Intel wont allow Kaby lake CPU's on Z370 chipset motherboards

[newtekie1]

I still don't know why Intel didn't just change the socket number. It would have avoided all of this backlash...

 

[Sasqui]

Who benefits most from this restriction? Motherboard makers, that's who! They want us to buy new motherboards every time we buy a new processor.

And if true, don't forget intel gets to sell a bunch more silicon too.

 

[Bill_Bright]

And if true, don't forget intel gets to sell a bunch more silicon too.

Not really.

The issue in this thread and subsequent complaints were about requiring a new chipset and socket to support the new CPUs. That forces those who want to purchase this new CPU into spending a lot more money to buy a new compatible motherboard and perhaps new RAM, and maybe a new OS license too. That will price many users who might otherwise be able to afford upgrading their old system with just a new CPU out of the market, losing sales for Intel. So again, it is the motherboard makers who benefit most by this, not Intel.

 

[Sasqui]

Not really.

The issue in this thread and subsequent complaints were about requiring a new chipset and socket to support the new CPUs. That forces those who want to purchase this new CPU into spending a lot more money to buy a new compatible motherboard and perhaps new RAM, and maybe a new OS license too. That will price many users who might otherwise be able to afford upgrading their old system with just a new CPU out of the market, losing sales for Intel. So again, it is the motherboard makers who benefit most by this, not Intel.

Not arguing with who makes the most money, but intel will make more money. How much so, I'd be curious to find out.

 

[biffzinker]

While the LGA 1151 socket is physically identical to the one on Z170 and Z270 motherboards, Intel says it improved power delivery for its six-core processors, improved package power delivery for better overclocking of those chips, and improved memory routing support to justify the mandatory motherboard upgrade.

Overclockers will find some new levers and knobs on Z370, at least. Coffee Lake chips will offer per-core overclocking, meaning that a single laggard core doesn't have to hold up the entire chip. Eextreme overclockers will also get memory multipliers for speeds up to 8400 MT/s, real-time control of memory latency settings, and better phase locked loop (PLL) controls.

Source I quoted the above from: The Tech Report

 

[Bill_Bright]

Not arguing with who makes the most money, but intel will make more money. How much so, I'd be curious to find out.

Okay, but I don't understand the point for bringing that up in light of the fact much of the focus in this thread is (unduly IMO) about criticizing Intel - and over speculation too.

When any company in any industry releases a new product, the idea is to make more money. That means their employees get paid who then bring revenue into local communities. The company pays taxes and they have more resources to hire more people and invest back into the company to bring out more products. All good things.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

I am thinking if Intel opened up, this would show that the Z370 chipset would work fine then ppl would properly start to demand to see Coffee Lake on Z170/Z270 boards.

I personally run a i7-6700k in a Z270 chipset and not even gonna bother with a i7-7700k because the "extra" features that the 7gen cpus got ain't something I would use on a daily basis anyway.

If you think it through intel can very easily claim that putting a six+ core 12thread+ cpu in the older 270 chipset boards could induce house fires in some rare cases since they're vrms were not designed with these core counts in mind, so to me that's fine im ok with that.
Kaby lake on 370 boards not being supported is not cool imho , yeah bios mods might happen , but way after the point where someone may have bought just the board to upgrade a kaby lake pc, prior to a Christmas cpu purchase or the other versions of using kaby on 370.
And I would bios mod , most of joe public wouldn't.

 

[Sasqui]

Okay, but I don't understand the point for bringing that up in light of the fact much of the focus in this thread is (unduly IMO) about criticizing Intel - and over speculation too.

Most everyone likes bashing the big boys. And no need to get worked up on speculation, true.

 

[Vya Domus]

And I would bios mod , most of joe public wouldn't.

Exactly.

 

[Bill_Bright]

And I would bios mod , most of joe public wouldn't.

Nor should they if their computer is needed for important things like work, school, communicating, and more and they don't have immediate alternative means for conducting such tasks should they make a brick.

Most everyone likes bashing the big boys.

"Some" ill-informed, insecure, jealous and/or biased people do. But not "most everyone". The problem is "most" humans are trusting people and would like to believe they are not being mislead.

So bash when bashing is due and can be justified with verifiable facts and I will defend the right to do so with vigor. But bash based on biases and misinformation and I will defend the bashed with the same vigor. And that is particularly the case with technical discussions in technical forums where folks come to learn the true facts.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

I still don't know why Intel didn't just change the socket number. It would have avoided all of this backlash...

I don't think so, the enlightened would easily realise the pin count parity ,they would need more pins , as they have done before or make them pin incompatible as they usually do.
I think the new platform is good but i would not buy it, intel have if anything shown a total disregard for any upgrade path within a platform bar a few more cores, generation swapping is not going to happen in all likelihood so I would not like to buy such a constrained future at such a high price but that's me.

 

[Steevo]

Okay, but I don't understand the point for bringing that up in light of the fact much of the focus in this thread is (unduly IMO) about criticizing Intel - and over speculation too.

When any company in any industry releases a new product, the idea is to make more money. That means their employees get paid who then bring revenue into local communities. The company pays taxes and they have more resources to hire more people and invest back into the company to bring out more products. All good things.

By that same reason we should be OK with being wasteful, as it drives the economy forward, so in a much conflated and exaggerated way, we should just burn all the coal and oil, as it will generate more money, create new jobs for people to help control the now ruined environment, and reduce the need for as much heating!!

There is a line between utilization and waste, Intel is crossing it and using marketing on weak willed, sure its legal and even arguably ethical from a business standpoint, but it doesn't have the best interest of the consumer in mind.

It it were an evolutionary, or revolutionary product, sure. But its not. The difference is literally software switches, and maybe some hardware advancements that may or may not be implemented. I look forward to people hacking or cracking i should say the BIOS code to allow what they want.

 

[Bill_Bright]

so I would not like to buy such a constrained future at such a high price but that's me.

This I don't understand. I see nothing constrained about it. Most buyers will never "upgrade" a CPU. Instead, they will buy/build a whole new computer. And that makes sense to me. While a 3 year old motherboard, for example, may still be perfectly functional, if I am building a new system build on the latest CPU, I am going to want to mount it on a motherboard that supports all the other latest technologies that have come along in the last 3 years too.

When it comes to system upgrades, typically RAM and graphics come before CPUs. So I think what you sadly (and clearly with bias) call "total disregard" is not disregard at all. It is impossible for any product to please everyone all the time. So makers must try to please majority. And that is what is happening here.

By that same reason we should be OK with being wasteful, as it drives the economy forward, so in a much conflated and exaggerated way, we should just burn all the coal and oil, as it will generate more money, create new jobs for people to help control the now ruined environment, and reduce the need for as much heating!!

Huh? Not by any reasoning I have suggested, or believe in.

Who are you to draw some arbitrary line? A Nobel Prize winning economist? And who are you to then claim Intel crossing your line makes them as some evil company?

If you want to push waste as an argument, you better not be upgrading your computer if it still meets your "needs" - and more FPS while "gaming" is not a "need".

If you don't like Intel, that's fine. Don't buy their products then. But don't make up such nonsense about waste and coal burning that is irrelevant to this discussion and try to tie it Intel as if they are the only or worst polluters out there.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

This I don't understand. I see nothing constrained about it. Most buyers will never "upgrade" a CPU. Instead, they will buy/build a whole new computer. And that makes sense to me. While a 3 year old motherboard, for example, may still be perfectly functional, if I am building a new system build on the latest CPU, I am going to want to mount it on a motherboard that supports all the other latest technologies that have come along in the last 3 years too.

When it comes to system upgrades, typically RAM and graphics come before CPUs. So I think what you sadly (and clearly with bias) call "total disregard" is not disregard at all. It is impossible for any product to please everyone all the time. So makers must try to please majority. And that is what is happening here.
Huh? Not by any reasoning I have suggested, or believe in.

Who are you to draw some arbitrary line? A Nobel Prize winning economist? And who are you to then claim Intel crossing your line makes them as some evil company?

If you want to push waste as an argument, you better not be upgrading your computer if it still meets your "needs" - and more FPS while "gaming" is not a "need".

If you don't like Intel, that's fine. Don't buy their products then. But don't make up such nonsense about waste and coal burning that is irrelevant to this discussion and try to tie it Intel as if they are the only or worst polluters out there.

Clearly im not most then.

I upgraded last time via cpu swap , phenom II 960T to an 8350 because the first bulldozer wasn't all that and might have bought a later gen cpu had they not just been binned higher same silicon, crosshair V helped.
And I intend to upgrade the Ryzen system i buy in the same way, possibly.
Just not doable for Me on intel.

Yes yes intel won't care i know.

Oh and bias wtf i called it a good platform just not for me , were my reasons to honest.
Don't throw that sh#t at me mate over an opinion , I wasn't suggesting it isn't great for the next man.
Or lauding up ,or mentioning the competition till this explanatory post.

 

[Bill_Bright]

Clearly im not most then.

And nothing wrong that as long as you don't assume you represent most users. The fact is, most users don't even build their own systems. They buy Dell, HP, Acer or a notebook. Most "regulars" on this site might build their own, but that does not imply they normally upgrade only their CPU when upgrade time comes around again.

To me, when I upgrade my computer, that typically means I gut my case and buy a new motherboard, CPU and RAM. I might buy a new graphics card at that time, or maybe later. And I might buy a new PSU at that time if I need more power, or think I might need more power once I decide on my graphics solution. I know many whose typical upgrade path is similar to mine. But I don't assume I represent the majority either.

 

[dorsetknob]

it is the motherboard makers who benefit most by this, not Intel.

Of Course Intel Benefit from this
Just who do you think is Selling the Chipset to the Motherboard manafacture's

 

[Bill_Bright]

Did I say Intel doesn't benefit? No! Please read what I said, and what you even quoted. I said (twice now!) "it is the motherboard makers who benefit most by this".

 

[Steevo]

Who are you to draw some arbitrary line? Me. A Nobel Prize winning economist? Nope. And who are you to then claim Intel crossing your line makes them as some evil company? When and where did I say that?

If you want to push waste as an argument, you better not be upgrading your computer if it still meets your "needs" - and more FPS while "gaming" is not a "need". Perhaps you haven't checked my system specs, which I am due for an upgrade, as it isn't meeting my needs anymore.

If you don't like Intel, that's fine. Glad to hear I can have an opinion. Don't buy their products then. False Dichotomy But don't make up such nonsense about waste and coal burning that is irrelevant to this discussion and try to tie it Intel as if they are the only or worst polluters out there. You missed my point entirely, I was NOT trying to tie Intel to coal, but was saying at what point does the wastefulness and disrespect towards existing customers who WOULD like to upgrade just their CPU become too much? That is a personal question for each of us, and one that only time will answer.

I was also pointing out your revenue stream response was nonsense, as if that were the case we could justify breaking and entering the same way, insurance will cover it, and then the suppliers will make more money, and everyone will be better off.... http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/08/broken-window-fallacy.asp Which is exactly what you were saying

Okay, but I don't understand the point for bringing that up in light of the fact much of the focus in this thread is (unduly IMO) about criticizing Intel - and over speculation too.

When any company in any industry releases a new product breaks a window, the idea is to make more money. That means their employees get paid to replace the broken windows who then bring revenue into local communities by replacing broken windows. The company pays taxes and they have more resources to hire more people to break windows and invest back into the company to bring out more products silicon dioxide. All good things.

 

[Bill_Bright]

Which is exactly what you were saying

Not even! Come on! Get real!

Intel did not break anybody's old CPU. Therefore they did not force anyone to buy a new CPU, or a new motherboard to mount it on.

I'm out of here because all you guys want to do is criticize Intel and argue with anyone not willing to jump on your bandwagon.

 

[Steevo]

Not even! Come on! Get real!

Intel did not break anybody's old CPU. Therefore they did not force anyone to buy a new CPU, or a new motherboard to mount it on.

I'm out of here because all you guys want to do is criticize Intel and argue with anyone not willing to jump on your bandwagon.

They didn't break the CPU, but there is no reason other than Intel's obstinate attitude as to why it wouldn't work. At least according to preliminary results.

Honestly if they overclock well and without issue I will probably own a 8700K. But some users with Kaby who might like a new better board, or users with 270 chipset might like a CPU upgrade without replacing almost everything.

 

[hat]

This may not be that much different than socket 775. Socket 775 had a long life, but there were many new chipsets for it. Of course, you could put a clunky Pentium 4 in the newest boards and it would still work... it was the newer chips that often needed the support. Kaby Lake not working in the new Coffee Lake boards makes no sense. Sure they can say power delivery and whatnot, but how is it then that the same board capable of running the then flagship QX9650 could also run a much older Pentium 4?

@Bill_Bright I think the general point here, the point you seem to be refuting, is that there's no logical reason why the Kaby Lake shouldn't be compatible with the new boards, or Coffee Lake shouldn't be compatible with the old ones. While a new board with the latest features is always nice, I think even the majority of us here with a Kaby Lake chip, or even the older Skylake chip, who would be interested in upgrading to Coffee Lake wouldn't care as much about the updated features on the motherboard as we would just having a better processor, but for one reason or another, Intel says we have to buy the motherboard too, when the old one is still likely more than capable. It's very likely Intel could have made it compatible, but they chose not to, which kinda ticks off some people who would be interested in the better chip, but not so much the better board. It doesn't matter much to me personally because I rarely upgrade my system, so I, like you, would likely be changing my motherboard anyways when the time does come, because I've had my system for so long that I can't just drop a new chip in. I'm too many generations behind for that, and there are some things I don't care for about my motherboard anyway... but I still see this as a bit of a dick move by Intel.

 

[Bill_Bright]

I think the general point here, the point you seem to be refuting, is that there's no logical reason why the Kaby Lake shouldn't be compatible with the new boards, or Coffee Lake shouldn't be compatible with the old ones.

other than Intel's obstinate attitude as to why it wouldn't work. At least according to preliminary results.

Obstinate attitude? Come on! Did you read The Tech Report link biffzinker provided? It would seem not even though he quoted the pertinent parts.

As for me refuting anything, what I am refuting is the claims and criticism made here when the Devon68 link to the original guru3d notes the rumors are "not confirmed" there is still "speculation".

Now there really are two issues here as hat notes, (1) Kaby Lake support on new boards and (2) Coffee Lake support on old boards. All I am saying is wait until the verified facts are out there before bashing Intel or extolling how great AMD is.

 

[hat]

Of course, we'll see what we see when we see it, but as of right now, I don't like that idea. On the topic of AMD, some may sing their praises here because they've historically left a very open and compatible upgrade path, more so than Intel. Problem was their products just couldn't compete with Intel's performance so that became a moot point. Why ugprade your AMD system when you'll be upgrading to sub-par junk? It's a bit of a different story now, though.

 

[Steevo]

This may not be that much different than socket 775. Socket 775 had a long life, but there were many new chipsets for it. Of course, you could put a clunky Pentium 4 in the newest boards and it would still work... it was the newer chips that often needed the support. Kaby Lake not working in the new Coffee Lake boards makes no sense. Sure they can say power delivery and whatnot, but how is it then that the same board capable of running the then flagship QX9650 could also run a much older Pentium 4?

@Bill_Bright I think the general point here, the point you seem to be refuting, is that there's no logical reason why the Kaby Lake shouldn't be compatible with the new boards, or Coffee Lake shouldn't be compatible with the old ones. While a new board with the latest features is always nice, I think even the majority of us here with a Kaby Lake chip, or even the older Skylake chip, who would be interested in upgrading to Coffee Lake wouldn't care as much about the updated features on the motherboard as we would just having a better processor, but for one reason or another, Intel says we have to buy the motherboard too, when the old one is still likely more than capable. It's very likely Intel could have made it compatible, but they chose not to, which kinda ticks off some people who would be interested in the better chip, but not so much the better board. It doesn't matter much to me personally because I rarely upgrade my system, so I, like you, would likely be changing my motherboard anyways when the time does come, because I've had my system for so long that I can't just drop a new chip in. I'm too many generations behind for that, and there are some things I don't care for about my motherboard anyway... but I still see this as a bit of a dick move by Intel.

I owned and built many Socket 478 775 and other boards that supported newer CPU's and board makers were always quick to get BIOS code out to support newer chips on midrange or better boards. The pin games Intel played were annoying, if pin 3 is bonded to pin 7 you can boost your CPU speed, and the memory speed.

Intel is clearly showing the fact that they COULD have released a few chips with more cores and better performance, but was of no mind to stop milking their customers for every 200mhz speed bump with a whole new platform, and they are choosing to do so even now, just much faster between 270 and 370 as they had a "pants around the ankles & dick in the secretary" moment when they realized they better stop screwing around and get competitive product out before someone realized they weren't doing anything new.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

And nothing wrong that as long as you don't assume you represent most users. The fact is, most users don't even build their own systems. They buy Dell, HP, Acer or a notebook. Most "regulars" on this site might build their own, but that does not imply they normally upgrade only their CPU when upgrade time comes around again.

To me, when I upgrade my computer, that typically means I gut my case and buy a new motherboard, CPU and RAM. I might buy a new graphics card at that time, or maybe later. And I might buy a new PSU at that time if I need more power, or think I might need more power once I decide on my graphics solution. I know many whose typical upgrade path is similar to mine. But I don't assume I represent the majority either.

Fine but in that case you're being overly defensive of intel, i expressed my opinion on it without trying to enforce it as the correct (imho) opinion or policing opinion as you are.