of board, theres a problem.

Needless to say, Core2, Corei5(gen1) won't fit or work on any of the latest Intel boards.

Parent

RE: Serves them right...

By BSMonitor on 2/9/11, Rating: -1

By BSMonitor on 2/9/2011 12:40:50 PM , Rating: -1

Talk about a biased limited memory.

quote:
Your talking about CPU types, If a new CPU comes out in which its FSB exceeded a chipsets ability, then its a problem that requires a new board. But overall, for Socket-A - the last Socket A type boards would run every Socket A cpu ever made.

Including the Athlons that overheated? LOL

quote:
far longer than intel's 1st gen i3-5-7.

LGA 1366 Core i7's launch platform continues to be the platform for 6-core Core i7's. Launched in 2008 is roadmapped through the end of 2011 and into 2012 as the flagship platform. Hence longer than 3 years... LOL

quote:
If a new CPU comes out in which its FSB exceeded a chipsets ability

LOL, Core i3, Core i5, and some Core i7's have gone through 3 such major north bridge changes caused by integration on the CPU die. First, a CPU. Then a CPU with GPU on the package. Finally a merged CPU/GPU die. Evolution can be painful, but how can a chipset with integrated graphics and a PCI express controller coexist with a CPU with a PCI express controller on the die?? Why would Intel spend millions of dollars trying to make a CPU/GPU compatible with a chipset with integrated graphics.. All to appease about what? < 1% of its customers that might actually upgrade JUST the processor?? Intel sells millions of processors every quarter. In fact by the end of next quarter, it will almost certainly sell more Sandy Bridge processors than were ever sold by AMD on the AM2/AM2+/AM3 platform.

That CUTENESS of selling compatible processors across major revisions is nonsense from any rational point of view.

If you wanted lasting compatibility, in 2008 Intel told you that would be LGA1366. If you chose to go cheap and mainstream, and ignore Intel, you have to deal with the demands that mainstream brings to Intel's bottom line. And that is new chipsets and motherboards with these heavily revised iterations of the CPU die.

Parent

RE: Serves them right...

By omnicronx on 2/9/2011 4:14:07 PM , Rating: 4

quote:
LOL, Core i3, Core i5, and some Core i7's have gone through 3 such major north bridge changes caused by integration on the CPU die. F

And your point is? Does that change anything he said? Is the the problem of the consumer that Intel waited so long to do things such as put the memory controller on die? And then soon after quickly shift to GPU on die?

The fact remains, AMD's products over the last many years have had a great track record of backwards compatibility, and regardless Intel's reasonings, they have not.

Parent

RE: Serves them right...

By BSMonitor on 2/10/11, Rating: -1

RE: Serves them right...

By omnicronx on 2/10/2011 12:02:50 PM , Rating: 3

Yes bud, I take the time and log onto a bunch of accounts just to rate you down.(in spite of course)

As though I care about the DT rating systems or what people think of my posts.

The argument that AMD has not changed anything just makes me laugh, AMD has had their memory controller on die since 2005. As a result they were ahead of Intel so they did not have too, are you seriously trying to imply that is a bad thing?

Your CPU architecture comment is also incorrect. K7,K8,K10's all had significant changes. There were more if you consider non significant changes. (and thats all within the last 6 years)

Parent

RE: Serves them right...

By BSMonitor on 2/11/11, Rating: -1

By BSMonitor on 2/11/2011 12:21:56 PM , Rating: -1

quote:
The argument that AMD has not changed anything just makes me laugh, AMD has had their memory controller on die since 2005. As a result they were ahead of Intel so they did not have too, are you seriously trying to imply that is a bad thing?

Actually, dingbat, it was August 2003. Hence ~ 8 years.

K7 was the integrated memory controller. Most everything since has been over-hyped and poorly executed. Adding more cores, making a "true" dual (K8) or "true" quad core (K10). Don't hear much about that now that a dual die Core 2 Quad still matches Phenom II x6's.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/49?vs=203

If all these improvements are so impressive, explain why their current high class processor can barely compete against a chip without an integrated memory controller????

Add i7 to the mix, and the argument is laughable.

Believe me, I wish they could do better, because I would love a Core i7 hex core.. But because AMD is stuck in stagnation, it costs $1000.

Parent

RE: Serves them right...

By Hieyeck on 2/9/2011 10:36:55 AM , Rating: 3

Sockets gotta change SOMETIME.

I have one of the last AM2+ chips running on an AM2 board. All I had to do was spend 5 minutes using the Asus util to update the BIOS (straight from Windows to boot!). Best motherboard I've owned considerig I'm still rocking load times with a $250 mobo from 6 years ago.

AMD can only do so much, they provided the tools and the support, but it's ultimately up to the manufacturer to decide whether to update their BIOS or not.

Parent

RE: Serves them right...

By Drag0nFire on 2/9/2011 2:43:21 PM , Rating: 1

Equally noteworthy, the relative stability in AMD's motherboards in recent years may be tied with lack of innovation in their processors. The Phenom II line was released in 2008(!), and I don't believe their architecture has changed significantly since then (we'll see about Bobcat/Bulldozer).

Parent

RE: Serves them right...

By kc77 on 2/9/2011 5:10:29 PM , Rating: 2

That is NOT correct. New chips required BIOS updates nothing more. You did not have to throw the motherboard away for socket A. Socket A in particular lasted for an extremely long time. They supported processors from Athlon 600 to the Athlon XP's. Now you might not experience the fastest bus speeds by hanging on to your original Socket A motherboard but the top tier motherboard manufacturers supported that socket from the afore mentioned models.Mine in particular was a KG7 and it when from Athlon 800 (was the first chip I bought) and I stopped at Athlon XP 1800 and then went to the 754 socket.

Socket 754 was short lived. However, socket 939, lasted about as long as anything Intel had at the time (average for Intel seems to be 2-3 years).

AM2 -> AM2+ compatibility is determined by the amount of wattage required. Again with a cheap motherboard you might run into problems. Good quality boards supported everything from Athlon 64 to Phenom Quad Cores. I know they do ... well cause I have one.

For Intel your premises might hold true, but by and large AMD has been sticking to it's sockets for a much longer time.

Parent

RE: Serves them right...

By DanNeely on 2/9/2011 9:33:05 AM , Rating: 2

I suspect Denigrate was thinking of S754 (2003), 939/940 (2004), AM2/Socket F (2006). It wasn't until AM2+ that AMD started supporting one generation back.

Parent

RE: Serves them right...

By RadnorHarkonnen on 2/9/2011 10:09:10 AM , Rating: 5

My Mobo compatibility list:

Enough for you ? If your board breaks you can always reuse your cpu. So far, every AMD CPU that came out i can use it.
Show me and Intel Board that has a list half as big as this one. Mine is GA-MA790X-UD3P. yeah they screwed during 745 and 939, that was all. it was a 3 years period.

Phenom II X4 940 2800MHz
Phenom II X4 920 2800MHz
Phenom X4 9950 2600MHz
Phenom X4 9950 2600MHz
Phenom X4 9850 2500MHz
Phenom X4 9850 2500MHz
Phenom X4 9750 2400MHz
Phenom X4 9750 2400MHz
Phenom X4 9650 2300MHz
Phenom X4 9600 2300MHz
Phenom X4 9550 2200MHz
Phenom X4 9500 2200MHz
Phenom X4 9450e 2100MHz
Phenom X4 9350e 2000MHz
Phenom X4 9150e 1800MHz
Phenom X4 9100e 1800MHz
Phenom X3 8850 2500MHz
Phenom X3 8750 2400MHz
Phenom X3 8650 2300MHz
Phenom X3 8600 2300MHz
Phenom X3 8550 2200MHz
Phenom X3 8450 2100MHz
Phenom X3 8450e 2100MHz
Phenom X3 8400 2100MHz
Phenom X3 8250e 1900MHz
Athlon X2 7850 2800MHz
Athlon X2 7750 2700MHz
Athlon X2 7550 2500MHz
Athlon X2 7450 2400MHz
Athlon X2 6500 2300MHz
Athlon X2 5000 2200MHz
Phenom II X6 1090T 3200MHz
Phenom II X6 1075T 3000MHz
Phenom II X6 1055T 2800MHz
Phenom II X6 1055T 2800MHz
Phenom II X6 1045T 2700MHz
Phenom II X6 1035T 2600MHz
Phenom II X4 970 3500MHz
Phenom II X4 965 3400MHz
Phenom II X4 965 3400MHz
Phenom II X4 955 3200MHz
Phenom II X4 955 3200MHz
Phenom II X4 955 3200MHz
Phenom II X4 945 3000MHz
Phenom II X4 945 3000MHz
Phenom II X4 945 3000MHz
Phenom II X4 925 2800MHz
Phenom II X4 925 2800MHz
Phenom II X4 910 2600MHz
Phenom II X4 910e 2600MHz
Phenom II X4 905e 2500MHz
Phenom II X4 900e 2400MHz
Phenom II X4 840 2900MHz
Phenom II X4 820 2800MHz
Phenom II X4 810 2600MHz
Phenom II X4 805 2500MHz
Phenom II X3 740 3000MHz
Phenom II X3 720 2800MHz
Phenom II X3 710 2600MHz
Phenom II X3 705e 2500MHz
Phenom II X3 700e 2400MHz
Phenom II X2 555 3200MHz
Phenom II X2 550 3100MHz
Phenom II X2 550 3100MHz
Phenom II X2 545 3000MHz
Phenom II X2 545 3000MHz
Athlon II X4 640 3000MHz
Athlon II X4 635 2900MHz
Athlon II X4 635 2900MHz
Athlon II X4 630 2800MHz
Athlon II X4 630 2800MHz
Athlon II X4 620 2600MHz
Athlon II X4 610e 2400MHz
Athlon II X4 605e 2300MHz
Athlon II X4 605e 2300MHz
Athlon II X4 600e 2200MHz
Athlon II X3 445 3100MHz
Athlon II X3 440 3000MHz
Athlon II X3 440 3000MHz
Athlon II X3 435 2900MHz
Athlon II X3 435 2900MHz
Athlon II X3 425 2700MHz
Athlon II X3 415e 2500MHz
Athlon II X3 405e 2300MHz
Athlon II X3 405e 2300MHz
Athlon II X3 400e 2200MHz
Athlon II X2 260 3200MHz
Athlon II X2 255 3100MHz
Athlon II X2 255 3100MHz
Athlon II X2 250 3000MHz
Athlon II X2 250 3000MHz
Athlon II X2 250e 3000MHz
Athlon II X2 245 2900MHz
Athlon II X2 245 2900MHz
Athlon II X2 245e 2900MHz
Athlon II X2 240 2800MHz
Athlon II X2 240e 2800MHz
Athlon II X2 240e 2800MHz
Athlon II X2 235e 2700MHz
Athlon II X2 220 2800MHz
Athlon II X2 215 2700MHz
Athlon II X2 215 2700MHz
Athlon II X2 260u 1800MHz
Athlon II X2 260u 1800MHz
Athlon II 170u 1800MHz
Athlon II 160u 1800MHz
Sempron 145 2800MHz
Sempron 140 2700MHz
Athlon 64 FX-62
Opteron 1210
Athlon X2 5050e
Athlon X2 4850e
Athlon X2 4450e
Athlon X2 4050e
Athlon X2 BE-2400
Athlon X2 BE-2350
Athlon X2 BE-2350
Athlon X2 BE-2300
Athlon X2 BE-2300
Athlon 64 X2 6400+
Athlon X2 6000
Athlon 64 X2 6000+
Athlon 64 X2 6000+
Athlon X2 5800
Athlon 64 X2 5600+
Athlon 64 X2 5600
Athlon 64 X2 5600+
Athlon 64 X2 5400+
Athlon 64 X2 5400+
Athlon 64 X2 5200+
Athlon 64 X2 5200+
Athlon 64 X2 5200+
Athlon 64 X2 5200+
Athlon 64 X2 5000+
Athlon 64 X2 5000+
Athlon 64 X2 5000+
Athlon 64 X2 5000+
Athlon 64 X2 4850+
Athlon 64 X2 4800+
Athlon 64 X2 4800+
Athlon 64 X2 4800+
Athlon 64 X2 4800+
Athlon 64 X2 4600+
Athlon 64 X2 4600+
Athlon 64 X2 4600+
Athlon 64 X2 4600+
Athlon 64 X2 4400+
Athlon 64 X2 4400+
Athlon 64 X2 4400+
Athlon 64 X2 4400+
Athlon 64 X2 4200+
Athlon 64 X2 4200+
Athlon 64 X2 4200+
Athlon 64 X2 4000+
Athlon 64 X2 4000+
Athlon 64 X2 4000+
Athlon 64 X2 3800+
Athlon 64 X2 3800+
Athlon 64 X2 3800+
Athlon 64 X2 3800+
Athlon 64 X2 3600+
Athlon 64 X2 3600+
Athlon LE-1660
Athlon LE-1640
Athlon LE-1620
Athlon LE-1600
Athlon 64 4000+
Athlon 64 3800+
Athlon 64 3800+
Athlon 64 3800+
Athlon 64 3500+
Athlon 64 3500+
Athlon 64 3500+
Athlon 64 3500+
Athlon 64 3200+
Athlon 64 3200+
Athlon 64 3000+
Sempron X2 2300
Sempron X2 2200
Sempron X2 2100
Sempron X2 2100
Sempron LE-1300
Sempron LE-1250
Sempron LE-1200
Sempron LE-1150
Sempron LE-1100
Sempron 3800+
Sempron 3600+
Sempron 3500+
Sempron 3400+
Sempron 3400+
Sempron 3200+
Sempron 3200+
Sempron 3000+
Sempron 3000+
Sempron 2800+

Parent

RE: Serves them right...

By rwpritchett on 2/9/2011 11:45:04 AM , Rating: 5

Another nice thing about AMD is heatsink compatibility. The AMD latch mechanism has been the same for socket 754, 939, 940, AM2, AM2+, and AM3. I assume AM3+ will be the same. You can use the same aftermarket heatsink on all of them.

Intel, on the other hand, has changed the push-pin spacing or latch mechanism for every single socket. Socket 478, 775, 1155, 1156, and 1366 are all different.

Parent

RE: Serves them right...

By BSMonitor on 2/9/11, Rating: 0

By BSMonitor on 2/9/2011 12:53:28 PM , Rating: 0

LMAO. Really? What do I win? Asus Maximus II LGA 775

Celeron 420(1.60GHz,800 FSB,L2 512KB,LGA775,revA1)
Celeron 430(1.80GHz,800 FSB,L2 512KB,LGA775,revA1)
Celeron 440(2.00GHz,800 FSB,L2 512KB,LGA775,revA1)
Celeron 450(2.2GHz,800 FSB,L2 512KB,LGA775,revA1)
Celeron Dual Core E1200(revM0,1.6GHz,800 FSB,L2:512K)
Celeron Dual Core E1400 (revM0,2.0GHz, 800 FSB, L2: 512K)
Celeron Dual Core E1500(revM0,2.2GHz,800 FSB,L2: 512K)
Celeron Dual Core E3200(revR0,2.4GHz,800 FSB,L2: 1M)
Celeron Dual Core E3300(revR0,2.5GHz,800 FSB,L2: 1M)
Core 2 Duo E4300 (1.8GHz,800FSB,L2:2MB,65W,rev.L2)
Core 2 Duo E4400 (2.0GHz,800FSB,L2:2MB,65W,rev.L2)
Core 2 Duo E4400 (2.0GHz,800FSB,L2:2MB,65W,rev.M0)
Core 2 Duo E4500 (2.2GHz,800FSB,L2:2MB,65W,rev.M0)
Core 2 Duo E4600 (2.4GHz,800FSB,L2:2MB,65W,rev.M0)
Core 2 Duo E4700 (2.6GHz,800FSB,L2:2MB,revG0)
Core 2 Duo E6300 (1.86GHz,1066FSB,L2:2MB,rev.B2)
Core 2 Duo E6300 (1.86GHz,1066FSB,L2:2MB,rev.L2)
Core 2 Duo E6320 (1.86GHz,1066FSB,L2:4MB,rev.B2)
Core 2 Duo E6400 (2.13GHz,1066FSB,L2:2MB,rev.B2)
Core 2 Duo E6400 (2.13GHz,1066FSB,L2:2MB,rev.L2)
Core 2 Duo E6420 (2.13GHz,1066FSB,L2:4MB,rev.B2)
Core 2 Duo E6540 (2.33GHz,1333FSB,L2:4MB,rev.G0)
Core 2 Duo E6550 (2.33GHz,1333FSB,L2:4MB,rev.G0)
Core 2 Duo E6600 (2.40GHz,1066FSB,L2:4MB,rev.B2)
Core 2 Duo E6700 (2.66GHz,1066FSB,L2:4MB,rev.B2)
Core 2 Duo E6750 (2.66GHz,1333FSB,L2:4MB,rev.G0)
Core 2 Duo E6850 (3.00GHz,1333FSB,L2:4MB,rev.E0)
Core 2 Duo E6850 (3.00GHz,1333FSB,L2:4MB,rev.G0)
Core 2 Duo E7200(2.53GHz,1066FSB,L2:3MB,rev.M0)
Core 2 Duo E7300(2.66GHz,1066FSB,L2:3MB,rev.M0)
Core 2 Duo E7400(2.80GHz,1066FSB,L2:3MB,rev.R0)
Core 2 Duo E7500(2.93GHz,1066FSB,L2:3MB,rev.R0)
Core 2 Duo E7600(3.06GHz,1066FSB,L2:3MB,rev.R0)
Core 2 Duo E8190(2.66GHz,1333FSB,L2:6MB,rev.C0)
Core 2 Duo E8200 (2.66GHz,1333FSB,L2:6MB,rev.C0)
Core 2 Duo E8300 (2.83GHz,1333FSB,L2:6MB,rev.C0)
Core 2 Duo E8400 (3.00GHz,1333FSB,L2:6MB,65W,rev.E0)
Core 2 Duo E8400 (3.00GHz,1333FSB,L2:6MB,rev.C0)
Core 2 Duo E8500 (3.16GHz,1333FSB,L2:6MB,65W,rev.E0)
Core 2 Duo E8500 (3.16GHz,1333FSB,L2:6MB,rev.C0)
Core 2 Duo E8600 (3.33GHz,1333FSB,L2:6MB,65W,rev.E0)
Core 2 Extreme QX6700(revB3,2.66GHz,1066FSB,L2:2X4MB)
Core 2 Extreme QX6800 (rev.G0,2.93GHz,1066FSB,L2:2X4MB,4 cores)
Core 2 Extreme QX6800(revB3,2.93GHz,1066FSB,L2:2X4MB)
Core 2 Extreme QX6850(revG0,3.00GHz,1333FSB,L2:2X4MB)
Core 2 Extreme QX9650 (rev.C1,3.00GHz,1333FSB,L2:2X6MB,4 cores)
Core 2 Extreme QX9650(revC0,3.00GHz,1333FSB,L2:2X6MB)
Core 2 Extreme QX9770(revC1,3.2GHz,1600FSB,L2:2X6MB)
Core 2 Extreme X6800(2.93GHz,1066FSB,L2:4MB,revB2)
Core 2 Quad Q6400 (2.13GHz,1066FSB,L2:2X4MB,rev.B3,4 cores)
Core 2 Quad Q6600 (2.40GHz,1066FSB,L2:2X4MB,rev.B3,4 cores)
Core 2 Quad Q6600 (2.40GHz,1066FSB,L2:2X4MB,rev.G0,4 cores)
Core 2 Quad Q6700 (2.66GHz,1066FSB,L2:2X4MB,rev.G0,4 cores)
Core 2 Quad Q8200 (rev.M1,2.33GHz,1333FSB,L2:4MB,4 cores)
Core 2 Quad Q8200 (rev.R0,2.33GHz,1333FSB,L2:4MB,4 cores)
Core 2 Quad Q8200S (rev.R0,2.33GHz,1333FSB,L2:4MB,4 cores)
Core 2 Quad Q8300 (rev.R0,2.50GHz,1333FSB,L2:4MB,4 cores)
Core 2 Quad Q8400 (rev.R0,2.66GHz,1333FSB,L2:4MB,4 cores)
Core 2 Quad Q8400S (rev.R0,2.66GHz,1333FSB,L2:4MB,4 cores)
Core 2 Quad Q9300 (2.5GHz,1333FSB,L2:6MB,rev.M0,4 cores)
Core 2 Quad Q9300 (2.5GHz,1333FSB,L2:6MB,rev.M1,4 cores)
Core 2 Quad Q9400 (rev.R0,2.66GHz,1333FSB,L2:6MB)
Core 2 Quad Q9400S (rev.R0,2.66GHz,1333FSB,L2:6MB)
Core 2 Quad Q9450 (2.66GHz,1333FSB,L2:12MB,rev.C1)
Core 2 Quad Q9500 (2.83GHz,1333FSB,L2:6MB,rev.R0)
Core 2 Quad Q9505(rev.R0,2.83GHz,1333FSB,L2:6MB)
Core 2 Quad Q9550(2.83GHz,1333FSB,L2:12MB,rev.C1)
Core 2 Quad Q9550(rev.E0,2.83GHz,1333FSB,L2:12MB)
Core 2 Quad Q9550S(rev.E0,2.83GHz,1333FSB,L2:12MB)
Core 2 Quad Q9650(rev.E0,3.00GHz,1333FSB,L2:12MB)
P4-3.40F GHz (EM64T)
P4-3.40GHz(FSB800, revR0)
P4-3.60F GHz (EM64T)
P4-3.73 GHz Extreme Ed. (1066 FSB, HT, revN0, LGA775)
P4-3.80F GHz (EM64T)
P4-3.80GHz(FSB800, revR0)
P4-520/520J (2.8E GHz) (800 FSB) (D0)
P4-520/520J (2.8E GHz) (800 FSB) (E0)
P4-521 (2.8GHz, 800 FSB,HT, L2 1MB)(D0,E0)
P4-530/530J (3E GHz) (800 FSB) (D0,E0)
P4-531 (3GHz, 800 FSB, L2 1MB)(D0,E0)
P4-540/540J (3.2E GHz) (800 FSB) (E0,D0)
P4-541 (3.2GHz, 800 FSB, L2 1MB)(E0,D0)
P4-550/550J (3.4E GHz) (800 FSB) (D0.E0)
P4-551 (3.4GHz, 800 FSB, L2 1MB,D0,E0)

