Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 16 of 26

Thread: Really,Intel??

  1. #1
    Comrade Moose CAT-THE-FIFTH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Moosetopia
    Posts
    26,663
    Thanks
    2,913
    Thanked
    4,053 times in 3,142 posts
    • CAT-THE-FIFTH's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Less E-PEEN
      • CPU:
      • Massive E-PEEN
      • Memory:
      • RGB E-PEEN
      • Storage:
      • Not in any order
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVEN BIGGER E-PEEN
      • PSU:
      • OVERSIZED
      • Case:
      • UNDERSIZED
      • Operating System:
      • DOS 6.22
      • Monitor(s):
      • NOT USUALLY ON....WHEN I POST
      • Internet:
      • FUNCTIONAL

    Really,Intel??

    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.


    Those despicable Elk,stealing the pond weed!

  2. #2
    Oh Crumbs.... Biscuit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N. Yorkshire
    Posts
    10,884
    Thanks
    1,315
    Thanked
    1,018 times in 786 posts
    • Biscuit's system
      • Motherboard:
      • ASRock Z77 Pro4-M
      • CPU:
      • Intel i5 3570 (Be Quiet! Dark Rock 3)
      • Memory:
      • 16GB Crucial DDR3 1866MHz
      • Storage:
      • 240GB Crucial M4, 480GB Crucial M500, 2TB Seagate SSHD
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Sapphire R9 290X Vapor-X
      • PSU:
      • XFX 650W
      • Case:
      • Lian Li PC-V359
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 7 x64
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell U2913WM & Philips E-line 234EL2SB
      • Internet:
      • BT Infinity 80/20

    Re: Really,Intel??

    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.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Darkest Northamptonshire
    Posts
    516
    Thanks
    39
    Thanked
    84 times in 66 posts
    • spacein_vader's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus B85M-G
      • CPU:
      • i5 4460 3.2GHz
      • Memory:
      • 4x4GB Crucial DDR3 1600
      • Storage:
      • 128GB SSD, 256GB SSD
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Asus RX-480 Dual OC 4GB
      • PSU:
      • Corsair HX 520W modular
      • Case:
      • Antec Mini P180
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10 Pro
      • Monitor(s):
      • BenQ GW2765, Dell Ultrasharp U2412
      • Internet:
      • Origin Fibre Max

    Re: Really,Intel??

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

  4. #4
    BOFH Bagnaj97's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    1,204
    Thanks
    429
    Thanked
    383 times in 223 posts
    • Bagnaj97's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus B150M-A
      • CPU:
      • Intel i7-6700
      • Memory:
      • 2x8GB DDR4 2133
      • Storage:
      • Sandisk Ultra II 480gb, Plextor M5S 256G SSD, 2x 2TB HDDs
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Sapphire RX480 Nitro+ OC 8GB
      • PSU:
      • NZXT Hale90+ 550w
      • Case:
      • Xigmatek Alfar
      • Operating System:
      • Ubuntu/Windows 10
      • Monitor(s):
      • AOC I2367Fh
      • Internet:
      • 71/18 MBps down/up Plus.net FTTC

    Re: Really,Intel??

    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.

  5. #5
    Not a good person scaryjim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    14,471
    Thanks
    1,132
    Thanked
    2,115 times in 1,752 posts
    • scaryjim's system
      • Motherboard:
      • HP Pavilion
      • CPU:
      • A10 4600M
      • Memory:
      • 2x 4GB DDR3-1600 SODIMM
      • Storage:
      • 1TB HDD
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Radeon HD7660G (IGP)
      • PSU:
      • Battery/HP 19v brick
      • Case:
      • HP Pavilion G6
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10
      • Monitor(s):
      • 15" 1366x768 laptop panel

    Re: Really,Intel??

    Quote Originally Posted by Biscuit View Post
    ... 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....

  6. Received thanks from:

    Biscuit (17-10-2017),Saracen (17-10-2017)

  7. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    1,076
    Thanks
    160
    Thanked
    61 times in 56 posts
    • Xlucine's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte Z97MX Gaming 5
      • CPU:
      • i5 4690K @stock, until I upgrade my graphics
      • Memory:
      • 16GB @2133 11-11-11-27
      • Storage:
      • Crucial MX500 512GB, 2TB storage
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVGA 980ti
      • PSU:
      • Seasonic S12G-550
      • Case:
      • Silverstone TJ08-E
      • Operating System:
      • W10
      • Monitor(s):
      • Viewsonic vx3211-2k-mhd, Dell P2414H
      • Internet:
      • Virgin 150 mb fibre

    Re: Really,Intel??

    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?

  8. #7
    Senior Member Macman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Glasgow
    Posts
    1,407
    Thanks
    179
    Thanked
    81 times in 67 posts
    • Macman's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Z170 Pro Gaming
      • CPU:
      • i5 6600K
      • Memory:
      • 16GB DDR4
      • Storage:
      • 5TB
      • PSU:
      • Corsair 650VS
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10
      • Monitor(s):
      • 36" Samsung HDTV

    Re: Really,Intel??

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

  9. #8
    Oh Crumbs.... Biscuit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N. Yorkshire
    Posts
    10,884
    Thanks
    1,315
    Thanked
    1,018 times in 786 posts
    • Biscuit's system
      • Motherboard:
      • ASRock Z77 Pro4-M
      • CPU:
      • Intel i5 3570 (Be Quiet! Dark Rock 3)
      • Memory:
      • 16GB Crucial DDR3 1866MHz
      • Storage:
      • 240GB Crucial M4, 480GB Crucial M500, 2TB Seagate SSHD
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Sapphire R9 290X Vapor-X
      • PSU:
      • XFX 650W
      • Case:
      • Lian Li PC-V359
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 7 x64
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell U2913WM & Philips E-line 234EL2SB
      • Internet:
      • BT Infinity 80/20

    Re: Really,Intel??

    Quote Originally Posted by scaryjim View Post
    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

  10. #9
    Not a good person scaryjim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    14,471
    Thanks
    1,132
    Thanked
    2,115 times in 1,752 posts
    • scaryjim's system
      • Motherboard:
      • HP Pavilion
      • CPU:
      • A10 4600M
      • Memory:
      • 2x 4GB DDR3-1600 SODIMM
      • Storage:
      • 1TB HDD
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Radeon HD7660G (IGP)
      • PSU:
      • Battery/HP 19v brick
      • Case:
      • HP Pavilion G6
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10
      • Monitor(s):
      • 15" 1366x768 laptop panel

    Re: Really,Intel??

    Quote Originally Posted by Biscuit View Post
    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?

  11. #10
    Comrade Moose CAT-THE-FIFTH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Moosetopia
    Posts
    26,663
    Thanks
    2,913
    Thanked
    4,053 times in 3,142 posts
    • CAT-THE-FIFTH's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Less E-PEEN
      • CPU:
      • Massive E-PEEN
      • Memory:
      • RGB E-PEEN
      • Storage:
      • Not in any order
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVEN BIGGER E-PEEN
      • PSU:
      • OVERSIZED
      • Case:
      • UNDERSIZED
      • Operating System:
      • DOS 6.22
      • Monitor(s):
      • NOT USUALLY ON....WHEN I POST
      • Internet:
      • FUNCTIONAL

    Re: Really,Intel??

    Quote Originally Posted by scaryjim View Post
    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.


    Those despicable Elk,stealing the pond weed!

  12. #11
    Not a good person scaryjim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    14,471
    Thanks
    1,132
    Thanked
    2,115 times in 1,752 posts
    • scaryjim's system
      • Motherboard:
      • HP Pavilion
      • CPU:
      • A10 4600M
      • Memory:
      • 2x 4GB DDR3-1600 SODIMM
      • Storage:
      • 1TB HDD
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Radeon HD7660G (IGP)
      • PSU:
      • Battery/HP 19v brick
      • Case:
      • HP Pavilion G6
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10
      • Monitor(s):
      • 15" 1366x768 laptop panel

    Re: Really,Intel??

    Quote Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH View Post
    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...

  13. #12
    Yum, Mint Vienetta ik9000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    4,352
    Thanks
    1,015
    Thanked
    556 times in 431 posts
    • ik9000's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus P7H55-M/USB3
      • CPU:
      • i7-870, Prolimatech Megahalems, 2x Akasa Apache 120mm
      • Memory:
      • 4x4GB Corsair Vengeance 2133 11-11-11-27
      • Storage:
      • 2x256GB Samsung 840-Pro, 1TB Seagate 7200.12, 1TB Seagate ES.2
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Gigabyte GTX 460 1GB SuperOverClocked
      • PSU:
      • NZXT Hale 90 750w
      • Case:
      • BitFenix Survivor + Bitfenix spectre LED fans, LG BluRay R/W optical drive
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 7 Professional
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell U2414h, U2311h 1920x1080
      • Internet:
      • 200Mb/s Fibre and 4G wifi

    Re: Really,Intel??

    Quote Originally Posted by scaryjim View Post
    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?

  14. #13
    Comrade Moose CAT-THE-FIFTH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Moosetopia
    Posts
    26,663
    Thanks
    2,913
    Thanked
    4,053 times in 3,142 posts
    • CAT-THE-FIFTH's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Less E-PEEN
      • CPU:
      • Massive E-PEEN
      • Memory:
      • RGB E-PEEN
      • Storage:
      • Not in any order
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVEN BIGGER E-PEEN
      • PSU:
      • OVERSIZED
      • Case:
      • UNDERSIZED
      • Operating System:
      • DOS 6.22
      • Monitor(s):
      • NOT USUALLY ON....WHEN I POST
      • Internet:
      • FUNCTIONAL

    Re: Really,Intel??

    Quote Originally Posted by scaryjim View Post
    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.


    Those despicable Elk,stealing the pond weed!

  15. #14
    Not a good person scaryjim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    14,471
    Thanks
    1,132
    Thanked
    2,115 times in 1,752 posts
    • scaryjim's system
      • Motherboard:
      • HP Pavilion
      • CPU:
      • A10 4600M
      • Memory:
      • 2x 4GB DDR3-1600 SODIMM
      • Storage:
      • 1TB HDD
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Radeon HD7660G (IGP)
      • PSU:
      • Battery/HP 19v brick
      • Case:
      • HP Pavilion G6
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10
      • Monitor(s):
      • 15" 1366x768 laptop panel

    Re: Really,Intel??

    Quote Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH View Post
    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....?

  16. #15
    Yum, Mint Vienetta ik9000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    4,352
    Thanks
    1,015
    Thanked
    556 times in 431 posts
    • ik9000's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus P7H55-M/USB3
      • CPU:
      • i7-870, Prolimatech Megahalems, 2x Akasa Apache 120mm
      • Memory:
      • 4x4GB Corsair Vengeance 2133 11-11-11-27
      • Storage:
      • 2x256GB Samsung 840-Pro, 1TB Seagate 7200.12, 1TB Seagate ES.2
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Gigabyte GTX 460 1GB SuperOverClocked
      • PSU:
      • NZXT Hale 90 750w
      • Case:
      • BitFenix Survivor + Bitfenix spectre LED fans, LG BluRay R/W optical drive
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 7 Professional
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell U2414h, U2311h 1920x1080
      • Internet:
      • 200Mb/s Fibre and 4G wifi

    Re: Really,Intel??

    Quote Originally Posted by scaryjim View Post
    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

  17. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    1,076
    Thanks
    160
    Thanked
    61 times in 56 posts
    • Xlucine's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte Z97MX Gaming 5
      • CPU:
      • i5 4690K @stock, until I upgrade my graphics
      • Memory:
      • 16GB @2133 11-11-11-27
      • Storage:
      • Crucial MX500 512GB, 2TB storage
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVGA 980ti
      • PSU:
      • Seasonic S12G-550
      • Case:
      • Silverstone TJ08-E
      • Operating System:
      • W10
      • Monitor(s):
      • Viewsonic vx3211-2k-mhd, Dell P2414H
      • Internet:
      • Virgin 150 mb fibre

    Re: Really,Intel??

    Quote Originally Posted by scaryjim View Post
    ...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?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •