AMD Confirms Ryzen 4000 ‘Zen 3’ Desktop CPU Compatibility With X570 & B550 Motherboards – No Plans T

But did we, really? Where is that evidence? Because even their own slides are pretty murky where you can believe Zen 3 would be supported.

I understand people raising the argument that well AMD never said they would support X, but they also had a long period where they said nothing about it too. They didn't just know this today. Its fair to say they knew a while ago, and they and the mobo makers stayed quiet so that if people wanted to buy X470, X370 or B450, etcs they could get rid of that inventory. And now surprise you want the Zen 3, well sure, then replace your motherboard with X570 or B550.

 

Yet, I bet I will, if I want to, be able to upgrade to a 4700X on my X370 Taichi board from Asrock. After all, I can upgrade it to a 3950X today, if I wanted to.

 

And watch as I am able to upgrade to a 4700X in all 3 of my Asrock mainboards, of which none are X570's. The good thing is, your opinion is at best, misguided and at worst, only really effects you.

 

Actually it isn't, because not one single mobo maker or AMD has said that will be the case, yet. So you are misguided. I actually want you to be right - I just don't think it is going to happen. But I always assume the worst when it comes to corporate greed. And AMD is about money just like Intel is. And the fans have built AMD up, just like Intel fans did, and its biting them in the butts now. Its just how companies like these work.

 

I haven't read the 5 pages but I'm betting it's at least partially (probably largely) because mobo manufacturers approached AMD and told them to do so. Companies like MSI used their 16MB chips sitting around in their storage since the 90s as the BIOS chips and had to cut down the UEFI to be more primitive and remove older CPU support to add support for Zen 2.

And now that AMD's CPU division is succeeded, they have the leeway to be greedy, where in the past they had close to none. Welcome to current age capitalism.

 

And yet, that chart shows that I cannot, at all, upgrade any of my boards to the 3000 series processors. Yet, gasp, shock, I can. Now, chances are, I will probably not upgrade, since I already have but, who knows.

 

And yet, I have yet to see any evidence of this greediness you speak of, in regards to AMD.

 

You cannot assume because something in the past worked it will be the same in the future. I mean look at what we are talking about. AM4. Many people and rightfully so thought Zen 3 would work without question because history has shown how AM4 has legs and AMD promoted that way. Now look what is happening.

I am not saying it is out of the realm of possibility, but a BS marketing slide that you can find buried online is somewhat different than a website page on AMD's site that basically says this CPU will not work on X.

 

Which means you cannot assume it will not, based upon what you just said. Heck, I could run a 3900X on an A320 board, if I wanted to, although I do not. Backwards compatibility and good support is an AMD staple and that is not changing.

 

Is this a joke or are you serious? While AMD has brought competitiveness to the market (finally), they have actually been increasing mainstream and HEDT prices gradually over time. And look what happened with X570 boards vs X470. The price increases were significant. AMD wants to be the new Intel, its pretty obvious.

 

Is this a joke or are you serious? They have priced higher end processors with more capabilities at prices Intel would never have even thought to do. Show me how many 12 Core / 24 thread mainstream processors for $419 Intel has that is also extremely fast with great IPC. You obviously..... LOL

Edit: Significant price increases? 8 Core / 16 Thread 3700X for $289, 6 Core / 12 Thread 3600 for $175 and so on. Or a HEDT 24 Core / 48 Thread for about $1300 and a 32 Core / 64 Thread for $1999 with HEDT features that even Intel does not have. (Oh, and the only 64 Core / 128 Thread which has over 4 GHz capable clock speeds.)

 

Just don't feed the troll kids. Starve him with indifference.

 

Okay dude lol. Its fine, you want to replace your corporate overlord from Intel to AMD. I get it, but they are not really that much different. And its becoming more clearly slowly over time with AMD.

 

You are right but, I like pointing out the facts about AMD and the incredible competition they have brought.

 

If by not much different, you mean AMD forced Intel to lower their prices or loss business... Well, guess they are not the same, after all.

 

Realize that no one will win an argument with a troll. But everyone can ignore him.
Choose you pick.

 

You won't see me argue that AMD forced Intel to be more competitive. If only they did that a LONG time ago. As much as you can hate Intel for you know being a business and wanting to make money - where was your white knight AMD? I'd be a little more annoyed they did nothing for years to prevent Intel getting to where they got.

I don't want AMD to go anywhere. Just realize AMD is not a saint and is on a path to using Intel ways, the ways many of you hate on. Hence this stuff thats going on now, higher mainstream prices and HEDT prices, expensive mobos now, shorter chipset lifecycles in the future.

 

Yeah it's not how this works, AMD still decides what mobo partners do pretty much, just like intel with asrock with that oc thing.

 

Funny how a news thread transformed in a heated debate instead of a relaxed academic discussion between fellow gurus. As we used to do so.
Can we learn to avoid distraction and focus on the learning and having a good time being here?
No need for arguing and time spent on convincing.
I didn't sign up to have my blood pressure increased by discussion on the brink of minute details and pointless debates for the sake of debating in itself

 

Personally my two cents on the matter, I upgrade my CPU so rarely that the idea of keeping the same motherboard just doesn't seem like a thing for me. Years ago when moores law was in full swing, I could see the idea of keeping the MB to be great, but the differences each year are now far smaller, going from a 1600 to 2600 is a nice jump sure. But not one i'd ever make considering the money per the gains.

And you have to remember keeping the same MB for many generations can lead to issues, like compatibility, limiting feature sets example PCIE4 not being able to be used to older boards, (maybe secruity issues), i know some AMD MB's had some issue with BIOS memory being too small etc etc, there is sadly only so much one can do. I do think a MB should be able to do at least two generations, but beyond that I feel there might be too many issues and limitations for both the MB vendors and for AMD/Intel to deal with.

But considering i went from a 2700k to 8700k and chances are won't jump again till who knows when I can't get my own head round wanting to have a MB support so many generations. This just doesn't appear to me personally, but each to their own, and like i said I don't see why a MB can't support at least two generations, that seems fair to me but Guess sometimes for the evolution of a product a brand new design that doesn't support old hard ware is needed.