Parent

RE: Serves them right...

By BSMonitor on 2/9/11, Rating: 0

By BSMonitor on 2/9/2011 12:54:49 PM , Rating: 0

Haha, that wasn't even all..

P4-551 (3.4GHz, 800 FSB, L2 1MB,G1)
P4-560/560J (3.6 GHz) (800 FSB) (DO,E0)
P4-561 (3.6GHz, 800 FSB, L2 1MB)
P4-561 (3.6GHz, 800 FSB, L2 1MB)(E0,D0)
P4-570 (3.8 GHz) (800 FSB) (E0)
P4-570J (3.8 GHz) (800 FSB) (D0,E0)
P4-571 (3.8GHz, 800 FSB, L2 1MB V E0)
P4-630 (3.0E GHz, 800 FSB, L2:2MB, EM64T, HT)
P4-631 (65nm,3.0GHz, 800 FSB, L2:2MB, revB1)
P4-631 (65nm,3.0GHz, 800 FSB, L2:2MB, revC1)
P4-631 (65nm,3.0GHz, 800 FSB, L2:2MB, revD0)
P4-640 (3.2E GHz, 800 FSB, L2:2MB, EM64T, HT)
P4-641 (65nm,3.2GHz, 800 FSB, L2:2MB, revB1)
P4-641 (65nm,3.2GHz, 800 FSB, L2:2MB, revC1)
P4-641 (65nm,3.2GHz, 800 FSB, L2:2MB, revD0)
P4-650 (3.4E GHz, 800 FSB, L2:2MB, EM64T, HT)
P4-651 (65nm,3.4GHz, 800 FSB, L2:2MB, revB1)
P4-651 (65nm,3.4GHz, 800 FSB, L2:2MB, revC1)
P4-651 (65nm,3.4GHz, 800 FSB, L2:2MB, revD0)
P4-660 (3.6E GHz, 800 FSB, L2:2MB, EM64T, HT)
P4-661 (65nm,3.6GHz, 800 FSB, L2:2MB, revB1)
P4-661 (65nm,3.6GHz, 800 FSB, L2:2MB, revC1)
P4-661 (65nm,3.6GHz, 800 FSB, L2:2MB, revD0)
P4-662 (3.6 GHz, 800 FSB, L2:2MB, EM64T, HT, revR0)
P4-670 (3.8 GHz, 800 FSB, L2:2MB,N0)
P4-672 (3.8 GHz, 800 FSB, L2:2MB, revR0)
Pentium D 820 (2.8 GHz, 800 FSB, revA0)
Pentium D 820 (2.8 GHz, 800 FSB, revB0)
Pentium D 830 (3.0 GHz, 800 FSB, revA0)
Pentium D 830 (3.0 GHz, 800 FSB, revB0)
Pentium D 840 (3.2 GHz, 800 FSB, revA0)
Pentium D 840 (3.2 GHz, 800 FSB, revB0)
Pentium D 915(2.8GHz, 800 FSB, L2 4MB, revC1, without VT function)
Pentium D 915(2.8GHz, 800 FSB, L2 4MB, revD0,without VT function)
Pentium D 920(2.8GHz, 800 FSB, L2 4MB, revB1)
Pentium D 925(3.0GHz, 800 FSB, L2 4MB, revC1, without VT function)
Pentium D 925(3.0GHz, 800 FSB, L2 4MB, revD0, without VT function)
Pentium D 930(3.0GHz, 800 FSB, L2 4MB, revB1)
Pentium D 930(3.0GHz, 800 FSB, L2 4MB, revC1)
Pentium D 935(3.2GHz, 800 FSB, L2 4MB, 95W, revD0)
Pentium D 940(3.2GHz, 800 FSB, L2 4MB, revB1)
Pentium D 940(3.2GHz, 800 FSB, L2 4MB, revC1)
Pentium D 945(3.4GHz, 800 FSB, L2 4MB, revC1, without VT function)
Pentium D 945(3.4GHz, 800 FSB, L2 4MB, revD0, without VT function)
Pentium D 950(3.4GHz, 800 FSB, L2 4MB, revB1)
Pentium D 950(3.4GHz, 800 FSB, L2 4MB, revC1)
Pentium D 950(3.4GHz, 800 FSB, L2 4MB, revD0)
Pentium D 955(3.4GHz, 1066 FSB, L2 4MB, revB1)
Pentium D 960(3.6GHz, 800 FSB, L2 4MB, revC1)
Pentium D 960(3.6GHz, 800 FSB, L2 4MB, revD0)
Pentium Dual Core E2140(1.6GHz, 800FSB, L2 1MB,L2)
Pentium Dual Core E2140(1.6GHz,800FSB,L2 1MB,M0)
Pentium Dual Core E2160(1.8GHz, 800FSB, L2 1MB,L2)
Pentium Dual Core E2160(1.8GHz,800FSB,L2 1MB,M0)
Pentium Dual Core E2180(2.0GHz,800FSB,L2 1MB,M0)
Pentium Dual Core E2200(2.2GHz,800FSB,L2 1MB,M0)
Pentium Dual Core E2210(2.2GHz,800FSB,L2 1MB,R0)
Pentium Dual Core E2220(2.4GHz,800FSB,L2 1MB,M0)
Pentium Dual Core E5000 (3.4GHz,800FSB,L2:2MB,rev.R0)
Pentium Dual Core E5200 (2.50GHz,800FSB,L2:2MB,rev.M0)
Pentium Dual Core E5200(2.50GHz,800FSB,L2:2MB,rev.R0)
Pentium Dual Core E5300 (2.60GHz,800FSB,L2:2MB,rev.R0)
Pentium Dual Core E5400 (2.70GHz,800FSB,L2:2MB,rev.R0)
Pentium Dual Core E5500 (2.8GHz,800FSB,L2:2MB,rev.R0)
Pentium Dual Core E5700 (3.0GHz,800FSB,L2:2MB,rev.R0)
Pentium Dual Core E6300 (2.8GHz,1066FSB,L2:2MB,rev.R0)
Pentium Dual Core E6500 (2.93GHz,1066FSB,L2:2MB,rev.R0)
Pentium Dual Core E6600 (3.06GHz,1066FSB,L2:2MB,rev.R0)
Pentium Dual Core E6700 (3.2GHz,1066FSB,L2:2MB,rev.R0)
Pentium Dual Core E6800 (3.3GHz,1066FSB,L2:2MB,rev.R0)
Pentium Extreme Ed-840 (3.2 GHz, 800 FSB, revA0)
Pentium Extreme Ed-840 (3.2 GHz, 800 FSB, revB0)
Pentium Extreme ED-955(3.46GHz, rev A0,B1)
Pentium Extreme ED-965(3.73GHz, rev C1)

Parent

RE: Serves them right...

By omnicronx on 2/9/2011 2:08:25 PM , Rating: 3

Just because they use the same socket, does not mean the chipset on every LGA775 board supports all the CPU's listed.

I can show you a bunch of processors on your list that are only supported as of a certain Intel chipset.

You also conveniently left i series processors of the list in which there already multiple sockets.

From my experience AMD based boards (and their manufacturers) have better backwards compatibility, and are better with the firmware updates to bring support to older boards.

AMD made the mistake with 754/939/940 and they didn't repeat that mistake again.

Parent

RE: Serves them right...

By BSMonitor on 2/10/2011 10:10:33 AM , Rating: 2

That was straight from ASUS's CPU support list for this motherboard... SORRY try again

Parent

RE: Serves them right...

By BSMonitor on 2/10/11, Rating: 0

RE: Serves them right...

By omnicronx on 2/10/2011 11:51:21 AM , Rating: 2

quote:
So far, every AMD CPU that came out i can use it.

You just showed that one of the newest Intel 775 boards is compatible with previous Intel chips.. Congratulations, you can downgrade your CPU to something older. You can't use an i series chip, so you can't upgrade either.

He showed an old AM2 board that is compatible with pretty much any chip of that socket, including new AM3 chips.

You didn't prove anything, and he was clearly trying to show the backwards and forward compatibility of his motherboard.

If you started from the top of your list with a motherboard of that time and started upgrading, you would have to go through around 5-6 motherboards of different chipsets in order to get them to work.

That of course does not even include any i series chip.(which would bring the total to 7-8 different chipsets/pin layouts)

Comprendez? AM2,AM2+,AM3 chips all work in any AM2 or higher board, you may not be taking full advantage of every chip, but they will all work.

So thanks for wasting everyones time and proving that a new board is compatible with old chips, you sure showed everyone.

Parent

RE: Serves them right...

By BSMonitor on 2/11/2011 11:53:33 AM , Rating: 2

LMAO STILL!

quote:
You just showed that one of the newest Intel 775 boards is compatible with previous Intel chips.. Congratulations, you can downgrade your CPU to something older. You can't use an i series chip, so you can't upgrade either.

He asked for an Intel board with a compatibility list as long as his........

What don't you get? You make up intentions from posts in your own little mind and disprove them in front of everyone!!

YOU ARE THE DEFINITION OF A TROLL!

Parent

RE: Serves them right...

By Denigrate on 2/9/11, Rating: 0

RE: Serves them right...

By silverblue on 2/9/2011 9:21:25 AM , Rating: 2

Maybe so, but only for the late Athlon X2 era into the Phenom era. Bulldozer requires a new chipset. I believe the Core 2s used the same socket as latterday P4s, so Intel has offered this level of upgradeability before.

I can't see how this really helping AMD unless people are avoiding Intel like the plague; we may have to wait for quarterly sales figures.

Parent

RE: Serves them right...

By mcnabney on 2/9/2011 9:30:48 AM , Rating: 5

The biggest help that AMD is getting, unmentioned in the article, is that the chipset bug has pushed Sandy Bridge back from an effective January release to a late March release - much closer to the Bulldozer launch. This essentially does two things. It makes the new CPU launches nearly concurrent - which is great for AMD who was running behind. It also puts the thought of Intel quality issues into the minds of customers, making the AMD offerings more appealing even though there probably isn't a higher risk.

Parent

RE: Serves them right...

By Flunk on 2/9/2011 9:36:18 AM , Rating: 2

Actually no, the AM3+ socket that Bulldozer will user is slated to be backwards compatible with AM3 boards.

Intel's current socket list is preitty huge, they have 3 different sockets for different markets and now they're bringing out the LGA 1355, which is basically the same as the LGA 1356 but with one less ground pin. Now that's a rip-off.

Parent

RE: Serves them right...

By silverblue on 2/9/2011 9:52:00 AM , Rating: 2

You do have a point in that AM3r2 allows you to use your AM3 Phenom and Athlon II processors, however it's different to using Phenom IIs in AM2+ boards as well as AM3 - the new CPU technology cannot be installed in older boards. Still, if you do have a current AM3 setup, all you realistically need to replace is the CPU, cooler and motherboard. Phenom II sold well enough so allowing ease of adoption has to be a good thing for Bulldozer.

Parent

RE: Serves them right...

By nafhan on 2/9/2011 10:23:37 AM , Rating: 2

quote:
all you realistically need to replace is the CPU, cooler and motherboard

that would also allow you to move to an Intel setup :)

Parent

RE: Serves them right...

By silverblue on 2/9/2011 11:05:48 AM , Rating: 2

Yes, but realistically, you'll be paying more. The saving grace for Intel in this case is that you don't need a triple-channel memory kit for anything except S1366.

Parent

RE: Serves them right...

By MGSsancho on 2/9/2011 3:31:06 PM , Rating: 2

you don't need triple channel or dual channel, most systems work fine with one dimm. more memory (speed, capacity, channels, etc) are a luxury . ;P

Parent

RE: Serves them right...

By Kurz on 2/9/2011 9:53:32 AM , Rating: 2

Umm... they moved the clock generator from the motherboard to the processor. BLCK can't be overclocked.

SO the sockets are completely different now thats why there is a change.

Parent

RE: Serves them right...

By DanNeely on 2/9/2011 10:35:56 AM , Rating: 2

Are you referring to 1155/56?

If not, s1355 has disappeared from roadmaps a while back. The 1366 replacement will be s2011 which has the quad channel memory support that will be needed for the 8 core processors Intel intends to launch on the socket (current Intel designs need 1 channel per 2 physical cores to avoid bottle necking in memory intensive apps).

Depending on the amount of pressure from Bulldozer and the availability of DDR4 ram next year, something like s1355 might return next year in order to support triple channel ram for mass market hex core ivy bridge chips. Since the rumored S1355 would have supported 24 PCIe lanes vs 16 in 1155 I doubt the rumored socket would be resurrected exactly the same as before, if Intel wanted to boost bandwidth upgrading to PCIe 3.0 would allow for doing so at a lower cost.

Parent

RE: Serves them right...

By Aikouka on 2/9/2011 11:35:10 AM , Rating: 2

It isn't always feasible to keep the pin count or layout the same. I'm going to assume that the real reason a socket change was required is that we went from an on-chip GPU in Arrandale to an on-die GPU in Sandy Bridge.

Parent

RE: Serves them right...

By Major HooHaa on 2/9/2011 1:56:45 PM , Rating: 2

I haven't really been affect by all the socket changing. I eventually upgraded from a single core Athlon 64 to an Intel 45nm Core 2 Quad processor.

With this newer Quad 2 Core machine. Other than replacing my aging Nvidia 8800 GTS graphics card with a Radeon 5850 card, I haven't needed anything faster.

Any future upgrades are a bit of a head ache though. The Sandy Bridge processor looks impressive, once they sort the motherboard bugs out. There looks to be a faster Sandy Bride version with more cores coming out (the Sandy Bridge Enthusiast version?), then there is the future Ivy Bridge processors beyond that. The wildcard will be the AMD Bulldozer processor.

Parent

RE: Serves them right...

By phatboye on 2/9/2011 2:16:53 PM , Rating: 2

I'd also say this serves them right for locking NVidia out of the chipset business.

Parent

RE: Serves them right...

By Lerianis on 2/14/2011 8:42:35 AM , Rating: 2

The reason that you have to upgrade is because they are now putting a GPU on the processor, which necessitates more pins and a different chipset design.

Didn't think of that, now did you?

Parent

Nothing, I'm afraid

By MrTeal on 2/9/2011 9:19:34 AM , Rating: 3

quote:
"Some retailers have had to take things off their shelves, so they call us to ask what they could get from our OEMs that's similar. And OEMs are asking us for product, as well."

AMD doesn't have anything right now that can challenge Sandy Bridge. That's their whole problem. I think Intel will emerge from this relatively unscathed, they have the time to get everything sorted out before Bulldozer offers (hopefully) much better competition. If this issue had come up in 6 months when there was 10 times the number of boards in the field and all the SKUs were in production, and Bulldozer tests data was coming out, Intel would have been in some real trouble.

RE: Nothing, I'm afraid

By frozentundra123456 on 2/9/2011 9:37:55 AM , Rating: 2

I totally agree with this post. It is only a temporary set-back for intel. We have been hearing for years about Fusion, but have yet to see it in the desktop market. Too bad AMD does not have Bulldozer ready to really take advantage of this situation, assuming that Bulldozer is, in fact, competitive.

Parent

RE: Nothing, I'm afraid

By Da W on 2/9/2011 10:01:33 AM , Rating: 2

Right now Intel only has Nahalem/Clarkdale on sale either. AMD can compete with their Phenom X4/X6 until march. Then again, i think both side will wait for the relase of the new platform, global sales will dip in Q1. Brazos can take a large slice of the netbook/cheap laptop pie in no time. Then, we'll see an octo-core Bulldozer around the same time a fixed Sandy bridge really hit the market.

Parent

RE: Nothing, I'm afraid

By DanNeely on 2/9/2011 11:26:41 AM , Rating: 5

I doubt overall sales will drop much. Enthusiast sales yes, but we're a very small fraction of the total market. Large corporate buyers won't be affected since their purchases aren't tied to dates, not new platforms. Mass market purchases won't be affected because Joe User doesn't know/care about the stuff we do, nor does he do anything that needs a high end system where it would matter.

Parent

RE: Nothing, I'm afraid

By omnicronx on 2/9/2011 4:07:03 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
I doubt overall sales will drop much.

I would tend to agree, but not dropping upon a platform release that would put you far ahead of the competition is essentially the same thing.

Do you seriously think this won't impact Intel sales? Had the release gone well, Intel would have most likely been taking away sales from AMD.

If anything, Intel is merely prolonging higher AMD sales longer than it should have before their next major milestone release.

That in my mind is still dropped sales, as their expectations would have surely been higher had the platform release gone well.

I would also like to point out that suppliers may have to fill in the gap for the missing platform as they probably readied space and were relying on the new release. Those have to come from somewhere, and I really doubt it will all be from Intel.

That said, as others have noted, this is merely temporary and Intel will surely recover.

Parent

am3 sockets are not "backwards" compatable

By lenardo on 2/9/2011 9:46:48 AM , Rating: 2

am2 and am2+ sockets are FORWARD compatible if the bios gets updated to support the cpu

am2 sockets with the right bios should/will be able to run am2+ AND AM3 based cpu's

AM2+ boards with the right bios should/will be able to run both AM3 based cpu's and am2 cpu's

AM3 socket motherboards CANNOT run am2 or am2+ cpu's

the am3cpu & socket has 2 less pins, while the size of the pin layout is the same the socket itself has less pins so you cannot insert am2 or am2+ based CPU's

this coming from a guy who was an idiot last week and ordered an am2+cpu to go on an am3 board....

the computer upgrade is for my wife- its her birthday/V-day present

am3(now got the right cpu) phenom2 x4 chip, asus mobo
8gig ddr3 ram
64gig ssd- for OS and World of warcraft (wife, I, our kids all play)
500gig sata3(the 6gig spec) hdd for storage/programs other than the OS
windows 7 64bit
using an older ide dvdrw (it works great just IDE)
osz 500w modular power supply (had to install this upside down to fit)
video card, going to hybrid crossfire the amd hd4250 on the mobo with a amd hd5770 card.
in a thermaltake a90 case

RE: am3 sockets are not "backwards" compatable

By silverblue on 2/9/2011 9:55:11 AM , Rating: 2

quote:
video card, going to hybrid crossfire the amd hd4250 on the mobo with a amd hd5770 card.

I didn't know you could do that. Not only are they from two different graphics generations, but you need a similar or identical discrete card. Do check. In any case, with a 5770, I wouldn't bother with Hybrid CrossfireX as it wouldn't make the slightest difference.

Parent

RE: am3 sockets are not "backwards" compatable

By silverblue on 2/9/2011 10:00:16 AM , Rating: 2

Yes, I think you can Hybrid CrossfireX with an HD 5450 but nothing higher than that. I'll be pleasantly surprised if you can. :)

Parent

RE: am3 sockets are not "backwards" compatable

By lenardo on 2/9/2011 10:20:24 AM , Rating: 2

no worried one way or the other if i can or not, if it works it works if not, not.

biggest boost in computer performance should be the ssd.

(she already has the 5770 in her current computer.

Parent

RE: am3 sockets are not "backwards" compatable

By DanNeely on 2/9/2011 10:38:32 AM , Rating: 2

Even if you could I doubt it'd be worth it. Adding 40(?) SPs to 800 is a negligible increase and you'd have xFire overhead slowing everything down.

Parent

By ssjwes1980 on 2/9/2011 11:04:29 AM , Rating: 1

Wheres all the angry bash fox news people at? IT MUST BE ALL LIES

RE: ??

By YashBudini on 2/9/2011 5:07:22 PM , Rating: 1

You really don't pay much attention to things. Comedy Central for example doesn't bash Faux, so much as it high lights all of Faux's Palin-type moments (and some Tom Delay ones as well) and allows them to fall on their face all by themselves. Really, there's no better way to make a fool of something or someone than with their own words.

The best example:
1.Watch OutFoxed.
2.Eliminate all scenes and commentary by the biased authors.
(How's that for fair?)
3.Watch only what the Faux caricatures, err, characters say.
4.Try not laugh as you ask yourself, "Fair and balanced?"

The fact they Faux ran this article is SOP. Only news that infuriates the viewer. It's hard to think straight when you're mad, so of course they want viewers mad.

It's really hard to hate Faux. They simply aren't worthy of the effort. To hate something requires that it actually has some importance, and you give Murdoch far too much credit if you believe that's happening. Rather, we're mocking the absurdity not only of Faux, but to its millions of dumb ass viewers, who ancestors were all no doubt also victims of PT Barnum's egress.

Parent

Question?

By phatboye on 2/9/2011 2:15:24 PM , Rating: 2

When Intel started production of Sandy Bridge CPUs and series 6 chipsets did Intel stop production of Nehalem CPUs and series 5 chipsets? I ask because usually Intel continues productions of it's previous generation chips for a while after releasing it's newest products. If that is the case shouldn't OEM's just fall back to making products with Nehalem CPUs until Intel can release the fixed chipsets?