Z370 Chipset will be Rebranded to Z390 RUMOR

FrgMstr

FrgMstr

Just Plain Mean
Staff member
Joined
May 18, 1997
Messages
55,663
The BenchLife website has up today what it is telling us in the Intel Z390 Chipset Block Diagram. However it looks like there will be very few changes for the "new" chipset besides native USB 3.1 Gen 2, and integrated Intel Wireless-AC. It is suggested that the new Z390 chipset will not move to 14nm process from its current 22nm, and will support new 8-Core Coffee Lake processors. With that said, it is very possible that Z370 could support those CPUs as well, but that is yet to be seen. It is very likely that we will see VRMs on these new boards with the ability to support more power-hungry processors.

Check out the comparison block diagrams.
 
If it's Intel then the boards will support the 6 core CPUs physically but software will stop them from working.

Ie z170 to z270.

Gotta sell those boards.

Also integrated wifi eeew.
 
Last edited:
So Z170 gets rebranded to Z270 then Z370, and now Z390!?

Wow Intel gets its money's worth from its chipset design department ..
 
  • Like
Reactions: N4CR
like this
This is one of the main reasons I went AMD This time. My x470 motherboard will work with the Ryzen 2 7nm CPU's next year. No need to buy a new motherboard......Intel has good processors no doubt about it, but I am sick of having to buy a new damn motherboard all the time.
 
lucidrenegade said:
Not sure how you can call it a "re-brand" when they are integrating new features (USB 3.1 G2 and integrated wireless AC).
Click to expand...
Yes, it not a re- brand, its an Intel re- rebrand: change the name, move 2 pins and make it the only new CPU chipset available. Plus add 200$ keys for raid.
Why not just get it over with and solder the cpus in the motherboard... At least that way the can play with that design too.
 
Just a few days ago it was posted here that coffee lake chips can be made to run on chipsets as far back as z170 IIRC. Intel is just trolling at this point.

At least the popularity of Zen finally has Intel looking like they are going to be moving on to 8 core for the mainstream i7 soon. Except you'll need Z390 V1.5.694369 alpha gamma epsilon to run it :)
 
At least it's not a rebadge like the 8086k since they added something to it. ..Ohwait...
 
Is Z270 to Z370 to Z390 really all that different from what we're about to see from TR1 to TR2? While the core chipset and socket architecture is the same, the Z-series pinouts change a bit to accommodate the extra cores (4c -> 6c -> 8c) and VRMs, etc. have enhanced specs. Probably doesn't matter in most cases unless you're OCing a lot. I'm not surprised at all that it's possible to hack it and make newer chips run on older motherboards.

I do prefer the way AMD is handling it. TR2 will run on X399 v1, but sounds like the 32c chip really won't OC much unless you have a higher end V1 board. X399 v2 for all but the highest end boards will be required to handle a highly OCed 32c TR2; someone's going to be buying a new motherboard. Not to mention that TR2 will be using higher clocked memory and I'm sure a few other tweaks as well. However, I can see the argument that it may cause confusion in the general marketplace and possibly a dead motherboard. It's not the advanced enthusiast nor the prebuilt box markets, it's the middle ground that's problematic.TR isn't a middle ground solution. Z270/370/390 are.

I understand that as an enthusiast we'd all like to buy a motherboard and then play with new processors as they are released. It's likely that our high end motherboards are sufficiently speced that if Intel allowed it we'd have no problem running even the upcoming 8c OCed on an older Z-series motherboard. However, that's not true of the lowest common denominator; that's what Intels rename it solution caters too. Intel sells desktops to a massively diverse user base, AMD currently does not. Particularly in HEDT where there's little chance of the TR1 to TR2 transition causing a problem.

I'd really prefer both Intel and AMD to look out over the life cycle of a socket and spec it from the beginning to handle anything they might want to put on the platform. However, that would drive up the costs of lower end boards during early generations and tip their competitive hand, so no chance of that ever occurring. Thus, we're stuck with new, almost identical motherboards with different names and restrictions (Intel) or the same name, but different minimum specifications (AMD). The former is usually preferred for the general marketplace, the later is fine for advanced users and niche markets.

Pick your poison.
 
