I'm expecting 3000 series parts to be cheap(er) not long after 4000 series release though.
That would be a reasonable supposition, although with what people said above about AMD having sold 90% of the chips they've made, maybe not.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I'm expecting 3000 series parts to be cheap(er) not long after 4000 series release though.
I'm expecting 3000 series parts to be cheap(er) not long after 4000 series release though.
That feels like an asshole move.
AMD proved with the PCIE 4.0 B450/X470 removal that they are not above bullshit, and countless times before. They are not your friend, they are the same corporate assholes like everyone else. This is yet another reminder. BS reason for a BS move.
Sadly they pulled it more because too many manufacturers cut corners on their boards, things like thinning their tracings or planned them too close to noisy capacitors which interferes with signal quality it sucks that AMD has to do it but it’s what we get for a race to the bottom on board prices. Better to call it off for the whole line than to have to qualify each board individually.AMD proved with the PCIE 4.0 B450/X470 removal that they are not above bullshit, and countless times before. They are not your friend, they are the same corporate assholes like everyone else. This is yet another reminder. BS reason for a BS move.
No, but it was proven to work with beta bios and then removed... If you keep it beta or say it's unsupported then it's not like they had to spend $ to support it. I think the problem was it WAS working on to many boards and they were afraid people wouldn't spend the extra money to upgrade to x570. I mean, look how long b550 took to come out? Still waiting. I'm an AMD fan, I run a B450 in my personal desktop. I am not going to pretend they are in this for good will... They are a company in business to make money (mostly to share holders who want short term investments, not long term). I would prefer them.to not put restrictions on their MB partners and allow them to support features if they want, but understand how long the AM4 platform has been out and the amount of work they would need to put in to verify/test in order to give vendors code to allow newer CPUs to run on older boards. As a B450 owner I was hoping to be able to drop in a 4600x or similar, but if not I don't feel like I got taken with my purchase.We will see when the 4000 Series is released. As for the PCIe 4.0 stuff, those boards were not designed for it and hence, the reason for the removal.
Q: What about (X pre-500 Series chipset)?
A: AMD has no plans to introduce “Zen 3” architecture support for older chipsets. While we wish could enable full support for every processor on every chipset, the flash memory chips that store BIOS settings and support have capacity limitations. Given these limitations, and the unprecedented longevity of the AM4 socket, there will inevitably be a time and place where a transition to free up space is necessary—the AMD 500 Series chipsets are that time.
16mb?! My ab350 has 128mb, so that should be enough? I thought it was 128mb that was iffy?Another thought on this issue:
Official reason given is that:
What makes X470 BIOSes with 16MB ROMs different from X570 BIOSes with 16MB ROMs? Something is telling me AMD could go back on this if they wanted, just like how some older boards dropped support for the first gen of AM4 processors (excavator?) when 3000 series launched.
Again I don't really mind -- I can easily pick up an X570 board today (except I hate the idea of the fan). But whether Intel or AMD, NVidia, this kind of stuff makes 0 sense.
Also, the B550 launch timing made this an issue as well. If they flooded the market with B550 boards with "Future AM4 CPU support" at the same price point as B450 boards when Zen 2 launched, there would have been close to no backlash. They also should have made this a selling point for X570 as well instead of staying mum on the issue.
16mb?! My ab350 has 128mb, so that should be enough? I thought it was 128mb that was iffy?
The last bios I updated to was this one. 6.30, 8.04MB. 16,384KB in the folder.Check the download file sizes for your BIOS @ the motherboard support pages, it will likely be less than 16MB.
The specs pages usually say 128Mb or 256Mb, which is actually 16/32MB since 8Mb = 1MB.
This isn't a new thing apparently.
https://www.techpowerup.com/257201/...backwards-compatibility-promise?cp=2#comments
They erased Bristol Ridge support on some MSI boards to fit the UEFI.
Maybe they'll give you an optional UEFI that erases 1xxx and 2xxx support in favor of 3 and 4000.
We will see when the 4000 Series is released. As for the PCIe 4.0 stuff, those boards were not designed for it and hence, the reason for the removal.
That should have been up to the MBO manufacturers to test and decide. It's only a BS reason from AMD. They just didn't want people to keep using boards they wouldn't profit as much from.Sadly they pulled it more because too many manufacturers cut corners on their boards, things like thinning their tracings or planned them too close to noisy capacitors which interferes with signal quality it sucks that AMD has to do it but it’s what we get for a race to the bottom on board prices. Better to call it off for the whole line than to have to qualify each board individually.
It should be up to MB manufacturers to do but here’s why they won’t and why AMD won’t push it. If the MB manufacturer spends the money and does all the tests it nets them no additional sales, if they don’t pass it tarnishes their reputation and costs them future sales. AMD is not exactly in any position to go pissing off its partners like that so knowing the issues they won’t press it. It’s far better for them to say “for the sake of stability and ensuring the best performance for you, we are only making this available for these chips” and end it there. AMD’s partners get to save face and for 99.9% of their customers they don’t really care and there is no impact on sales. What AMD should have done was not mention PCIE4 at all until after their cards launched then released a BIOS update for the 500 series that “enables” PCIE4, then give us a story about how their new GPU’s are compatible with the faster speeds. Then it’s no longer a marketing sale but a nice bonus for the consumer side. They could happily leave the PCIE4 material in the thread ripper stuff from the get go as there was no backwards compatibility there to worry about. It’s not like PCIE4 is that big of a deal on the consumer side, it only really effects memory storage and nvme drives operating at those speeds are few and far between.That should have been up to the MBO manufacturers to test and decide. It's only a BS reason from AMD. They just didn't want people to keep using boards they wouldn't profit as much from.
The same for the 3XX series chipsets and Zen 2. It was only after public backlash that they caved and allowed support.
This doesn't make sense. The MB manufacturers wanted to and have done it. It was AMD that stepped over them and made them disable it.It should be up to MB manufacturers to do but here’s why they won’t and why AMD won’t push it. If the MB manufacturer spends the money and does all the tests it nets them no additional sales, if they don’t pass it tarnishes their reputation and costs them future sales. AMD is not exactly in any position to go pissing off its partners like that so knowing the issues they won’t press it. It’s far better for them to say “for the sake of stability and ensuring the best performance for you, we are only making this available for these chips” and end it there. AMD’s partners get to save face and for 99.9% of their customers they don’t really care and there is no impact on sales. What AMD should have done was not mention PCIE4 at all until after their cards launched then released a BIOS update for the 500 series that “enables” PCIE4, then give us a story about how their new GPU’s are compatible with the faster speeds. Then it’s no longer a marketing sale but a nice bonus for the consumer side. They could happily leave the PCIE4 material in the thread ripper stuff from the get go as there was no backwards compatibility there to worry about. It’s not like PCIE4 is that big of a deal on the consumer side, it only really effects memory storage and nvme drives operating at those speeds are few and far between.
AMD don't make much from MBs as far as I can remember. Maybe this has changed with x570 due to pcie 4.0 requirements? I still dislike that even today if someone wanted to build a lower end AMD rig, they still can't get a b550 and be able to upgrade later. This actually puts me in a tough spot, I was debating buying a MB to upgrade my son's PC from his 6600k to a 3300x... Then buy myself a new CPU when zen 3 comes out.(in the 4600/4600x range)... If I cant put that into my current b450, then I might as well keep waiting to upgrade. The b550 won't support my 1600, so I can't even upgrade my MB to pass mine to my son in the meantime.... So basically I have to wait for zen 3 to drop, which means instead of spending $ on AMD now, just waiting until the end of the year. The lack of budget motherboards is/was a crappy decision if they weren't planning to have compatibility going forward.That should have been up to the MBO manufacturers to test and decide. It's only a BS reason from AMD. They just didn't want people to keep using boards they wouldn't profit as much from.
The same for the 3XX series chipsets and Zen 2. It was only after public backlash that they caved and allowed support.
Honestly, I wouldn't think they made much either, but I can't see another reason for these moves. Them being the ones manufacturing the 5XX chipsets instead of ASMedia which made previous ones makes me think they have a bigger margin now to make it worth it, especially when their CPUs are so popular now.AMD don't make much from MBs as far as I can remember. Maybe this has changed with x570 due to pcie 4.0 requirements?
That should have been up to the MBO manufacturers to test and decide. It's only a BS reason from AMD. They just didn't want people to keep using boards they wouldn't profit as much from.
The same for the 3XX series chipsets and Zen 2. It was only after public backlash that they caved and allowed support.
Honestly, I wouldn't think they made much either, but I can't see another reason for these moves. Them being the ones manufacturing the 5XX chipsets instead of ASMedia which made previous ones makes me think they have a bigger margin now to make it worth it, especially when their CPUs are so popular now.
The small amount of people this would effect, and enthusiasts at that, would not be blaming AMD for a beta bios on a non supported motherboard. It's not like big OEMs would be selling non working unsupported combos. If a board didn't work right, but 15 others did, they would blame the vendor not AMD. You can already see this as (going by memory) some Asus x370 support was crap with bios updates for newer CPUs. Nobody put that on AMD, you only ever hear a handful of people complaining that ASUS didn't release many updates and left a lot to be desired.They should let the MB manufacturers decide? Then when things fail, AMD takes the hit and is at fault, hurts their image and people say they should have not allowed it, eh?
Edit: Also, show me this backlash, since it was actually supported from day one.
I can't remember when a CPU manufacturer got blaimed for a MBO advertised feature not working.They should let the MB manufacturers decide? Then when things fail, AMD takes the hit and is at fault, hurts their image and people say they should have not allowed it, eh?
There was definitely a lot of noise about MSI motherboards not supporting Zen2, but you may be right on AMD not being the one restricting it on 3XX initially (though I vaguely remeber it being ambiguous) . They have done so with PCIE 4.0, even though some had MBO models capable of supporting it. It was a software switch for hardware feature segmentation pushed from AMD.Edit: Also, show me this backlash, since it was actually supported from day one. As well, I have yet to see any evidence of this non support for the 3xx series chipsets, although I could be wrong. I do not recall any youtubers saying anything nor any articles written about it. (And no, possible bad support at the beginning is not evidence.)
Then it baffles me even more.ASMedia is making the B550. They made the X570.
Couldn't motherboard manufacturer in theory just give up supporting Ryzen 1000 and 2000 CPUs to increase ROM space for Ryzen 3000 and 4000?
Sadly they pulled it more because too many manufacturers cut corners on their boards, things like thinning their tracings or planned them too close to noisy capacitors which interferes with signal quality it sucks that AMD has to do it but it’s what we get for a race to the bottom on board prices. Better to call it off for the whole line than to have to qualify each board individually.
Why? It's just another feature better SKUs would have. Just like ECC, 10G, M.2, BIOS flashback...it's also considered unfair marketing within the board partners, remember the ASUS marketing fiasco? you know it would of gotten worse if some board partners could legitimately support pcie 4.0 on b450 and others couldn't.
I'm not overly concerned, I would bet money multiple vendors have b450/x470 BIOS with ryzen 4000 support a month after launch. If one does it, the rest will be forced to follow. There is always BIOS modding as well.The bigger issue here is motherboard vendors' shitty BIOSes and proprietary crap like AMI.
I own the hardware, there is zero reason to lock down the BIOS software outside of restricting my use.
All of the vendors just purchase/license and customize AMI's templates anyways. Some are nicer than others, ie. Asrock opening up the AMD PBS menu on their motherboards (unlike ASUS and friends).
...Again I don't really mind -- I can easily pick up an X570 board today (except I hate the idea of the fan)...
just wait and see.Welp damn I’ll have to upgrade my motherboard too oh well Ryzen 4xxx series looks like it might be performant enough to make that worth it
I've bought 3 AMD cpus in the last year and a half. (Two in the last month.) My last intel chip was purchased 4 years ago. No, I'm not a powerful force in the market.
The last two AMD chips, 3700x's, were both purchased with X570 mobos...specifically to increase the odds of my system longevity. Will I swap in a Ryzen 4000 series? I don't know. But I do know that I like the option. Intel...well, they've been pushed deep into second place on my list of "go to" cpu manufacturers.
Like others here, I keep one or two machines at the top of the heap, and try to use their cast-offs to keep the other machines relevant. AMD lets me do that far more easily (and cheaply) than intel.
At least it's a real limitation and not because they said it won't work.
AMD back flipped on that after the outrage when MSI announced their 300 series boards won't support Zen 2 processors. So AMD went back and made it happen, but just never announced the official support. We've been told they'll refuse to do that again.