bit-tech.net

Gigabyte announces AM3+ 'Black Socket' motherboards

Gigabyte announces AM3+ 'Black Socket' motherboards

AMD is reportedly pitching Bulldozer as a direct competitor to Intel's Sandy Bridge architecture.

Gigabyte has announced a new line of revised motherboards that support AMD's AM3+ CPUs, which are due to be released later this year.

The motherboards, which will be based on AMD's 800- and 700-series chipsets, sport a black CPU socket to denote support for AMD's new range of CPUs. In addition to the black socket, the new boards, which are all revised versions of existing products, will also feature a 3.1 revision number to help aid identification.

AMD's AM3+ CPUs, which will be based on the Bulldozer architecture, are due for release later this year. As we've previously reported, AMD appears to be claiming that the chips will be able to directly compete with Intel's Sandy Bridge range of CPUs.

Despite issues with motherboard chipsets, Sandy Bridge has quickly become popular with enthusiasts, thanks to the highly overclockable K-series CPUs and the range's low power draw compared to LGA1366 CPUs.

Bulldozer is, as far as we can tell, the first major revision of AMD's desktop CPU architecture for a number of years, which adds to the anticipation that it might finally be able to compete with Intel in the mid-range and high-end - something we haven't seen on a large scale since AMD's Socket 939 chips.

Are you looking forward to AMD's new CPUs? Do you think AMD will finally be able to compete with Intel's top-end chips again? Let us know your thoughts in the forums.

49 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
Jipa 7th April 2011, 14:05 Quote
LAUNCH THE DAMN CHIPS ALREADY!
Teh Noob Slayer 7th April 2011, 14:12 Quote
1.Yes
2.Hopefully

Funny how the motherboards are officially announced before the CPUs are.
thetrashcanman 7th April 2011, 14:25 Quote
HURRY UP!
javaman 7th April 2011, 14:27 Quote
LAUNCH THE DAMN CHIPS AND BENCHMARKS ALREADY!
schmidtbag 7th April 2011, 14:39 Quote
i still want more proof of whether current am3 boards can support am3+ CPUs with a bios update. as long as i can do that, i'm absolutely looking forward to bulldozer. if amd's claims of directly competing against SB are true (which i'm sure it is because their claims about competing against atom+ion were true), then i'd say good for them. its nice to see a company thats nearly less than half the size of intel make a better product. it just shows money can't buy you everything. even if bulldozer doesn't overclock as well or runs a little hotter, if it works on current am3 boards, thats a major benefit to the consumer right there.
Xir 7th April 2011, 14:48 Quote
We shall see, I'm not sure if I'd trust a board developped before the CPU is available though...

If bulldozer does compete...you'd better be quick, those that don't have SB yet are waiting for Z68, ;-)
dicobalt 7th April 2011, 15:25 Quote
3.1? Windows 3.1 capable?
xaser04 7th April 2011, 15:29 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xir
We shall see, I'm not sure if I'd trust a board developped before the CPU is available though...

One would assume that Gigabyte (and others) have bulldozer chips on hand to test their motherboards compatability. Or at least they send test mules to AMD to test for compatability.
Floyd 7th April 2011, 16:38 Quote
Sucks that with the revision they didnt change that stupid socket design.
Tell me, how many of you have pulled a AMD chip from its socket when removing the heatsink...
Doesnt happen on my Intel rigs :)
GiantKiwi 7th April 2011, 16:43 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floyd
Sucks that with the revision they didnt change that stupid socket design.
Tell me, how many of you have pulled a AMD chip from its socket when removing the heatsink...
Doesnt happen on my Intel rigs :)

What about the intel issues with bending pins when using custom coolers? neither socket is perfect
schmidtbag 7th April 2011, 16:47 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floyd
Sucks that with the revision they didnt change that stupid socket design.
Tell me, how many of you have pulled a AMD chip from its socket when removing the heatsink...
Doesnt happen on my Intel rigs :)

thats pretty easy to avoid. if you plan on removing the thermal paste, theres usually a few mm of space between the heatsink and the borders of the mounting bracket. just twist the heatsink a little and it comes loose without the cpu coming with it. on socket 478, this wasn't really possible because there was no wiggle room.

like i mentioned in my previous post, IF current am3 motherboards work with am3+ CPUs, then i'm all for the fact that they're recycling old socket designs. however, if it isn't compatible, they should move to LGA.
l3v1ck 7th April 2011, 16:53 Quote
I'd love to see Bulldozer do well, but I'm at the point where I'm fed up of hearing about it.
I just wish they'd release the damn thing.
dicobalt 7th April 2011, 18:31 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floyd
Sucks that with the revision they didnt change that stupid socket design.
Tell me, how many of you have pulled a AMD chip from its socket when removing the heatsink...
Doesnt happen on my Intel rigs :)

Always twist and slide, don't pull up on the heatsink. I do the same for Intel sockets as well because they can be stuck on there so well it lifts the entire computer lol
Instagib 7th April 2011, 19:00 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by schmidtbag
i still want more proof of whether current am3 boards can support am3+ CPUs with a bios update. as long as i can do that, i'm absolutely looking forward to bulldozer. if amd's claims of directly competing against SB are true (which i'm sure it is because their claims about competing against atom+ion were true), then i'd say good for them. its nice to see a company thats nearly less than half the size of intel make a better product. it just shows money can't buy you everything. even if bulldozer doesn't overclock as well or runs a little hotter, if it works on current am3 boards, thats a major benefit to the consumer right there.

This is off ASUS' own site, stating that certain AM3 boards will be compatible.
javaman 7th April 2011, 19:38 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Instagib
This is off ASUS' own site, stating that certain AM3 boards will be compatible.

Best person to ask is bindi who is lurking in the ASUS forums for more details. Just noticed tat my board got an update for hex core phenoms. Thats thrown a spanner in the works for my upgrade plans. Seeing this and depending how AM3+ pans out in the backwards direction will decide if I upgrade to quad, hex or jump platform.
CrapBag 7th April 2011, 19:41 Quote
Was hoping my MSI 790FX GD70 was gonna work so that I could at least just buy the cpu for the time being and then upgrade the board at a later stage but it looks like its just gonna be 890 series msi boards.

Info

Ah well at least my ram will be reusable hopfully.
HourBeforeDawn 7th April 2011, 19:49 Quote
I know you wouldnt be able to see it most of the time but I like the black socket :)
SinnerG 7th April 2011, 20:10 Quote
So much for the AM3 socket being "future proof". :P

This Bulldozer has been in the making forever. I hope AMD realise that when it arrives it needs to seriously out-do Sandy Bridge in order to live up to hype and expectation.
Farfalho 7th April 2011, 20:14 Quote
I want the chips! Now! Reviews, benchmarks, the whole package! FFS it has been too long and I won't buy any aged K architecture
Floyd 7th April 2011, 21:22 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by dicobalt
Always twist and slide, don't pull up on the heatsink. I do the same for Intel sockets as well because they can be stuck on there so well it lifts the entire computer lol
I did that on my first and only AMD chip and it scratched the CPU and cooler. Not cool.
It was S939 so its a bit old and useless now.
chrismarkham1982 7th April 2011, 22:06 Quote
the only problem i forsee is that a lot of people have already made the switch to sandy bridge because they just got fed up of waiting what seems like an eternity for bulldozer, granted some people will prob change again if bulldozer does end up being that little bit quicker but how many people seriously will think...-hmmm ive just spent a few hundred building my pc, i know ill get rid of it and needlessly spend a few hundred more on another computer that in real world terms wont make any difference to me what-so-ever-....so even if amd do compete with sandybridge (which i have my doubts) theyve probably already lost a fair bit of custom because theyve taken so long, if they want to succeed now then it will have to blow sandybridge out of the water but then theres also ivy bridge in a few months plus socket 2011 as-well
Horizon 7th April 2011, 23:32 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floyd
Sucks that with the revision they didnt change that stupid socket design.
Tell me, how many of you have pulled a AMD chip from its socket when removing the heatsink...
Doesnt happen on my Intel rigs :)

Never have, Don't manhandle it just twist it side to side, and it comes right off.
.//TuNdRa 7th April 2011, 23:50 Quote
Then there are those of us with older AM3 kit and cheaper processors, looking for performance boosts without needing an entire new Mobo to run everything on. (The Financially Challenged, in other words.)

Bulldozer should be rather interesting, although I'd picked up on this backwards compatability fuss when I saw that rev. 3.1 of my Motherboard was AM3+ about five weeks back.

Irregardless: Octo-core? I want it. If only for the bragging rights if that thing will go to 4Ghz, even if it doesn't perform as well as a Sandy-Bridge job, Or an Ivy bridge, for that matter.

(C'mon, who doesn't think that EIGHT cores at Four Gigahertz a-piece would be awesome?)
javaman 7th April 2011, 23:55 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by .//TuNdRa
Then there are those of us with older AM3 kit and cheaper processors, looking for performance boosts without needing an entire new Mobo to run everything on. (The Financially Challenged, in other words.)

Bulldozer should be rather interesting, although I'd picked up on this backwards compatability fuss when I saw that rev. 3.1 of my Motherboard was AM3+ about five weeks back.

Thats me =) running AM2+ still lol
mute1 8th April 2011, 00:07 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by GiantKiwi
neither socket is perfect
Clue: one has the pins on the CPU where they belong
Zurechial 8th April 2011, 00:09 Quote
Please don't suck, please don't suck, please don't suck..

I would be overjoyed if AMD could finally compete with Intel at the high-end again, instead of just in the budget range.
Imagine if Bulldozer outperformed Intel's offering.. Now that would make for exciting times for the consumer.. again.
HourBeforeDawn 8th April 2011, 00:25 Quote
Intel patent the cage style socket SO how is AMD suppose to do the same? unless they paid Intel rights to use it.

If Im wrong please let me know but I remember seeing that A LONG time ago thus why AMD never used the concept.
dibengineering 8th April 2011, 00:51 Quote
Whatever the performance I still think AMD offer better value for money (and lets not mention the Sandy Bridge Fux Par ) and offer good selection of CPUs for every budget but it would be good if could walk all over Intel would be very cool !
Elton 8th April 2011, 01:05 Quote
If Bulldozer ends up being better than Sandybridge. I would be delighted. The compeition that arises from it would be phenomenal. Plus I want to change out my LGA775.
4Rm0D 8th April 2011, 01:11 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by HourBeforeDawn
Intel patent the cage style socket SO how is AMD suppose to do the same? unless they paid Intel rights to use it.

If Im wrong please let me know but I remember seeing that A LONG time ago thus why AMD never used the concept.

AMD has been using an LGA socket like intel for its server chips since the quad father mobo and the 1207 Opterons, so I doubt its a patent issue.I don't know why they use it on servers and ZIF on desktops though, maybe the compatibility thing....
HourBeforeDawn 8th April 2011, 01:24 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4Rm0D
Quote:
Originally Posted by HourBeforeDawn
Intel patent the cage style socket SO how is AMD suppose to do the same? unless they paid Intel rights to use it.

If Im wrong please let me know but I remember seeing that A LONG time ago thus why AMD never used the concept.

AMD has been using an LGA socket like intel for its server chips since the quad father mobo and the 1207 Opterons, so I doubt its a patent issue.I don't know why they use it on servers and ZIF on desktops though, maybe the compatibility thing....

ah well huh okay then ya that doesnt make sense then, could it be cost? trying to keep the price factor down? maybe they have a contract with the company that makes the other sockets and it just hasnt lapsed yet?

That would be an interesting question to get answered.
4Rm0D 8th April 2011, 03:07 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by HourBeforeDawn
ah well huh okay then ya that doesnt make sense then, could it be cost? trying to keep the price factor down? maybe they have a contract with the company that makes the other sockets and it just hasnt lapsed yet?

That would be an interesting question to get answered.

I'm guessing that its a side effect of them making them compatible for so long. Makes it hard to change socket types.
schmidtbag 8th April 2011, 03:37 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by HourBeforeDawn
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4Rm0D
Quote:
Originally Posted by HourBeforeDawn
Intel patent the cage style socket SO how is AMD suppose to do the same? unless they paid Intel rights to use it.

If Im wrong please let me know but I remember seeing that A LONG time ago thus why AMD never used the concept.

AMD has been using an LGA socket like intel for its server chips since the quad father mobo and the 1207 Opterons, so I doubt its a patent issue.I don't know why they use it on servers and ZIF on desktops though, maybe the compatibility thing....

ah well huh okay then ya that doesnt make sense then, could it be cost? trying to keep the price factor down? maybe they have a contract with the company that makes the other sockets and it just hasnt lapsed yet?

That would be an interesting question to get answered.

i doubt it. all LGA and cages do is cost the mobo manufacturers more. by cutting off the pins of a cpu, amd would save money by using less materials. of course it'd be minimal, but it adds up. also i'd think it'd be much easier to manufacture a few hundred plates than a few hundred pins.
NethLyn 8th April 2011, 04:08 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by .//TuNdRa
Then there are those of us with older AM3 kit and cheaper processors, looking for performance boosts without needing an entire new Mobo to run everything on. (The Financially Challenged, in other words.)

Bulldozer should be rather interesting, although I'd picked up on this backwards compatability fuss when I saw that rev. 3.1 of my Motherboard was AM3+ about five weeks back.
Quote:
Originally Posted by javaman
Thats me =) running AM2+ still lol

Same here, got everything else for the follow-on build, just waiting for the board, I suspect BF3 will be the game that retires this AM2+ build so I will avoid that until all 870/890s are updated and the first new chipset's out with the processors - then finally get the board in. We just have to see whether the mobo makers end up more efficient than AMD itself in having boards ready for whenever these stupid chips show up to individual buyers, I saw a post from Viglen on [AMD's] site saying they were building it into their "fleets" for educational sales. Bah, patience...whenever the mag gets them in that'll be another month of NDA whatever happens.
javaman 8th April 2011, 04:22 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by NethLyn
Same here, got everything else for the follow-on build, just waiting for the board, I suspect BF3 will be the game that retires this AM2+ build so I will avoid that until all 870/890s are updated and the first new chipset's out with the processors - then finally get the board in. We just have to see whether the mobo makers end up more efficient than AMD itself in having boards ready for whenever these stupid chips show up to individual buyers, I saw a post from Viglen on [AMD's] site saying they were building it into their "fleets" for educational sales. Bah, patience...whenever the mag gets them in that'll be another month of NDA whatever happens.

I was planning to retire mine when LGA2011 dropped and pick up either an LGA1366 or LGA1155 system from people looking to switch. Only problem is my board got phenom hex core support recently so a better upgrade option may be a 2nd hand one of those and hopefully it will fit into AM3+ boards. Personally I would like 8gb ram when I upgrade. Any less will fell like a sidewards move tbh. So many choices lol.
Aragon Speed 8th April 2011, 05:45 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by l3v1ck
I'd love to see Bulldozer do well, but I'm at the point where I'm fed up of hearing about it.
I just wish they'd release the damn thing.

+1
fluxtatic 8th April 2011, 06:05 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by .//TuNdRa

Irregardless
As someone I knew once said, hearing (or seeing) this is like getting punched in the forehead.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4Rm0D

quad father

Marking both the best and worst words/phrases I've heard all day, right here in this one thread. Somehow I missed the Quad Father when it came out.

I already know I'll need a full system replacement once BD lands. That said, I'm fine with it. If nothing else, you have to give it up to AMD for maintaining compatibility for so long. Intel's continuous replacement of sockets is, imo, irritating and unnecessarily confusing. Does Intel seriously have such different tech between generations and even within generations that they need to have 2-4 different sockets active at a time?
4Rm0D 8th April 2011, 07:48 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by fluxtatic
Quote:
Originally Posted by .//TuNdRa

Irregardless
As someone I knew once said, hearing (or seeing) this is like getting punched in the forehead.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4Rm0D

quad father

Marking both the best and worst words/phrases I've heard all day, right here in this one thread. Somehow I missed the Quad Father when it came out.

I already know I'll need a full system replacement once BD lands. That said, I'm fine with it. If nothing else, you have to give it up to AMD for maintaining compatibility for so long. Intel's continuous replacement of sockets is, imo, irritating and unnecessarily confusing. Does Intel seriously have such different tech between generations and even within generations that they need to have 2-4 different sockets active at a time?

Had a quad father for a little while it was fun while it lasted... To be honest though, my favorite part was the 13 SATA ports :-p

Finally died in a mystery puff of white smoke and while it was out on RMA I replaced it. One of my friends is still loving it though.
law99 8th April 2011, 08:33 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by dibengineering
Whatever the performance I still think AMD offer better value for money (and lets not mention the Sandy Bridge Fux Par ) and offer good selection of CPUs for every budget but it would be good if could walk all over Intel would be very cool !

It'll be good for competition, but I'm not sure how much average Joe is going to go for AMD stuff to be perfectly honest. If AMD make a proper go of this Bulldozer stuff, they might want to raise their game a little.
Scarlet0pimp 8th April 2011, 12:14 Quote
i'm really looking forward to these chips, but still seems so far away, and will probably be smoked by Intel anyway.
I have a soft spot for AMD though since my original A64 3200 was so good.
Snips 8th April 2011, 15:01 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by dibengineering
Whatever the performance I still think AMD offer better value for money (and lets not mention the Sandy Bridge Fux Par ) and offer good selection of CPUs for every budget but it would be good if could walk all over Intel would be very cool !

Whatever the performance AMD offer better value for money?

Biggest pile of tosh I've heard for a long time. They clearly DONT otherwise theconsumer would have put the company in a huge profit situation something that hasn't happened without the assistance on ATi for a very long time.

Why do hardcore fans of AMD still cling on to that statement by their finger tips when it clearly isn't the case and hasn't been for a long time.

A larger than normal number of posts here are clearly counting Chickens before they've hatched. This is just the release of a board, with absolutely no factual data on actual performance on said board or the compatible CPU.
schmidtbag 8th April 2011, 16:09 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snips
Quote:
Originally Posted by dibengineering
Whatever the performance I still think AMD offer better value for money (and lets not mention the Sandy Bridge Fux Par ) and offer good selection of CPUs for every budget but it would be good if could walk all over Intel would be very cool !
Why do hardcore fans of AMD still cling on to that statement by their finger tips when it clearly isn't the case and hasn't been for a long time.

its because intel doesn't tend to lower their prices almost ever, and amd is less popular so the only way for them to seem like the better choice for the less informed is to keep their prices lower even if they have a better product. even today, socket 478 P4s are still terribly overpriced. you can get modern CPUs for a lower price with more than twice the performance, half the power consumption, and many new features.

i'm not sure where you're getting the idea where lower prices aren't profitable. having a lower price + better performance = everyone wants it. amd is currently profiting even though their current stuff is relatively dirt cheap and is somewhat unpopular. if they make something better than intel, everyone will want it and they'll be making huge money with the same low prices while intel is like "mar mar mar i invented x86, people trust me because of my name and i'm not going to lower my prices".
Snips 8th April 2011, 16:17 Quote
I'm sorry but how can the product be value for money whatever the performance? If the product is cheap but in comparison it's a poor performer then how is that value for money? For the product to be value for money it has to perform well against the competition or have certain added value to paying the extra premium if needed. Unfortunately, AMD have not done that for many years now even with trying to reduce the price.

"They clearly DONT otherwise the consumer would have put the company in a huge profit situation something that hasn't happened without the assistance on ATi for a very long time."

If the product was right, they would have sold more, which would lead to increased turnoever, which (if they do things right) would lead to profits and not the monumental losses.
frontline 8th April 2011, 19:48 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snips
I'm sorry but how can the product be value for money whatever the performance?

i agree with snips, the Core i7-990X is very, very poor value.
Snips 8th April 2011, 21:08 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by frontline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snips
I'm sorry but how can the product be value for money whatever the performance?

i agree with snips, the Core i7-990X is very, very poor value.

Unless in all but the most heavily multi-threaded tasks.
javaman 9th April 2011, 02:27 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snips
Unless in all but the most heavily multi-threaded tasks.

But with the increased IPC of sandybridge make up for the extra 2cores (4threads) of the 990 not to mention you could build another decent rig for the price of the processor alone.
Snips 9th April 2011, 08:58 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by javaman
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snips
Unless in all but the most heavily multi-threaded tasks.

But with the increased IPC of sandybridge make up for the extra 2cores (4threads) of the 990 not to mention you could build another decent rig for the price of the processor alone.

True, unless in all but the most heavily multi-threaded tasks
mr42_arnold 11th January 2012, 02:04 Quote
wow! bulldozer is here... im AMD fanatic user, the more heat coming from the board, the better AMD perform.... what is different between cold and heat.... cold is cold, and heat is heat.... its only in the mind of the user to avoid more heatsink from the CPU....but AMD perform well from the heat.... its design to perform well from the heat... congrats to the maker of AMD....
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums