Soldato
Ergh... Now I don't know. Get one of these boards to replace my dead Crosshair III and upgrade to BD later, or jump to the SB boat?
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
Current Asus Motherboards to Support AMD Bulldozer AM3+ CPUs!
- Thread starter kayronjm
- Start date
Soldato
On my phone atm, does anyone know if the M4A89GTD Pro will be getting any BD love?
but maybe the others want to announce it near the release date.
atleast the 8 fx/g motherboards should get it.
Last edited:
So far gigabyte only announced BD support on rev 3.1 boards. Heres hoping they do announce it later mate but from what XS are saying - Only Asus so far have confirmed.
The guy asking if the m4a89GTD is supported - its on the list aint it?
YES you should be good to go - thats the board I had before the CH IV!
I woudln't buy a CH IV JUST for BD support at this time - rather hang fire for AM3+ boards. Either way by the time BD is released you'll probably see a drop in price for sandybitch aswell - worthwhile hanging fire not long to go now
The guy asking if the m4a89GTD is supported - its on the list aint it?
YES you should be good to go - thats the board I had before the CH IV!I woudln't buy a CH IV JUST for BD support at this time - rather hang fire for AM3+ boards. Either way by the time BD is released you'll probably see a drop in price for sandybitch aswell - worthwhile hanging fire not long to go now
Last edited:
the rev 3.1 boards just has a am3+ socket.
Heres what I gleaned from XS about your board mate:
"My current mobo is a Gigabyte 890FXA-UD5 Rev. 2.0, but the Rev. 3.0 says AM3+ but with the same 890FX and SB850 chipsets. Here are the pics."
http://img691.imageshack.us/i/am3vsam3.jpg
"My current mobo is a Gigabyte 890FXA-UD5 Rev. 2.0, but the Rev. 3.0 says AM3+ but with the same 890FX and SB850 chipsets. Here are the pics."
http://img691.imageshack.us/i/am3vsam3.jpg
Last edited:
Soldato
So far gigabyte only announced BD support on rev 3.1 boards. Heres hoping they do announce it later mate but from what XS are saying - Only Asus so far have confirmed.
The guy asking if the m4a89GTD is supported - its on the list aint it?
I woudln't buy a CH IV JUST for BD support at this time - rather hang fire for AM3+ boards. Either way by the time BD is released you'll probably see a drop in price for sandybitch aswell - worthwhile hanging fire not long to go now
Fair enough, im on silly slow gprs at the moment, page wouldnt open. Good news! Dont think my x6 is too slow for anything yet though
Soldato
m4a89gtd pro/usb3.
yeaaaah
yeaaaah
With regards to them struggling to run an X6 - got any more details on that?
What's wrong with the chipset that struggles to run an X6 or are you referring only to boards which can't supply high enough power to the CPU in which case that is a board power problem not a chipset problem.
Also 7 series IS a go on *new* boards as if you read the link in the OP there are boards there using 760G.
Soldato
As a CHIV owner, this is possibly awesome news.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
Bulldozer probably ISN'T compatible with AM3, the thing people are getting confused with is AM3 will be a BASE level of specifications for a mobo, IE able to provide power circuitry than can provide say 80amps at 1.4v, while Asus could produce an OVERSPECCED mobo that can provide 100amps, and it just so happens that AM3+ specs ask for 100amps minimum, and thats pretty much the only difference.
For instance reference 560ti from Nvidia is almost an inch longer with an extra power phase over a 460gtx, MSI already made a bigger 460gtx card with an extra phase for power, and therefore their 560ti was released instantly on the same pcb with the same layout with no changes.
Remember AMD with phenoms where some versions were specced for 125W chips only and could not take the 140W versions, and some mobo's could take the 140W versions from the get go.
One of the main things Asus, MSI, Gigabyte do is overspec their boards, obviously theres issues with the slot, if they change the slot completely it just won't fit or could change type of slot, if it fits, you still have things like type of power.
Remember lets take Bulldozers based 125W chip and say its 1v over 1.25 or 1.35v of my current chip(can't remember what stock is tbh). My chip 125W at 1.35v lets call it thats some 93amps required, now what about a bulldozer 1v chip with the same TDP, well, it will probably want VRM's capable of 125amps.
Chipset is almost irrelevant, its a AMD standard bus communication thats also scaleable and backwards compatible, HT can run older versions and slower speeds no problem, so thats an unlikely issue, the rest of the chipset is basically standard interfaces with pci-e, pci, sata, etc, etc. Because the memory controller is on die, mobo is far less important and has been since that happened.
Of course don't forget, lets do some maths again, my current chip 125W tdp, 93amps, overclocked to 180W for madness, even running at 1.5v thats 120amps required. What about the bulldozer, lets say it gets to 180W at 1.2v , thats 150amps required.
While a AM3 mobo MIGHT support it and match the minimum specifications, it won't mean its "safe" to overclock, and assuming lower voltage for any given TDP, then the VRM's will be higher loaded, hotter and have a lot less headroom.
Basically if you're spending £200+ on an octo core brand new chip I'd be spending an extra £40 (after selling old mobo) to get something better specced and more capable.
Last edited:
My bad dude - thought you were referring to AM2+ sockets.
@@ drunkenmaster - isn't BD supposed to be on a 32nm process hence supposed to consume less power? thanks. What with AM3+'s short lived life I can't justify buying the CH V for it to be changed come 6 months later - I'd rather have fun blowing up my CH IV lol
PS - for all those talking about pins and sockets I think this will narrow it down:
am3 socket: 941 pin holes
am3+ socket: 942 pin holes
---
am3 cpu: 938 pins
am3+ cpu: 940 pins
And Asus have already routed (activated) the 2 extra pinholes on the am3 socket for the boards on their list (940pin-938pin), and the 940pin am3+ cpu is physically able to be placed in the 941 pinhole am3 socket.
Last edited:
It wasn't actually me but I was just curious for info (I own a 785 AM3 board and bought it specifically with high power capacity incase I ever decided to put an X6 in it - I was worried incase you knew something about the chipset that I hadn't seen!)
I think it's true that AM2+ did have issues with X6 although for that I cant remember why that was.
Turbo boost mate - BIOS's couldn't handle it very well on AM2+
We've got the same on BD (Turbo Core 2.0) so I don't think that will be an issue with AM3 boards. If anything the only problem will be with power management of which I'm really not bothered about as thats usually the first thing I disable
Not concerned about power use as drunken has mentioned either - I currently rape my CHIV with my X6 - 6 4Ghz cores @ 1.42v (LLC takes it to 1.47v) - sure it consumes some bigtime figures and it manages well. The CHIV was designed to be overstressed bigtime unlike other boards.
OMG its like the same thing over and over lol! - Stop looking at the socket for differences guys- its the CPU we have to look at
Last edited:
Why would they make it like that if the cpu doesn't have an extra pin there? And why would their official line be it isn't backwards compatible? I would be far more inclined to go am3 atm if I knew I could upgrade to BD in future.
Soldato
I don't see how it can fit, AM3+ has an extra physical pin. AM3 on the right am3+ on the left, the lower left notch on AM3+ only covers 1 pin:
Looking at pics of the Crosshair IV Formula its lower left notch covers 2 pins.
simple, because not all of the holes are being used...i.e. some of the holes on the socket are 'unoccupied', even though AM3 has what 941 holes the processors only have 938 pins, so three of the holes are unused.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
My bad dude - thought you were referring to AM2+ sockets.
@@ drunkenmaster - isn't BD supposed to be on a 32nm process hence supposed to consume less power? thanks. What with AM3+'s short lived life I can't justify buying the CH V for it to be changed come 6 months later - I'd rather have fun blowing up my CH IV lol
PS - for all those talking about pins and sockets I think this will narrow it down:
am3 socket: 941 pin holes
am3+ socket: 942 pin holes
---
am3 cpu: 938 pins
am3+ cpu: 940 pins
And Asus have already routed (activated) the 2 extra pinholes on the am3 socket for the boards on their list (940pin-938pin), and the 940pin am3+ cpu is physically able to be placed in the 941 pinhole am3 socket.
yes lower process's can lead to lower power for the same chip at the same clockspeed, etc, etc. Thats not what they are doing, you use a new process to give you more overhead, to make a more powerful cpu that would just use too much power on the old process. IE you could make bulldozer on 45nm, but it would use say, 170W, which is too much, so 32nm lets you get it to 125W and thats when you make it.
The problem is for any given power level, well power = voltage x current, newer processes almost always use lower voltage as smaller and smaller transistors getting closer and closer together tolerate less voltage. So you've got an increase in amps the VRM's on the mobo need to supply. Realistically the VRM's these days is the only remotely difficult thing mobo's do.
Its quite possible that say the Crosshair is designed for 150amps due to well over speccing it, and clocking Bulldozer will be fine. Though it may struggle with future versions of bulldozer, say 20nm a couple years later as again the ampage required would probably go up.
But say the recommended range for AM3 design is to provide at least 80amps, but up to 120amps and they don't recommend any more as its overkill, Asus might make the Crosshair capable of doing 150amps, then AMD comes along with AM3+ specs, minimum amps are up to 100amps and max they think you'll need is 140amps, the Asus is basically compatible.
Thing is with mobo's that, sell the Crosshair in a few months when AM3+ versions are out and you'll get a better price for it than selling it in 18 months, so it probably won't really lose you much, effectively, upgrading earlier.
Of course it could completely depend on Bulldozer and how it overclocks, if might come at 1.3v stock, it might not overclock at all, or it might not require any voltage to hit 5Ghz but won't go a Mhz further nor go further with any voltage increase. Or it might take 1.5V to get a 300Mhz overclock raising power massively. We'll really have to see, frankly mobo's just do differentiate themselves go so totally overkill that most of the better mobos out now are fine. MSI with their military spec, Gigabyte with triple mega uber quad power setup with 58 phase power.
I also wouldn't be surprised if AM3+ came with some advantages, or the mobo's do, more pci-e 16x's, or higher HT speeds, you've got a new chipset that might just be much faster for sata 3 throughput or I/O's. Doesn't matter all that much till the cpu's are available.
Soldato
I'd wait to see what the new motherboards bring. It's nice to have as an option for existing kit though.
Edit: We don't know if BD will be any good yet so all is moot. It could be a turkey, AMDs silence is either a sign it has sub par performance or that's it will be very competitive with Intel's offerings. Place your bets!
Last edited: