ASUS pledges support for AM3+ both for current and future motherboards

[XRL8]

So just maybe you should take it easy with your accusations about lying and the other speculations.

Great to take things out of context right ?
JF said it isnt possible, but it is.So he didnt know it could be done.I said EITHER one or the other, and im pretty sure he just didnt knew.
On a side note, if its pin compatible with the socket, and runs on the same chipset.Its hardly "a hack".You would have to call AM2 compatibility with am2+ processors "a hack" also.
Only difference is last time it was offical AMD policy and now it isnt, which is a not so nice move from amd.
I guess if you see competitor doing it all the time and cashing huge amounts of money ,you think "why bother".

The most important thing to me is the fact that you dont need 9xx series chipset at all.From the point when electrical requirements for BD were set, we could be getting ALL AM3+ compatible boards.And we didnt, thats a fail.

[Michaelius]

The most important thing to me is the fact that you dont need 9xx series chipset at all.From the point when electrical requirements for BD were set, we could be getting ALL AM3+ compatible boards.And we didnt, thats a fail.

Fail is putting it into very very nice way. I'd use much stronger words if my mobo wasn't in the asus compatibility list (worst case scenario it won't fall as badly in price as other am3 mobos).

[xVeinx]

This is very likely to be a situation where ASUS (and other) manufacturers are looking to boost sales of current stocks of motherboards. By claiming them to be compatible with future processors, they can get a number of earlier sales of the current high end boards and make a nice profit. AMD had no intention of moving that direction due to the trade offs, and by making announcements, ASUS may be trying to force AMD's hand in the matter to help them pull it off rather than face a marketing debacle.

Fail is putting it into very very nice way. I'd use much stronger words if my mobo wasn't in the asus compatibility list (worst case scenario it won't fall as badly in price as other am3 mobos).

Everyone's a critic . I'd prefer my Crosshair IV formula to be compatible with a CPU 3 generations from now. They must have an idea of the requirements, right? Shouldn't they have anticipated this and built it into AM3? The exaggeration shows my point: schedules are schedules, and if specs are finalized allowing for appropriate changes to a socket, AMD might have been able to do what they did for C32 and G34. On the other hand, a delay wouldn't have been good for sales or the bottom line, so they did what they did. They delayed the server sockets for months to allow for the change, because it was absolutely necessary. 99% of the consumers won't be looking to drop in a new processor into their motherboard. They can't always cater to their small but increasingly vocal minority of people like us.

[XRL8]

This is very likely to be a situation where ASUS (and other) manufacturers are looking to boost sales of current stocks of motherboards. By claiming them to be compatible with future processors, they can get a number of earlier sales of the current high end boards and make a nice profit. AMD had no intention of moving that direction due to the trade offs, and by making announcements, ASUS may be trying to force AMD's hand in the matter to help them pull it off rather than face a marketing debacle.



Everyone's a critic . I'd prefer my Crosshair IV formula to be compatible with a CPU 3 generations from now. They must have an idea of the requirements, right? Shouldn't they have anticipated this and built it into AM3? The exaggeration shows my point: schedules are schedules, and if specs are finalized allowing for appropriate changes to a socket, AMD might have been able to do what they did for C32 and G34. On the other hand, a delay wouldn't have been good for sales or the bottom line, so they did what they did. They delayed the server sockets for months to allow for the change, because it was absolutely necessary. 99% of the consumers won't be looking to drop in a new processor into their motherboard. They can't always cater to their small but increasingly vocal minority of people like us.

Yes you do exaggerate, thats why it is of no relevance.
C32 Socket launched before the AM3.So i dont know what you tried to imply here.
New sockets will be LGA and will be using pcie on cpu.So thats why you cant expect them to have compatibility.DDR4 comes into play later on too.
Thats understandable then.
Again ,c32 launched before am3.So no delay.However were not even talking about whole AM3 lineup compatibility from the get go.But there was OBVIOUSLY a point in past when AMD knew exactly the specs needed for BD to operate.And instead upgrading spec reqs for mainboard makers.They went the "we need new chipset and socket thing" rhetoric.
Which was dubious from the start, as there was no real reason to go this way.AMD`s HTT links approach makes the socket kind of like pciexpress.
And moreover we learned that AM3+ doesnt use faster HT implementation.
9xx chipset seems to be pretty much the same as 8xx.
And ,just like most AMD processors for almost 10 years after the HTT implementation ,even older chipsets will work with BD (asus announcing Mainboards on 7xx series chipsets).
Only sensible difference between Phenom II`s and BD seems PLATFORM wise, seems to be what kinc said, BD`s use all of the pins on AM3, while PHII didnt.Thats a problem for older boards, and pretty much only reason why they wont work with BD.As someone already pointed out, it is connected (most probably) to the new turbocore 2.0.A nice feature, but not absolutely needed one.And has nothing to do with pure ipc of the cpu.
As to catering to the "small" number of people.I strongly believe that every enthusiast makes much bigger impact than he himself.I buy and recommend hardware for around 100 people.If your enthusiast which works in corporate IT, you manage thousands.
And even if were small ,that doesnt mean we shouldnt be trying to get whats good for us CONSUMERS.Defending speechless and gutless corporations seems absurd to me.
Im all for technology advancement.Im not for careless overproduction of goods.

[Mats]

C32 Socket launched before the AM3.

It was the other way around, AM3 came first.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AM3
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socket_C32

AMD knew what was needed in the server sockets in order to make them support BD.
Their 800 chipsets was launched pretty much at the same time, in retrospect it looks they had a reason, and a chance, to launch AM3+ with the new chipsets last year.
But it seems like AMD realized the AM3+ needed even more changes a bit too late for a 2010 launch.

[Michaelius]

Everyone's a critic . I'd prefer my Crosshair IV formula to be compatible with a CPU 3 generations from now. They must have an idea of the requirements, right? Shouldn't they have anticipated this and built it into AM3? The exaggeration shows my point: schedules are schedules, and if specs are finalized allowing for appropriate changes to a socket, AMD might have been able to do what they did for C32 and G34. On the other hand, a delay wouldn't have been good for sales or the bottom line, so they did what they did. They delayed the server sockets for months to allow for the change, because it was absolutely necessary. 99% of the consumers won't be looking to drop in a new processor into their motherboard. They can't always cater to their small but increasingly vocal minority of people like us.

Exagerration would work if there were some mayor changes in chipsets but no same 8x0 series introduced less than year ago will happilly power new am3+ mobos.
I'd understand why 7x0 series mobos don't work since they are old but for god's sake 8x0 was released at time point where BD architecture was extremly advanced in design.
It's as bad as Intel early 975 series mobos not working with Conroe (but at least they had performance that stomped competitor into ground at that time)