Quote Originally Posted by Manicdan View Post
this is getting annoyingly repetitive

either they found a work around that does not need 900 series chipsets
or were still being lied to.

i think its quite possible to fake compatibility at a loss of some features, but i somehow wonder if that loss is going to be major (like >10% efficiency loss due to simplistic turbo or complete lack of)
We're not being lied to. AMD said that it is possible to make an BD for AM3, but it would be different from those made for AM3+. So they would need two different designs. Which would cost more for AMD than it would be worth. Since enthusiast probably stand for a single digit percentage of overall sales, and many (including me) is upgrading from AM2 and need a new motherboard anyway. While others would go for AM3+ even if they have AM3 because of the performance advantage. The AM3 version would have a very small marketshare if you count OEM, AM2 users and AM3+ upgraders.

If they would go for the fully AM3 compatible design only they would suffer a signigicant performance loss on all models, even if you put them in AM3+ -boards.. And since we not only have much more agressive power saving features, but also a new kind of turbo which uses this new headroom efficiently I think it's a safe bet that we would loose much of the turbo functions, including the boost on all cores. And it seems like the whole turbo business will play a major role in BDs final performance.


Basically AMD has 3 choices.

1: AM3-design only. Suffer a heavy performance loss on all processors, no matter which socket you put them in.
2: Two different designs, much more expensive, and the enthusiasts that upgrade from AM3 would be to few for this to be economically viable.
3 AM3+ only. More performance on all models, cheaper. Probably add some badly needed extra cash from increased motherboard sales too.