Written by Metal Messiah
As you may have noticed AMD’s current ZEN processors have been in the market for quite some time, and AMD has also offered backwards-compatibility on it’s AM4 platform, unlike INTEL who has been forcing end users to upgrade to a new CPU socket/platform.
Now, one official representative of the XMG group, Schenker, posted on a Reddit thread that AMD’s upcoming next-gen Ryzen 4000 series of processors (codenamed VERMEER) are going to be compatible with the existing B450 Chipset.
This means current Ryzen CPU owners can upgrade to the next-gen 4000 series of processors, without having to change their current motherboard. Though, for proper and full backwards compatibility, I presume motherboard vendors may need to release proper Firmware patches, along with BIOS updates.
According to “Schenker”, the XMG APEX 15 is a notebook having support for the desktop Ryzen 3000 processors, and is currently equipped with a B450 chipset mobo, which supports AM4 CPUs with 65 Watts TDP (e.g. the Ryzen 3950X, running in ECO Mode though). So when referencing to the XMG APEX 15 model, “schenker” told the laptop is going to be future-proof.
This means AMD’s ZEN 3-powered Ryzen 4000/Ryzen 4’th generation of processors should hopefully be compatible with current AM4 socket motherboards. This speaks of the longevity of the current AM4 platform.
Now, if suppose current B450 chipset-based AM4 motherboards do get a microcode update to support the Ryzen 4000, then hopefully the high-end X470 chipset, the current X570 chip, and the upcoming B550 motherboards may also feature support for ZEN3. Though this is a mere guess as of now. We can expect same level of compatibility with the X470 chipset.
In the REDDIT Q&A, Schenker had this to say, “it’s already been confirmed that AM4 socket and B450 chipset will be compatible with some (if not all) future Ryzen 4000 SKUs.”
So there you have it. This shouldn’t come as a surprise though, since the same thing happened with B450 and Ryzen 3000 CPU support, as BIOS updates were necessary to enable compatibility. Also, this may be the LAST generation to be AM4 socket compatible.
AMD is expected to launch ZEN 3 Ryzen 4000 series of processors later this year. The series is slated to utilize an enhanced 7nm manufacturing process node, and a revamped ZEN 3 architecture. This should make the architecture even more power-efficient, and also powerful than current Zen 2 Ryzen 3000 series. We can expect significant IPC gains, faster clocks and higher efficiency, and other new features.
One important thing to note here is that new upcoming platform features will likely not be available on these older chipsets. Not all features. The same thing happened when Zen 2 came out with PCI-4.0 standard, which isn’t supported on the current 400-series chipset.
To conclude this, maintaining full AM4 support by AMD will also help encourage current Ryzen owners to upgrade their systems. Good for the Red team in the long run I suppose. AMD still has the competitive advantage with its current Zen 2 Ryzen 3000 series over INTEL, and the upcoming Zen 3 processors are going to push this move even more further.
User’s articles is a column dedicated to the readers of DSOGaming. Readers can submit their stories and the Editorial team of DSOGaming can decide which story it will publish. All credits of these stories go to the writers that are mentioned at the beginning of each story. Contact: Email
What about x370?
nice article, @METAL dude ! 😀
A = always
M = making
D = developments. lol…..
i think current AMD CPU stock coolers might also be compatible ??
Should be compatible, hopefully that is !
In fact the PRISM stock cooler is really good.
who the fk cares about CPU stock cooler compability.
Even my deep cool AM2+ cooler still fit on AM4 platfrom with decent performance
2020
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/963699d7598d41924198eb33be3878d6756d7a6787f7750798e89323a44c63fc.jpg
i like Intel i really do but with the 4th Gen of Ryzen they are just done
Intel were done the moment they released “Core” architecture in 2006 with the Core Duo/2/Quad and carried them on from there with Core i7,i5 etc right up to 10th and 11th gen (12th gen is Intels supposed brand new architecture, we will see how completely new it really is).
https://www.anandtech.com/show/1998
The Core Duo was heavily based off of Pentium M which in turn was based of Pentium 3 (with a sprinkling of P4 Netburst). And Pentium 3 has its roots firmly in Pentium 1/Pro. Pentium 4 (Netburst architecture and nothing like previous Pentiums) was the last time Intel gave us an from the ground up new architecture.
And Pentium 4 failed so hard that Intel ran back to the Pentium 3/M (now a heavily modified Core) architecture to build on.
That is why spectre/meltdown effect Intel all the way back to Pentium 1. That is also why there are no more IPC gains to be had with Core.
Core architecture never had a future and Intel was unwilling to spend the money and effort to build a grounds up new architecture (after Pentium 4 failed). That is why Core is so outdated (and was at release) and why Intel has been caught with their pants down and firmly around their ankles.
Intel is finally working on an all new architecture (thanks to AMD) but they should have done so a decade ago. Core was always going to scale bad (with major security issues, 242 and counting) and destined to be a failed dead end.
Intel can only chase speed through clocks now and high TDP, and patch security flaws. AMD may have failed with “Bulldozer” but at least it was a brand new architecture and so is Ryzen.
So AMD has given us 2 brand new architectures in 10 years and Intel hasn’t given us 1 since the Pentium 4 release in 2000. Core architecture has its roots firmly in the 27 year old Pentium 1 and the 25 year old Pentium Pro, just heavily modified. Throw in Pentium 3 and Pentium M and voila, enjoy your ancient Core architecture.
Intel hasn’t given us a brand new architecture since Pentium 4, and Core is a terrible architecture and is showing all its failings now. But it is obvious it was going to be even at release in 2006. They should never have gone back to the Pentium architecture (and given it steroids) and we should have been given a brand new architecture with a real future.
intel still dominates in gaming
I never said otherwise. An 9900k is still the fastest.I am pretty sure that is what I started with. What I said was it is a dead end architecture (and always was) and has no more IPC to give (since 6th gen already). All it has is high clocks, high TDP and security issues (242+ and counting).
Even Intel is scrapping Core architecture (what they should have done years ago), and I don’t think Intel will be back with anything all new and decent anytime soon.(Core is neither new because it has its roots in Pentium and it is certainly not decent) Why must I sacrifice absolutely everything for a few more frames, TDP, security and my wallet? And 10th and 11th gen are still the same architecture with all the same issues, no IPC gains and just higher clocks and even higher TDP. Pentium 4 indeed. Like I said life support.
Ryzen is so close in gaming that unless you buy an 9900k and a 2080ti it is not worth it. I would not buy anything less than a 8c/16t CPU (I bought a 3700x) because both next gen consoles are 8c/16t.
Anything less from Intel is a waste because it will need to be upgraded and that is not cheap or easy with Intel. It is not worth it on any level.
I can pop in a 4950x from AMD when they release (and I will) and it comes with an 8 core CCX (like an 9900k) and another 10-15% IPC improvement (unlike Intel who have no more IPC to gain). Pay attention to this one, IPC gains are very important. It lets us know that an architecture has a future and is not tapped out yet.
Intel hasn’t had IPC gains since 6th gen now, and they are losing performance thanks to security mitigations. And they have no more IPC gains right up until they replace it with 12th gen. That is 5 straight gens with no IPC gains. It is a bloated low effort dead end architecture, you are welcome to support though, I don’t mind.It is your money.
The 4950x should absolutely perform very much like an 9900k with those upgrades and I will have 16 cores, lower TDP and nowhere near the security issues. And I will have a brand new architecture with a future. It doesn’t even have to equal a overclocked 9900k, it will be close enough to be meaningless and I will have every other benefit that Intel does not have and can’t offer.
And I am not supporting an illegal acting low effort lazy company that is Intel or their 27 year old dead end mess that is Core architecture (and it is a mess). Why buy something that is a train wreck (Core is a train wreck). I would rather support an architecture that has a future (Ryzen) and the well behaved company that makes it (AMD).
a 6700k and 7700k will destroy everything from AMD
7700k 600+ FPS CS:GO 1280×960 competitive settings …while AMD 3950x barely 400FPS with drops to 250
AMD its just to slow it barely competes with Intel from 2016
lol dude. Don’t get so excited. I dislike Intel and Core architecture. I have nothing against you. A 6700k and 7700k only have 4 cores and 8 threads bud. I upgraded my i7 becuase it was bottlenecking my GPU like hell in BFV, Divsion 2 Shadow of the Tomb Raider, Assassins Creed Odyssey etc. I got MASSIVE improvements when I upgraded my CPU to a 3700x. And my i7 was bottlenecking my 1070ti.
Just a little old 1070ti. I got such a big improvement when I upgraded my CPU to an 8c/16t 3700x that I bought a 2080s in January this year. Wow. Big difference.New demanding games will use way more than a 4c/8t CPU has available. They can max an 4c/8t CPU 100%. Those CPUs have no future bud.
I dont care about games that you can run on a toaster like CS:GO. Any half decent CPU will do for that. I am talking about AAA demanding games.For me, that is where the action is at bud.
And PS5 and Series X BOTH have 8c/16t CPU. Good luck with your 4c/8t CPU when game devs start pushing them. And new demanding games already use 6c/12t and more.That is where I am coming from. We obviously have different needs for our CPUs bud.
Because of games using more than 4 cores and 8 threads nowadays and because next gen consoles have 8c/16t CPUs I wont buy anything less than a 8c/16t at all. Not a 3600 or 8700k
And I won’t buy any CPU without HT/SMT either. They age poorly, they perform great now, poorly in the future. Just like an 4c/4t CPU has aged poorly, so will any Intel 9700k/9600k/8600k/8400 or AMD 3500X. Avoid all of them. So only an 9900k is a worthwhile long term investment from Intels lineup. But not for me, I won’t be buying Intel anyway.
i upgraded my 3700x to i7 7700k for that sweet extra FPS in gaming <3
600+ FPS cs:go on my 240hz monitor
Okay cool. So you are a competitive gamer? 120 FPS is fine for me at higher res bud. I am not a hardcore competitive CS:GO, PUBG, Fortnite, etc player. But if those are the kinds if games you play and you need ultra high FPS for an edge than an overclocked 7700k or 6700k is perfect for you. I wont say otherwise.
Nothing wrong with your setup for what you need, You know better than I do exactly what you do with your PC. The games I play suck up my CPUs core and threads up like a sponge, especially with a 2080s. And depending on res and settings I can quite easily max my GPUs usage 100% with my CPU.
But, you and I very clearly have different needs for our CPUs, nothing wrong with that. You won’t find me playing a game of CS:GO with you though, I don’t want to get my a*s handed to me, thanks.(I suck at CS:GO).
I have not lied or been dishonest with you. I have explained clearly why I dislike Intel as a company and why I dislike their Core architecture. It is not an personal attack on you, so relax dude, that is not what I meant or where I was coming from. I have nothing against you.
My reasons and beliefs for disliking Intel and their Core architecture are valid. If you can look past Intels Illegal tactics as a company and Core architectures failings, that is a personal choice on your part. Just like I can look past any Ryzen architecture failings.Your beliefs do not mean my beliefs are invalid. So relax dude, I have nothing against you personally.
I compare my 3700x to any benchmark online with a 2080s and an Intel CPU. They are so close, it does not matter. You need a 2080ti and an overclocked 9900k/9700k to push that 2080ti to see the difference. I don’t own an 2080ti or play at 720p, so it makes no difference.I stopped playing at 720p more than 20 years ago dude. lol. Even my phone runs at a higher res than that.
So, it makes no difference for the games I play and the settings and resolutions I play at bud. I am no hardcore CS:GO 720p player bud. Far from it. I am a AAA demanding game player bud. More cores, yehah. Every single game I own and play runs amazing. That is good enough for me and good enough for 99% of people. Nothing wrong with amazing.
The second I was given the option I took it and will never look back or go Intel again. They are a dishonest illegal acting company and I refuse to support them or there ancient life support infused Core architecture. They are a rotten company dude, through and through. It is no secret that Intel has performed major illegal (as in breaking the law) tactics against AMD, the industry and consumers. Stuff them, they have no morals, I do. Simple.
“This shouldn’t come as a surprise though, since the same thing happened with B450 and Ryzen 3000 CPU support”
Um, I’m on a Ryzen 3000, and still on the B350 mobo I bought with Ryzen first came out. The thing has gone through 2 generation jumps and is still kicking.
Not just kicking, but kicking a*s!
Thanks for the retro-compatibility AMD,
F**k you Intel, you POS
lol….careful you might trigger some INTEL fanboys tho.
i’ve never seen anyone other than amd users cry on the internet.
I think hating Intel is the consensus among everyone, especially the owners.
I’m less worried about them being compatible and more annoyed about the whole situation I had getting a Ryzen 2000 CPU where I had to update the BIOS using a friends CPU before it would work.
that has nothing to do with amd nor intel..
What are you talking about? it’s a problem with an AMD board related to buying a new motherboard for a CPU it’s supposed to be compatible with. AMD had to do a program where they would mail you a loaner Athlon 200GE CPU to update your bios, they called it the “Short Term Processor Loan Boot Kit”. I’d say that’s pretty relevant to AMD if they had to have a FAQ about it on their website.
No….
Boards either come with qflashback or they dont
Well I guess designing the socket and CPU that goes into that socket puts no onus on AMD to put a fallback state somewhere into the specification then. They had nothing to do with something they designed the specification for and 100% of the products that go into that so this has nothing to do with AMD. Yeah I guess you’re right I can’t see where AMD could have had a hand in this at all.
Amd still has massive issues, my buddy told me amd got better so i just built a 3700x rig well it crasges with msi afterburner on when i start up warzone meanwhile my intel rig has no such issue. Its these stupid things that makes amd unbearable. Amd seems to never get better.
I have a 3900x, 1070, and a 5700x. PC does not crash on warzone. In fact, nothing crashes that pc. It pretty commonly has months of uptime.
You have faulty hardware somewhere, or something incorrectly configured.
Honestly he is lying, as Warzone has known issues with MSI Afterburner and a good chunk of overlays.
The crashing is entirely unrelated to AMD.
Im not lying my intel rig does not crash running msi afterburner while playing warzone only my 2 amd rigs. I stated the msi program makes it crash so how am i lying?
It’s also dishonest to say that “Amd stil has massive issues” and then talking about how Warzone has issues with overlays, like many games do.
His whole post made absolutely no sense and was so obtuse that all I could respond with was, huh. Obviously he’s having software issues and with the comment like that I doubt he’ll ever fix it. Probably needs to do a clean install of this chipset and graphics driver.
The fix is not to have msi afterburner running. I have 2 identical 3700x rigs and one i9 9900k rig only parts that are different are the cpu the mobos are the same brand and tier z390 and x570 boards ram and m.2’s are the same across the board. Amd rigs only have this issue but yeah i guess 2 out of 3 pc rigs have faulty hardware. Both amd rigs are clean installs they were built last week…………. Its a known issue for warzone running with msi afterburner on a amd ryzen setup, hit the forums thats where i found the solution to stop the instant gane crash. Hate all you want it doesnt change that it is an amd issue.
Honestly man it feels like it i built a gaming rig for my wife and daughter both identicle and both have the same issue while my i9 rig has never had the overlay issue. I went with 2 amd rigs instead of intel because it is a bit less money than building 2 i9 rigs lol also was hoping to do direct performance comparisons but cant now ;[ ill have to see if i can use another program to record game performance. The games do run good so its not bad it just sucks it has weird issues like this.
Huh
Doubt any of that is on AMD. Different rigs have different issues.
My 3600 / 5700 XT is not crashing with Warzone and Afterburner. Warzone used to have a problem with Afterburner but they patched it.
I have no issues whatsoever with my Ryzen 3700x. I have not had a single crash, in games or on the desktop, with msi afterburner or not. I have afterburner running 24/7 for every game I play, not 1 crash (Warzone included). I have msi afterburner running 24/7 period. AB and RTSS load up on desktop logon.
And I built my system over 8 months ago now. My Ryzen 3700x PC is just as stable as any AMD/Intel system I have ever built. I can go into Widnows 10 “Reliability History” and I have a perfect 10/10. No app/game crashes, BSOD, lock ups, nothing. The only time that changes is when we have an unexpected power cut/loss. Otherwise a perfect 10/10.
I would check your BIOS (eg: overclocking/volts/RAM frequency/timings, latest BIOS update etc) and system settings, drivers, anti-vir, format and re-install, update apps/games, check anything/everything. I find any crash game/apps/BSOD very odd and worth investigating.
MSI AB is known to have issues (verified by many), but I have experienced none myself. Maybe try MSI AB latest beta version or if you are using the latest Beta version try the latest stable/non beta version.
My PC really is rock solid stable 24/7 for more than 8 months and counting. And with every new BIOS update (1407 for my ASUS X570 Gaming-F) I am getting even more performance and added BIOS features. I am really happy with my system and will be upgrading to a 4950x come release day.
Ill have to give that a try, thank you! Not exactly sure what version i am using i just clicked download on their site lol they make it a search on their page for anything lol
My pleasure bud. It would be great if we could figure it out. It must be quite frustrating to have those crashes. I cant stand any game/app crashes or BSODs or anything like that at anytime on my PC. Drives me nuts. lol.
So I really do understand where you are coming from and would like to help diagnose and fix it. You deserve a 100% stable system, same as everyone else.
You paid for a stable system, so a stable system is owed to you. That is the way I have always seen it.
Good news is its not crashing anymore but im a bit stumped i checked the version and its identicle but i uninstalled and reinstalled it then windows did an auto update when that was finished i tried it out and it worked good. I wonder if maybe it was a windows issue from the start but at the same time maybe the 1st install had a issue. Also the 2nd pc seems to work now and i havnt done anything to it so its leading me to believe it was windows that may not have been up to date.
Awesome! That is great bud. I am thrilled you got it sorted. Keep testing it a while to see if the issue crops up again. Hopefully not. Knock on wood. lol. If it was just a Windows thing, that would not be the first time I have heard of that either.
Forums are littered with broken Windows 10 updates (or Win10 in general) and other Windows 10 crashes and complaints. I do believe Win 10 can be fragile at the best of times. I do keep my Win 10 up to date. I click on the update button in settings at least once a day and I check early every patch Tuesday as well for system updates (Patch Tuesday is every 2nd week, or once a month for bigger system updates).
I actually use the “metered connection” setting to stop Windows 10 from updating itself and I handle all updates manually by clicking the update, as already stated. Anyways, awesome, I am glad it is okay at the moment. Let us hop it does not resurface. I hate any issues like the ones you were getting bud.
I won’t be looking to upgrade/replace my i9 build for a few years. Won’t even be necessary, but just saying, hopefully AMD will be able to seriously compete with the framerates Intel offers by then. They certainly have been impressive as hell lately.
Are you implying that AMD doesn’t already seriously compete with framerates?
3950x wants to have a chat with you.
Alright fangirl, calm it down. i9 is the best money can buy for pure framerates is all I’m saying. I’m waiting for the day AMD can claim the crown.
I replied to you because 3950x can match the framerates of i9 as far as I’ve seen repeatedly, even beat it.
Wrong. Fake news. For $200 less, the i9 beats the 3950x. You’re being a fanboy and making up your own story. From Tom’s Hardware where they put the two up against each other:
The 3950x is $200 more expensive and better for cinebench and things that work best for that sort of thing, development and rendering, etc. Intel is the best if you’re building a gaming computer.
You’re right. The 3950X is about 2-5% slower than the fastest i9 in terms of single core-gaming framerates. But if you don’t consider that as “competing” I don’t know what that really means.
This article is talking about the upcoming Zen 3 / Ryzen 4000 in later 2020 or early 2021, which will further improve on IPC scaling. It will likely beat the current generation of Intel’s i9 in terms of gaming performance.
Further clues of this is the recent mobile AMD Ryzen 9 4800HS mobile processor that completely floors Intel’s offerings in everything, so it’s almost safe to say that the next revision of AMD’s desktop processors will have a similar leap forward.
Future games are also moving towards multi-core optimization thanks the the abundant of cores that AMD offers to the consumer market at a bargain. It’s almost inevitable that Intel may lose this crown sooner rather than later.
The only intangible is whether Intel can respond with their 10nm process in time for the release and when you actually upgrade your build.
Edit: Typo, I meant slower not faster.
And as I said, I’m excited for future AMD CPUs. Let’s see if they can outdo the best of whatever Intel brings out. Really, props for being informed and all, but I didn’t create a conversation based on all these other factors we’re bringing up. They are outside of the point, is all I’m saying. Good info though, but not relevant to my original comment. Because it all goes right along with what I said.
$200 more for less performance is not competing, if you’re building a pretty strict gaming PC. If you do more than gaming.. sure, it works for some people. But spending $700 vs $500 to get less is not competing.
I think PC’s for most people are more than just gaming, and even the gaming argument can be questioned since most AAA titles are GPU dependent. If you look at 1440P and 4K gaming benchmarks and comparisons (which fit most High end builds we’re talking about by the way, and who spends $3-5K on builds like these and play at 1080P?), CPU processing power is less dependent and the bottleneck is actually on the GPU for those resolutions. The difference between AMD and Intel is almost negligible. Those 2-5% actually translate to about 1-3 FPS difference sadly, when we’re talking about high resolution gaming.
I assume you’re comparing the i9-9900K or i9-9900KF that beats the 3950X in single-core gaming performance for $200 cheaper. However, if you’re really comparing, why is the 3900X not in the same argument?
In terms of budget, $700 for a 3950X for a 16-core/32 thread processor is actually for a different market. You stated it yourself, it’s aimed at workstations and professionals that are doing graphic, video, development or cinema work with the ability to game if they wanted to. In terms of this niche market of multi-core professional processors, next closest Intel offering is a $3000 i9-10980XE or 9980XE (same thing really)18-core processor.
Edit: did some pricing research in terms of your comment and figured out that you’re comparing the 9900K/KF to the 3950X.
It doesn’t matter if you think that PCs are used for more than gaming. I specifically said “gaming computer”.
What you are doing is creating a different conversation. It does. not. apply. here. Start a new thread, make your point about workstations, and have someone debate you about it there. This is not a workstation conversation. I have no idea why you would bring that topic up. It’s a loser choice of conversation. I don’t mean to be rude, but you’re attempting to divert the FACT that Intel is best for gaming. Point blank, period: FACT.
I have a workstation and a gaming computer. I don’t infest my gaming computer with all the applications and stuff I need for productivity. Many people are the same way.
Yeah I’m not so sure why you’re getting so worked up. I’m just pointing out FACTs that clarify how your scenario may not be as black or white for other people, and also stating that Intel are strictly gaming processor is a false pretense and vice versa for AMD. Not everyone buys high-end Processors and the sweet spot right now is the $200 range – R5 3600 or the i5-9400 which both processors are neck and neck in terms of gaming performance and both do fine with an appropriate GPU to go along with it.
It depends on budget, let’s say you have s$1000 to spend on processor/GPU combo, not simply a processor choice that makes it a gaming system. For example, choosing the 9900K and a low end GPU GTX 1660Ti will perform worst than a mid range Processor like an AMD R5 3600 + RTX 2070 Super.
Anyway, I’ll leave this conversation, as I think this entire thread is off topic, it’s not about current offerings, but future ones.
Really you should try reading instead of just responding right away. It’s the way to have a proper conversation and not cause frustration. Apparently you’re incapable of being totally dense though. I will “spell it out” for you, one last time, like a 5 year old would understand:
PC Gaming king= Intel i9
More multi-threaded requiring workstations= AMD
No nonsense about laptops or future expectations. Now stop with your bs,
Was it BS? If we’re not talking about future AMD 4000 stuff, why are you here? Talk about being rude.
“I won’t be looking to upgrade/replace my i9 build for a few years. Won’t even be necessary, but just saying, hopefully AMD will be able to seriously compete with the framerates Intel offers by then. They certainly have been impressive as hell lately.”
The classic quote my first post. Back to square one argument.
You must be very dense if it’s a common thing for you to see.
Take care bud, no hard feelings.
Lmao, actually it’s quite the opposite. I’lll pretend I don’t see you trying to belittle my comments that simply were over your head. Whatever dude.
Good luck on the upgrade in a few years, because none of your comments would be relevant.
9900k is the fastest gaming CPU money can buy. No doubt about it. But “Core” architecture is well passed its sell by date (having its roots in Pentium architecture) and has no more IPC to give (since 6th gen now) and only high clocks to get speed and the high TDP that goes with it. Not to mention 242+ (no jokes) security issues and counting. Intel has sacrificed everything to get that speed out of Core architecture.
Intel was not ready for a competitive AMD and that is the main reason Intel have no new architecture ready for us. Core will continue through to 10th and 11th gen. Bloated, IPC gain-less, security holes ridden and on life support. That is what happens when your Core architecture is based on an 27 year old Pentium 1,2,3,Pro,M architecture. After Pentium 4 failed Intel ran back to the Pentium architecture to build Core on instead of building a brand new one.
I am not sure Intel will be back with a competitive new architecture that is scalable with IPC and cores and has a future anytime soon, if at all. The last time Intel gave us a brand new architecture was Pentium 4 and that was a train smash. Core architecture is also a train smash, a money making, game playing train smash.
Core architecture was nowhere close to brand new architecture (being based on Pentium M which in turn was based on Pentium 3) and that is why spectre/meltdown effect Intel back to Pentium 1. Core architecture never had a future and was a lazy low effort rush job from Intel to have competition for AMDs Athlon 64/X2 range. They have rung every last drop out of it and Core has overstayed its welcome by at least 8 years.
Core is only fast because Intel has rung every last bit out of its corpse but is is a dead end and was always going to be. Intel has not given us an all new decent architecture in decades. Pentium 4 was terrible and so is Core. I am not sure Intel even remembers how to deliver an all new long lasting competitive architecture anymore.
Core should have been put to pasture years ago but Intel rather spent its money and effort attacking AMD illegally through OEMs sales and refused to spend money on an all new competitive architecture that had a future. Core architecture is finally being scraped (thanks to AMD) but I am not sure Intel even knows how to make a brand new from the grounds up good architecture anymore.
AMD has given us 2 brand new architectures in 10 years (even if Bulldozer sucked) and Ryzen has tons more IPC to give. 4000 series has a 8 core CCX just like an 9900k (instead of 2×4 core CCX) and another 10%-15% IPC as well. Even without higher clocks (AMD say they will have higher clocks, but I am not so sure, we’ll see) they will be tremendous performers and at much lower TDPs.
Intel is scrambling to get a new architecture and 10/7nm process ready and I am happy to see them reeling, for forcing their low, cheap a*s effort that is “Core” architecture on us. Like I said Core is dead and Intel has not innovated since the Pentium 4. Lets see what they have for us come 12th gen (supposedly their new architecture and not an Core rehash). I lost my trust in and respect for Intel decades ago. They have bamboozled the majority with an outdated low effort terrible Pentium based architecture that is Core.
On top of that, Intel force their CPUs on us with an integrated GPU so they can target desktop/laptop cheaply and easily for their benefit. Money money money. If they removed their GPU (like AMD) into different models we could have 8 cores from Intel cheaply (the integrated GPU takes as much die space as 4 cores). Give us the choice Intel, not everyone needs quicksync and integrated GPUs.
We could have had much faster CPUs years ago if Intel didn’t illegally attack AMD sales through OEMs. Instead they hurt AMD (and in turn us the consumer) and then forced a 27 year old based architecture on us with Core and are still forcing it on us until 12th gen. And Intel wasn’t ready with a new architecture because they were planing on forcing Core on us for even longer than that. (because they all but stopped AMD with their illegal tactics and were not expecting an AMD come back).
It is only thanks to AMD that Intel is now forced to deliver a proper all new and actually decent CPU architecture to us (Core most certainly isn’t it and never was), and I doubt they will pull it off anytime soon, because Intel hasn’t done so in decades. Ryzen has a future, Core has nothing of the kind. I don’t even know if Intels next architecture will have one.
Lmao. For YEARS the price difference between Intel and AMD CPUs were somehow not a concern because Intel fanbois, but now that AMD can match or BEAT Intel in certain titles, suddenly it’s ALL ABOUT the 200 dollar price difference.
And yes, 3950X CAN match 9900k in gaming, and beats it in some, and loses in others. You should check some benchmarks before screaming “fake news”.
*LOUDEST FART NOISE EVER*
https://media1.giphy.com/media/XABTVorVODddu/giphy.gif
I won’t be looking to upgrade/replace my i9 build for a few years. Won’t even be necessary, but just saying, hopefully AMD will be able to seriously compete with the framerates Intel offers by then. They certainly have been impressive as hell lately.
What does “offer AM4 socket compatibility” mean in the title? Yeah, it will be an AM4 processor. What other socket will it be compatible with? Maybe you meant “will offer compatibility with existing AM4 chipsets”?
Oh, sorry for the confusion.
Yeah, I meant to say the upcoming Vermeer series of Zen 3-based CPUs are going to be compatible with the current lineup of AM4-based chipsets on the market, but NOT ALL.
The key thing to consider with Ryzen 4000 is that we will see return of the chiplet architecture, and AMD will retain support on the existing AM4 socket.
The AM4 socket was to last until 2020 so it is likely that Zen 3 based Ryzen 4000 CPUs would be the last family
Hoping to upgrade my Ryzen 5 3600 to Ryzen 7 4700X. Go AMD! This competition is good for us as consumers.
This SHOULD force Intel’s upcoming LGA 1200 to be futureproof…right?
No, not really. INTEL won’t be supporting even the LGA 1200 socket for long.
LGA 1200 based motherboards are probably not going to stay for a long time, as Z490 is only expected to support Comet Lake-S and Rocket Lake-S CPU series, while Alder Lake-S is already rumored to feature the LGA1700 socket.
DAMN…Intel is trash af.
GO RED!
Congrats Metal Messiah for your own article here 🙂
Not news.
Good to hear this. I am currently waiting for DDR5 next year. So I will likely need a new mobo. Or maybe I’ll skip DDR5 and get a am4 4000. Mobo prices are pretty insane now.