Evaluating the single vs multi-tier platform is not straightforward, on one hand if you didn't dedicate half the die space on an intel CPU to a useless IGP on an upper-end processor, then you could have a much stronger CPU. But an enthusiast is still going to demand an enthusiast chipset with enthusiast features, and you are not necessarily going to see all of these on a mainstream chipset due to cost constraints.
It could probably be done pretty well on a single platform, then again you could probably have a pretty cool two tier system (if they capture the market share to justify it), wouldn't it be awesome too see some sort of server grade derivitive enthusiast frankesntein chipset that could be scaled up to the dual CPU configuration, without the sort of Xeon/i7 distinctions, and without compromising their market segregation.
I am sure they could do something crazy, sort of morph it into one virtual CPU, use HBM for memory, have some shared memory, or just do something that is frickin awesome man! Who wouldn't want a dual big 8 Core CPU computer pushed to 4-5Ghz. That would just be insane, going from a quad core to a true 16 core hyperthreaded computer, with a HBM buffer....
Surprised no one thought of this, could be because this isn't true, however the unification of the sockets also could be a cost saving measure. AMD is struggling mightily right now and their stock shows it. I have no idea how much it costs to R&D all the sockets and chipsets, but that could be one reason for the unification, other than that it goes by their pin for pin compatibility between x86 and ARM and all that jazz.
They could very well make the difference between the enthusiast platform and the mainstream platform different chipsets as opposed to different sockets. If you want to features of the more expensive chipset, then go with that. Your mainstream APU/low power cpu will still fit. Meanwhile if you want performance and don't care as much about features, you can save some money with the mainstream chipsets. That is one option at least. I have no idea if they will go that route though.
I think potentially more so it is a market issue, in that you need a particular market share in order to justify two platforms, and they don't want to end up where they create a platform and it has too small a userbase for the board partners to cater too.
Not sure about how easy it is to make quad memory configurations for instance on a low-end socket, that is probably going to mean adding alot of extra pins, just so the processors a socket compatable. I think that some features like this would probably have to be dumped if they are going for a single platform.
Yeah, it looks like the official name for this platform is AM4, not FM3. Considering that it is still planned to consolidate both APUs and CPUs, what they call it is irrelevant. It is unfortunate for my title though.
I already said that the change from them using FM3 to them using AM4 is unfortunate for the title.
Their APUs are aimed at getting HBM involved, if I'm not mistaken. That would be much more beneficial than ddr4 as far as an APU gaming build goes. They might actually become a cost effective alternative in the entry/mainstream/casual gaming market.
I'm actually relieved they're coming out with a new platform. I realize that ASRock and MSI are putting out 3.1 USB for AM3+ boards, and ASRock even nailed M.2 slots to a couple of them, but, still, with all the other technological improvements, there needs to be a whole new board for proper integration.
... Now, let's hope that the prices of DDR4 drop more swiftly. :|
TLDR: M.2. on AM3+ is silly. Would rather they work on Matx.
I despise PCIE2.0 M.2. and Sata Express, they are stupid dead-end, short term standards. Barely faster than SataIII and really clumsy soloutions, and the devices that you use in these have no backwards and forwards compatability.
It's not untill we start talking about M.2. Ultra or PCIe3.0 4x M.2. that we see significant performance gains, gains which going through the PCIe lanes don't saturate your PCH (which is where all your sata data goes through, and is limited by PCH-CPU intelink speeds). Thats why a massive SSD raid for instance tops out and caps on a computer...
yeah Intel 1150 is such a crap high end gaming platform with their APU's ;) Yes I specifically say APU since they also have graphics on their CPU's. The difference is that Intel has more focus on the CPU side while AMD has it on their GPU side but that's mainly because Bulldozer, Vishera CPU's are just crappy CPU's with old tech.
That said I do hope AMD can kick back with Zen because they really do need a good CPU and they brought the know how back the last couple of years so we should see the fruits of those engineers soon. I mean 40% IPC increase would bring it back on par with Intel hopefully it's more across the board than just one specific thing.
