Read more.Source indicates new socket will have 1,718 pins, and facilitate dual-channel DDR5 support.
Read more.Source indicates new socket will have 1,718 pins, and facilitate dual-channel DDR5 support.
It is interesting about the PCIe 5.0 side of things for the desktop as they spearheaded PCIe 4.0 to the desktop and although I see no reason to double the bandwidth yet again just for the desktop. It will be a monkey see monkey marketing issue where people will see Intel and go "big numbah betterer" but that's just the way of the game I suppose.
Wonder how power hungry PCIe 5.0 is going to be?
Or even if anyone has an idea how much if any, for example, of the X570's extra power requirements is because of PCIe 4.0?
Bigger number headlines are still around: last week or so there was headlines about Seagate's Mach.2 HDDs with transfer rates of over 500MB/s going on about as being as fast as SSDs as if sequential transfer was important. But then burst and sequential speeds have been getting the headlines since SATA3/2/1 UDMA133/66/33 and so on.
I've got PCIe 4.0 on my x570 board and don't even have any PCIe 4.0 devices yet! I'll be honest I'm a little surprised to see 4.0 having so short a shelf life. Does this mean 4.0 will get little if any adoption?
I think storage is driving it quite quickly - while GPUs are barely making use of PCIe 4.0 yet, SSDs have already just about hit the limit when using the x4 lanes of m.2 slots.
Backwards compatibility means you'll still get use of your 4.0 over say a 3.0 system, even if the device can use 5.0
LGA? Looks like AMD will be pushing AM5 above 24 cores support thanks to extra pins.
That's one interpretation.
Another is more memory channels (but quad would be strange on mainstream desktop).
Another is dual DDR4 and DDR5 support. Since DDR5 prices are unknown I would certainly expect them to design for both and the chiplet + IO die approach should make that easier for them.
Be interesting to see what it does to current component costs, do you think we will see a similar drop like we did to the DDR3-DDR4 jump?
Why do I feel that LGA isn't a selling point?
Old puter - still good enuff till I save some pennies!
I actually prefer PGA to LGA. I've damaged both and PGA is far easier for the end user to repair than LGA, which I had to sell as GPO.
That being said, you could argue the odds are your CPU is the more expensive part and therefore needs to be the more robust.
Regardless, I'm sure whatever design they make, I'll find some new and interesting way to hamfistedly knacker it.
Same leaker says the TDP is between 120W~170W:
https://www.tomshardware.com/uk/news...otential-specs
MLID has made some more leaks too(just saw this posted on OcUK forums):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKYSFeL2fBw
"Above 20% IPC increase over Zen 3
AVX-512
+50% Performance per watt
24 core design tho 16 core on launch
6nm IO Die (currently 12nm)
DDR5 5200
28 PCIe 4 lanes, possible X690 Platform for PCIE 5
EPYC version with 96 cores, 192 threads."
The LGA is bad news IMO. I have damaged 3 LGA1155 motherboards in the last 12-18 months. I do not know how it happened. I would prefer to wreck a CPU than a motherboard because LGA sockets are extremely difficult and expensive to repair if the socket needs to be replaced when pins cannot be straightened. I was considering moving to AMD but now there is little difference in that respect.
I am very disappointed in this news.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)