Author: parsec
Subject: Z97M Anniversity OC limit?
Posted: 10 Jan 2017 at 1:32am
Neither design style is perfect, both have compromises.
I refuse to engage in name-calling, fan-boy-ism.
I'm surprised AMD is staying with the static socket design again. Ask yourself, how well did that serve them in the past? In terms of adding new features to the platform?
The Zen processor design with more of the chipset functions in the processor itself, should improve or fix that apparent limitation. AMD should have learned by now how to do that, and they have a huge potential advantage they could leverage, if they can do it.
The mother board itself is still a factor, due to the unknown nature of new interfaces like M.2 and DDR4, for example.
If AMD, for example, could add something like PCIe 4.0 to the processor, without the need to change anything in the mother board, that is the advantage I'm referring to.
For example, AMD could not add PCIe 3.0 to the FX/900 series systems. We know that was caused by the chipset being the source of the PCIe lanes to the PCIe slots. That is an example of the overall design being a limitation.
Intel updated their 100 series chipsets (most of them) to a DMI3 interface. That allowed the M.2 ports to use the chipset for their connectivity, and no longer used the processors PCIe 3.0 lanes for the M.2 ports. That required a new mother board. If AMD could do a similar thing by simply changing the chipset features within the processor, that is another example of the potential of the Zen design.
The ASRock mother board engineers are likely laughing at that statement. The realities of the hard wired connections between the resources and interfaces makes things like this extremely difficult, if not completely impossible. It also is an example of the need for a new mother board design.
My point is that every new socket, chipset, and resulting new mother board design from Intel is not simply milking consumers for no reason each time. Note that I did not say it was justified each and every time.
I hope that AMD is not designing themselves into a corner again with the unchanging platform. They should have learned from, IMO, that mistake of the past. Changing the platform with each or every other generation is easy. Evolving a platform without changing the mother board is very difficult. If AMD can do that at least to some degree, then they WILL have beaten Intel. I wish AMD luck.
Subject: Z97M Anniversity OC limit?
Posted: 10 Jan 2017 at 1:32am
 wardog wrote:https://www.extremetech.com/computing/242252-amd-declares-ryzen-will-four-year-architecture-details-overclocking-plans-emphasizes-hard-launch Also reassuring not to see AMD not jumping on the Intel "New Chipset/Socket a Week' bandwagon allthewhile fleecing the Intel Sheeple. I truly believe, in this economy, that people are finally beginning to step off that bandwagon, if only for a block, then, then, jump back on. |
Neither design style is perfect, both have compromises.
I refuse to engage in name-calling, fan-boy-ism.
I'm surprised AMD is staying with the static socket design again. Ask yourself, how well did that serve them in the past? In terms of adding new features to the platform?
The Zen processor design with more of the chipset functions in the processor itself, should improve or fix that apparent limitation. AMD should have learned by now how to do that, and they have a huge potential advantage they could leverage, if they can do it.
The mother board itself is still a factor, due to the unknown nature of new interfaces like M.2 and DDR4, for example.
If AMD, for example, could add something like PCIe 4.0 to the processor, without the need to change anything in the mother board, that is the advantage I'm referring to.
For example, AMD could not add PCIe 3.0 to the FX/900 series systems. We know that was caused by the chipset being the source of the PCIe lanes to the PCIe slots. That is an example of the overall design being a limitation.
Intel updated their 100 series chipsets (most of them) to a DMI3 interface. That allowed the M.2 ports to use the chipset for their connectivity, and no longer used the processors PCIe 3.0 lanes for the M.2 ports. That required a new mother board. If AMD could do a similar thing by simply changing the chipset features within the processor, that is another example of the potential of the Zen design.
The ASRock mother board engineers are likely laughing at that statement. The realities of the hard wired connections between the resources and interfaces makes things like this extremely difficult, if not completely impossible. It also is an example of the need for a new mother board design.
My point is that every new socket, chipset, and resulting new mother board design from Intel is not simply milking consumers for no reason each time. Note that I did not say it was justified each and every time.
I hope that AMD is not designing themselves into a corner again with the unchanging platform. They should have learned from, IMO, that mistake of the past. Changing the platform with each or every other generation is easy. Evolving a platform without changing the mother board is very difficult. If AMD can do that at least to some degree, then they WILL have beaten Intel. I wish AMD luck.