AMD's AM4 socket has been pictured

[Doobeedoo]

So new AM4 socket shows to have a pin count of 1331 which is 40% increase over older AM3+ which haves 942.

It's said to have support for 3200Mhz dual channel DDR4 and up to 24 PCIe lanes depending on motherboard chipset.

 

That's a big increase from older platform indeed and it's using PGA as it was already known that it will. Also as far as memory and lanes details we'll have to wait.

 

 

 

Maybe they could've remove 3 of those 4 bulges to add 6 more pins to make it total of 1337 that'd be pro hehe.

 

Source:
http://www.overclock3d.net/news/cpu_mainboard/amd_s_am4_socket_has_been_pictured/1

[manikyath]

to be honest, they really should've gone LGA. it's easy to protect the pins of an LGA socket, pins on the bottom of a cpu are just doomed to get bent at some point..

[Misanthrope]

6 minutes ago, manikyath said:

to be honest, they really should've gone LGA. it's easy to protect the pins of an LGA socket, pins on the bottom of a cpu are just doomed to get bent at some point..

I agree: the main reason is that for most builds the processor is more expensive than the motherboard so it's a good idea to protect the processor first mobo second from a pragmatic standpoint.

[manikyath]

Just now, Misanthrope said:

I agree: the main reason is that for most builds the processor is more expensive than the motherboard so it's a good idea to protect the processor first mobo second from a pragmatic standpoint.

it's not really about which is more expensive, more so about which is easier to protect.

[dlink377]

I rarely touch AMD product, I never knew they still use those pins on the processor.

 

Any reasons they don't want to move to a more modern LGA pins on motherboard? Patents? or it is more expensive (i really doubt it)

[Misanthrope]

Just now, manikyath said:

it's not really about which is more expensive, more so about which is easier to protect.

On a similar thread many made the opposite argument to yours, or said it was not inherently easier or harder to protect (which I disagreed with btw: a processor can accidentally bang against a corner or something while installing, a motherboard well it's pretty awkward to bang it against something accidentally exactly on the socket)

[Nena Trinity]

More yummy pins to cuddle! :3

[mariushm]

Honestly, how often do you walk around with the cpu in your hands or in a situation where you would bend the pins?

 

You just take out the cpu and put it in a tiny box and close the box and you're done with it.  You can't do the same with a motherboard. It's much easier to accidentally drop a screwdriver or even the cpu itself on the socket and damage the contacts - sometimes the contacts even break, and if they break they lose the elasticity.

 

The four bumps are there to align the cpu with the socket, and to prevent it from inserting it the wrong way. It's easy to just force a cpu by bending a couple of pins if there was only one bump, it's much harder with four. It's also good to have more than one for future proofing, for example if there will be socket am4+ in the future and am4+ processors, it would make it easy to differentiate between them through extra pins on the cpu for example (but it would make cpu only socket am4+ compatible).

[potoooooooo]

2 minutes ago, dlink377 said:

I rarely touch AMD product, I never knew they still use those pins on the processor.

 

Any reasons they don't want to move to a more modern LGA pins on motherboard? Patents? or it is more expensive (i really doubt it)

Because they have no reason too.

 

The only difference is personal preference.

 

I dont mind either way

[Misanthrope]

Just now, potoooooooo said:

Because they have no reason too.

 

The only difference is personal preference.

 

I dont mind either way

No, that's not the only reason I just gave one on this thread: Processors are generally more expensive than motherboards for almost all consumer builds.

[dlink377]

1 minute ago, potoooooooo said:

Because they have no reason too.

 

The only difference is personal preference.

 

I dont mind either way

I thought LGA can fit much more pins in smaller area?

 

Also I personally think pins on CPU is much more fragile than pins on motherboard.

[manikyath]

1 minute ago, Misanthrope said:

On a similar thread many made the opposite argument to yours, or said it was not inherently easier or harder to protect (which I disagreed with btw: a processor can accidentally bang against a corner or something while installing, a motherboard well it's pretty awkward to bang it against something accidentally exactly on the socket)

well, on an intel socket, you put the cap over the socket, boom, protected. you cant really make a cap for the cpu side as easily.

 

Just now, mariushm said:

Honestly, how often do you walk around with the cpu in your hands or in a situation where you would bend the pins?

 

You just take out the cpu and put it in a tiny box and close the box and you're done with it.  You can't do the same with a motherboard. It's much easier to accidentally drop a screwdriver or even the cpu itself on the socket and damage the contacts - sometimes the contacts even break, and if they break they lose the elasticity.

 

The four bumps are there to align the cpu with the socket, and to prevent it from inserting it the wrong way. It's easy to just force a cpu by bending a couple of pins if there was only one bump, it's much harder with four. It's also good to have more than one for future proofing, for example if there will be socket am4+ in the future and am4+ processors, it would make it easy to differentiate between them through extra pins on the cpu for example (but it would make cpu only socket am4+ compatible).

- it can bend in transport, you dont wanna know the horrors that happen in shipping.

- in handling the processor itself, a small bump is easily done, and often all it takes.

- intel sockets come with the cap, which you're supposed to put over the socket when you're doing something else. in theory when the socket is exposed there shouldnt even be a screwdriver near.

- breaking isnt an argument, since the pins on the back of a cpu if anything are more fragile.

[zMeul]

14 minutes ago, dlink377 said:

I rarely touch AMD product, I never knew they still use those pins on the processor.

 

Any reasons they don't want to move to a more modern LGA pins on motherboard? Patents? or it is more expensive (i really doubt it)

Opterons moved to LGA bunch of years ago

[manikyath]

1 minute ago, zMeul said:

Opterons moved to LGA bunch of years ago

 

to be honest, if they didnt put socket G34 on LGA it'd have been the size of russia

[zMeul]

Just now, manikyath said:

to be honest, if they didnt put socket G34 on LGA it'd have been the size of russia

should see the original AMD LGA, Socket F

see updated post above

[manikyath]

Just now, zMeul said:

should see the original AMD LGA, Socket F

see updated post above

and then intel felt the need to compensate:

[zMeul]

Just now, manikyath said:

and then intel felt the need to compensate:

well, to be honest, that's Knight's Landing 

[mariushm]

Pins are quite strong and thin in diameter, even if you drop the processor it's unlikely they'll break, they'll just bend. It's easy to slide a credit card or something between the row  of pins and just by carefully sliding the card back and forth you can bring back the pins baback in alignment. 

 

The benefits of LGA sockets are the facts that the contacts in the socket can be a bit closer together (so you can have more connections in an area) and that the distance between cpu and socket can be smaller compared to PGA sockets ... the socket can be surface mount and thinner in height, the contacts height can be smaller than the length of pins. 

The distance between cpu and motherboard matters just a tiny bit because those pins can act as small radio antennas and the distance can affect stability at very high frequencies (but not frequencies normal users think of, imagine 7-8+ ghz, that's where pins can be an issue)

 

The contacts on LGA sockets are smaller in height, but the downside is that they have to be like springs, they're designed to be elastic. You put the cpu over the contacts, and the heatsink is supposed to put pressure on the cpu which in turn presses on the contacts bending them slightly downwards and that's how you get good connection. If by accident a user somehow puts a cpu the wrong way in the socket and mounts a heatsink, that alone would be enough for some contacts to be pressed down too much and lose their elasticity, resulting in weird errors or glitches.

Also, the contact between cpu and contact in the socket is basically made in a very tiny point right in the center of the cpu pad, so you have a very tiny contact point, which makes it hard to transfer a lot of current from socket to cpu without damaging the contacts in time - that's why Intel processors generally have to use more redundant pairs of power to transfer all those amps of electricity in the cpu. In newer processors, they actually put a VRM on the cpu itself, which reduces the number of contacts required for power delivery into the cpu.

With pin grid array sockets, the pin is thicker and it's in contact from at least two sides, you basically have wall - pin - wall, so there's more contact area between pins and socket.

 

Intel moved to LGA simply because they had to, for their server processors, which had to have the pins for dual cpu or quad cpu support, so more pins than what's required for desktop processors which are single socket. Their argument was that processors are more expensive than motherboards, and that was true  for their servers processors. Of course you don't want your 600-1000$ processor to be damaged when you could just replace the 150$ motherboard.

 

But AM4 is designed for processors from 2 core to 16 core , with or without integrated graphics, with chipset built inside the processor, so the socket has the potential of showing up on motherboards as cheap as 20-25$ , because besides the socket AM4 only a VRM and memory slot would be required, everything else comes from the AM4 socket.

[manikyath]

1 minute ago, zMeul said:

well, to be honest, that's Knight's Landing 

that's knight's airport landing strip

[rattacko123]

3 minutes ago, manikyath said:

and then intel felt the need to compensate:

is that 3-channel ram? I've never seen that before 

[zMeul]

the design of AMD's socket is just dumb, I can already see morons fucking the pins on the CPU trying to force it in the socket

why?!? all corners are cut like triangles like all AMD's PGA sockets; at least Socket A had just 2 notches

[manikyath]

1 minute ago, rattacko123 said:

is that 3-channel ram? I've never seen that before 

seeing that's intel's new compute beast, i wouldnt be surprised if that's 6-channel ram.

[zMeul]

1 minute ago, manikyath said:

I wouldn't be surprised if that's 6-channel ram.

[Master Disaster]

30 minutes ago, rattacko123 said:

is that 3-channel ram? I've never seen that before 

LGA1366 had tri channel ram (X58). 

[NumLock21]

2 problems with amd cpus

 

1. Still has pins. Not everyone will hold it by the edge. Some will have lead fingers and basically bend the pins without even knowing it. 

2. All of the corners look exactly the same. Not everyone is going to pay attention to the orientation of the cpu. Some might just fist pound it, to make it fit.