AMD not supporting Zen3 on older motherboards :(

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Only the last column is new, that has existed since Ryzen 300 release last year.

Obviously, but the person I quoted used that added column specifically to argue we should have known.  

[leadeater]

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Obviously, but the person I quoted used that added column specifically to argue we should have known.  

My bad, didn't quite get their post properly.

[Bombastinator]

Shoulda woulda coulda.  Didn’t. Or largely didn’t.

Can AMD weasel out of liability for this one?  Probably.  Will they attempt to? Very likely.

 Will it create bad blood between AMD and whoever bought b450 thinking it would run ryzen3 regardless of how successful any weaseling might be? Undoubtedly.  
Is there a doable half measure in the form of making b450 boards with large bios chips work with ryzen3?  Possibly.  
 

IMHO they should at least look into it.  The “should” or “shouldn’t” doesn’t matter.   In any event the resolution is multiple months away.

[Kisai]

2 minutes ago, leadeater said:

My bad, didn't quite get their post properly.

My point was that people tend to fall into the trap of assuming things will remain as they were.  "Present expectations are not indicative of future results" being more closer to the truth.

 

If AMD pulled from Intel's playbook, they would change the chip pinout (eg add one or two ground pins) any time there was something that guarantees a backwards incompatibility. The reason backwards compatibility gets tossed out is largely because of a change in something, like the memory controller (eg DDR3/DDR4/DDR5), yet, what really changed between the Z97,Z170,Z270,Z370,Z490 chipsets? USB support? Why does that justify throwing out the CPU then? The change in PCIe lanes (z97 having 8, z370/z390/z490 having 24.)

 

As we know, Intel is still fundamentally using Skylake (6th gen) with their 7/8/9/10/11th gen cpu's. Why did we need a change in chipset? Comparing the 6700 next to the 10700 show only two differences:

Memory, which people care about (64GB DDR4-1866/2133 vs 128GB DDR4-2933)

and iGPU, which people don't.

[mr moose]

5 minutes ago, Kisai said:

My point was that people tend to fall into the trap of assuming things will remain as they were.  "Present expectations are not indicative of future results" being more closer to the truth.

 

If AMD pulled from Intel's playbook, they would change the chip pinout (eg add one or two ground pins) any time there was something that guarantees a backwards incompatibility. The reason backwards compatibility gets tossed out is largely because of a change in something, like the memory controller (eg DDR3/DDR4/DDR5), yet, what really changed between the Z97,Z170,Z270,Z370,Z490 chipsets? USB support? Why does that justify throwing out the CPU then? The change in PCIe lanes (z97 having 8, z370/z390/z490 having 24.)

 

As we know, Intel is still fundamentally using Skylake (6th gen) with their 7/8/9/10/11th gen cpu's. Why did we need a change in chipset? Comparing the 6700 next to the 10700 show only two differences:

Memory, which people care about (64GB DDR4-1866/2133 vs 128GB DDR4-2933)

and iGPU, which people don't.

I would take that question and debate to an Intel thread rather than derail this thread, one of the existing threads has a massive discussion between me and another user regarding some of the reasons why Intel do what they do and Linus's response to this thread in the WAN show also included some reasonable explanations from a  PR/end user perspective as to why they do it . 

 

To keep it on topic here,  AMD originally said it would work and has done nothing actively to inform us it wouldn't. They didn't even make much of an effort when they had the bios size issues last year (they could have absolutely ruled out zen 3 support on all pre 400 boards at that time as they already had basically done that for the 3000 series).   So it was quite logical for most users to continue on the premise that they are actively working to support it still.

[Kisai]

12 minutes ago, mr moose said:

To keep it on topic here,  AMD originally said it would work and has done nothing actively to inform us it wouldn't. They didn't even make much of an effort when they had the bios size issues last year (they could have absolutely ruled out zen 3 support on all pre 400 boards at that time as they already had basically done that for the 3000 series).   So it was quite logical for most users to continue on the premise that they are actively working to support it still.

So if the problem is that the microcode has to be twice as big and existing MB's don't have it, why not just say so. It's the third party MB manufacturers fault that they picked too small of flash memory to solder to their MB. So if a future CPU comes along and needs another 128Mbits of flash, this problem will just keep happening, and MB manufacturers could solve this by doing the exact thing microcontrollers do, have the bios on a removable chip (such as a SD card.) 

 

Like just to point at the intel problem again... why do we keep having to change the motherboard when the chip tech hasn't fundamentally changed. Is the problem also true for Intel? Just how many firmware blobs does a microcode take up?

 

If that's the reason all along, that does suggest that maybe the UEFI bios should be a standardized field-replaceable part as well.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, Kisai said:

So if the problem is that the microcode has to be twice as big and existing MB's don't have it, why not just say so. It's the third party MB manufacturers fault that they picked too small of flash memory to solder to their MB. So if a future CPU comes along and needs another 128Mbits of flash, this problem will just keep happening, and MB manufacturers could solve this by doing the exact thing microcontrollers do, have the bios on a removable chip (such as a SD card.) 

I don't know specifically, but lets put it this way.  Assuming  it's right and it is all just a matter of size then:

 

1.  why did board partners all use too small of a bios and who's job was it to inform them of the requirements? (I assume like all supporting product documents that bios size requirements would be outlined).

2. if they are indeed too small then why don't they offer the support on boards that are big enough?

3. If none of the boards are big enough at all,  then why didn't they make a bigger deal about this last year when they started running into what would be fairly obvious long term trouble to them?

 

All answers lead to something AMD did not do.

 

1 minute ago, Kisai said:

Like just to point at the intel problem again... why do we keep having to change the motherboard when the chip tech hasn't fundamentally changed. Is the problem also true for Intel? Just how many firmware blobs does a microcode take up?

It might be, but I doubt it, Personally I think it is more down to ensuring it just works and there is any comeback on them for burnt out VRM or other board related issues. 

 

1 minute ago, Kisai said:

If that's the reason all along, that does suggest that maybe the UEFI bios should be a standardized field-replaceable part as well.

I would tend to agree.  In fact I would pay extra for a replaceable bios chip.  If you balls up your flash you just drop in another chip and try again. Also we avoid AMD ryzen support issues

[leadeater]

12 minutes ago, mr moose said:

why did board partners all use too small of a bios and who's job was it to inform them of the requirements? (I assume like all supporting product documents that bios size requirements would be outlined).

That was covered in the Gamers Nexus video, due to the ubiquity of 16MB chips being used across multiple industries and that Intel does not require larger than that they did not stock chips larger in size before. AMD with a really bad track record and no trust was not going to convince board partners to add to the inventory list something they don't need for Intel and didn't for Zen 1 either.

 

This all happening without the knowledge of how AGESA would evolve as well, on both sides.

 

Edit:

Also it's worth noting Ryzen 1000 did not release without issues and Ryzen 2000 was only a bit better and started to show signs of some decent market worth. It really wasn't until Ryzen 3000 that it was clear AMD had competitive products up and down the entire stack and stability was good and people were indeed buying in large volume. That means all the design, planning and production was or had already happened up until 400 series so really only 500 series had the timing to address the problem, or new revisions of 400 series i.e. MSI Max.

 

12 minutes ago, mr moose said:

if they are indeed too small then why don't they offer the support on boards that are big enough?

Probably because that list is very small and at some point you do just have to call it quits. But if it is little effort I don't see a reason not to, be it delayed a bit after 500 series and Ryzen 4000 is stable etc. I don't think having to wait longer is much of an issue compared to not at all.

[Bombastinator]

Re 1.

this one was answered by gamers nexus.  Apparently 32MB chips are three times as expensive mostly because of supply chain stuff rather than engineering or production stuff, and their margins are so narrow they basically couldn’t.

 

re 2.

I’m hoping this is done, but I’m not very optimistic.  The issue is b550 is going to be solidly in place before zen3 comes out.  A board OEM is only likely to do the work of making the board updatable if it will sell more boards.  If B550 is all they are selling they may not bother.

 

re 3.
One of the things that is not clear to me is if a 400 series board will be able to use a zen3 cpu even if there is room in the bios and the bios is updated.  Zen3 isn’t released yet so the whole thing is black box at this time.

[cj09beira]

1 hour ago, Bombastinator said:

re 3.
One of the things that is not clear to me is if a 400 series board will be able to use a zen3 cpu even if there is room in the bios and the bios is updated.  Zen3 isn’t released yet so the whole thing is black box at this time.

chipsets dont really matter on am4, as the cpu does most of the work, the bios just defines some variables, starts the boot, and the cpu takes it from there, zen is much more like an SOC (system on a chip) (think independent) so if its on am4 then there is no reason for older boards not to support it.

[leadeater]

New Gamers Nexus update/info

 

 

[leadeater]

Well that's a thing...

 

RIP

[GDRRiley]

33 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Well that's a thing...

 

RIP

that was a big mistake. I'm still watching but this means at the same time AMD originally didn't expect code to get above 16mb even with 7 families of chips (3 APU, 3 desktop, 1 old APU)

I'll add, for all I care flash UI and auto overclock can go away if it means more chips are supported. I'll take a plain blue background and white text if that means spaced saved for more CPU support

I'd hope this means on AM4+ or AM5 whatever is AMD next desktop socket  that 32mb or 64mb are standard and supported.

This almost feels like super old CPU days when you had to do bank switching on cartridges or even just some CPUs to get larger amounts of memory.

Edited May 18, 2020 by GDRRiley

[Dabombinable]

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

Well that's a thing...

 

RIP

And now my P5Q Deluxe looks good for one reason: dual socketed BIOS chips that can be easily switched around and safely flashed with different BIOS

[Andk1987]

 

This proper cracked me up,

[jronnquist]

Would you really want to buy a "new" CPU that has been compromised by the requirement to be compatible with motherboards that are already several years old? AMD has already done this for the B450 with chips like the 5 3600. It has to end at some point or the entire process of evolution is going to suffer. There are plenty of great Ryzen chips that work with the B450 and they will be perfectly adequate for as long as the boards themselves last if you don't overclock them into an early grave. The release of Zen 3 will also drive the prices of these down.  

[Bombastinator]

5 hours ago, jronnquist said:

Would you really want to buy a "new" CPU that has been compromised by the requirement to be compatible with motherboards that are already several years old? AMD has already done this for the B450 with chips like the 5 3600. It has to end at some point or the entire process of evolution is going to suffer. There are plenty of great Ryzen chips that work with the B450 and they will be perfectly adequate for as long as the boards themselves last if you don't overclock them into an early grave. The release of Zen 3 will also drive the prices of these down.  

This doesn’t make much sense when listed against things already said in the thread about the whole ryzen architecture being more or less system on a chip.  When you replace the cpu you replace large amounts of the system.  All ryzen chipsets do is split off a few pcie channels to serve as I/o.  There is motherboard layout as well, which determines what kind of pcie is available and memory speed, but the chip itself does mostly everything.  It also does it better it seems than the intel stuff.  Or will until rocket lake appears.  Quite a while ago it was said that intel likely wouldn’t have any kind of serious competition for ryzen before rocket lake. This appears so far to be playing out to be true.  Ryzen3 or whatever comes after it will be facing rocket lake.  We’ll see what happens then.

[NumLock21]

https://www.reddit.com/r/AyyMD/comments/gji3l3/amd_atm/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x

[Bombastinator]

16 minutes ago, NumLock21 said:

https://www.reddit.com/r/AyyMD/comments/gji3l3/amd_atm/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x

Not sure that’s totally fair but there is a certain point to it. 
 

At this point I’m wondering how many bytes it takes to make a profile for just one chip.  You need to be able to fit at least two.  The one you got and the one you’re changing to.  This would make for a shiton of Bioses, a lot of work for coders, and a lot of people bricking motherboards because they put in the wrong bios. Probable chaos because people screw up and they don’t like to admit it. 

[jronnquist]

6 hours ago, Bombastinator said:

This doesn’t make much sense when listed against things already said in the thread about the whole ryzen architecture being more or less system on a chip.  When you replace the cpu you replace large amounts of the system.  All ryzen chipsets do is split off a few pcie channels to serve as I/o.  There is motherboard layout as well, which determines what kind of pcie is available and memory speed, but the chip itself does mostly everything.  It also does it better it seems than the intel stuff.  Or will until rocket lake appears.  Quite a while ago it was said that intel likely wouldn’t have any kind of serious competition for ryzen before rocket lake. This appears so far to be playing out to be true.  Ryzen3 or whatever comes after it will be facing rocket lake.  We’ll see what happens then.

My point is this; you decide on the CPU you want and choose the motherboard accordingly, not the other way around. I bought a B450 motherboard because it was the cheapest option for my 5 3600 (with a bios update). The sticker on the box boasted of support for Ryzen 2000 CPUs, suggesting to me that the B450 chipset has already been updated to support two new generations of Ryzen CPUs. The idea that I would someday put a better Ryzen 3000 CPU in this budget board, much less a 4000, strikes me as completely absurd. 

[Andk1987]

WE FUKKEN DID IT BOIS

[jronnquist]

Okay, so now that AMD has given in to popular resentment, can someone explain to me what improvement a Ryzen 4000 CPU is going to bring to my ASRock B450M Pro 4 motherboard should I feel compelled to switch out my 5 3600? 

[NumLock21]

12 hours ago, Bombastinator said:

At this point I’m wondering how many bytes it takes to make a profile for just one chip.

1.21 jigabytes

[BlackManINC]

2 hours ago, jronnquist said:

Okay, so now that AMD has given in to popular resentment, can someone explain to me what improvement a Ryzen 4000 CPU is going to bring to my ASRock B450M Pro 4 motherboard should I feel compelled to switch out my 5 3600? 

Probably not as big an improvement as there would have been had they shunned all pre-500 series motherboards. They were likely doing it because older motherboards were holding it back. Now, 4000 series buyers likely won't be getting all the bang for the bucks they put in it, unfortunately. 

[spartaman64]

1 hour ago, BlackManINC said:

Probably not as big an improvement as there would have been had they shunned all pre-500 series motherboards. They were likely doing it because older motherboards were holding it back. Now, 4000 series buyers likely won't be getting all the bang for the bucks they put in it, unfortunately. 

The 4000 series design are probably already finalized if not in production already. The concern was the bios memory chip size which they decided to solve by dropping support for older cpus. They didn't want to do this earlier because it's going to create a lot of confusion for consumers but they decided that it's better than facing backlash