LuxTerra said:
Is Z270 to Z370 to Z390 really all that different from what we're about to see from TR1 to TR2? While the core chipset and socket architecture is the same, the Z-series pinouts change a bit to accommodate the extra cores (4c -> 6c -> 8c) and VRMs, etc. have enhanced specs. Probably doesn't matter in most cases unless you're OCing a lot. I'm not surprised at all that it's possible to hack it and make newer chips run on older motherboards.

I do prefer the way AMD is handling it. TR2 will run on X399 v1, but sounds like the 32c chip really won't OC much unless you have a higher end V1 board. X399 v2 for all but the highest end boards will be required to handle a highly OCed 32c TR2; someone's going to be buying a new motherboard. Not to mention that TR2 will be using higher clocked memory and I'm sure a few other tweaks as well. However, I can see the argument that it may cause confusion in the general marketplace and possibly a dead motherboard. It's not the advanced enthusiast nor the prebuilt box markets, it's the middle ground that's problematic.TR isn't a middle ground solution. Z270/370/390 are.

I understand that as an enthusiast we'd all like to buy a motherboard and then play with new processors as they are released. It's likely that our high end motherboards are sufficiently speced that if Intel allowed it we'd have no problem running even the upcoming 8c OCed on an older Z-series motherboard. However, that's not true of the lowest common denominator; that's what Intels rename it solution caters too. Intel sells desktops to a massively diverse user base, AMD currently does not. Particularly in HEDT where there's little chance of the TR1 to TR2 transition causing a problem.

I'd really prefer both Intel and AMD to look out over the life cycle of a socket and spec it from the beginning to handle anything they might want to put on the platform. However, that would drive up the costs of lower end boards during early generations and tip their competitive hand, so no chance of that ever occurring. Thus, we're stuck with new, almost identical motherboards with different names and restrictions (Intel) or the same name, but different minimum specifications (AMD). The former is usually preferred for the general marketplace, the later is fine for advanced users and niche markets.

Pick your poison.
Click to expand...

Coffee Lake chips have been shown to work on 100+200 series chipsets with a little modding and BIOS hacking (I'm not clear whether all core are actually enabled), but Intel claims it to be impossible. To that note, the only disadvantage to allowing backwards compatibility to the consumer is loss of features and possible performance bottlenecks (for users like us) for not using the newest chipsets; the companies are poised to lose much more through over engineering and/or loss of revenue in new chipset sales.

It's another clash of consumer vs. business at the bottom-line, something unlikely to change until the levee breaks.
 
Skull_Angel said:
Coffee Lake chips have been shown to work on 100+200 series chipsets with a little modding and BIOS hacking (I'm not clear whether all core are actually enabled), but Intel claims it to be impossible. To that note, the only disadvantage to allowing backwards compatibility to the consumer is loss of features and possible performance bottlenecks (for users like us) for not using the newest chipsets; the companies are poised to lose much more through over engineering and/or loss of revenue in new chipset sales.

It's another clash of consumer vs. business at the bottom-line, something unlikely to change until the levee breaks.
Click to expand...
The problem is everyone complaining about having to buy a new motherboard is they are taking it personally, as if they're the primary reason Intel is making these decisions. PCs are commoditized. Your options and constraints are driven by the needs of the general market, not what a few enthusiasts want. Intel and AMD are just looking at their relative markets and making decisions to maximize their profits. The vast major of PCs sold are not build you own enthusiast boxes, they are from the pre-built shops where everyone would be buying a new chipset regardless. It's not Intel screwing you, the enthusiast, it's Intel realizing you're not worth the effort to accommodate as far as profits are concerned.

Enthusiast level products are good for managing and manipulating mindshare in the general market, but don't directly make Intel or AMD any significant money. They both carefully weigh the cost of giving enthusiast what they want vs the impact to mindshare when they don't. TIM, chipset changes, etc. have virtually no impact on the general market; only enthusiasts care. What are simple "garage shop" engineering changes (e.g. Z170/270 mods for Coffee Lake, which is literally wiring around the enhanced power circuitry and overriding Intel's software lock in the UEFI) cost very real money at industrial scale. If you've never designed and built anything, you have no idea just how expensive qualification and IV&V really is at these scales.

It's not that it's impossible to do, it's that you're simply not worth the effort for Intel. That may change with a competitive AMD.

We'll see if AMD cares about enthusiasts and is really any different when they add cores to Ryzen (rumored 12/16c dies for Zen 2). When AMD just added cores to TR, AMD did the same thing Intel did; changed the power specification. The only difference is that AMD didn't lock out old motherboards, but has already said that the old ones may not work in all cases. They put TR2 qualification on their motherboard partners and the consumer. That's fine for advanced users and niche markets. That's a terrible idea for the mass market.

Edit: The primary reason AMD currently cares about enthusiasts is because their marketshare says they absolutely must get mindshare at any cost. If AMD grows big enough, we'll see if they remember us or not.
 
Last edited:
Love how TR2, the niche of niche cases is bought up to compare to a mainstream socket.
TR2 is still able to run on most TR1 motherboards if they were built with enough VRM overhead, which for anything outside of bare bones, entry level no OC TR (if they exist), shouldn't be an issue. Keeping in mind this is an enthusiast HEDT platform.

Meanwhile there seems to be no issues with AMD X370-350 compatibility at stock speeds which is what you should be comparing this to. Not a specialised HEDT where the core count just DOUBLED and most boards still support it...
Intel on the other hand has pulled 170, 270, 370, 390.
I'd much rather have the option to at least run a newer CPU, with less features if necessary and be able to upgrade the board later, than be locked out like Intel.
 
LuxTerra said:
The problem is everyone complaining about having to buy a new motherboard is they are taking it personally, as if they're the primary reason Intel is making these decisions. PCs are commoditized. Your options and constraints are driven by the needs of the general market, not what a few enthusiasts want. Intel and AMD are just looking at their relative markets and making decisions to maximize their profits. The vast major of PCs sold are not build you own enthusiast boxes, they are from the pre-built shops where everyone would be buying a new chipset regardless. It's not Intel screwing you, the enthusiast, it's Intel realizing you're not worth the effort to accommodate as far as profits are concerned.

Enthusiast level products are good for managing and manipulating mindshare in the general market, but don't directly make Intel or AMD any significant money. They both carefully weigh the cost of giving enthusiast what they want vs the impact to mindshare when they don't. TIM, chipset changes, etc. have virtually no impact on the general market; only enthusiasts care. What are simple "garage shop" engineering changes (e.g. Z170/270 mods for Coffee Lake, which is literally wiring around the enhanced power circuitry and overriding Intel's software lock in the UEFI) cost very real money at industrial scale. If you've never designed and built anything, you have no idea just how expensive qualification and IV&V really is at these scales.

It's not that it's impossible to do, it's that you're simply not worth the effort for Intel. That may change with a competitive AMD.

We'll see if AMD cares about enthusiasts and is really any different when they add cores to Ryzen (rumored 12/16c dies for Zen 2). When AMD just added cores to TR, AMD did the same thing Intel did; changed the power specification. The only difference is that AMD didn't lock out old motherboards, but has already said that the old ones may not work in all cases. They put TR2 qualification on their motherboard partners and the consumer. That's fine for advanced users and niche markets. That's a terrible idea for the mass market.

Edit: The primary reason AMD currently cares about enthusiasts is because their marketshare says they absolutely must get mindshare at any cost. If AMD grows big enough, we'll see if they remember us or not.
Click to expand...

While you're not wrong on the business side, enthusiasts have a notable impact on mindshare. The information gathered by enthusiasts trickles down multiple channels and will influence the general consumer one way or another, even if they live in a hole.

The general consumer could care less about new hardware releases; release campaigns don't target general consumers, they target the groups (business and consumer alike) that influence them and enthusiasts put that info to the test when they get their hands on it. Come upgrade time, Joe Schmoe asks a friend/techie acquaintance for some buying info or gets it from Salesman Bob (who doesn't get paid enough/any bonus to recommend targeted brands any more), does he take the time to actively search for info and try to understand it? Nah, but he thinks he's smarter than the average consumer (and he would have been, some years ago) and wants to be in the know, so he asks the people he thinks have a good idea about what they're talking about.

Where did the people Joe went to for info learn about it? Various sources, but unless they're fanboys or naive (which Joe's pretty good at weeding out, unless he's naive himself), likely enthusiast driven sources.

Intel currently hides behind the same shield they have for years to keep their mindshare secured. "We have better performance.", I'd like to see what happens when that shield is gone; realistically, it was never there for the general user, but they don't like to hear that ;)

My original point was that Intel is very business aggressive, to the point that it's tactics can be called anti-consumer. I'm not saying the other companies aren't, it's easy enough to see that any company that can secure a position at the top will become the same way. The role of enthusiasts in any market isn't only to point out what fits best, but also debate what doesn't.
 
Skull_Angel said:
enthusiasts have a notable impact on mindshare
Click to expand...

"My board caught on fire! This thing isn't stable!"

-the 'enthusiasts' that tried to overclock their 8700k on budget Z170/Z270 boards if Intel had made them pin and power 'compatible'.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
"My board caught on fire! This thing isn't stable!"

-the 'enthusiasts' that tried to overclock their 8700k on budget Z170/Z270 boards if Intel had made them pin and power 'compatible'.
Click to expand...

hmmm, budget boards are specifically mentioned... fascinating. But when one drops $250+ for an enthusiast level motherboard one should not run into the same restriction (pin/power-wise) as low budget boards
 
Last edited:
_l_ said:
hmmm, budget boards are specifically mentioned... fascinating. But when one drops $250+ for an enthusiast level motherboard one should not run into the same restriction (power-wise) as low budget boards (pin/power changes on high end as well or am I incorrect on this?)
Click to expand...

It can go either way- the challenge is that the >$150 market is very slim, while the number of boards below that mark and those in OEMs are the vast majority, and will have problems ranging from severe throttling, to stability, to outright failure.

Another example was AMD's 5.0GHz Bulldozer, whatever it was called. They decided to support it, but many boards simply couldn't handle it.

Switching to a new chipset that has new power requirements attached is a method that effectively ensures that these issues don't hit.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
It can go either way- the challenge is that the >$150 market is very slim, while the number of boards below that mark and those in OEMs are the vast majority, and will have problems ranging from severe throttling, to stability, to outright failure.

Another example was AMD's 5.0GHz Bulldozer, whatever it was called. They decided to support it, but many boards simply couldn't handle it.

Switching to a new chipset that has new power requirements attached is a method that effectively ensures that these issues don't hit.
Click to expand...

So why can't they figure out how to beef up a board so it handles today's CPU power requirement as well as at least the next gen release ...
 
_l_ said:
So why can't they figure out how to beef up a board so it handles today's CPU power requirement as well as at least the next gen release ...
Click to expand...

Some have!

They're in the minority, and expensive, because that stuff costs ;).
 
  • Like
Reactions: _l_
like this
Skull_Angel said:
While you're not wrong on the business side, enthusiasts have a notable impact on mindshare. The information gathered by enthusiasts trickles down multiple channels and will influence the general consumer one way or another, even if they live in a hole.

The general consumer could care less about new hardware releases; release campaigns don't target general consumers, they target the groups (business and consumer alike) that influence them and enthusiasts put that info to the test when they get their hands on it. Come upgrade time, Joe Schmoe asks a friend/techie acquaintance for some buying info or gets it from Salesman Bob (who doesn't get paid enough/any bonus to recommend targeted brands any more), does he take the time to actively search for info and try to understand it? Nah, but he thinks he's smarter than the average consumer (and he would have been, some years ago) and wants to be in the know, so he asks the people he thinks have a good idea about what they're talking about.

Where did the people Joe went to for info learn about it? Various sources, but unless they're fanboys or naive (which Joe's pretty good at weeding out, unless he's naive himself), likely enthusiast driven sources.

Intel currently hides behind the same shield they have for years to keep their mindshare secured. "We have better performance.", I'd like to see what happens when that shield is gone; realistically, it was never there for the general user, but they don't like to hear that ;)

My original point was that Intel is very business aggressive, to the point that it's tactics can be called anti-consumer. I'm not saying the other companies aren't, it's easy enough to see that any company that can secure a position at the top will become the same way. The role of enthusiasts in any market isn't only to point out what fits best, but also debate what doesn't.
Click to expand...
That's fair and I don't think we're in disagreement at all. When a business has practically 100% market share because their competition is ineffective, they tend to not care about said enthusiast influence; see Intel for the last decade. Since we're discussing rolling your own and desktops, enthusiasts might actually be gaining power since years ago the average consumer switched over to laptops and more recently to tablets and phones. The uneducated market for desktops should be thinning out.

Edit: Just to be clear, I think the 170 series should have had 8c from the get go and Intel being Intel made sure that didn't happen. I'm not defending their decision to stagnate the market/innovation because AMD wasn't competitive. I just see the pragmatism of iterating and avoiding compatibility issues when they finally got around to adding cores.
 
Last edited:
N4CR said:
Love how TR2, the niche of niche cases is bought up to compare to a mainstream socket.
TR2 is still able to run on most TR1 motherboards if they were built with enough VRM overhead, which for anything outside of bare bones, entry level no OC TR (if they exist), shouldn't be an issue. Keeping in mind this is an enthusiast HEDT platform.

Meanwhile there seems to be no issues with AMD X370-350 compatibility at stock speeds which is what you should be comparing this to. Not a specialised HEDT where the core count just DOUBLED and most boards still support it...
Intel on the other hand has pulled 170, 270, 370, 390.
I'd much rather have the option to at least run a newer CPU, with less features if necessary and be able to upgrade the board later, than be locked out like Intel.
Click to expand...
It's relevant because it's the only example of AMD adding cores to an existing platform, with the current management and while being competitive. There are other historic examples, but it's hard to say if they mean anything with AMDs current management.

170 -> 270 Kaby Lake works in 170, so not sure what there is to complain about. Yes, like Ryzen 2 there are features that require 270.
270 -> 370 added two cores (4c to 6c)
370 -> 390 expected to add two more cores (6c to 8c)

If you'd bothered to read and comprehend, AM4 was brought up and it's extremely unlikely that future 12c/16c Ryzen CPUs will work in it. Engineering specifications will change and AMD will need a new socket or variant like TR2. If you look at the roadmaps for Zen iterations and AMDs promise to support AM4 till 2020, you basically have the answer of when Ryzen is scheduled to get more cores, DDR5, etc. Details are TBD.
 
Last edited:
IdiotInCharge said:
"My board caught on fire! This thing isn't stable!"

-the 'enthusiasts' that tried to overclock their 8700k on budget Z170/Z270 boards if Intel had made them pin and power 'compatible'.
Click to expand...
Exactly. I'm half expecting TR2 threads with smoked boards (which TR1 motherboard has the weakest VRM setup?). Perhaps not here given the general level of knowledge is higher, but someone is going to do it and be very upset.

I actually prefer AMDs TR2 solution given the market it competes in and I think that sentiment has gotten lost in this thread. All indications are that AM4 isn't going to have this issue because AMD got it right from the beginning by going 8c. We'll see new AM4 chipsets, but they'll just be adding a few new features here and there until 2021 with Zen 3. I'm sure AMD has a backup plan for 12c with Zen 2 if Intel got it's act together, but I don't think that's the baseline for Ryzen 3. If that happens, I totally expect a new AM4 variant like TR2 is getting.

All that said, I totally get why Intel would choose to iterate the baseline and rename the chipset on a mainstream platform. I may not like the overall situation, but I can see the business and engineering pragmatism of doing so. It's not good for enthusiast customers, but it seems nearly everyone kept buying Intel regardless (at least until Ryzen) because performance is king.

Edit: If you believe the TR development stories, AMD wasn't expecting it to be quite the hit it is and it was sort of a side project. It happened because a few people at AMD had the passion to make it happen. Given that, I don't blame AMD at all for not planning out a four die TR2 power/TDP budget. even if it was obvious that such a beast could be easily made.
 
Last edited:
LuxTerra said:
It's relevant because it's the only example of AMD adding cores to an existing platform, with the current management and while being competitive. There are other historic examples, but it's hard to say if they mean anything with AMDs current management.

170 -> 270 Kaby Lake works in 170, so not sure what there is to complain about. Yes, like Ryzen 2 there are features that require 270.
270 -> 370 added two cores (4c to 6c)
370 -> 390 expected to add two more cores (6c to 8c)

If you'd bothered to read and comprehend, AM4 was brought up and it's extremely unlikely that future 12c/16c Ryzen CPUs will work in it. Engineering specifications will change and AMD will need a new socket or variant like TR2. If you look at the roadmaps for Zen iterations and AMDs promise to support AM4 till 2020, you basically have the answer of when Ryzen is scheduled to get more cores, DDR5, etc. Details are TBD.
Click to expand...

So if AMD lets people run stuff using a long socket strategy, and a small amount of vendor designs fail to do it justice doing the bare minimums - is it AMDs' fault? That's some {S}oftOCP there.
You just listed Intel doing the shitty way, meanwhile if you missed it, they have now 8th gen i7 working on 170s with wire mods and custom bios. Again, some vendors slipped up (Gigabyte being one) so it fries your shit if you don't know what you are doing, so it doesn't have 100% success either.
Really - AMD had a single socket, while Intel had at least one a half and now 2.5 socket changes over the same period. That is the end of the matter right there!
Intel has nearly 3x as many socket changes compared to AMD in the same time period.

Intel deliberately tried to fuck people and you're trying to say it's okay because enthusiast boards, but AMD vendors fucked up, plus AMD let you use the same socket for many years of CPU revisions and it's AMDs' fault and a bad thing? Does Intel pay you well?
You answered yourself about AMD. AM4 is going till 2020, they are releasing 7nm Zen2 in 2019, so it will be DDR4 + AM4 as they have said. This is the only CPU die refresh before the socket is EOL, I have no issues with that and may even invest in that if the price is right, 7nm will bring the right balance of per core speed and multi tasking for me to step in. I don't want a 2600k forever and need to start working with 4k footage eventually.

DDR5 will likely need a new socket and maybe a bit of a spin on IMC, thus bingo - that's what 7nm+ roadmap is for. It won't be hugely faster but it will be a bit if DDR5 is good out of the gate.

https://hardforum.com/threads/the-new-old-pencil-trick-for-8th-gen-intel.1962807/
 
LuxTerra said:
Edit: If you believe the TR development stories, AMD wasn't expecting it to be quite the hit it is and it was sort of a side project. It happened because a few people at AMD had the passion to make it happen. Given that, I don't blame AMD at all for not planning out a four die TR2 power/TDP budget. even if it was obvious that such a beast could be easily made.
Click to expand...

Well said, I forgot that part of TR. They didn't even have future roadmaps for TR2 if I remember correctly, so the easy way was borrow from EPYC..
They apparently did lots of after hours/weekend project work on it, i'm amazed AMD let them do it with how tight cash is there but I guess it was a labour of love mostly. Apparently it was (is) very compartmentalised, that's probably why Intel had their water chiller cherry-picked xeon owned at computex this year, by a 32 core air cooled TR2. Hope they got good bonuses for it - I hope to own a TR3!
 
No longer belong to The Intel Retail Edge program they kicked out Walley World so don't have ambition to upgrade every year or so.
CPU can only do so much for gaming anyone unless it's a 4-5 year old machine already.
 
Comixbooks said:
No longer belong to The Intel Retail Edge program they kicked out Walley World so don't have ambition to upgrade every year or so.
CPU can only do so much for gaming anyone unless it's a 4-5 year old machine already.
Click to expand...

Unless you play ultra-competitive 1080p, you're still going to get enough performance out of a 4-5 y.o. OCed Intel CPU to turn up most eye-candy on current games with a good GPU [and enough RAM]. Still rocking a 4670K and the only thing really holding me back, on current games, is the 8GB RAM I have.
 
You posted a lot of subjective stuff, but I'll just stick to responding to this:

N4CR said:
So if AMD lets people run stuff using a long socket strategy
Click to expand...

Intel was planning on being off of 14nm by now, with eight cores. They tossed the 8700k at six cores in when they realized that they'd still be stuck at 14nm, and are releasing an eight-core at 14nm, and these require more power.

Also note that the reason AMD typically exhibits a 'long socket strategy' is because they innovate slowly ;).

This isn't a pro-consumer/anti-consumer thing. Intel has consistently decided to iterate the chipset and socket to make sure that stuff works by design. AMD has consistently been happily to let stuff fail. As an admirer of Lord Darwin, I appreciate AMD's stance, but I also understand why Intel isn't planning for failure :D.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top