Read more.Quote:
So far only the Intel Core i3-8100 has been verified as "completely working".
Printable View
Read more.Quote:
So far only the Intel Core i3-8100 has been verified as "completely working".
The Core i3 8350K worked in December:
http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/twe...)-working.html
Even in October last year,Asus said the Z270 should work with CFL.
You mean Intel could have maintained out of the box backward compatibility all along and their excuses are full of crap? Imagine my shock!
This kind of BS is a large part of why am probably going with AMD for next build
Really not surprised...
I suspect it also has something to do with motherboard makers not wanting to have to work on BIOS upgrades for hundreds of basic motherboards and suffer the support load of customers who didn't check CPU compatibility before buying a CL CPU and a motherboard that doesn't actually support it because the microcode is missing from the BIOS.Quote:
Originally Posted by aidanjt
AMD have been sending out free CPUs so people can flash the BIOS of older motherboards to support new CPUs, sure it's great customer service but it's hardly an ideal solution either.
What does that have to do with Intel explicitly making backwards compatibility a non-option? They have more than enough clout and userbase to make it worthwhile for motherboard manufacturers. And it certainly doesn't explain making Z370 boards incompatible with previous generation CPUs, that's a vastly simpler support proposition. It's fairly clear their only interest is abusing their monopoly position to force the sale of a CPU and chipset pairing for each generation of product, they've been doing it for many many years now.Quote:
Originally Posted by kingpotnoodle
Yep,I don't see a problem of releasing a new chipset each generation if it helps with the process of a launch,ie,board compatability,but at the same time it shouldn't be at the detriment of not at least allowing BIOS updates to allow older chipsets to work with newer CPUs at some point!!Quote:
Originally Posted by aidanjt
Intel and their board partners will actually have conversations, the motherboard makers don't go down the local Quick-E-Mart to buy the chips they use - its conceivable they might have discussed and agreed upon this lack of backward compatibility because they have a mutual interest.Quote:
Originally Posted by aidanjt
Mutual interest being that it's a LOT less testing, validation and BIOS version updates if CPU generation and chipset generation are a 1:1 mapping.
Supporting that kind of backwards compatibility only benefits the very tiny % of computers users who will ever upgrade their CPU without upgrading the motherboard at the same time, it's just not worth the hassle for Intel or the motherboard makers.
Also I suspect that if backwards compatibility was allowed and it wasn't quite stable then people would be moaning along the lines of "don't they test this, I can't believe Intel didn't ensure it works with old chipset, I'm so angry..." etc.
That's chicken and egg thinking isn't it? The reason they don't allow people to only upgrade their cpu is because people always upgrade both because they don't allow people to upgrade only their cpu because...Quote:
Originally Posted by kingpotnoodleIntel and their board partners will actually have conversations, the motherboard makers don't go down the local Quick-E-Mart to buy the chips they use - its conceivable they might have discussed and agreed upon this lack of backward compatibility because they have a mutual interest.Quote:
Originally Posted by aidanjt
Mutual interest being that it's a LOT less testing, validation and BIOS version updates if CPU generation and chipset generation are a 1:1 mapping.
Supporting that kind of backwards compatibility only benefits the very tiny % of computers users who will ever upgrade their CPU without upgrading the motherboard at the same time, it's just not worth the hassle for Intel or the motherboard makers.
Also I suspect that if backwards compatibility was allowed and it wasn't quite stable then people would be moaning along the lines of "don't they test this, I can't believe Intel didn't ensure it works with old chipset, I'm so angry..." etc.
Support is a problem of course, but it's a problem customers pay them to fix. It's not like they only bring out new cpus when new ram or pci versions come out is it? I think AMD have offered long term use of AM4 is because there actually is demand for it.
But you've got to design a whole new raft of motherboards that is a lot more work than updating a BIOs surely? You've still got to test your new motherboard against the new CPUs...Quote:
Originally Posted by kingpotnoodle
AMD probably have a higher % of sales to enthusiast and self-builders and they've also been operating at the budget end a lot over the last decade where they might be more incentive to boost sales by offering the compatibility. Plus they seem a lot more interested in gaining any edge they can from good PR over this sort of thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by EN1R0PY
They would launch new motherboards with the new CPUs anyway, to add additional features and allow the box shifters (i.e. Dell, HP) to add other incremental features to their new systems alongside the CPU upgrade. Ironically I think most of the motherboard designs are basically the same but with the new chip dropped in place of the old one and the model number incremented to match...Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbouk
Don't get me wrong here, I'm not meaning to defend Intel or motherboard makers, I can just see why they don't do backwards compatibility and I don't really expect anything more of them. The market for upgradeable form factors is shrinking so the incentive to make it work is only diminishing, it's a testing hassle and it probably just swaps one lot of bad PR for another lot of bad PR around instability. The market is moving increasingly towards tightly integrated, glued together, soldered down form factors; hardly anyone upgrades their CPU anymore.
Simple solution - state that compatibility and stability are only guaranteed between chipset X and CPU series Y but that some basic testing for functionality has been done with chipsets A, B and C and that you use them together with CPU series Y entirely at your own risk. This for me as an upgrader on a budget says I can try it, it'll probably work and I MAY be able to keep my money for a new mobo but that I should budget for a new one just in case. This would make me way more likely to consider upgrading what I've got and buy a new CPU (especially as the internet means some early adopter information on stability will be spread very quickly) whereas at the moment I have zero motivation to do so because it's outside my budget.
The only downside here is that sockets will have to remain the same and so Intel would have to get a little clearer in their product line descriptions....
"Modding doesn't seem to be a very complicated procedure but obviously such jiggery pokery could be bad for hardware warranties, or worse, so please proceed with caution."
So could overclocking your Intel K series processor....
There's no real architecture changes, just more cores, so there's isn't much excuse for instability issues (if this was manufacturer-supported)
"balderdash" sums up my view on having to buy a new motherboard for every generation of cpus, especially new cpus which are based on the old cpus. If the new chipset was bringing in lots of new things then fine, but the reasoning Intel provided?
This is exactly why my next build is going to be AMD.
I'm a whore so I'll buy whoever offers me the best for me at the time of my build. That DOES include ease of upgrade in future. If I see from real world activity that AMD are more likely to allow me to save a tonne of cash in future by maintaining sockets for longer then I'm going to go for that. If there was some kind of lifespan / reliability issues like with tools then I'd go straight for that one but the chips last, they work and they perform to a level commensurate with their price. Once you've got past that, customer support and obsolesence is the next big thing. Intel makes their products become obsolete. AMD allows it to happen as a function of time and the market.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iota
For me if i upgraded from my Skylake i5 6600K to an i7 it is now going to cost me a lot of money.. as I am not buying second-hand. and if did go down that route then i may as well get a Ryzen 5 1600x + motherboard for the money difference and hassle, i mean i still have to re-install windows either way where-as if they offered a BIOS upgrade then i might have thought about an i7.
I feel intel should be thinking AMD are hot on our heels we must try everything we can to keep customers, not use the old business as usual model.
Just looked online and a Ryzen 5 and motherboard can be had for £230 vs i7 6core and motherboard £338 so £108 difference minimum in price. (you have to buy a heatsink with intel too i think)
Yup but not really made a huge difference in sales has it... people who don't know and/or care still get IntelQuote:
Originally Posted by Ravens Nest
Yes that is very true, most people will just stick with the same things no matter what.Quote:
Originally Posted by 3dcandy
Similar thing with the Athlon64 vs Pentium 4 the AMD cpu outclassed it but still people bought intel very very deja vu for me at least.