Friday, December 1st 2017

AMD Second-generation Ryzen "Pinnacle Ridge" Confirmed to Support AM4

AMD, in an interview with Overclockers UK (OCUK), confirmed that its second-generation Ryzen desktop processors will support the existing AM4 socket, so current Ryzen platform users can seamlessly upgrade to the new processors, with a BIOS update. Most current AM4 socket motherboards will require BIOS updates to support Ryzen "Raven Ridge" desktop APUs, and Ryzen "Pinnacle Ridge" CPUs, as the two require an update to the latest AGESA 1.0.0.7 version. In the interview, AMD representative James Prior confirmed that the company plans to keep AM4 its mainstream-desktop processor socket all the way up to 2020, which means at least another two to three generations of processors for it.

The next generation is "Pinnacle Ridge," which is rumored to be an optical-shrink of the "Summit Ridge" silicon to the 12 nm process, enabling higher clock speeds. The decision to keep AM4 doesn't mean the company's 300-series chipset will be made to stretch over 3 years. The company could release newer chipsets, particularly to address 300-series chipset's main shortcoming, just 6-8 older PCI-Express gen 2.0 general purpose lanes (while Intel chipsets put out up to 24 gen 3.0 lanes).

Source: OCUK (Facebook)
Add your own comment

142 Comments on AMD Second-generation Ryzen "Pinnacle Ridge" Confirmed to Support AM4

#1
eidairaman1
The Exiled Airman
Hood said:
Good points. The people bitching are mostly AMD users (they're usually budget-limited, or they'd buy Intel). Amd users feel the need for a new CPU the minute they build a system, because they don't buy top parts, and are hoping for a pencil mod to magically make their CPU twice as fast for free! The frequent motherboard change is one of the strengths of Intel, not a weakness at all. Intel users want top performance, not a bargain deal. Using a board for multiple generations is just another compromise, sacrificing performance or connectivity just to save a few bucks. I always sold my old Intel parts as a working system, and that covered half to 2/3 the cost of the new rig, and now all my friends have better gaming rigs for a lower price, and free lifetime support (parts extra!).
Shallow minded, you are

There's a reason we have choices. Sorry I built my rig the way I wanted. At least Boards don't have to be upgraded every other year to support a new cpu, easy drop ins Like Super 7 was in the day, on top of that I'm not in debt because of a build. On another note there are better things in life than being at the computer 24/7.
Posted on Reply
#2
Xzibit
RejZoR said:
"Intel users want top performance" Ends up buying Core i3 or Core i5... A what?
I like the part where he sells his old system to his "Friends". I thought cool nice dude then read his post again and it sounds more like keeping them under that bus.

Hood said:
Good points. The people bitching are mostly AMD users (they're usually budget-limited, or they'd buy Intel). Amd users feel the need for a new CPU the minute they build a system, because they don't buy top parts, and are hoping for a pencil mod to magically make their CPU twice as fast for free! The frequent motherboard change is one of the strengths of Intel, not a weakness at all. Intel users want top performance, not a bargain deal. Using a board for multiple generations is just another compromise, sacrificing performance or connectivity just to save a few bucks. I always sold my old Intel parts as a working system, and that covered half to 2/3 the cost of the new rig, and now all my friends have better gaming rigs for a lower price, and free lifetime support (parts extra!).
The same stereotype hes complaining about, hes actively perpetuating for his own benefit. Hey friend here is a deal on my 3gen+ old hardware stay back there and don't think about new ram, connectivity and all the other stuff i'm saying that are benefits.

If its covering 2/3 of the new system wouldn't it be more "friendly" to advise them towards a current gen system with all the benefits you spouted. Doesn't need to be top end.

Seams so contradictory
Posted on Reply
#3
Darmok N Jalad
Xzibit said:
I like the part where he sells his old system to his "Friends". I thought cool nice dude then read his post again and it sounds more like keeping them under that bus.



The same stereotype hes complaining about, hes actively perpetuating for his own benefit. Hey friend here is a deal on my 3gen+ old hardware stay back there and don't think about new ram, connectivity and all the other stuff i'm saying that are benefits.

If its covering 2/3 of the new system wouldn't it be more "friendly" to advise them towards a current gen system with all the benefits you spouted. Doesn't need to be top end.

Seams so contradictory
Nice catch. I was distracted by the generalizations made against all AMD and Intel buyers. It's almost like there's more to it than that.
Posted on Reply
#4
cyrand
My comments was not meant to be about AMD vs Intel. I was honestly curious if people was actually upgrading there CPU without changing there motherboard or they just like the idea of having that option but never actually did it. I guess if people are upgrading they just doing more CPU dependent things then I do. For my needs I can keep the same CPU 4-5 years and don't find my bottle neck ever being the CPU. I can understand if people are getting bottle neck by a CPU after only a year or two why this would be a issue. For me it a none factor when making my buying decisions.
Posted on Reply
#5
Zubasa
cyrand said:
My comments was not meant to be about AMD vs Intel. I was honestly curious if people was actually upgrading there CPU without changing there motherboard or they just like the idea of having that option but never actually did it. I guess if people are upgrading they just doing more CPU dependent things then I do. For my needs I can keep the same CPU 4-5 years and don't find my bottle neck ever being the CPU. I can understand if people are getting bottle neck by a CPU after only a year or two why this would be a issue. For me it a none factor when making my buying decisions.
TBH the point is not about if most users opt to upgrade or not, but some people with the weird mentality that somehow having an option to upgrade is a bad thing.
There are almost always unused or non-essential pins in the socket, which is why often people with broken pins on the cpu / mobo is still able to run their PC seemingly without issue.
Posted on Reply
#6
eidairaman1
The Exiled Airman
cyrand said:
My comments was not meant to be about AMD vs Intel. I was honestly curious if people was actually upgrading there CPU without changing there motherboard or they just like the idea of having that option but never actually did it. I guess if people are upgrading they just doing more CPU dependent things then I do. For my needs I can keep the same CPU 4-5 years and don't find my bottle neck ever being the CPU. I can understand if people are getting bottle neck by a CPU after only a year or two why this would be a issue. For me it a none factor when making my buying decisions.
At this point for me it's more of a want than a need to upgrade. A friend of mine needs an upgrade bad from a P4.
Posted on Reply
#7
Hood
eidairaman1 said:
Shallow minded, you are

There's a reason we have choices. Sorry I built my rig the way I wanted. At least Boards don't have to be upgraded every other year to support a new cpu, easy drop ins Like Super 7 was in the day, on top of that I'm not in debt because of a build. On another note there are better things in life than being at the computer 24/7.
Okay, forget brand loyalty - who are all these people who build gaming rigs, then feel the need to update ONLY their CPU, with every new generation or refresh? I just don't see the reasoning behind this, besides the "upgrade itch" for it's own sake.
Posted on Reply
#8
ur6beersaway
RejZoR said:
Another reason to go with AMD instead of Intel. I mean, buying new motherboard because you want CPU upgrade just isn't of any fun... The way Intel is currently handling this is just stupid. They may just as well solder the damn CPU's to motherboards, they change them at such stupid rate.
Ha Ha, "solder" I see what you did there....Maybe they can "glue" the CPU with their shitty "paste" instead.
Posted on Reply
#9
Totally
xkm1948 said:
@RejZoR Good old praising Vega and RyZen while using Intel and just bought a 1080Ti. Very convincing, bro. :D
These forums use :smh: make a pro-AMD, or anti-other guy comment: if you use their stuff, get called a fanboy; don't use their stuff, get called out anyway.
Posted on Reply
#10
TheLostSwede
Hood said:
Good points. The people bitching are mostly AMD users (they're usually budget-limited, or they'd buy Intel). Amd users feel the need for a new CPU the minute they build a system, because they don't buy top parts, and are hoping for a pencil mod to magically make their CPU twice as fast for free! The frequent motherboard change is one of the strengths of Intel, not a weakness at all. Intel users want top performance, not a bargain deal. Using a board for multiple generations is just another compromise, sacrificing performance or connectivity just to save a few bucks. I always sold my old Intel parts as a working system, and that covered half to 2/3 the cost of the new rig, and now all my friends have better gaming rigs for a lower price, and free lifetime support (parts extra!).
You think? Then you might have to rethink as I went from Intel to AMD when Ryzen launched. Nothing to do with budget, as I could've gotten either or.

I used to to give away my old parts, as I'm not cheap like you...
Posted on Reply
#11
Hood
TheLostSwede said:
I went from Intel to AMD when Ryzen launched. Nothing to do with budget, as I could've gotten either or
Is there some reason you did this? You like solving driver problems? Is your favorite hobby buying lots of RAM until you find a kit that works? Did you feel like an elitist asshole when you had the fast Intel rig? Were your frame rates too high? Or some weird "I support the underdog, I'm a better person than you" thing? We all do strange things sometimes...
Posted on Reply
#12
evernessince
TheLostSwede said:
This is both good and bad.

The good is that you can upgrade your CPU without having to touch a single other component in your system.

The bad is you won't get any other system improvements.

However, the AM4 platform is far from perfect in my opinion. AMD went a bit too stingy on the PCIe lane count so it's not possible to add a second NVMe drive or other high-speed interface cards such as RAID, 10Gbps etc. which is disappointing. If only there had been support for an additional four PCIe lanes, the overall platform would've been so much better.

Sadly this doesn't look like it's something that can or will be addressed until we have a new socket now, so anyone with an AM4 system is going to be slightly limited to what they can stick in their system. Ok, 10Gbps Ethernet can still go via the chipset, but might be a bottlenecked slightly, but other things will be far too limited to go through there.

The pictured board is actually good example of a very limited product, as you have to chose between M.2 or U.2 and PCIe x4 2.0 or M.2 PCIe 2.0, as you only get one or the other, not both.

So let's hope AMD thinks ahead a little bit more when they make their next socket and does something a little bit more future proof when it comes to expandability, not just CPU upgrades.
"AMD went a bit too stingy on the PCIe lane count"

and yet threadripper, which destroys Intel in PCIe lane count. FYI most consumer motherboards don't even have 2 M.2 slots so you are going to need to buy something like a threadripper regardless.

"The bad is you won't get any other system improvements."

What? You do realize that AMD is still going to release a new chipset with each new Zen generation right? Other system improvements are completely possible.

"Ok, 10Gbps Ethernet can still go via the chipset, but might be a bottlenecked slightly, but other things will be far too limited to go through there."

Um no, 10Gbps is completely possible with zero bottleneck. The ASRock x370 gaming pro has a 5Gbps LAN right now.
Posted on Reply
#13
sinnedone
notb said:
Isn't this topic a bit worn out already?

Do we really need an article every month reminding us that AM4 can't afford to redesign the socket more often? Do we really need the comments stating that it's great?
Upgrade sockets you say.... List all the changes in the socket since say Z87/Z97. Not much really, I think the biggest change was DMI 3.0.

I like to hear tech news in general. It's very easy to not read it judging by the title of the article. ;)


efikkan said:
And why would anyone upgrade a one year old system with a new one? Even if they sell the old CPU, it's still a waste of money. Intel chooses to bring new platform features over prioritizing those 0.1% of buyers who want to upgrade to every new iteration. In reality nearly everyone keeps motherboard, CPU and RAM "bundled together" throughout the lifespan of a system. Graphics cards, SSDs, HDDs, etc. are on the other hand easy to swap independently.


Why are you sugar-coating it?
Vega is the largest failure in many years for AMD, and there is no reason to buy it for gaming. So when a product is inferior, the fans keep focusing on theoretical specs over actual performance…
Freesync with 1080 like performance. That's a pretty good reason if you can find them priced accordingly.
Posted on Reply
#14
ZeDestructor
sinnedone said:
Upgrade sockets you say.... List all the changes in the socket since say Z87/Z97. Not much really, I think the biggest change was DMI 3.0.

I like to hear tech news in general. It's very easy to not read it judging by the title of the article. ;)
Move back to fully external VRMs on Skylake is the major one, then the later pin-reassignment from LGA1151-1 of 200-series to LGA1151-2 of 300-series (now there's one that could have used a new socket...).

Really, as far a DT platforms go, Intel has been very reasonable with socket changes and compatibility overall.
Posted on Reply
#15
sinnedone
ZeDestructor said:
Move back to fully external VRMs on Skylake is the major one, then the later pin-reassignment from LGA1151-1 of 200-series to LGA1151-2 of 300-series (now there's one that could have used a new socket...).

Really, as far a DT platforms go, Intel has been very reasonable with socket changes and compatibility overall.
I do believe motherboard manufacturers have come out and said that Z370 was not necessary and could have worked on Z270.

Correct me if I'm wrong though as the specifics slip my mind at the moment. :)
Posted on Reply
#16
notb
evernessince said:
FYI most consumer motherboards don't even have 2 M.2 slots so you are going to need to buy something like a threadripper regardless.
This might be true for AMD Zen platform. Since 200-series dual M.2 became pretty pedestrian in the Intel world (possibly because of Optane).
What? You do realize that AMD is still going to release a new chipset with each new Zen generation right? Other system improvements are completely possible.
No one said that new chipsets won't be released and AMD users won't have access to new or fixed tech (although it is a possibility, obviously).

It's exactly these new features and system improvements that will push current Ryzen users to update the mobo as well - not just the CPU. So the AM4 longevity is a little overrated.
Um no, 10Gbps is completely possible with zero bottleneck. The ASRock x370 gaming pro has a 5Gbps LAN right now.
Says you?

I'm looking at the top of the range ASRock X370 Fatal1ty Professional. Next to the ASRock Z370 Fatal1ty Professional, which is just $40 more, it looks like it came from a lower segment.

Z370 has 10Gbit LAN and dual 1GBit (X370: 5GBit + 1GBit)
Z370 has 3 fast M.2 (X370: 1 fast, 1 slow)
Z370 has 3 PCIe 3.0 x16 (X370: 2)
Z370 has 3 USB 3.1 Gen2 (X370: 2)
Posted on Reply
#17
R0H1T
TheLostSwede said:
So you're suggesting adding M.2, 10Gbps Ethernet and anything that's going through the chipset today and don't think there will be a bottleneck between the chipset and CPU if multiple things are used at once? Good luck with that, as it's already been shown to be a bottleneck on Intel's platforms.

The comment about no other system improvements was with regards to only upgrading the CPU and I'm sorry if this wasn't clear.
The M.2 drives IIRC connect directly with the CPU, for AMD, & only 5/10G ethernet need to be routed via chipset.

The next year or two we'll see PCIe 4.0 (or 5.0) getting adopted so the question of lanes becomes moot. Especially for AMD since Ryzen is an SoC, Intel as we know is limited by DMI.
Posted on Reply
#18
R0H1T
TheLostSwede said:
Please read the post I replied to. Yes, one M.2 goes directly via the CPU, but the whole thing is based on my first post stating that AMD missed out by not adding four more PCIe lanes from the CPU and him saying that it'll work just fine using AMD's yet unknown next gen chipset as it'll surely be PCIe 3.0 and there won't be a bottleneck connecting all these things at the same time through the chipset.

I really wish people could read before posting arguments for or against something without know where the discussion started...
I'm countering part of what you're saying by adding that Ryzen is an SoC, so for instance if the upcoming PR or RR have PCIe 4.0 then M.2 or even 5/10G will not be bottlenecked (by limited amount of PCIe lanes) to the extent we're seeing today with first gen Ryzen.
Posted on Reply
#19
Patriot
Nothing theoretical about vega gaming performance. It is 1080ish without async and use of packed math.

I have a 1080ti for gaming and 4 vega64s for compute. Why? Because that gives me 100Tflops of tensorflow compute. Vega is probably rop limited for gaming... but it excels at compute.

Hoping the die shrink leads to higher clocked R7s.
Posted on Reply
#20
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
TheLostSwede said:
This is not what we were discussing if you'd actually read the posts. The discussion was about adding more lanes directly from the CPU, not via the chipset, so there's nothing untrue about it.

Going via a multiplexed solution via the chipset is an option, but the bandwidth to the CPU is then shared by all devices which can be a bottleneck. For most people it won't be and as I mentioned in another post in this thread, at least as far as NVMe drives are concerned, it doesn't seem to benefit AMD to have a direct link to the CPU as long as you only have one drive.
No, that's not what we are discussing. Re-read the original post, what lanes btarunr is talking about, and what you responded to on the first page, the post I responded to. We are talking about the lanes off the chipset.

btarunr said:
particularly to address 300-series chipset's main shortcoming, just 6-8 older PCI-Express gen 2.0 general purpose lanes (while Intel chipsets put out up to 24 gen 3.0 lanes).
We are specifically talking about the chipset lanes. The actual fact is that Ryzen has more PCI-E lanes coming off the CPU than Intel does. The Ryzen CPU provides 24 PCI-E 3.0 lanes, Intel's Coffee/Kaby/Sky Lake only provide 20 PCI-E 3.0 lanes.

Ryzen = 24 lanes = 16 for Graphics, 4 for NVMe, 4 for link to Chipset

Intel CFL = 20 lanes = 16 for Graphics, 4 for link to Chipset

With Intel, none of the NVMe drives are running from the CPU itself because of the limited PCI-E lanes from the CPU.

So, there are two options:

1.) We were talking about the PCI-E lanes coming off the CPU, in which case you were wrong in your statement about AMD being too stingy, because they obviously were not since they have more lanes than Intel.

OR

2.) We were talking about the lanes coming from the chipset(we were) in which AMD has the same bandwidth between the chipset and the CPU, which means they have plenty of room to expand the lanes provided by the chipset and you were wrong.

You can pick which situations you think we were actually talking about, but either way, you were wrong.

TheLostSwede said:
So you're suggesting adding M.2, 10Gbps Ethernet and anything that's going through the chipset today and don't think there will be a bottleneck between the chipset and CPU if multiple things are used at once? Good luck with that, as it's already been shown to be a bottleneck on Intel's platforms.
Except it hasn't really been shown to be a bottleneck in Intel's system, not that I've seen. I've run NVMe and 10Gb/s network through the chipset just fine. The link between the CPU and chipset is a 31.5Gb/s link. If you use 10Gb/s ethernet, that still leaves 21.5Gb/s for everything else. That is still an insane amount of bandwidth. Yeah, that might slightly bottleneck the fastest NVMe drives, but not to a noticeable degree. It's still 2.6GB/s of bandwidth! That's enough for an NVMe drive, a SATA storage drive, and some USB 3.0 ports to be active without any noticeable slowdown.

TheLostSwede said:
I really wish people could read before posting arguments for or against something without know where the discussion started...
Yes, indeed it would be nice if people wouldn't post without knowing where the discussion started...:rolleyes:

Because, the fact is we were talking about the chipset lanes. Nothing in your original post suggests you, for whatever reason, were talking about the CPU other than you stating they need a new socket for more PCI-E lanes, which doesn't make any sense when you actually know what you're talking about. No one before you was talking about the CPU lanes, and you never mention in your post you were talking about the CPU. Everyone else in this thread is talking about the chipset.

And the fact is, AMD could actually make the link to the Chipset twice as fast an Intel very easily. They have 8 extra PCI-E lanes on their CPU while Intel only has 4. Right now, AMD divides the 8 lanes as 4+4, 4 for the chipset and 4 for an NVMe drive. However, if they develop a more capable chipset with more PCI-E 3.0 lanes, they could take the 4 lanes currently used for NVMe connection and instead use those for the connection to the chipset, giving twice the bandwidth between the CPU and chipset that Intel has. That would be 63Gb/s, or 7.8GB/s. More than enough for an NVMe RAID array, 10Gb/s ethernet, all the USB ports you would want, and plenty of SATA ports.

This likely could be done with the current processors too. The motherboard would decided where the PCI-E lanes are directed. If a CPU is put in an older board, then the current configuration is used. If the CPU is put in a motherboard with a newer chipset, then all 8 lanes are used for the chipset connection, and the chipset then provides more lanes for NVMe and other expansion cards.
Posted on Reply
#21
eidairaman1
The Exiled Airman
Hood said:
Okay, forget brand loyalty - who are all these people who build gaming rigs, then feel the need to update ONLY their CPU, with every new generation or refresh? I just don't see the reasoning behind this, besides the "upgrade itch" for it's own sake.
I feel sorry for how lost you are
Posted on Reply
#22
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
eidairaman1 said:
I feel sorry for how lost you are
I have to agree with Hood here. Back in the day, yeah, a lot more people upgraded just their CPUs. But back in the day, most computers were owned by enthusiasts. It wasn't a household appliance.

But now, the overwhelming majority of people do not upgrade just their CPU. So ensuring that feature isn't something the CPU manufacturers have to consider anymore. Even gamers and people that build their own systems rarely upgrade just the CPU because they want the new generation. Yes, there are some, a small some, that do it to because they originally bought a Pentium 2c/2t and want to upgrade to an i5 or i7, or an FX 4c/4t and wand to upgrade to 8c/8t, etc. But at the same time, a large reasoning for the lack of interested to upgrade to new new generation CPU is the gap between generations has greatly decreased. Back in the day, there was a pretty significant bump in performance going from a 386 to a 486, and that is why a pin compatible 486 was released for 386 motherboards. But today, we see tiny generation improvements. I mean, that's why I'm still running a 4 generation old i7 in my gaming rig. There was no compelling improvement for me to upgrade to the new generations, even if they were compatible with my motherboard, it really wouldn't have even been worth the wasted effort of pulling things apart to put in a new processor. An hour of my time isn't worth a performance improvement that I won't even notice. And I'm an enthusiast and a gamer. Normal people don't upgrade their CPUs. And in the 15+ years I've been working in and running computer repair shops, I've only ever had one person come in asking for just a cpu upgrade. While most people would rather just go out and buy a whole new computer than spend the money on a CPU upgrade.
Posted on Reply
#23
Norton
Moderator & WCG-TPU Captain
TheLostSwede said:
This is not what we were discussing if you'd actually read the posts. The discussion was about adding more lanes directly from the CPU, not via the chipset, so there's nothing untrue about it.

Going via a multiplexed solution via the chipset is an option, but the bandwidth to the CPU is then shared by all devices which can be a bottleneck. For most people it won't be and as I mentioned in another post in this thread, at least as far as NVMe drives are concerned, it doesn't seem to benefit AMD to have a direct link to the CPU as long as you only have one drive.
TheLostSwede said:
You think? Then you might have to rethink as I went from Intel to AMD when Ryzen launched. Nothing to do with budget, as I could've gotten either or.

I used to to give away my old parts, as I'm not cheap like you...
@TheLostSwede - please to edit the first post rather than replying multiple times in a row from now on- recommend you edit your posts before a section or super mod has to come in and do it.

See guide below for reference:
https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/...osts-and-use-the-multi-quote-features.234427/
Posted on Reply
#24
TheLostSwede
Norton said:
@TheLostSwede - please to edit the first post rather than replying multiple times in a row from now on- recommend you edit your posts before a section or super mod has to come in and do it.

See guide below for reference:
https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/...osts-and-use-the-multi-quote-features.234427/
You know, it's fine, I've removed the posts I could, please remove the rest and I'll stay out of this "discussion" where apparently only some people have the right to an opinion. Apparently I'm an idiot that knows nothing, not even what I wrote.
Posted on Reply
#25
ZeDestructor
sinnedone said:
I do believe motherboard manufacturers have come out and said that Z370 was not necessary and could have worked on Z270.

Correct me if I'm wrong though as the specifics slip my mind at the moment. :)
Intel claims to have needed a new socket (and did in fact change the pin assignments in the socket in question). May as well do some badge engineering (Z370 is the exact same die as Z270 iirc) along the way since users will need a new motherboard anyways.

Now, whether the socket itself needed changing is up for debate: some people say yes, others say no. I personally reckon Intel wasn't happy with the safety margin of an unmodified LGA1151 socket, which resulted in the update. The basic engineering premise is sound however: more power leads to more current (since you never want to raise the voltage), which leads to more power pins. Adding more power pins is exactly what Intel did with the updated Z370-based 1151 boards.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment