[Updated, confirmed] Intel Coffee Lake CPUs will NOT be compatible with Z270 chipset motherboards

[MageTank]

Just now, Ryan_Vickers said:

Not at all surprising, but also disappointing.  Intel is used to being able to sit back and just wait for people to buy their stuff because, well, what else would they buy?  Except now there actually is another viable option for the first time in years, so they should be doing everything in their power to leverage and maintain their existing market share.  The way to do that would be to make new CPUs work on existing platforms.  By choosing to not do that, they force anyone upgrading to get a new system regardless, and if they're gonna upgrade anyway, well, hm, might just go Ryzen then...

It's not even the fact that they require a new platform that bothers me. It bothers me that they are introducing a 6 core, 12t SKU to the consumer platform AFTER introducing a quad core to the X299 platform. If you are shopping for a brand new platform, why settle for 6c/12t max on Coffeelake, when you can invest in X299 quad or 6 core CPU's and have a much stronger upgrade path in the future? X299 offers quad channel memory, higher core counts, potentially more PCIe lanes, etc. Why settle for an "in-between" platform? This means Intel didn't just step on the consumer platforms toes when introducing quad cores to the enthusiast lineup, they also stepped on X299's toes by introducing 6 cores to the consumer lineup.

 

And yes, I know, these 6 core consumer chips have the potential to overclock higher than X299 in that they are much easier to delid (working with our current delid tools), it's still unacceptable to obfuscate your entire product stack for the sake of competition, when you dug this hole for yourself in the first place. If you want to compete with Ryzen, cut the nonsense and release completely unlocked CPU's across the entire product stack, and segment the product stack correctly. 

 

I just don't understand the logic behind it. It's going to be even worse if the 8700k is priced anywhere near the 7800X, as It's currently around $400-$415. If Intel prices the 8700k at $350 (the normal launch price of their unlocked consumer i7's), you are still looking at only a $50-$65 difference in CPU's. Sure, motherboard costs will differ, and buying 4 sticks instead of 2 will likely cost a little extra as well, I'd say the additional features still justify the slight difference in overall platform cost. Not exactly that large of a price difference. Now, if Intel launched it closer to say, $300 to be extra competitive with Ryzen, maybe it will help further segment it from the enthusiast platform in terms of pricing, it still won't make the product stack as a whole any less confusing. 

[Max_Settings]

As someone who was considering upgrading from Z97, I personally don't care because I need a new board, but I can understand your disappointment if you already have a Z170 or Z270 board. Now whether Coffee lake or Ryzen all depends on performance, personally if Coffee Lake is better than Ryzen I'm not not going to buy Intel because I didn't support their decision to not support Coffee Lake on Z170 or Z270

[Morgan MLGman]

Just now, Max_Settings said:

As someone who was considering upgrading from Z97, I personally don't care because I need a new board, but I can understand your disappointment if you already have a Z170 or Z270 board. Now whether Coffee lake or Ryzen all depends on performance, personally if Coffee Lake is better than Ryzen I'm not not going to buy Intel because I didn't support their decision to not support Coffee Lake on Z170 or Z270

Obviously You should always get what's currently best for your money, no matter the brand.

[Mira Yurizaki]

58 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Not at all surprising, but also disappointing.  Intel is used to being able to sit back and just wait for people to buy their stuff because, well, what else would they buy?  Except now there actually is another viable option for the first time in years, so they should be doing everything in their power to leverage and maintain their existing market share.  The way to do that would be to make new CPUs work on existing platforms.  By choosing to not do that, they force anyone upgrading to get a new system regardless, and if they're gonna upgrade anyway, well, hm, might just go Ryzen then...

The only thing that upsets me, maybe aside from Intel hinting Coffee Lake would be supported on older LGA1151 boards, is that they went with the same exact socket. Everyone's done a "every other generation force everyone to buy new motherboards" deal. It's just not "oh by the way, we're using the same socket."

[vanished]

1 minute ago, M.Yurizaki said:

The only thing that upsets me, maybe aside from Intel hinting Coffee Lake would be supported on older LGA1151 boards, is that they went with the same exact socket. Everyone's done a "every other generation force everyone to buy new motherboards" deal. It's just not "oh by the way, we're using the same socket."

yeah it is odd that it's the same socket but has to be a new platform 

[Mira Yurizaki]

4 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

yeah it is odd that it's the same socket but has to be a new platform 

Sidetracking but semi-related, this is also my problem with USB Type C. An interface should be an interface should be an interface. I should not have to look up in a data sheet if "LGA1151" on motherboard A is the same as "LGA1151" on motherboard B. Likewise, I should not have to look up if this random Type C port supports PD, Thunderbolt 3, DP, or HDMI. Granted it should say via the icons, but I shouldn't really have to do that.

 

Yes it's lazy on my part, but if a system is that complicated that you need a half dozen logos to tell you what it supports, maybe it should be thrown back on the drawing board.

[dizmo]

I have no idea why this is surprising. Intel has done this for many generations; CPUs are generally supported for 2 chipsets, and then it changes.

[Brooksie359]

4 hours ago, mynameisjuan said:

I didnt say plan for the future. 

 

You supported my argument. I said it MIGHT be prevalent and another board might be needed. Yes there are add-in cards but some features might only be available on a newer motherboard. 

 

People will upgrade ever few years. People who upgrade every year are few and far between, especially over the past few gens with little gain so this whole I need a new mobo WTF argument is just for AMD fans to bash intel when there is not really an issue.

While there is some truth in this there is also cases you don't see as well. Let's say someone gets a g4560 build as an entry level build. Then later they want more power and want to upgrade. They are limited to the i7 7700 which in all honesty is a great cpu so don't see the problem with this. On the other hand if you get a r3 as an entry level cpu for a entry level build and later want to upgrade down the road then it would be great if you had a motherboard that had newer cpus being launched on it for the next 3 or so years. I honestly wouldn't say what intel is doing is shitty but rather what amd is doing is nice. It's a small perk of the am4 platform that I know I myself will likely appreciate when the newer gen zen cpus come out in the next couple of years.

[xentropa]

9 hours ago, mynameisjuan said:

Context? Coffelake requires a new mobo and people are bitching about it....how is my comment out of context? Im just pointing out that no matter what side you choose you are most likely going to buy a new board regardless especially to take advantage of new features each gen. 

 

Im just sick of the "fuck intel" post non-stop since ryzen. Its a new chip so you might need a new board. This is not new but some how matter.

 

7 hours ago, AnonymousGuy said:

Intel isn't pushing chipsets for the sake of it.  They add new and refreshed features every time.  I can go dig out the matrix of Z170->Z390 chipset features if you want it.  It's the difference between having native USB3 support vs. needing an ASMedia controller like AMD did for the last 5 years.  Z390 is adding USB3.1 gen 2, and wifi to the chipset.  Don't forget that OEMs are by far the biggest market too, and *they* want a new chipset so then they can have a lower BOM cost of the rest of the mobo.

 

Same with the socket.  The new CPUs have new requirements and I'd rather the socket be built for it than be using something that's "make-it-work".

 

The only interface between a cpu and a motherboard is

 

Memory controller hub

Pcie lanes

DMI

 

Neither of that has changed since 2011-ish when they eliminated the FSB, and has always been backwards compatible (except memory).

Edited August 3, 2017 by xentropa

[mr moose]

3 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

While there is some truth in this there is also cases you don't see as well. Let's say someone gets a g4560 build as an entry level build. Then later they want more power and want to upgrade. They are limited to the i7 7700 which in all honesty is a great cpu so don't see the problem with this. On the other hand if you get a r3 as an entry level cpu for a entry level build and later want to upgrade down the road then it would be great if you had a motherboard that had newer cpus being launched on it for the next 3 or so years. I honestly wouldn't say what intel is doing is shitty but rather what amd is doing is nice. It's a small perk of the am4 platform that I know I myself will likely appreciate when the newer gen zen cpus come out in the next couple of years.

 

In that scenario it would be the same as those who still have an fx6300 deciding between upgrading to an 8350/9350 and living without M.2, no ddr4, etc.  Or upgrading the entire mobo/cpu.  

 

Basically just becasue AMD will have AM4 CPU's in 3-4 years doesn't mean they will be worth upgrading to.

 

[AnonymousGuy]

Just now, xentropa said:

 

 

The only interface between a cpu and a motherboard is

 

Memory controller hub

Pcie lanes

DMI

 

Neither of that has changed since 2011-ish when they eliminated the FSB, and has always been backwards compatible.

Sure, but everything connected to the chipset that goes on a mobo is why you need a new mobo from a chipset change.

With Z370 the chipset didn't change but the socket pinout did, hence, new mobo.

[Jito463]

8 hours ago, mynameisjuan said:

Sure. let me know how many new features you are not using in 4 years because they dont exist on your outdated board. Ill be here.

Honestly, I rarely upgrade my motherboard for "features", at least not extraneous ones like native USB 3, or NVMe.  Those are nice features to have, but not something I'd go through the hassle of rebuilding my system for.

 

 

On an unrelated note, what I find confusing is how Intel has been constantly decreasing the pin count over the years.  They start with 1156, then dropped one to 1155, then dropped 5 more for 1150, then finally added one back for 1151.  I guess 1151 is just the right number of pins now, but then they have to go and remap the pins for the new processors.

 

I could see having to increase the pin count (like 939 -> AM2/AM2+, AM2+ -> AM3, and AM3 -> AM3+; which even then had some wide cross-compatibility with the AM3 processors working with AM2+, AM3 and AM3+ boards), I just don't see how they could have designed the socket in such a way, that they have to keep dropping pins from it.

[TheRandomness]

Hmmm.. what are the chances that they only swapped day, two pins.. 771 anyone?

[vanished]

5 minutes ago, TheRandomness said:

Hmmm.. what are the chances that they only swapped day, two pins.. 771 anyone?

make a CPU adapter  

[Nowak]

11 hours ago, mynameisjuan said:

AMD fanboy logic:

 

"Thats why I am going to ryzen, screw intel!!!"

 

*goes out to buy ryzen and needs to buy a new board also*

I'll need to buy a new board to upgrade from my Z97 board 

[Brooksie359]

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

 

In that scenario it would be the same as those who still have an fx6300 deciding between upgrading to an 8350/9350 and living without M.2, no ddr4, etc.  Or upgrading the entire mobo/cpu.  

 

Basically just becasue AMD will have AM4 CPU's in 3-4 years doesn't mean they will be worth upgrading to.

 

Not really. The fx series cpus weren't good at launch like ryzen is and the architecture was crap. They had negative ipc compared to previous gens so it was clear from the start there wouldn't be where as zen is already a good architecture so as long as they make improvements even small like intel as the past couple of generations they will be good cpus.

[NumLock21]

Intel 300 series chipset, socket 1151 v2.

[Zodiark1593]

15 hours ago, Princess Cadence said:

The only lesson we can take from this is that Kaby Lake should've never existed in the first place, at least not in the quad-core configuration of always.

There was a forumer or two that asked about upgrading their Haswell platform or upgrading to Kaby for the "upgrade path". Considering top end Kaby isn't much faster than the best Haswell chip, and considering Intel's prior history, I've disregarded the upgrade path argument (on Intel platforms at least)and would recommend the 4790K or Ryzen. Odds are strong that I'm correct.

[Morgan MLGman]

6 hours ago, mr moose said:

 

In that scenario it would be the same as those who still have an fx6300 deciding between upgrading to an 8350/9350 and living without M.2, no ddr4, etc.  Or upgrading the entire mobo/cpu. 

What? I had an ASRock 990FX Killer motherboard paired with an FX-8350 and I did have an M.2 slot on it. AM3+ was decent as a platform because it had brand-new mobos released just last year with the latest features etc. So that argument is actually invalid.

6 hours ago, mr moose said:

Basically just becasue AMD will have AM4 CPU's in 3-4 years doesn't mean they will be worth upgrading to.

If they were not worth upgrading to, AMD would be shooting itself in a foot which I doubt, Zen 2 is around Q3 2018 on AMDs roadmap so it might not be as bad as you think.

[mr moose]

4 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

Not really. The fx series cpus weren't good at launch like ryzen is and the architecture was crap. They had negative ipc compared to previous gens so it was clear from the start there wouldn't be where as zen is already a good architecture so as long as they make improvements even small like intel as the past couple of generations they will be good cpus.

Yes really,  there is every chance if you buy an AM4 now, that in 3 years time the best CPU upgrade for that socket may be not much better than the current ryzen7.   Just like if you bought an AM3 3 years ago (that's the best you could get from amd) and now the best CPU you can by is an 8350. 

EDIT: and don't think I am trying to be a prick to AMD here, It's exactly the same for intel.

39 minutes ago, Morgan MLGman said:

What? I had an ASRock 990FX Killer motherboard paired with an FX-8350 and I did have an M.2 slot on it. AM3+ was decent as a platform because it had brand-new mobos released just last year with the latest features etc. So that argument is actually invalid.

If they were not worth upgrading to, AMD would be shooting itself in a foot which I doubt, Zen 2 is around Q3 2018 on AMDs roadmap so it might not be as bad as you think.

It's not an argument it's an example and you can easily remove M.2 from it and It is still valid.  You can still buy AM3 CPU's, so technically it is still a supported Platform, to bad that doesn't mean shit when your options are literally stuck on ddr3 and moving up to an 8350.

 

It doesn't matter where zen2 is on their road map.  If they don't maintain the performance edge over Intel then the example I post above could easily repeat itself.   

 

I have a socket 1155, I can't get shit for it, but you know what,  I don't want to be stuck with ddr3 nor do I want limited CPU/chipset options solely to save $100 on the motherboard.  If I go AMD it will be because the price/performance is right, not because in 3 years time I might be able to upgrade the CPU.

[Morgan MLGman]

29 minutes ago, mr moose said:

It doesn't matter where zen2 is on their road map.  If they don't maintain the performance edge over Intel then the example I post above could easily repeat itself.  

Even if Zen 2 turned out to be not as good as the first iteration (relatively to Intel's offerings), it's still going to be better than current Ryzen CPUs and will still be a valid upgrade path - what's more, AMD said that they've got relatively easy work with improving IPC in Ryzen for next gens so I suppose people can easily say that it's a viable upgrade path.

31 minutes ago, mr moose said:

It's not an argument it's an example and you can easily remove M.2 from it and It is still valid.  You can still buy AM3 CPU's, so technically it is still a supported Platform, to bad that doesn't mean shit when your options are literally stuck on ddr3 and moving up to an 8350.

I have a socket 1155, I can't get shit for it, but you know what,  I don't want to be stuck with ddr3 nor do I want limited CPU/chipset options solely to save $100 on the motherboard.  If I go AMD it will be because the price/performance is right, not because in 3 years time I might be able to upgrade the CPU.

Why do you keep using DDR3 as an argument for getting a newer platform? In terms of performance, jump to DDR4 offers marginal performance improvements.

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-6700K-vs-Intel-Core-i7-4790K/3502vs2384

6700K is marginally faster than a 4790K despite using DDR4, now keep in mind it also has higher IPC so real-world gains are extremely small to use it as an argument for a newer platform. Of course, that's provided you're already on DDR3 - there's no reason to upgrade just for the sake of having a newer memory standard. If you're purchasing a brand-new rig then sure, DDR4-based platforms are the way to go as you'll be able to reuse the memory later (probably), which isn't the case for DDR3 anymore.

[mr moose]

14 minutes ago, Morgan MLGman said:

Even if Zen 2 turned out to be not as good as the first iteration (relatively to Intel's offerings), it's still going to be better than current Ryzen CPUs and will still be a valid upgrade path - what's more, AMD said that they've got relatively easy work with improving IPC in Ryzen for next gens so I suppose people can easily say that it's a viable upgrade path.

 

 

The 8350 is still better than the 6300,  but is it really that viable of an upgrade path? especially  when there are many processors around that literally shit all over it for the same price? of course not.   So gain, unless you have a crystal ball and know how AM4 CPUs are going to perform in 3-4 years time,  then you cannot argue that socket upgrade path is a good reason to buy into one particular platform over another any more than I can argue  zen2 is going to be shit.

 

14 minutes ago, Morgan MLGman said:

 

Why do you keep using DDR3 as an argument for getting a newer platform? In terms of performance, jump to DDR4 offers marginal performance improvements.

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-6700K-vs-Intel-Core-i7-4790K/3502vs2384

6700K is marginally faster than a 4790K despite using DDR4, now keep in mind it also has higher IPC so real-world gains are extremely small to use it as an argument for a newer platform. Of course, that's provided you're already on DDR3 - there's no reason to upgrade just for the sake of having a newer memory standard. If you're purchasing a brand-new rig then sure, DDR4-based platforms are the way to go as you'll be able to reuse the memory later (probably), which isn't the case for DDR3 anymore.

 

Lets say you bought an Am3 mobo and 6300 with intention to upgrade to a better CPU in a few years (just like people are suggesting you can do with AM4), now assume you have 8g but you really want 16.  Do you really want to spend $200 on EOL ddr3?   It's just not worth it, especially when the average motherboard costs $100.  Ergo buy into AM4 now if you want, but if your reasoning is mainly future upgrade path due to a belief that platform support means anything, then you are buying into for the wrong reason.

 

It really isn't hard for me to imagine where CPU tech could be in 3 years (that's a fucking long time in tech), all of the platform longevity reasoning could easily be undermined by advances in tech by then.  

 

 

[Cookybiscuit]

13 hours ago, JoostinOnline said:

It surprised me.  Why use the same socket if you can't use it on the same board?

 

I'm happy about this though.  I know that sounds like a dick thing to say, but I explained my reasons here.  Intel not doing so well for a bit is really good for the market in the long run.

It's useless for everyone.  Do you think that people who don't have an SSD as a boot drive are going to know how to set up RAID?

I think if you're surprised you were probably in the wishful thinking camp. I'm not going to pretend I know anything about the logistics of making CPU's with different core counts works on motherboards that weren't intended for it (because I have no clue), but even if it could have worked, this is Intel and they are about to push what is easily the biggest generation to generation jump in performance since Sandy Bridge. There's no way they were going to let people just hop on the new mainstream 6 core platform without making them spend a bit of extra cash on a new motherboard.

[mr moose]

Just thought I'd link this, I know it's not absolute, but it does indicate that the average forum user (read gamer/enthusiast) upgrades their CPU/Mobo on average every 4-5 years.  Much longer than AM4. essentially making arguments about it's support life being meaningful as an upgrade path over Intel moot.  

 

It also should put into perspective just how little impact Intel's bad socket changeup habit effects majority of users. 

[Morgan MLGman]

27 minutes ago, mr moose said:

The 8350 is still better than the 6300,  but is it really that viable of an upgrade path? especially  when there are many processors around that literally shit all over it for the same price? of course not.   So gain, unless you have a crystal ball and know how AM4 CPUs are going to perform in 3-4 years time,  then you cannot argue that socket upgrade path is a good reason to buy into one particular platform over another any more than I can argue  zen2 is going to be shit.

 

 

Lets say you bought an Am3 mobo and 6300 with intention to upgrade to a better CPU in a few years (just like people are suggesting you can do with AM4), now you have 8g but you really want 16.  Do you really want to spend $200 on EOL ddr3?   It's just not worth it, especially when the average motherboard costs $100.  Ergo buy into AM4 now if you want, but if your reasoning is future upgrade path due so a belief that platform support means anything then you are buying into for the wrong reason.

 

It really isn't hard for me to imagine where CPU tech could be in 3 years (that's a fucking long time in tech), all of the platform longevity reasoning could easily be undermined by advances in tech by then. 

It's not a crystal ball, using a heuristic technique it's just an educated guess - AMD had a history of keeping their sockets/platforms alive in recent years and I don't see why it would be opposite now, especially that AMD themselves said that AM4 will be a long-lasting platform. It's not the end of the world that Intel changes socket every 2 years but it's a nice to have that AMD doesn't.

 

Also, comparing performance of Ryzen CPUs to Vishera is not a good indication of anything, Vishera at launch was already outdated and outperformed by Intel's competition in most tasks, Ryzen isn't. That's the point, it's not a failed architecture.