Really,Intel??

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

According to Asus Coffee Lake would have worked with the Z270 motherboards,except Intel locked out certain functionality:

http://www.bit-tech.net/features/tec...herboard-pm/1/

bit-tech: Can you go into more technical detail about why the new CPUs are not backwards-compatible with Z270 motherboards?

Andrew: Actually, it depends on Intel’s decision.

bit-tech: So it’s not a physical limitation? Intel said it was to do with power delivery.

Andrew: Not really. It [the power delivery] makes a little bit of difference, but not much.

bit-tech: So what are they referring to – the 20 or so unused pins from before?

Andrew: Yes.

bit-tech: So if you wanted and Intel let you, you could make Z270 compatible?

Andrew: Yes, but you also require an upgrade from the ME [Management Engine] and a BIOS update. Intel somehow has locked the compatibility.

bit-tech: The 20 previously unused pins that you mentioned, what are they now used for?

Andrew: Many of them are used for power control. It's possible that these are in preparation for the high-core count processors.

[Biscuit]

Interesting to hear confirmation on the topic, pretty sure there was speculation of this even before the boards hit the market.

Pretty clear evidence of Intel gouging its customers for every cent they're worth.

In reality, I wonder how many chipset changes Intel have genuinely HAD to enforce over the years given how little has actually changed in the core architecture.

[spacein_vader]

It's sad to say but I'd have been more surprised if there was a genuine need.

[Bagnaj97]

bit-tech: What about PCIe RAID, is that supported?

Andrew: This is one of the new things that we got from this platform. It’s very similar to the VROC, but it doesn’t require a physical hardware key.

bit-tech: Do you need an Intel SSD?

Andrew: They haven’t confirmed that, but to my knowledge at the moment you do, but we’ll see: If Intel faces strong competition from AMD, they may change their mind.

That bit's also interesting. They seem to have dropped the hardware key requirement for RAID, but it's likely you still need Intel SSDs to make use of it.

[scaryjim]

... I wonder how many chipset changes Intel have genuinely HAD to enforce ...

I'd be more interested to know how many socket changes they've had to enforce. The number of pins hasn't changed significantly since the introduction of the Core i series around ... what, 9 years ago now? But we're on to the 4th socket revision in that time, with some non-compatible re-uses of the same socket throw in?

I can kind of understand the "our new processors require our new chipset" thinking, as frustrating as it is, but also closing out backwards compatibility to previous processor generations just seems spiteful to me. I suspect there are plenty of people who'd love to get new platform features like NVMe and USB 3.1 on their motherboards, but to do that they have to upgrade their entire platform in one go....

[Xlucine]

So they could have sold the new i5's and i3's in droves, and held onto their market share, and chose not to in order to squeeze an extra £60 out of punters?

[Macman]

I reckon a move like this is going to come back and bite Intel on the arse at some point.

[Biscuit]

I'd be more interested to know how many socket changes they've had to enforce.

That's actually what I meant to say... brainfart moment

[scaryjim]

That's actually what I meant to say... brainfart moment

Well, chipset is also a valid comment. This is the second time they've used the same socket with the same platform features but claimed no cross compatibility. iirc since Lynnfield processors were released on s1156 there's only been one generational shift (Sandy Bridge -> Ivy Bridge) that didn't require a new chipset or socket?

EDIT: hm, Skylake -> Kaby Lake didn't either, did it?

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Well, chipset is also a valid comment. This is the second time they've used the same socket with the same platform features but claimed no cross compatibility. iirc since Lynnfield processors were released on s1156 there's only been one generational shift (Sandy Bridge -> Ivy Bridge) that didn't require a new chipset or socket?

EDIT: hm, Skylake -> Kaby Lake didn't either, did it?

You do remember the ASRock P67 Transformer don't you:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...ield,2815.html

The P67 chipset worked fined with the first generation Intel consumer i series CPUs.

[scaryjim]

You do remember the ASRock P67 Transformer don't you ...

I do, yes, but that was a manufacturer breaking Intel's official support. And the transformer wouldn't take a Sandy Bridge CPU, no matter what you did to it. It doesn't really change my point.

Intel have pushed out four different mainstream sockets since September 2009. They've now made what they claim are compatibility-breaking changes to one of those, so that's five (officially) incompatible platforms in 8 years, two of which share the same physical socket.

But AFAIK all of those platforms share the same basic feature set - dual channel memory, 16 lanes of CPU PCIe, support for onboard graphics ... the only good reason* for breaking compatibility in those eight years is the shift from DDR3 to DDR4. Stick a hybrid memory controller in Coffee Lake and I see no reason it shouldn't be possible to run it on a P55 motherboard...


* OK, I remembered just as I was finishing this comment that at some point they stuck voltage regulation on the processor as well? So maybe that would be a compatibility-breaking change too, in at least one direction...

[ik9000]

I do, yes, but that was a manufacturer breaking Intel's official support. And the transformer wouldn't take a Sandy Bridge CPU, no matter what you did to it. It doesn't really change my point.

Intel have pushed out four different mainstream sockets since September 2009. They've now made what they claim are compatibility-breaking changes to one of those, so that's five (officially) incompatible platforms in 8 years, two of which share the same physical socket.

But AFAIK all of those platforms share the same basic feature set - dual channel memory, 16 lanes of CPU PCIe, support for onboard graphics ... the only good reason* for breaking compatibility in those eight years is the shift from DDR3 to DDR4. Stick a hybrid memory controller in Coffee Lake and I see no reason it shouldn't be possible to run it on a P55 motherboard...


* OK, I remembered just as I was finishing this comment that at some point they stuck voltage regulation on the processor as well? So maybe that would be a compatibility-breaking change too, in at least one direction...

I'm pearing back into the mists here so I might be wrong but wasn't that change on sandy bridge? The lynnfield chips had it off but the Sandy Bridge had it on and it was that change that helped SB get the OC stability without the same thermal tipping point issues - that and you could decouple the memory voltage on SB?

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I do, yes, but that was a manufacturer breaking Intel's official support. And the transformer wouldn't take a Sandy Bridge CPU, no matter what you did to it. It doesn't really change my point.

Intel have pushed out four different mainstream sockets since September 2009. They've now made what they claim are compatibility-breaking changes to one of those, so that's five (officially) incompatible platforms in 8 years, two of which share the same physical socket.

But AFAIK all of those platforms share the same basic feature set - dual channel memory, 16 lanes of CPU PCIe, support for onboard graphics ... the only good reason* for breaking compatibility in those eight years is the shift from DDR3 to DDR4. Stick a hybrid memory controller in Coffee Lake and I see no reason it shouldn't be possible to run it on a P55 motherboard...


* OK, I remembered just as I was finishing this comment that at some point they stuck voltage regulation on the processor as well? So maybe that would be a compatibility-breaking change too, in at least one direction...

But that is the point though - Lynnfield worked fine with the newer chipset features the P67 had,so there is no reason for Intel to have changed the socket. The P67 chipset and Sandy Bridge would have probably worked fine if it was socket 1156.

[scaryjim]

But that is the point though - Lynnfield worked fine with the newer chipset features the P67 had,so there is no reason for Intel to have changed the socket.

Erm ... I know CAT - that's the point I was making. At least, I thought it was....?

[ik9000]

Erm ... I know CAT - that's the point I was making. At least, I thought it was....?

I think it was the memory controller that was the difference between the two and pushed the change from 1156 to 1155 but some clever folk did get 1155 chips to work on 1156 or vice-versa as a proof-of-concept. Everything since has not really needed a new socket, but intel did it anyway. Another reason my next build will be AMD

[Xlucine]

...Stick a hybrid memory controller in Coffee Lake and I see no reason it shouldn't be possible to run it on a P55 motherboard...

Mobile intel chips have had hybrid memory for ages, as evidenced by the slew of premium laptops with budget DDR3. So there could be desktop i3's with hybrid memory already in the wild? Maybe if one of the HQ quad cores got into an i5/i7?