It only took 4 days...

[leo5111]

not sure if this place is reliable but they say steamroller am3+ http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/...or-steamroller

[AMDforME]

not sure if this place is reliable but they say steamroller am3+ http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/...or-steamroller

AMD has officially stated recently that Steamroller will be for socket AM3+.

[AMDforME]

That would indeed be a surprise if Steamrollers drops into AM3+ boards. Personally I think 9xx chip set is getting a bit long in the tooth and could use a replacement. Wouldn't mind it either if AMD went to just one socket for desktop chips including apu's.

There is no current need for new AMD or Intel desktop chipsets as the article below discusses. AMD is in fact working toward a longer life cycle on CPU sockets vs. Intel and they have stated this publicly, recently. FM2 will be long life and whatever comes after AM3+ is planned to be long life also.

http://semiaccurate.com/2012/10/26/e...-cpu-chipsets/

[vario]

AMD has officially stated recently that Steamroller will be for socket AM3+.

Im geting skeptical now, semiacurate or inquirer arent really fact based sites, they do a lot of just gossip and guesswork, and often are wrong.So, where do you draw your info ?
As for the socket.You dont have to change socket to have a new chipset (which AMD sort of needs for am3+).

[AMDforME]

Im geting skeptical now, semiacurate or inquirer arent really fact based sites, they do a lot of just gossip and guesswork, and often are wrong.So, where do you draw your info ?
As for the socket.You dont have to change socket to have a new chipset (which AMD sort of needs for am3+).

If you read the article you'd understand why neither Intel nor AMD need a new chipset.

[leo5111]

If you read the article you'd understand why neither Intel nor AMD need a new chipset.

true BUT and its a big unholy monster but, its a site who admits what the are by their choosing of their name its their SPECULATION so realy still totaly up in the air...

[vario]

If you read the article you'd understand why neither Intel nor AMD need a new chipset.

You still hasnt said where did you get this official AMD statement, i guess youre not going to because there wasnt one.
As for the chipset, why AMD needs one ?
1.Pciex 3.0
2.Usb 3.0
3.bigger integration/power consumption optimization/smaller fabrication process
4.Sata improvements .

I guess i shouldnt get my hopes up in the beginning ;-) .If amd would declare steamroller am3+ compatibile, i would get one in a heartbeat.

[AMDforME]

Don't be an ARSE vario!

I don't make a note of every public statement by AMD or any other company and I'm not on this forum 24/7. I actually have a life.

If I recall it was at IDF when AMD meets with journalist that they stated that Steamroller would in fact plug into the AM3+ socket.

As far as USB 3.0, and PCIe 3.0, AMD mobos already have USB 3.0 and there is no need for PCIe 3.0 yet as the current GPUs can not saturate the X16 2.x PCIe lanes. DDR4 is also not needed now nor quad channel RAM because DDR3 RAM @ 1333 MHZ or higher does not create a system bottleneck, as testing proves.

PCIe 3.0 and DDR4 are industry standards that can be implimented when actually needed. The mobo makers hawking these technologies now are just duping technically illiterate consumers who don't know any better and don't bother to educate themselves. There is no performance advantage for desktop PC users in these technologies yet as system testing with real applications proves.

Node size has nothing to do with chipset design. We saw with Intel's great move from 32nm with Sandy Bridge to 22nm with Ivy Bridge they got a whopping ~5% performance gain and a hot running IB that OC's poorly. AMD on the otherhand stayed with 32nm and changed cores and got 10-20% improvements and lower power consumption with Vishera.

You obviously don't understand the technology very well so please don't go around insulting me or other people.

[Alex-Ro]

However a refresh for the 990FX chipset would be a good thing to do.Fix Sata speeds,upgrade to PCIE 3.0(just to be fashionable) better integration and integrated usb 3.0.

It would be logic to see a new chipset if steamroller would still be on AM3+.

[AMDforME]

However a refresh for the 990FX chipset would be a good thing to do.Fix Sata speeds,upgrade to PCIE 3.0(just to be fashionable) better integration and integrated usb 3.0.

It would be logic to see a new chipset if steamroller would still be on AM3+.

There is no problem with SATA speeds. AMD already has the next chipset iteration developed when it's needed. Mobo makers don't want to engineer new mobos just to waste time and money when Steamroller works just fine in the current AM3+ sockers and no one is missing out on any performance by using the 990FX chipset.

[Dimitriman]

I don't see why AMD can't upgrade the chipset while maintaining socket Am3+...

[AMDforME]

AMD can update the chipset and maybe they will, but that means mobo makers need to engineer new mobos at considerable expense, which is illogical when there is no advantage at this time to PCIe 3.0 or DDR4 or quad channel. Keeping costs down helps consumers and sales. Why would you want to pay a premium for advertising hype when you can't even currently use the mentioned technology for a performance increase? All you're buying is marketing hype, not something tangible.

[vario]

Don't be an ARSE vario!

I don't make a note of every public statement by AMD or any other company and I'm not on this forum 24/7. I actually have a life.

If I recall it was at IDF when AMD meets with journalist that they stated that Steamroller would in fact plug into the AM3+ socket.

As far as USB 3.0, and PCIe 3.0, AMD mobos already have USB 3.0 and there is no need for PCIe 3.0 yet as the current GPUs can not saturate the X16 2.x PCIe lanes. DDR4 is also not needed now nor quad channel RAM because DDR3 RAM @ 1333 MHZ or higher does not create a system bottleneck, as testing proves.

PCIe 3.0 and DDR4 are industry standards that can be implimented when actually needed. The mobo makers hawking these technologies now are just duping technically illiterate consumers who don't know any better and don't bother to educate themselves. There is no performance advantage for desktop PC users in these technologies yet as system testing with real applications proves.

Node size has nothing to do with chipset design. We saw with Intel's great move from 32nm with Sandy Bridge to 22nm with Ivy Bridge they got a whopping ~5% performance gain and a hot running IB that OC's poorly. AMD on the otherhand stayed with 32nm and changed cores and got 10-20% improvements and lower power consumption with Vishera.

You obviously don't understand the technology very well so please don't go around insulting me or other people.

No need to be rude dude.
You made a claim, which is kind of a big deal, with no backing it up.Then you made few posts more, so its not like you werent reading.
But nice try at implying my lack of life ;-) .If you recall from where it stems ,then link to it, as it stands i read as much as i can into the topic because im very interested in it, only mention of it originated from semiaccurate ,which, as the name implies, isnt accurate.
Second, yes mobos do have usb 3.0 controllers on them.That is a fix, but not a solution as it
a) increases cost
b) increases mobo complexity
c) is not as efficient as a native solution
As for pciex 3.0, yes, at current time, there is not that much to be gained.But same applied to pciex 1.0 or 2.0 in its time.In time there will be use for it.So thats a evasion not a solution.I havent said a thing about DDR4, so dont know what are you talking about.

When i was reffering to node size ,i was talking about chipset and not cpu, however your argument seems really silly, because yes, node change not neccesarilly has great impact right away or needs tuning however it is the only way really.
As for SB vs IB, intel cheap out on thermal interface material, why ? cos they could with no repercussions .And in reality IB is still better than SB.AMD dropped power consumption a lot on the same node, but with FX it was catasrtropic and now its bad , if you really like to make AMD vs Intel comparisons on this topic.
As for the last line of your post.Sad.really.

[Manicdan]

what would it upgrade?
ddr4, no
quad channel ram, no
pcie3, why?
more power deliver specs, not needed
sata? thats the southbridge anyway and works quite well across all boards, even cheap ones.

if they are going to change things, it hurts compatibility going forward or backwards. if steamroller is only a modification to the prior chip, then theres no point changing the chipset just a little. they should be planning on how the next chipset will accomplish all their needs in a better package than the current one.

am2 to am3 was a very nice smooth transition, but limited the changes. if they start over knowing that all cpus will have a gpu built in (even a tiny one) they can get a single platform to cover the fusion chips and the beastly cpus chips. and if they only had to design one chipset to rule them all, it could be a really nice one with all the bells and whistles.

[AMDforME]

No need to be rude dude.
You made a claim, which is kind of a big deal, with no backing it up.Then you made few posts more, so its not like you werent reading.
But nice try at implying my lack of life ;-) .If you recall from where it stems ,then link to it, as it stands i read as much as i can into the topic because im very interested in it, only mention of it originated from semiaccurate ,which, as the name implies, isnt accurate.
Second, yes mobos do have usb 3.0 controllers on them.That is a fix, but not a solution as it
a) increases cost
b) increases mobo complexity
c) is not as efficient as a native solution
As for pciex 3.0, yes, at current time, there is not that much to be gained.But same applied to pciex 1.0 or 2.0 in its time.In time there will be use for it.So thats a evasion not a solution.I havent said a thing about DDR4, so dont know what are you talking about.

When i was reffering to node size ,i was talking about chipset and not cpu, however your argument seems really silly, because yes, node change not neccesarilly has great impact right away or needs tuning however it is the only way really.
As for SB vs IB, intel cheap out on thermal interface material, why ? cos they could with no repercussions .And in reality IB is still better than SB.AMD dropped power consumption a lot on the same node, but with FX it was catasrtropic and now its bad , if you really like to make AMD vs Intel comparisons on this topic.
As for the last line of your post.Sad.really.

You were the one being rude and that's why I told you to stop being an Arse.

The chipset node size has nothing to do with performance at all. It can make a minute difference in power consumption but chipsets only use a few watts of power anyways, so it's a moot point for a desktop PC. The reason I mentioned SB vs IB was because the node size did not produce any significant performance gain. Sure it reduced power a bit, but chipsets only use a few watts in power so reducing the chipset node is not going to improve system performance.

Sandy Bridge does have lower power and for a laptop that may be of value. For a desktop PC it makes little difference. The minute performance gain and lower power consumption of Sandy Bridge certainly does not justify the price of SB.

The last line of the above post is quite accurate as you continue to demonstrate by your posts that you simply don't understand the subject matter. Insulting me or other people isn't going to validate your technically incorrect comments.

[AMDforME]

what would it upgrade?
ddr4, no
quad channel ram, no
pcie3, why?
more power deliver specs, not needed
sata? thats the southbridge anyway and works quite well across all boards, even cheap ones.

if they are going to change things, it hurts compatibility going forward or backwards. if steamroller is only a modification to the prior chip, then theres no point changing the chipset just a little. they should be planning on how the next chipset will accomplish all their needs in a better package than the current one.

am2 to am3 was a very nice smooth transition, but limited the changes. if they start over knowing that all cpus will have a gpu built in (even a tiny one) they can get a single platform to cover the fusion chips and the beastly cpus chips. and if they only had to design one chipset to rule them all, it could be a really nice one with all the bells and whistles.

I think you're wasting your time... Some folks just don't understand marketing hype and fluff that is of no tangible value. This is how the marketeers dupe people into buying empty promises.

[Rollo]

AMD can update the chipset and maybe they will, but that means mobo makers need to engineer new mobos at considerable expense, which is illogical when there is no advantage at this time to PCIe 3.0 or DDR4 or quad channel. Keeping costs down helps consumers and sales. Why would you want to pay a premium for advertising hype when you can't even currently use the mentioned technology for a performance increase? All you're buying is marketing hype, not something tangible.

Ummm, AMDforMe, do you think maybe if motherboard manufacturers implemented the current industry standard features they might sell some motherboards to people who bought AM3 motherboards over the last 3 years?

That's sort of the way of motherboard makers- they earn a living selling upgrades.

It's interesting to me how advances like 22nm, quad channel, PCIE3, and even straight up better performance are all "marketing hype" but you posting things like "if games are coded right they run much faster on Vishera than IB" or "Vishera is unmatched in performance!" is "sound advice".

[vario]

You were the one being rude and that's why I told you to stop being an Arse.

The chipset node size has nothing to do with performance at all. It can make a minute difference in power consumption but chipsets only use a few watts of power anyways, so it's a moot point for a desktop PC. The reason I mentioned SB vs IB was because the node size did not produce any significant performance gain. Sure it reduced power a bit, but chipsets only use a few watts in power so reducing the chipset node is not going to improve system performance at all.

Sandy Bridge does have lower power and for a laptop that may be of value. For a desktop PC it makes little difference. The minute performance gain and lower power consumption of Sandy Bridge certainly does not justify the price of SB.

The last line of the above post is quite accurate as you continue to demonstrate by your posts that you simply don't understand the subject matter. Insulting me or other people isn't going to validate your technically incorrect comments.

I simply asked when did you get your info, and when you dodged the question i said that your statement probably just isnt true.Thats being an ass ? Not the part claiming to have a very important info and then failing to deliver any proof for that ?
I did not do any name calling, and im the rude one ? You did and youre not ? Ekhm.Ok then, no point in delving into that then.
I DID NOT say that chipset node has anything to do with performance per se.So again ,could you stick to things i claimed ?
However as you even admit it brings some power reduction.I guess thats a stupid idea in this ecology/power oriented world.Ekhm, people seem to forget that power in some countries is pretty expensive and goes up, while not everyone earns lots of money.My pc spends about 99% of its time in some idle state doing simple stuff.


@Manicdan

While AMDforme was implying that i made any remarks about ddr4 or quad channel, i did not.
All in all youre saying that amd should just go with FM2 for all , and thats a good solution for theyre market segmentation i agree.However its in drastic contrast to idea of steamrollers compatibility with am3+.
As for the sata question, well southbridge is a part of the chipset, and various sites reported AMD`s worse performance there, i bielieve theres place for improvement there.
990FX is just a renamed 890FX, while it was great at the time of introduction, it certainly would be a welcomed deed to upgrade some of its functionality while using less power and using the same socket AM3+.And mobo makers would certainly be happy about possibility of selling some new mainboards...Anyhow.I hope AMD does official statement about steamroller FX(?)and what socket will it be using.

[demonkevy666]

This isn't on topic anymore :|

[Tomasis]

it only took 4 days ..... to start a war ...

[informal]

Guys,nobody can deny that for 152e the 8320 is a great purchase. It can OC to the same levels and sweet spot seems to be 4.5Ghz+Turbo(turbo is optional but welcome if stable). At this clock speed this thing will do everything that much pricier intel chip will do (yes it will provide great fps in games too ). For content creating and 3d rendering it will be a small "power" house but one should take note of power draw. If it's an issue then viable options are :undervolt and reach max clock(if stock is stable) and go intel route for more money.

[tbone8ty]

AMDfor ME ever since i welcomed you to xtremesystems i get a feeling more and more you either work for AMD or are the biggest AMD fanboy nerd ever

yur attitude towards AMD and how you respond is just stinking with fanboyism/ you work for AMD

i call how i see it

AMD needs to upgrade its chipset period, no pci 3.0 and its sata speeds are the slowest in the business period end of story.

[Tomasis]

AMDfor ME ever since i welcomed you to xtremesystems i get a feeling more and more you either work for AMD or are the biggest AMD fanboy nerd ever

yur attitude towards AMD and how you respond is just stinking with fanboyism/ you work for AMD

i call how i see it

AMD needs to upgrade its chipset period, no pci 3.0 and its sata speeds are the slowest in the business period end of story.

+1 and support TRIM for raid 0

[Manicdan]

you guys keep asking for an enthusiast chipset, when amd is having trouble competing in that section. why dump a bunch of money for the top 10% of the 20% market share they have. its not like their current offering is broken, its just weaker. because of their much smaller size they will have a much smaller offering of options. i do agree with you guys that it would be nice to have more, but i also know that its just not worth the cost and not to expect it.

[tbone8ty]

dang 8350 is still out of stock

better not order from NJ newegg warehouse lol it will come soaked