What do you think about AMD's constantly changing socket?

[st0n3cutt3r]

I think AMD is killing itself by releasing so many different CPU socket shapes. I understand that DDR3 will probably become very big over the next year or two, but couldn't they at least wait until it is to support it? They would appear to be "behind" if they needed the AM3 socket to do-so, and waited until then to announce/release it, but this is absurd how many sockets they've had...


I was curious what other people think though..

============================

Incase you're unaware, AMD has gone through 5 sockets since 2005:

754
939
AM2
AM2+
AM3

[hellmet]

The only downside is that it confuses semi-pros like me. I build my own boxes, and I prefer AMD for the cost, and I had a hard time choosing and understanding the various sockets.

[Alien.col]

I hate it when they change sockets, I have a socket 939 processor and I don't really have a good alternative to go multicore. One problem is that prices never came down on processors for my socket. Also if i get a better 939 processor nobody will buy my old one as it works on that obscure socket the market does not sell anymore.

I'm really thinking on going intel for my next rig.

[st0n3cutt3r]

My first processor was an AMD 939, and I really wanted to go AMD when I upgraded to multi-core, but the way I see it, intel's got them beat in every way right now, so when my mobo died, I bought an intel e2160, 2gb of ram, and a new DDR3-ready board for around $200, and O/C'd to 3ghz.

I'm still fond of AMD and would take them over intel if it weren't unreasonable to do-so, but... 5 sockets? that sucks....

[toupeiro]

This is just technology. AMD has been busy in the last 5 years no doubt, but its no different than their competitor, Intel. The Pentium Chip, in all its various generations, has undergone plenty of change, and its still selling, and still changing sockets:

Socket 4
Socket 5
Socket 6
Socket 7
Socket 8
Slot 1
Socket 370
Socket 423
Socket 478
Socket B
Socket T
Socket H (Coming to a motherboard near you soon)

There's also the Intel mobile sockets:

Socket 479
Socket 495
Socket M
Micro-FCBGA
and
Socket P


And lets not forget the server lines:

Slot 2
Socket 603
Socket 604
PAC418
PAC611
Socket J
and last but certainly not least
Socket N

Technology changes, Thats the only thing you can count on to never change.

[Tuna-Fish]

The reason for this is very simple: AMD put the memory controller in the processor. This simplified the design somewhat, and significantly improved the memory performance, but it has a drawback. Before, they had to change the socket every time they changed the primary IO channel, now they need a new socket every time they change either the memory or the IO.

let's recap:

* 754 single-channel DDR SDRAM, HT 1
* 939 dual-channel DDR SDRAM, HT 1
* AM2 dual-channel DDR2 SDRAM, HT 1.1
* AM2+ dual-channel DDR2 SDRAM, HT 2.0
* AM3 dual-channel DDR3 SDRAM HT 2.0

None of those transitions was avoidable. I'd say AMD's big fault here was that they completely abandoned all older platforms. They'd have had a lot more goodwill if they had made some mid-model processors for 754 and 939 as an upgrade path for old users.

[FredB]

Well, as I don't build my computer myself - for now - my next desktop PC will be the first, I think I will buy an Intel based motherboard.

[rajeev1204]

I think intel changes sockets more frequently.

AMD is pretty modest that way.

Also AM2 and AM2+ can be done with a bios upgrade.

[FredB]

Well. Changing CPU is not the first thing when making a computer "better". Ram or HDD are most likely to be changed.

[st0n3cutt3r]

This is just technology. AMD has been busy in the last 5 years no doubt, but its no different than their competitor, Intel. The Pentium Chip, in all its various generations, has undergone plenty of change, and its still selling, and still changing sockets
I hadn't been following intel chips, but this is definitely a good point, and one I was completely unaware of. On the other hand, their 775 has been around since AMD's 754, and supported all of the changes, hasn't it?

The reason for this is very simple: AMD put the memory controller in the processor. This simplified the design somewhat, and significantly improved the memory performance, but it has a drawback. Before, they had to change the socket every time they changed the primary IO channel, now they need a new socket every time they change either the memory or the IO.
Good info. Also information I didn't know, but my question in turn is 'why couldn't they have done whatever intel did, as the 775 has outlasted all of those changes?'

None of those transitions was avoidable. I'd say AMD's big fault here was that they completely abandoned all older platforms. They'd have had a lot more goodwill if they had made some mid-model processors for 754 and 939 as an upgrade path for old users.
I whole-heartedly agree. I really only wanted a faster processor for my 939, but because it was going to cost an absurd amount to get a decent one (more than replacing mobo, cpu, and ram with new parts) I just got a whole new set.

I think intel changes sockets more frequently.
AMD is pretty modest that way.
Also AM2 and AM2+ can be done with a bios upgrade.
I was unaware of this as well, although it seems a little irrelevant now in light of AM3...

Well. Changing CPU is not the first thing when making a computer "better". Ram or HDD are most likely to be changed.
I'd never thought of adding HDDs as improving a computer, as they don't really effect your computing experience in a visible way other than storage capacity afaik (excluding 10k rpm drives, but who really buys those except people with top-of-the-line parts anyway?). Ram is a good thing to improve as well, but when you've alread got 1GB+, really the first thing I see needing an upgrade is the processor (at least when it's a single-core 1.8ghz). YMMV.

[mips]

I have a Socket939 MD with a single core processor, I have no easy upgrade path to dual core unless I get new MB, CPU & Ram. I wish AMD would still cater for their older sockets without forcing me to upgrade at higher costs.

I might just go Intel for my next PC.

[gn2]

On the plus side, buy an AMD CPU that matches the socket and you know they're compatible.

With Intel's Socket 775 LGA it is possible to buy a S775 CPU and S775 motherboard combination that are completely incompatible.

[jespdj]

Changing sockets is not just an AMD problem. Intel maybe doesn't change the pin layout of the socket, but for example a Core 2 Duo CPU will not work in older motherboards, because the Core 2 Duo has specific requirements for the power supply to the processor on the motherboard. And for example newer Core 2 Duos with a higher bus speed don't work on older motherboards that don't support the higher bus speed. Motherboard chipsets change just as quickly as CPUs.

The idea of having a standard socket so that you can easily upgrade the processor is nice in theory, but in practice you often need a whole new motherboard as well when you want to upgrade the processor - no matter if it's an AMD or Intel.

Ofcourse the hardware manufacturers don't mind, because it means they can sell you more hardware.

[Tundro Walker]

Not to throw the thread off course, but just what the heck do you guys do with your comp's to make you need to upgrade them each time a new cpu comes out?

Ok, maybe you don't upgrade on EVERY cpu that comes out, but still, what are you doing that causes you to upgrade to a dual, then a quad, etc?

Seems the PC gaming market is in a slump and really isn't worth upgrading a comp for. So, I'm curious what else you're doing.

[Tuna-Fish]

Good info. Also information I didn't know, but my question in turn is 'why couldn't they have done whatever intel did, as the 775 has outlasted all of those changes?'

Intel stuck to their old architecture, and has processor communicating to memory using processor -FSB-> memory controller -memory channel-> memory module. This model has the disadvantage of higher latency, and all users of FSB need to share it - this mainly means video card, other processors, and memory. Intel's model doesn't scale well anymore, and they are ditching it in the future.

AMD uses a memory controller integrated in the processor, so their model is just processor -memory channel-> memory.

The integrated memory controller was one of the main reasons A64 trumped P4 so badly - p4 had horrible memory latencies. In core 2, Intel attacked the problem from another angle - they use huge caches, and try to figure out what the processor wants before it actually asks it, and get it in advance. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

An example. (http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=5)

Still, AMD's approach left them with one important win: Their memory bandwidth, and maximum memory amount, scales with the number of processors in a multiprocessor system. Their one and only high-margin unit left is selling processors to servers running applications that are heavily memory-dependent. An AMD system with 2 dualcores can easily beat an Intel system with 2 (or any number, really) quadcores as long as the machine is constantly starved of memory bandwidth. If they didn't have this one segment where they beat Intel, they'd probably have gone bankrupt already.

[geoken]

None of those transitions was avoidable. I'd say AMD's big fault here was that they completely abandoned all older platforms. They'd have had a lot more goodwill if they had made some mid-model processors for 754 and 939 as an upgrade path for old users.

I totally agree, but for me it's the other way around. When there was the huge Socket 939 price cut I managed to pick up an X2 4800 for around $300 (which was ridiculously cheap at that time considering the previous price was around 500-600 and the chip wasn't actually part of the price cut, it was just shops mistakenly including it in the price cut). So a while later my mobo died. My only options were 2 mobo's from brands I never heard of which lacked any features and were overpriced, or the same Asus I was already using (A8N) which was ridiculously overpriced for it's features. I could almost buy an Intel based board + DDR2 ram + a comprable Core 2 Duo cpu for the price of the Asus.

Meanwhile, I was able to upgrade the processor in a socket 775 intel based computer with a new, currently-in-production (read: I didn't have to pay a ridiculous price on ebay) chip even though the board in question was older than the AMD board I was running.

[mips]

Not to throw the thread off course, but just what the heck do you guys do with your comp's to make you need to upgrade them each time a new cpu comes out?

Ok, maybe you don't upgrade on EVERY cpu that comes out, but still, what are you doing that causes you to upgrade to a dual, then a quad, etc?


Well I got my PC about 4yrs ago and at that time it was my intention to get a Dual Core later on when the prices dropped. I would like a dual-core as I do virtualization and more than one core would help me a lot. Only problem is it is very hard if not impossible to find a Socket 939 Athlon X2 4800+ cpu at the moment...

[geoken]

Well I got my PC about 4yrs ago and at that time it was my intention to get a Dual Core later on when the prices dropped. I would like a dual-core as I do virtualization and more than one core would help me a lot. Only problem is it is very hard if not impossible to find a Socket 939 Athlon X2 4800+ cpu at the moment...

And even if you find one, the fact that it's no longer made causes the price : performance ratio to be severely impacted by it's 'rareness factor'.

[zachtib]

Incase you're unaware, AMD has gone through 5 sockets since 2005:

754
939
AM2
AM2+
AM3


Well, as a former AMD fan that converted to Intel, this doesn't eally affect me anymore, but..

AFAIK, AM2 and AM2+ were compatible, were they not?

the transition to AM2 from 939 was needed, because of the change from DDR to DDR2 memory. as AMD puts the mem controller in chip, the 939 CPUs would not be able to use the DDR2 memory.

I don't know anything about AM3, but if it is to use DDR3, then i guess a change will be in order again.

Also, 939 existed in 2005, so i'd put the progession since 2005 as :

939
AM2(+)

with AM3 in the future

[mips]

And even if you find one, the fact that it's no longer made causes the price : performance ratio to be severely impacted by it's 'rareness factor'.

And that is my problem. I might as well just upgrade everything form a cost perspective although all I want is a simple socket 939 dual core cpu, I'm really not asking for much here ;)

[Blue Heron]

cpu upgrading isn't important anymore, it's not only the wrong socket, cases are also that the MB hasn't the right FSB, or isn't capable for a certain technology - and who wants a good CPU on a low Mainboard?

AMD had a great era in the Athlon (XP) times, when the power was indispensable. I remember the magic 1 GHz margin - it was more than ultra and extreme expensive.
nowadays there is CPU Power in affluence.
The battle only continues in the PC gaming market - and everyone know this marked is dead.

As I bought a $1500 PC last year and saw Oblivion in full detail and 8xAA , 16AF on 60 FPS, I knew this chapter is closed.

[st0n3cutt3r]

Not to throw the thread off course, but just what the heck do you guys do with your comp's to make you need to upgrade them each time a new cpu comes out?

Ok, maybe you don't upgrade on EVERY cpu that comes out, but still, what are you doing that causes you to upgrade to a dual, then a quad, etc?

Seems the PC gaming market is in a slump and really isn't worth upgrading a comp for. So, I'm curious what else you're doing.

I use my computer daily.... although I'm sure there's a better way to put that, something along the lines of "I rarely leave my computer except to sleep and relieve myself. Literally." I had a 2.5 yr old 1.8ghz amd chip, and that was fine for a long time, but I use my computer enough that having a dual-core chip (especially one I can run at 3ghz) and more ram is very appealing. It's not a need so much as a luxury, but when you expect to do something often for a long time, don't you think it's reasonable to make it as easy and comfortable as possible for yourself?