Sunday, November 13th 2011

AMD FM1 and FM2 Packages Pictured Side-by-Side, Incompatible

Here is the first picture of AMD accelerated processing units in the existing FM1 package and future FM2 package on which the next-generation Trinity APU will be based on. Both packages are very similar, follow AMD's favourite yet archaic PGA design. The pins are physically arranged in a mostly similar fashion, though we don't have a pin map at hand. The difference comes with some of the blanked pins in the sub-central portion of the pin array. The FM2 package has 904 pins, compared to 905 on FM1. One pin is blanked, while a pair of blanked pins are arranged further away from the central cutout.

This makes FM1 and FM2 clearly incompatible. Neither will you be able to use today's A-Series APUs in the FM1 package on future socket FM2 motherboards, nor will you be able to run future FM2 APUs on today's FM1 motherboards. Yet, AMD will port the A75 FCH chipset to the next-generation "Virgo" platform. The FCH or Fusion Controller Hub, like Intel's PCH (Platform Controller Hub), is not much more than a glorified southbridge, and is portable between Fusion platforms as it's essentially a PCI-Express 2.0 x4 device. In the picture below, "Llano" FM1 APU is on the left, and "Trinity" FM2 on the right.
Source: ChipHell
Add your own comment

30 Comments on AMD FM1 and FM2 Packages Pictured Side-by-Side, Incompatible

#26
Super XP
btarunrLolz where did you hear that? Trinity has two Piledriver modules (4 cores).
Posted on Reply
#27
plonk420
Jstn7477Well, hopefully like Intel's transition from 1156 to 1155, it means that the chip has been reorganized and is *hopefully* going to be even better than the current APUs. We don't really want Bulldozer (in its current state) with graphics slapped on, do we?
my stepmom won't care if it's a Bulldozer. i'll just be lucky to talk her into a CPU slightly more expensive than a baseline so that my babysis will have a GPU she can play Portal and some other cheap casuals on.
Posted on Reply
#28
Wile E
Power User
btarunrSocket pins can be made much more compact than package pins, and hence higher pin-counts can be achieved using LGA. For the same reason, AMD uses LGA and not PGA for all its packages with over 1000 pins. Intel switched to LGA from PGA because it wanted to maintain a package size similar to s478 package, while making room for 775 pins. LGA775 packages ended up being more compact than AMD's PGAs.

AMD has LGA1207 and LGA1974 (G32), which are both LGA, Opteron processors use them.

img.techpowerup.org/111114/bta89764kjhd.jpg

www.techpowerup.com/img/11-02-14/55a.jpg

So the debate between PGA and LGA cannot be reduced to Intel vs. AMD by angry AMD fankids. PGA is archaic whichever way you look at it. It poses pin-density limitations, in turn pin-count limitations if you don't want to enlarge your package dimensions like no tomorrow.

If AMD wants more pins, for more memory channels, more PCIe lanes from the CPU, or simply more HyperTransport links, the transition to LGA is inevitable. Opteron products already made that switch five years ago.
Fair enough, but I still find PGA to be better able to handle physical mishaps. lol.
Posted on Reply
#29
[H]@RD5TUFF
If this is true ouch . .. kind crappy of AMD to do.
Posted on Reply
#30
Mussels
Freshwater Moderator
[H]@RD5TUFFIf this is true ouch . .. kind crappy of AMD to do.
why? they gave it a different socket name, so ofc it'd be incompatible.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Apr 25th, 2024 04:47 EDT change timezone

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts