I Knew It. Intel Doesn't Want To Support Kaby Lake On Z370

[Carclis]

4 hours ago, zberry7 said:

Who in the world would buy a BRAND NEW motherboard for a last gen processor? Anyone with a KL processor already has a Z170/Z270 motherboard! And after CL comes out, theres no point in even buying KL anymore lol.

I don't think that's what people are looking at though. What is being looked at here is whether or not Z370 will support Kaby Lake because if it does then the implication would have the reverse true ie Z170/270 compatible with Coffee Lake because their pin layout is identical.

[MyName13]

It's incredible how strong AMD's marketing is, now all of a sudden a motherboard has to support CPUs for the entire decade, this wasn't a problem until ryzen even though we still have no idea if current am4 motherboards will support Zen 3 or even Zen 2.

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, MyName13 said:

It's incredible how strong AMD's marketing is, now all of a sudden a motherboard has to support CPUs for the entire decade, this wasn't a problem until ryzen even though we still have no idea if current am4 motherboards will support Zen 3 or even Zen 2.

It's always been a complaint and AMD has had a better history of using sockets and chipsets over more than one CPU generation.

 

AM3 processors could work in AM2 and AM2+ motherboards, bios update availability permitting. AM3+ worked in AM3 but not AM2/AM2+ as they took out the DDR2 controller in the CPU.

 

Unless AMD renegs on their statement for supporting AM4 until 2020 we know Zen 2 will be supported on AM4, Zen 3 is slated for 2020 on their roadmap so that isn't clear if it'll be supported on AM4 or will be on an updated socket with or without backwards compatibility.

[MyName13]

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

It's always been a complaint and AMD has had a better history of using sockets and chipsets over more than one CPU generation.

 

AM3 processors could work in AM2 and AM2+ motherboards, bios update availability permitting. AM3+ worked in AM3 but not AM2/AM2+ as they took out the DDR2 controller in the CPU.

 

Unless AMD renegs on their statement for supporting AM4 until 2020 we know Zen 2 will be supported on AM4, Zen 3 is slated for 2020 on their roadmap so that isn't clear if it'll be supported on AM4 or will be on an updated socket with or without backwards compatibility.

Zen 2 is pointless for Zen 1 owners, Zen 3 is the one which has to work on AM4 to make "upgrade path" meaningful.Besides, socket compatibility can just slow down the progress.This upgradability makes sense only for low end CPU users (r3, i3), medium end CPU users will use it for a long time anyway and high end users can afford a new motherboard.When you have the best technology you can do whatever you want, in todays age of planned obsolescence it doesn't make any sense to use a motherboard for more than 5 years.

[leadeater]

3 hours ago, MyName13 said:

Zen 2 is pointless for Zen 1 owners

May I ask how you know this? The product doesn't even exist yet so I'm not sure what you are basing this off or if there is any actual merit to this assessment.

 

3 hours ago, MyName13 said:

Besides, socket compatibility can just slow down the progress.

Hasn't been an issue on the Xeon product stack, no reason it should be the case on sockets and chipsets with lesser requirements. Intel setting a trend doesn't mean that there are any technical reasons for doing it or benefits for or against what they are doing.

 

It's not like I was arguing for or against backwards compatibility merely addressing the point you raised about this being a new complaint or only because Zen now exists, it's always been a complaint long before Zen.

 

3 hours ago, MyName13 said:

This upgradability makes sense only for low end CPU users (r3, i3), medium end CPU users will use it for a long time anyway and high end users can afford a new motherboard.When you have the best technology you can do whatever you want, in todays age of planned obsolescence it doesn't make any sense to use a motherboard for more than 5 years.

It makes sense for everyone, if there are no technical reasons at the chipset level to not be able to support a CPU and there are no technical reasons in the CPU to not be able to support a chipset then it doesn't matter how cheap or expensive something is. To be clear I'm not saying every feature should work or RAM/DMI speeds shouldn't be limited in this scenario but having the ability to upgrade to a new CPU using an existing motherboard is nice to be able to do.

 

You can also buy new boards which might just be using older chipset technology. It's not always about being able to put a new CPU in an old motherboard it's about the necessity to actually introduce a new chipset at all, and if you do then it's about whether or not preventing backwards compatibility. For those buying new they will have new parts regardless and for those with existing components these are the ones that may be able to benefit.

 

Lets not forget X99 had support for two CPU generations, with increased core count.

 

As someone who is in the very high end customer segment I would very much appreciate being able to put at least one generation newer CPU in to my system. Can I afford to just buy a complete new system outright, sure but I'm not going to so Intel has lost money. I've been an OG AMD FX owner, P4EE, X58 and currently X79 but yet to be X99 but if it had been possible to upgrade my CPU I 100% would of.

 

People seem to equate having money with the willingness to waste it or spend it unnecessarily, that is not the case for the majority so I have no idea where this impression comes from. 

[MyName13]

2 minutes ago, leadeater said:

May I ask how you know this? The product doesn't even exist yet so I'm not sure what you are basing this off or if there is any actual merit to this assessment.

 

Hasn't been an issue on the Xeon product stack, no reason it should be the case on sockets and chipsets with lesser requirements. Intel setting a trend doesn't mean that there are any technical reasons for doing it or benefits for or against what they are doing.

 

It's not like I'm arguing for or against backwards compatibility merely addressing the point you raised about this being a new complaint or only because Zen now exists, it's always been a complaint long before Zen.

 

It makes sense for everyone, if there are no technical reasons at the chipset level to not be able to support a CPU and there are no technical reasons in the CPU to no be able to support a chipset then it doesn't matter how cheap or expensive something is. To be clear I'm not saying every feature should work or RAM/DMI speeds shouldn't be limited in this scenario but having the ability to upgrade to a new CPU using an existing motherboard is nice to be able to do.

 

You can also buy new boards which might just being using older chipset technology. It's not always about being able to put a new CPU in an old motherboard it's about the necessity to actually introduce a new chipset at all, and if you do then it's about whether or not preventing backwards compatibility. For those buying new they will have new parts regardless and for those with existing components these are the ones that may be able to benefit.

 

Lets not forget X99 had support for two CPU generations.

 

As someone who is in the very high end customer segment I would very much appreciate being able to put at least one generation newer CPU in to my system. Can I afford to just buy a complete new system outright, sure but I'm not going to so Intel has lost money. I've been an OG AMD FX owner, P4EE, X58 and currently X79 but yet to be X99 but if it had been possible to upgrade my CPU I 100% would of.

 

People seem to equate having money with the willingness to waste it or spend it unnecessarily, that is not the case for the majority so I have no idea where this impression comes from. 

Why would Zen 1 owners upgrade to Zen 2?By the time Zen 1 cpus start becoming obsolete something far better will be available.If they can develop new CPUs faster and cheaper by not caring about socket compatibility then I don't see a reason why they shouldn't do it, Intel didn't and still doesn't care about older sockets because they don't have the reason to, blaming Intel for this is wrong, this is all amd's fault.Those who can afford the best/most expensive CPUs certainly can afford a new motherboard (or stop buying extremely expensive motherboards like those 300$ asus' motherboards) every few years, you can always buy amd's product if you don't like this business practice (oh wait, you couldn't do that up until now).

[leadeater]

5 minutes ago, MyName13 said:

Why would Zen 1 owners upgrade to Zen 2

Because Zen 2 might actually be very good with some critical improvements, or not who knows. I would upgrade if that were the case, I suspect most of the R5 and R7 1600 and 1700 owners would.

 

8 minutes ago, MyName13 said:

If they can develop new CPUs faster and cheaper by not caring about socket compatibility then I don't see a reason why they shouldn't do it

There has never been any evidence that not caring about socket compatibility has allowed for faster or cheaper development. There isn't as tight a relationship between a CPU and a chipset as you might think there is, not since the FSB died and the IMC moved to on die. The whole reason why the DMI and QPI exist is so there is more flexibility, Intel just doesn't exercise this ability on the desktop platform, they have to a limited extent on the HEDT platform.

 

If you're not aware on X58 there were actually two different micro-architectures in use, Bloomfield (45nm) on i7-960 and below while Gulftown (32nm) was used on i7-970 and above. X79 had Sandy Bridge-E and Ivy Bridge-E, X99 had Hasswell-E and Broadwell-E. Seems to me the only people hitting this compatibility and forced upgrading issue are the normal desktop users not the high end customers.

 

20 minutes ago, MyName13 said:

Intel didn't and still doesn't care about older sockets because they don't have the reason to, blaming Intel for this is wrong, this is all amd's fault.

What, AMD's fault? As for the first part see above, Intel cares a lot about HEDT and Xeon customers and funnily enough these forced upgrades are less of an issue for these customers and have a long history of backwards and forwards compatibility between CPUs and chipsets.

[Jito463]

37 minutes ago, MyName13 said:

Why would Zen 1 owners upgrade to Zen 2?

14 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Because Zen 2 might actually be very good with some critical improvements, or not who knows. I would upgrade if that were the case, I suspect most of the R5 and R7 1600 and 1700 owners would.

Precisely.  I've actually been considering replacing my CPU since I found out that Zen 2 may be 6 cores per CCX, though that alone may not incentivize me enough.  However, if they improve memory timings and clock speed as well, I'll definitely upgrade (and that's despite owning an 1800x already).

 

46 minutes ago, MyName13 said:

Intel didn't and still doesn't care about older sockets because they don't have the reason to, blaming Intel for this is wrong, this is all amd's fault.

What exactly is AMD at fault for?  Supporting better cross-compatibility?  That's a fault now?

 

47 minutes ago, MyName13 said:

Those who can afford the best/most expensive CPUs certainly can afford a new motherboard (or stop buying extremely expensive motherboards like those 300$ asus' motherboards) every few years,

Just because I can afford a new motherboard doesn't mean I want to.  I plan to keep my board for several years, barring any technical issues or new features that would compel an upgrade.  Swapping a CPU is a relatively simple process.  Swapping the motherboard requires far more work, not to mention that it may require a fresh install of Windows and will definitely require reactivating Windows (which can sometimes be a pain).

 

It amazes me how the Intel supporters always say there's never a reason to do an upgrade when it would put Intel in a bad light because they don't allow it.

[Mira Yurizaki]

I'm not making excuses for how Intel does things, but I wanted to share my viewpoint on processor upgrading.

 

To me I don't see much value in it. I'm left with a processor that won't be used. I understand there's a large used market, but I don't want to do business on eBay (seller's fees on top of scammers) and I'm not as optimistic with the local Craiglist scene. It's much easier if I build an entire new rig and sell off the old one (after I gutted what I want from it, anyway)

[flibberdipper]

13 hours ago, Dabombinable said:

Most people are probably to the point where:

1. They hope that their LGA1150/1151/X99 boards don't die (strewth my Z97 Sabertooth MKII is a zombie)
2. They'll go with AM4 or TR4 for their next builds

I am both of those points. I'm hoping Haswell i7 K-sku CPUs drop in price so I can have more speed while I wait to see what ITX AM4 boards come out, though there's already one that has IO comparable to the Z270i or whatever (Asus Strix board), so really... Ryzen shall be mine.

[MyName13]

3 hours ago, leadeater said:

Because Zen 2 might actually be very good with some critical improvements, or not who knows. I would upgrade if that were the case, I suspect most of the R5 and R7 1600 and 1700 owners would.

 

What, AMD's fault? As for the first part see above, Intel cares a lot about HEDT and Xeon customers and funnily enough these forced upgrades are less of an issue for these customers and have a long history of backwards and forwards compatibility between CPUs and chipsets.

I highly doubt that 220$ CPU customers upgrade every two years, those who upgrade every generation certainly can afford a new motherboard and don't tell me they can't.

 

It's AMD's fault because of half a decade of crappy CPUs.

 

2 hours ago, Jito463 said:

 

What exactly is AMD at fault for?  Supporting better cross-compatibility?  That's a fault now?

 

Just because I can afford a new motherboard doesn't mean I want to.  I plan to keep my board for several years, barring any technical issues or new features that would compel an upgrade.  Swapping a CPU is a relatively simple process.  Swapping the motherboard requires far more work, not to mention that it may require a fresh install of Windows and will definitely require reactivating Windows (which can sometimes be a pain).

 

It amazes me how the Intel supporters always say there's never a reason to do an upgrade when it would put Intel in a bad light because they don't allow it.

See above.

 

You can always buy AMD's CPUs

 

I don't support any of the companies because I understand that they are companies that aren't related to me in any way and that they only care about our money, not about us  you look like an AMD supporter  

[Jito463]

5 minutes ago, MyName13 said:

they are companies that aren't related to me in any way and that they only care about our money, not about us

This is true, though your defense of them would seem to belie that.

 

5 minutes ago, MyName13 said:

See above.

So, AMD not having a competitive product (at least in the high end) means they're at fault for the decisions Intel makes?  Your argument is illogical.

[MyName13]

16 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

This is true, though your defense of them would seem to belie that.

 

So, AMD not having a competitive product (at least in the high end) means they're at fault for the decisions Intel makes?  Your argument is illogical.

Just because I'm not attacking them doesn't mean I'm defending them 

 

Who else is to blame?Where were they for the past 6 years?You have to understand how the world actually works, when you're the only competent company on the market you can do whatever you want, and lets be honest, Intel isn't nearly as bad as they could be.When your dual core stomps competitor's "octa core" there's no reason to invest into R&D at all, even now they have the most superior products on the market.

[zberry7]

14 hours ago, Jito463 said:

Your post is just begging for this.

 

What about those whose motherboards fail and need replaced.  Those with 6th and 7th gen processors have to choose between replacing with a same gen board (and limiting their future upgrade options) or getting a newer generation board and being forced to replace their functional CPU.

 

Some people act like there is absolutely no legitimate reason to ever upgrade the motherboard and not the CPU.  I can think of half a dozen reasons off the top of my head (and I've posted several of them previously).  You can argue all day long about how frequently those incidents may occur, but there are many valid reasons to want to keep your CPU and replace your motherboard.  And while I readily admit that I'm hardly the norm, I have done so in the past myself.

After reading your post I do agree with you. But still I don’t believe intel is evil for not wanting to design the platform to support 3 different generations of CPUs with wildly different core counts. 

 

in terms of a business decision, the amount of users who do this must be limited, otherwise I’m sure Intel would have invested money in making it work if they knew they would make a good ROI. They know how many users are running SL on Z270

 

everyone likes to shit on Intel when given the chance, but every business needs to make money. I agree sometimes intel does shady shit, but I don’t think this is one of those times

[leadeater]

2 hours ago, MyName13 said:

I highly doubt that 220$ CPU customers upgrade every two years, those who upgrade every generation certainly can afford a new motherboard and don't tell me they can't.

It's not about can or can't, it's about the necessity of having to do so which on HEDT is not usually the case since that platform almost always get two full generations of CPUs.

 

Why do you keep bringing money in to, I've already addressed that more than once as being irrelevant.

 

There is actually nothing stopping Intel and motherboard manufactures from sticking with a chipset, updating board designs and releasing new products. Any new buyers will have everything all shiny and new, existing customers could buy a new motherboard and CPU instead of updating bios or just buy the new CPU.

[zberry7]

30 minutes ago, leadeater said:

It's not about can or can't, it's about the necessity of having to do so which on HEDT is not usually the case since that platform almost always get two full generations of CPUs.

 

Why do you keep bringing money in to, I've already addressed that more than once as being irrelevant.

 

There is actually nothing stopping Intel and motherboard manufactures from sticking with a chipset, updating board designs and releasing new products. Any new buyers will have everything all shiny and new, existing customers could buy a new motherboard and CPU instead of updating bios or just buy the new CPU.

I wish they would do this. But what happens when something like PCIE 4.0 comes out? Or an improved DMI link? Or a higher core count CPU that requires more logical pins? Changing the power delivery system? Maybe even HBM on CPU dies? (I wish lol)

 

edit: also money is never irrelevant in business 

[Jito463]

57 minutes ago, zberry7 said:

But still I don’t believe intel is evil for not wanting to design the platform to support 3 different generations of CPUs with wildly different core counts.

Evil?  No.  Greedy perhaps.  Manipulative, certainly.  Apart from core count, how much has actually changed from SL to KL to CL?  Not much.  There's not even an IPC change from SL to KL (likely none from KL to CL), indicating no significant changes in the underlying architecture.

 

Allow me to clarify my point, if I may.  I do not believe that CL processors can work in all (though possibly some) current 200 series boards with just a BIOS update.  Even without factoring in possible chipset design issues, not all boards would support the extra power draw of the two additional cores.  However, I do believe that - given how close the releases were between the 200 and 300 series chipsets (a mere 9 months apart) - Intel certainly could have designed the 200 series to support both S/KL and CL.  In which case, there would be no need for a 300 series.  And I certainly can't see any reason to artificially (assuming the OP is correct) restrict the 300 series only to CL.

 

As for the last part of your sentence, why does the core count matter?  100/200 series chipsets already support dual core and quad core, both with and without HT (they could even support a single core, if one were made).  The addition of two more cores shouldn't make any difference.

 

57 minutes ago, zberry7 said:

in terms of a business decision, the amount of users who do this must be limited, otherwise I’m sure Intel would have invested money in making it work if they knew they would make a good ROI.

Except that the compatibility of the 300 series with S/KL shouldn't require any R&D investment.  They already have the designs and the socket hasn't changed, it's just a matter of permitting it with the new chipset.  It sounds more like they've gone out of their way to ensure you can't do it.

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, zberry7 said:

I wish they would do this. But what happens when something like PCIE 4.0 comes out? Or an improved DMI link? Or a higher core count CPU that requires more logical pins? Changing the power delivery system? Maybe even HBM on CPU dies? (I wish lol)

 

edit: also money is never irrelevant in business 

There will be a time where a platform change is required, I think that is rather well accepted it. As for PCIE the important lanes come direct of the CPU anyway so chipset wouldn't limit that, DMI is an issue even if the link speed drop to max supported.

 

What I mean by money is irrelevant is in the context of the customer not the business. Anyone that argues purely on the ability for someone be able to afford a new motherboard as justification for requiring to do so is exactly the type of person I would never do business with, that is how money is lost and businesses fail through poor management of funds.

 

If you look at all the sockets and chipsets that have existed on the desktop platform then the ones for HEDT you are going to have a very hard time convincing me that all of them were required. LGA 1156 (H55,P55, H57, Q57), LGA 1155 (H61, B65, Q65, P67, H67, Z68, B75, Q75, Z75, H77, Q77, Z77), LGA 1150 (H81, B85, Q85, Q87, H87, Z87, Z97, H97), LGA 1151 (H110, B150, Q150, H170, Z170, B250, Q250, H270, Q270, Z270).

 

Now the HEDT history over the same time period: LGA 1366 (X58), LGA 2011 (X79), LGA2011-3 (X99), LGA 2066 (X299).

[Cookybiscuit]

13 hours ago, MyName13 said:

It's incredible how strong AMD's marketing is, now all of a sudden a motherboard has to support CPUs for the entire decade, this wasn't a problem until ryzen even though we still have no idea if current am4 motherboards will support Zen 3 or even Zen 2.

Everyone is also a content creator now who needs to simultaneously be able to render a video, run a virus scan, play a game and stream it all to Twitch.

[Dabombinable]

38 minutes ago, leadeater said:

There will be a time where a platform change is required, I think that is rather well accepted it. As for PCIE the important lanes come direct of the CPU anyway so chipset wouldn't limit that, DMI is an issue even if the link speed the drop to max supported.

 

What I mean by money is irrelevant is in the context of the customer not the business. Anyone that argues purely on the ability for someone be able to afford a new motherboard as justification for requiring to do so is exactly the type of person I would never do business with, that is how money is lost and businesses fail through poor management of funds.

 

If you look at all the sockets and chipsets that have existed on the desktop platform then the ones for HEDT you are going to have a very hard time convincing me that all of them were required. LGA 1156 (H55,P55, H57, Q57), LGA 1155 (H61, B65, Q65, P67, H67, Z68, B75, Q75, Z75, H77, Q77, Z77), LGA 1150 (H81, B85, Q85, Q87, H87, Z87, Z97, H97), LGA 1151 (H110, B150, Q150, H170, Z170, B250, Q250, H270, Q270, Z270).

 

Now the HEDT history over the same time period: LGA 1366 (X58), LGA 2011 (X79), LGA2011-3 (X99), LGA 2066 (X299).

Even in the 90's when we had multiple chipset makers (even AMD for a short while if I remember correctly), each socket had less chipsets. Intel has kind of gone nuts.

[JoostinOnline]

I don't see why anyone would want to run Kaby Lake on a Z370 board though.

[Dabombinable]

3 minutes ago, JoostinOnline said:

I don't see why anyone would want to run Kaby Lake on a Z370 board though.

What about running Coffee lake on Z270 and Z170? Because it would be possible after a BIOS update since manufacturers can run Kabylake (and by extension Skylake) on Z370.

[GDRRiley]

5 hours ago, Jito463 said:

Allow me to clarify my point, if I may.  I do not believe that CL processors can work in all (though possibly some) current 200 series boards with just a BIOS update.  Even without factoring in possible chipset design issues, not all boards would support the extra power draw of the two additional cores.  However, I do believe that - given how close the releases were between the 200 and 300 series chipsets (a mere 9 months apart) - Intel certainly could have designed the 200 series to support both S/KL and CL.  In which case, there would be no need for a 300 series.  And I certainly can't see any reason to artificially (assuming the OP is correct) restrict the 300 series only to CL.

 

As for the last part of your sentence, why does the core count matter?  100/200 series chipsets already support dual core and quad core, both with and without HT (they could even support a single core, if one were made).  The addition of two more cores shouldn't make any difference.

 

Except that the compatibility of the 300 series with S/KL shouldn't require any R&D investment.  They already have the designs and the socket hasn't changed, it's just a matter of permitting it with the new chipset.  It sounds more like they've gone out of their way to ensure you can't do it.

we have motherboard makers, and people testing to show that 200 chipset works with CL and almost finishes post. It is intel being evil

[GDRRiley]

3 hours ago, JoostinOnline said:

I don't see why anyone would want to run Kaby Lake on a Z370 board though.

no but the opposite would be true. I am on skylake and if I could pop a 6 core i7 in my PC I would consider it, especial in a few years as the chips start to be found used. 

[mr moose]

23 hours ago, Jito463 said:

 

 

What about those whose motherboards fail and need replaced.  Those with 6th and 7th gen processors have to choose between replacing with a same gen board (and limiting their future upgrade options) or getting a newer generation board and being forced to replace their functional CPU.

 

 

Well,  I believe they should still all be under warranty, so just get a new one.  Replacing the mobo with the same again does not limit their upgrade path anymore than it already was.