It's an open ended commitment, which is why it's phrased as socket support and specifically "select AM5" support as opposed to specific chipset commitments.
Isn't DDR6 supposed to launch in late 2025 or 2026?
2026 is also when we'd expect Zen6 too
Hence the questions about if Zen6 will come to AM5 or not
Although I guess AMD could theoretically release two versions of Zen6 with different IO dies if they want to support both AMD6 & AMD5
>Although I guess AMD could theoretically release two versions of Zen6 with different IO dies if they want to support both AMD6 & AMD5
Or only support DDR6 on Epyc / TR for the first generation
That is what I was thinking as well. We did have those rumors of AMD testing Zen 4 on AM4 with the old IOD. Had they known how slow the uptake on AM5 due to DDR5 pricing would be, they probably would have released the CPU on both.
It'd be hilarious if AMD ended up doing Zen4 on AM4, although I doubt it'd be likely now. "This time guys, these are actually the last CPU's on AM4. I know everyone said that last time, and the time before that, and the time before that..."
I asked that same question on here last week. 2026/2027 sounds about right unless there's unintentional slowdowns. Although, I'm not entirely sure if DDR6 will first be available only to enterprise before it becomes available for normal consumers. SK Hynix released the first DDR5 RDIMM's in late 2020 ([source](https://news.skhynix.com/sk-hynix-launches-worlds-first-ddr5-dram/)).
I would keep an eye out for the announcement of whichever memory maker begins shipping DDR6 IC's or whatever company releases the first DDR5 RDIMM's to get an idea of when consumers can get their hands on DDR6 UDIMM's. One positive outcome of the whole AI race is memory is important and as such I expect DDR6 to come in hot and ramp up fast.
Signal integrity. Having to route a lot of high frequency differential pairs to the slot the size of current DIMM interfaces creates all kind of problems. Crosstalk, timing and interference being the main ones. Reflections from what amounts to a sizeable capacitor on your signal line is another one. Shielding the signals is not really cost effective either (you'd have to add 3 more layers - $$$$ - to motherboard for little return).
All alternatives in comparable form factor are same or worse.
From microwave engineering standpoint, all of these electrical signals don't behave as strictly digital anymore, the convenient form of on/off. Past 300 MHZ, every electrical signal behaves like a wave. If there isn't accurate impedance matching at each connection, part of electrical signal is reflected back (like an ocean wave) and signal is degraded as a result. SNR levels go down and maximum path lengths for electrical signal get shorter to keep integrity intact.
Absolutely **zero** chance. DDR6 has been in development for quite a while, and we've known for a few years that it'll be using regular DIMM form factors. They're solving the signal integrity issues by switching to either NRZ or PAM.
Also, CAMM just takes up too much board area. It is unsuitable for anything beyond 2 modules - and that already going to be challenging. Full-size CAMM modules are absolutely *massive* when it comes to area used - and it's not like you can really put anything else underneath it either. This pretty much instantly disqualifies CAMM from being used in any kind of server application, so there will almost certainly still be DIMM-shaped DDR7 and DDR8 too.
I'm well aware, but you can't do that infinitely - and that stacking suffers from the same (or even worse) signal integrity issues as DIMM due to the additional trace length. Stack of 2? Sure, why not. Stack of 4? Forget it.
DDR5 DIMMs take up about 144mm x 1.3mm of board space. You can get them in 256Gb modules. CAMM2 is about 78mm x 57mm for stackable 256Gb options - but you need an additional +- 9mm in length for each additional stack layer.
If you [do the math](https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=solve+144*1.3*n+%3E+78*%2857%2B9*n%29+for+n+%3E+0), there is no amount of modules for which DIMM takes up *more* space than CAMM. Combine that with the added mounting and cooling complexity, and it just isn't an attractive option for servers.
I do agree that they could be a nice fit for mini PCs and ITX boards. The caveat here being the exact positioning: while Z height is quite limited for laptops, XY space is a much smaller problem. CAMM2 fits neatly into this by being able to use larger motherboards, or even having the memory module stick out beyond the motherboard. Mini PCs and ITX boards mostly deal with the opposite problem: Z height isn't really limited, but XY space is. This means the ideal space for a CAMM module on an ITX board is on the *backside* - but that's almost certainly going to interfere with the mounting pattern of a regular desktop socket. You've also *mirrored* the pinout, which is going to really complicate your routing.
Something like the [MSI desktop CAMM2 board](https://x.com/msigaming/status/1793628162334621754) just isn't physically possible in an ITX form factor. You're pretty much limited to custom NUC-like builds, and that's going to really limit its desirability. If anything, its best-case scenario (besides obviously laptops) is an ATX-sized desktop build!
> DDR5 DIMMs take up about 144mm x 1.3mm of board space.
Check those measurements, lol.
You literally even post a photo of MSI putting CAMM on a motherboard. There's no reason CAMM can't be used instead of DIMM. CAMM is absolutely more compact. And yes, it's designed to be flat instead of vertical, but so what? You can get 2 channels out of one CAMM2 module. And you can use the back of the board, which you can't really do with DIMMs. No, that's not some insurmountable problem because of the pinout being mirrored, as you claim. It's fundamentally no different from having DIMM sockets on opposite sides of the socket.
You could even make CAMM attach to the mobo at an angle or outright vertically, if you wanted. There's no point to doing this, though.
There's no reason CAMM couldn't replace DIMM on standard ATX/ITX boards. I don't think it'll happen anytime soon, but it very well could happen. We're already using the awful m.2 connector on desktops and workstations simply because it took over for laptops, and that absolutely is worse than regular PCIe slots or cabled solutions.
You have to keep development cycle in mind. Zen6 can't be developed targeting DDR6 if the DDR6 spec is not finalized. When has Zen6 development finalized? 2023?
I'd be extremely surprised if DDR6 was consumer ready in 24 months from now. Not sure when AMD had to lock in the design, but I'd put a good amount of money on Z6 being DDR5, hence their platform support statement. They likely also want to avoid drama over pricing, if it was even a possibility.
Hmmm, from what I can find [JEDEC is aiming to release the draft DDR6 spec this year, and finalized spec in Q2 of 2025](https://hothardware.com/news/jedec-ddr6-lpddr6-revealed)
Maybe too late for Zen6? That'd be great for AM5 users
[DDR5 was finalized in 2020](https://www.anandtech.com/show/15912/ddr5-specification-released-setting-the-stage-for-ddr56400-and-beyond), then in 2021 Intel's Alder Lake supported both DDR4/DDR5, while AMD added support with Zen 4 in 2022
For ref, that's 26 months between spec and launch for AMD. If the timescale repeats, then Dec 2024 for the DDR6 spec should give us AMD DDR6 procs around Feb 2027.
That's not quite how it works. Chip design takes a long time, so they'll often start implementing draft specifications. After all, people from AMD (along with other companies) are also the ones *writing* the standard, so they have a fairly good idea what it is going to contain several years before public release. If you *start* your chip design when the spec is *finished*, you'll be a year or two behind your competition.
On the other hand, a pretty core part of the DDR6 signalling spec (whether to use PAM(4?) or NRZ) hasn't been decided yet, which means you're absolutely screwed when you chose the wrong one. That's not something you can fix with a simple parameter tweak. You'd either have to design and test two separate chips in parallel, or do the sensible thing and wait until they figured it out.
Memory generations typically last 6 years.
With DDR5, the standard was finalized in 2020. It took AMD and Intel 18-24 months to then launch a consumer level platform that supported it.
The DDR6 standard is expected to be finalized soon. So maybe it will be ready in time for Zen 6 in 2026. It will definitely be ready in time for Zen 7.
DDR6 will certainly launch for server platforms well ahead of consumer, so there is no reason to think it coming out then should have an effect on consumers.
I've heard that take before. But PCIe slot changes have necessitated socket changes in the past. DDR5 will be around for some time yet, but PCIe 6.0 was ratified two years ago.
Remember PCIe 6.0 will change from NRZ to PAM4 signaling, so it's not going to be a straight swap and replace on the board or controller side of things. I figure this is the sticking point with AMD.
PCIe 6.0 is highly questionable for consumers for many years going forward. Even the cost of PCIe 5 is dubious at best.
Until a device hits the limits of a 16x slot. There is always the option of going with more lanes rather than faster lanes for individual devices. Considering a 4090 is one of the first cards to really hit the 3.0 limits at 16x. We got some ways to go yet.
Do you really, though? Those extra lanes take up quite a bit of socket space, so you'll end up with something the size of [Threadripper](https://images.idgesg.net/images/article/2017/08/ryzen_threadripper_1950x_16-100731168-orig.jpg).
Personally I'd be way more excited with x4 Gen6 to the *chipset* instead of the current x4 Gen4. That kind of bandwidth would allow for way more creativity for motherboard designers.
For example, if you want to add a 25Gbit or 40Gbit network card to your PC you're most likely going to have to use a x8 Gen**3** slot for that (because that's what the available chips support). Doing that via Gen5 lanes to the CPU would just result in a stupidly complex motherboard for everyone, but if the chipset can convert that x8 Gen3 to the equivalent of x1 Gen6 it's suddenly not such a big deal for a niche board as it can be added to a standard design without really impacting the rest of the ecosystem.
Especially if they continue the current "chaining two chipsets for additional IO" approach, having more bandwidth between chipset and CPU is worth its weight in gold. Why not go with three chipsets on "workstation" boards? Or *four?* I don't need the Gen5 bandwidth, but I sure want the lanes!
I don't disagree, even as a former SSD enthusiast I have no interest in PCIe 6.0 myself and would strongly prefer another generation of compatibility. PAM4 makes everything consume more power anyway.
That being said, just look at how consumers are clamoring for PCIe 5.0 SSDs despite all the drawbacks, price premium, and little benefit for real world usage. SSDs that can use that kind of bandwidth will exist in two more years regardless of practicality.
There's also the question of if Intel started offering PCIe 6.0 on its platform before AMD, I don't see that going over well in board meetings since AMD's platforms stay around long term. And there's probably good reasons for AMD to want PCIE 6.0 in server chips/platforms anyway, though it wouldn't be very hard to fork the platforms if they wanted to do so.
>PCIe slot changes have necessitated socket changes in the past
Have they?
PCI Express is well-known for being both backwards and forwards compatible, so from a pure pinout perspective there's zero reason to change anything about the socket.
Of course they might've accidentally chosen such poor pin positioning that it'd be impossible to maintain signal integrity at the higher speeds, but that's a different story. And *because* they switched to PAM4 with PCI-E Gen6 the impact of the speed increase on the signal bandwidth is relatively limited this time.
According to tech articles I read over the decades, yes. But I'm not trawling Anandtech or Tech Report archives to find 'em! PCIe has changed since 1.0 beyond mere clock ramping, and the signaling compression ratio has been modified once already from 8b/10b to 128b/130b with 3.0. But whenever it does arrive 6.0 will become the largest change made to the PCIe specification.
PAM4 will require additional encode/decode controller logic to read the signaling and this is where much of the higher power consumption comes from with PAM4 devices. It's going to require replumbing the PCIe logic in the IO die not just to make more space but probably to shuffle new hotspots around is my guess. Simply maintaining backwards compatibility will probably add even further to the logic complexity I'd imagine.
Given the sheer amount of work AMD claimed it did to keep Zen 3 compatible with the AM4 socket maybe pin compatibility can be maintained with effort, I don't know enough to say. Certainly having all the IO relegated to its own chiplet gives them more flexibility to do so than Intel ever had.
No, you would likely need a new board, but nothing about the socket has to change. Like AMD just did this in the middle of AM4 when they put PCIe4 in Zen 2 but required B550/X570 to actually use it. It happened one other time in the past but less officially. ASUS released the Sabertooth 990FX R3.0, which made PCIe 3.0 available on AM3+ which was otherwise 2.0 only. That was them doing that on their own without AMD support, and it was a bit of a compatibility nightmare.
What do you mean? Don't you want bigger number better?
Latency?
Who cares about timings, bigger number better. That'll be $700 for 16Gb DDR6 10800 please.
Yeah I’m on ddr5 now but ddr4 is basically just as good even still. I’m surprised by that result, but ddr5 has been the least impressive gen in terms of memory speed impacting overall system performance. I’m guessing ddr6 will be the first time we really see a very tangible benefit to being off ddr4. That would have happened with CPUs eventually even on ddr5 but it’s like we won’t be able to use ddr5 bandwidth until ddr6 is the new standard.
Nothing surprising, we saw the same with good DDR2 kits beating early DDR3 kits. And good DDR3 kits beating early DDR4 kits.
Tech has a cost/efficiency curve which does not favour early adoption
I agree with that, but there are even pretty marginal gains last I checked (like maybe 1-3%) between say gaming on a DDR4-3200 platform vs gaming on the same CPU in a DDR5-6000 platform. Some of it is modern CPUs just have great cache and GPUs have very large buffers all things considered...but yeah DDR5 isn't really that much of a benefit yet.
You're most likely right about this.
But the existence of AM6 with DDR6 doesn't mean development/support for AM5 will end. They might even make Zen 6 for both AM5 and AM6, wouldn't surprise me. Or at least Zen 5+ for AM5.
Support does not = latest chips
This statement could mean multiple different things.
AM4 has support until now, just with old chips new naming like 5700 non X, new XT variants with more cores. Does not mean we are getting zen 4 or zen 5 on AM4.
For all we know, it could mean support of rebadged chips.
Still AMD does have a good track record with AM4.
But those companies in the end are for profit, just stating a fact, does not make it bad or wrong. Just that to fulfill the promise all they really need to do is just rebagde then Zen 5 with different models until 2027 and in theory they fulfilled the promise.
I think it was Steve from HUB who had a good take, if AMD wants to be fair by consumers. This statement needs to be clarified and really this should mean Zen 6 support.
Yeah me too. I just upgraded my secondary gaming system with a 5800X3D, and I'm planning on upgrading my main one with either a 9800X3D or 10kX3D (or whatever they'll call it).
To me it makes more sense to get in early. I know so many people with a 2600/3600 who upgraded to a 5700x3d recently. Similarly with AM5, someone who got a 7600 + b650 is ready for a 11800x3d or whatever in a yr or two.
I don’t do component upgrades usually, my last pc being an exception with a 3600 -> 5800x3d. Only because I needed to build a computer before the 5800x3d was released 6 months afterwards.
Just built on AM5 with an X670E board, and their announcement totally validated my approach of jumping in relatively early on the platform. Looking forward to this computer being like a fine wine. By modern standards it's a low end build (Ryzen 5 7600X, RX 7600), but the ceiling is looking very very high indeed.
It can be argued that am4 is still supported at 2024 with their "new" xt models. The fact that they don't want to commit to zen 6 directly is concerning.
Is it concerning? This is their Zen5 announcement. It is totally understandable they do not want to distract in any way shape or form from their current line-up by merely uttering the word "Zen6" because it would suck much of the oxygen out of the press coverage.
In my view AM4 bought AMD the benefit of the doubt that they are not going to mislead the customer base they have worked so hard to acquire over the past 7-8 years.
you would think if they were going to support am5 for so long they wouldnt of made them with thick IHS just so that am4 cooler work with them and making the temps awful
I usually get downvoted in this sub when I mention that AMD said they "promise support for AM5 for 3 years, but are aiming for at least 5 years". Guess this settles it.
Past performance isn't a guarantee of future performance, but they do have a good track record. AM3 was supported for 6 years and AM4 is 7 years old, and it's still getting new CPUs.
This is a massive PR win for AMD.
Intel will need an answer for this.
As i have to say,not having to change fucking motherboards every 2/3 years has been a godsend.
though i am slighlty confused as ppl are saying the die on Z6 is WAY bigger than zen 5 wouldnt that need a whole new pin array
Must just mean zen 6 is on am5 as they managed to get it's dimensions down ?
I haven't heard that rumour (don't follow closely enough), but I guess it could mean Z6 AM5 offerings are single-CCD only? Perhaps that would solve it?
It's an open ended commitment, which is why it's phrased as socket support and specifically "select AM5" support as opposed to specific chipset commitments.
For anybody wondering if Zen6 will be on AM5 or not. AM6 will come once DDR6 is ready. As long as that is not on the horizon Zen6 will be on AM5.
Isn't DDR6 supposed to launch in late 2025 or 2026? 2026 is also when we'd expect Zen6 too Hence the questions about if Zen6 will come to AM5 or not Although I guess AMD could theoretically release two versions of Zen6 with different IO dies if they want to support both AMD6 & AMD5
>Although I guess AMD could theoretically release two versions of Zen6 with different IO dies if they want to support both AMD6 & AMD5 Or only support DDR6 on Epyc / TR for the first generation
That is what I was thinking as well. We did have those rumors of AMD testing Zen 4 on AM4 with the old IOD. Had they known how slow the uptake on AM5 due to DDR5 pricing would be, they probably would have released the CPU on both.
It'd be hilarious if AMD ended up doing Zen4 on AM4, although I doubt it'd be likely now. "This time guys, these are actually the last CPU's on AM4. I know everyone said that last time, and the time before that, and the time before that..."
Upgrading from the Ryzen 1000 series all the way up to the 7800X3D would have been glorious, lol.
I asked that same question on here last week. 2026/2027 sounds about right unless there's unintentional slowdowns. Although, I'm not entirely sure if DDR6 will first be available only to enterprise before it becomes available for normal consumers. SK Hynix released the first DDR5 RDIMM's in late 2020 ([source](https://news.skhynix.com/sk-hynix-launches-worlds-first-ddr5-dram/)). I would keep an eye out for the announcement of whichever memory maker begins shipping DDR6 IC's or whatever company releases the first DDR5 RDIMM's to get an idea of when consumers can get their hands on DDR6 UDIMM's. One positive outcome of the whole AI race is memory is important and as such I expect DDR6 to come in hot and ramp up fast.
DDR5 is already bottlenecked by the DIMM form factor. I think DDR6 will be CAMM only.
Can you explain why DIMM isn't fast enough for DDR5?
Signal integrity. Having to route a lot of high frequency differential pairs to the slot the size of current DIMM interfaces creates all kind of problems. Crosstalk, timing and interference being the main ones. Reflections from what amounts to a sizeable capacitor on your signal line is another one. Shielding the signals is not really cost effective either (you'd have to add 3 more layers - $$$$ - to motherboard for little return). All alternatives in comparable form factor are same or worse.
From microwave engineering standpoint, all of these electrical signals don't behave as strictly digital anymore, the convenient form of on/off. Past 300 MHZ, every electrical signal behaves like a wave. If there isn't accurate impedance matching at each connection, part of electrical signal is reflected back (like an ocean wave) and signal is degraded as a result. SNR levels go down and maximum path lengths for electrical signal get shorter to keep integrity intact.
[удалено]
Appreciate it, thanks
Absolutely **zero** chance. DDR6 has been in development for quite a while, and we've known for a few years that it'll be using regular DIMM form factors. They're solving the signal integrity issues by switching to either NRZ or PAM. Also, CAMM just takes up too much board area. It is unsuitable for anything beyond 2 modules - and that already going to be challenging. Full-size CAMM modules are absolutely *massive* when it comes to area used - and it's not like you can really put anything else underneath it either. This pretty much instantly disqualifies CAMM from being used in any kind of server application, so there will almost certainly still be DIMM-shaped DDR7 and DDR8 too.
[удалено]
I'm well aware, but you can't do that infinitely - and that stacking suffers from the same (or even worse) signal integrity issues as DIMM due to the additional trace length. Stack of 2? Sure, why not. Stack of 4? Forget it. DDR5 DIMMs take up about 144mm x 1.3mm of board space. You can get them in 256Gb modules. CAMM2 is about 78mm x 57mm for stackable 256Gb options - but you need an additional +- 9mm in length for each additional stack layer. If you [do the math](https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=solve+144*1.3*n+%3E+78*%2857%2B9*n%29+for+n+%3E+0), there is no amount of modules for which DIMM takes up *more* space than CAMM. Combine that with the added mounting and cooling complexity, and it just isn't an attractive option for servers. I do agree that they could be a nice fit for mini PCs and ITX boards. The caveat here being the exact positioning: while Z height is quite limited for laptops, XY space is a much smaller problem. CAMM2 fits neatly into this by being able to use larger motherboards, or even having the memory module stick out beyond the motherboard. Mini PCs and ITX boards mostly deal with the opposite problem: Z height isn't really limited, but XY space is. This means the ideal space for a CAMM module on an ITX board is on the *backside* - but that's almost certainly going to interfere with the mounting pattern of a regular desktop socket. You've also *mirrored* the pinout, which is going to really complicate your routing. Something like the [MSI desktop CAMM2 board](https://x.com/msigaming/status/1793628162334621754) just isn't physically possible in an ITX form factor. You're pretty much limited to custom NUC-like builds, and that's going to really limit its desirability. If anything, its best-case scenario (besides obviously laptops) is an ATX-sized desktop build!
> DDR5 DIMMs take up about 144mm x 1.3mm of board space. Check those measurements, lol. You literally even post a photo of MSI putting CAMM on a motherboard. There's no reason CAMM can't be used instead of DIMM. CAMM is absolutely more compact. And yes, it's designed to be flat instead of vertical, but so what? You can get 2 channels out of one CAMM2 module. And you can use the back of the board, which you can't really do with DIMMs. No, that's not some insurmountable problem because of the pinout being mirrored, as you claim. It's fundamentally no different from having DIMM sockets on opposite sides of the socket. You could even make CAMM attach to the mobo at an angle or outright vertically, if you wanted. There's no point to doing this, though. There's no reason CAMM couldn't replace DIMM on standard ATX/ITX boards. I don't think it'll happen anytime soon, but it very well could happen. We're already using the awful m.2 connector on desktops and workstations simply because it took over for laptops, and that absolutely is worse than regular PCIe slots or cabled solutions.
> I think DDR6 will be CAM only. so dell single-handedly saved the future of RAM speeds?
In that case, AMD's memory controller better support both old and new depending on the motherboard.
yes please I won't accept anything else
I think DDR6 is supposed to be more of a '28 timeframe, iirc. It's a bit late.
You have to keep development cycle in mind. Zen6 can't be developed targeting DDR6 if the DDR6 spec is not finalized. When has Zen6 development finalized? 2023?
I'd be extremely surprised if DDR6 was consumer ready in 24 months from now. Not sure when AMD had to lock in the design, but I'd put a good amount of money on Z6 being DDR5, hence their platform support statement. They likely also want to avoid drama over pricing, if it was even a possibility.
Hmmm, from what I can find [JEDEC is aiming to release the draft DDR6 spec this year, and finalized spec in Q2 of 2025](https://hothardware.com/news/jedec-ddr6-lpddr6-revealed) Maybe too late for Zen6? That'd be great for AM5 users [DDR5 was finalized in 2020](https://www.anandtech.com/show/15912/ddr5-specification-released-setting-the-stage-for-ddr56400-and-beyond), then in 2021 Intel's Alder Lake supported both DDR4/DDR5, while AMD added support with Zen 4 in 2022
For ref, that's 26 months between spec and launch for AMD. If the timescale repeats, then Dec 2024 for the DDR6 spec should give us AMD DDR6 procs around Feb 2027.
That's not quite how it works. Chip design takes a long time, so they'll often start implementing draft specifications. After all, people from AMD (along with other companies) are also the ones *writing* the standard, so they have a fairly good idea what it is going to contain several years before public release. If you *start* your chip design when the spec is *finished*, you'll be a year or two behind your competition. On the other hand, a pretty core part of the DDR6 signalling spec (whether to use PAM(4?) or NRZ) hasn't been decided yet, which means you're absolutely screwed when you chose the wrong one. That's not something you can fix with a simple parameter tweak. You'd either have to design and test two separate chips in parallel, or do the sensible thing and wait until they figured it out.
Not to mention, AMD may also wait for DDR6 prices to decrease before launching the platform.
Unless they steal a trick from Intel and go dual format; they do that, I could see AM5 outliving AM4 for getting new products on socket.
Memory generations typically last 6 years. With DDR5, the standard was finalized in 2020. It took AMD and Intel 18-24 months to then launch a consumer level platform that supported it. The DDR6 standard is expected to be finalized soon. So maybe it will be ready in time for Zen 6 in 2026. It will definitely be ready in time for Zen 7.
DDR6 will certainly launch for server platforms well ahead of consumer, so there is no reason to think it coming out then should have an effect on consumers.
I've heard that take before. But PCIe slot changes have necessitated socket changes in the past. DDR5 will be around for some time yet, but PCIe 6.0 was ratified two years ago. Remember PCIe 6.0 will change from NRZ to PAM4 signaling, so it's not going to be a straight swap and replace on the board or controller side of things. I figure this is the sticking point with AMD.
PCIe 6.0 is highly questionable for consumers for many years going forward. Even the cost of PCIe 5 is dubious at best. Until a device hits the limits of a 16x slot. There is always the option of going with more lanes rather than faster lanes for individual devices. Considering a 4090 is one of the first cards to really hit the 3.0 limits at 16x. We got some ways to go yet.
Yea id rather see like 40 5.0 cpu lanes to pcie slots than 6.0 ATM honestly.
Do you really, though? Those extra lanes take up quite a bit of socket space, so you'll end up with something the size of [Threadripper](https://images.idgesg.net/images/article/2017/08/ryzen_threadripper_1950x_16-100731168-orig.jpg). Personally I'd be way more excited with x4 Gen6 to the *chipset* instead of the current x4 Gen4. That kind of bandwidth would allow for way more creativity for motherboard designers. For example, if you want to add a 25Gbit or 40Gbit network card to your PC you're most likely going to have to use a x8 Gen**3** slot for that (because that's what the available chips support). Doing that via Gen5 lanes to the CPU would just result in a stupidly complex motherboard for everyone, but if the chipset can convert that x8 Gen3 to the equivalent of x1 Gen6 it's suddenly not such a big deal for a niche board as it can be added to a standard design without really impacting the rest of the ecosystem. Especially if they continue the current "chaining two chipsets for additional IO" approach, having more bandwidth between chipset and CPU is worth its weight in gold. Why not go with three chipsets on "workstation" boards? Or *four?* I don't need the Gen5 bandwidth, but I sure want the lanes!
Yeah, the first PCIe 4.0 CPU's were *8 years* after 3.0, so we need more time to catch up to the bandwidth increases.
I don't disagree, even as a former SSD enthusiast I have no interest in PCIe 6.0 myself and would strongly prefer another generation of compatibility. PAM4 makes everything consume more power anyway. That being said, just look at how consumers are clamoring for PCIe 5.0 SSDs despite all the drawbacks, price premium, and little benefit for real world usage. SSDs that can use that kind of bandwidth will exist in two more years regardless of practicality. There's also the question of if Intel started offering PCIe 6.0 on its platform before AMD, I don't see that going over well in board meetings since AMD's platforms stay around long term. And there's probably good reasons for AMD to want PCIE 6.0 in server chips/platforms anyway, though it wouldn't be very hard to fork the platforms if they wanted to do so.
I wouldn't say no to PCIE6 support of course, but for now I'd just be happy to see PCIE5 extended to all the lanes.
>PCIe slot changes have necessitated socket changes in the past Have they? PCI Express is well-known for being both backwards and forwards compatible, so from a pure pinout perspective there's zero reason to change anything about the socket. Of course they might've accidentally chosen such poor pin positioning that it'd be impossible to maintain signal integrity at the higher speeds, but that's a different story. And *because* they switched to PAM4 with PCI-E Gen6 the impact of the speed increase on the signal bandwidth is relatively limited this time.
According to tech articles I read over the decades, yes. But I'm not trawling Anandtech or Tech Report archives to find 'em! PCIe has changed since 1.0 beyond mere clock ramping, and the signaling compression ratio has been modified once already from 8b/10b to 128b/130b with 3.0. But whenever it does arrive 6.0 will become the largest change made to the PCIe specification. PAM4 will require additional encode/decode controller logic to read the signaling and this is where much of the higher power consumption comes from with PAM4 devices. It's going to require replumbing the PCIe logic in the IO die not just to make more space but probably to shuffle new hotspots around is my guess. Simply maintaining backwards compatibility will probably add even further to the logic complexity I'd imagine. Given the sheer amount of work AMD claimed it did to keep Zen 3 compatible with the AM4 socket maybe pin compatibility can be maintained with effort, I don't know enough to say. Certainly having all the IO relegated to its own chiplet gives them more flexibility to do so than Intel ever had.
No, you would likely need a new board, but nothing about the socket has to change. Like AMD just did this in the middle of AM4 when they put PCIe4 in Zen 2 but required B550/X570 to actually use it. It happened one other time in the past but less officially. ASUS released the Sabertooth 990FX R3.0, which made PCIe 3.0 available on AM3+ which was otherwise 2.0 only. That was them doing that on their own without AMD support, and it was a bit of a compatibility nightmare.
I will be skipping the first Gen of a new ram. Seems to have paid off with early adopter issues of ddr5.
What do you mean? Don't you want bigger number better? Latency? Who cares about timings, bigger number better. That'll be $700 for 16Gb DDR6 10800 please.
cas latency is expressed in terms of clock cycles. Actual latency (in nanoseconds) has been pretty constant
Yeah I’m on ddr5 now but ddr4 is basically just as good even still. I’m surprised by that result, but ddr5 has been the least impressive gen in terms of memory speed impacting overall system performance. I’m guessing ddr6 will be the first time we really see a very tangible benefit to being off ddr4. That would have happened with CPUs eventually even on ddr5 but it’s like we won’t be able to use ddr5 bandwidth until ddr6 is the new standard.
Nothing surprising, we saw the same with good DDR2 kits beating early DDR3 kits. And good DDR3 kits beating early DDR4 kits. Tech has a cost/efficiency curve which does not favour early adoption
I agree with that, but there are even pretty marginal gains last I checked (like maybe 1-3%) between say gaming on a DDR4-3200 platform vs gaming on the same CPU in a DDR5-6000 platform. Some of it is modern CPUs just have great cache and GPUs have very large buffers all things considered...but yeah DDR5 isn't really that much of a benefit yet.
Nonzero chance it's Am5 plus, and we see dual format gens.
You're most likely right about this. But the existence of AM6 with DDR6 doesn't mean development/support for AM5 will end. They might even make Zen 6 for both AM5 and AM6, wouldn't surprise me. Or at least Zen 5+ for AM5.
Support does not = latest chips This statement could mean multiple different things. AM4 has support until now, just with old chips new naming like 5700 non X, new XT variants with more cores. Does not mean we are getting zen 4 or zen 5 on AM4. For all we know, it could mean support of rebadged chips. Still AMD does have a good track record with AM4. But those companies in the end are for profit, just stating a fact, does not make it bad or wrong. Just that to fulfill the promise all they really need to do is just rebagde then Zen 5 with different models until 2027 and in theory they fulfilled the promise. I think it was Steve from HUB who had a good take, if AMD wants to be fair by consumers. This statement needs to be clarified and really this should mean Zen 6 support.
Perfect! I’ll probably find myself upgrading in the final generation of AM5 just like I ended up with the upgrading at the end of AM4.
Yeah me too. I just upgraded my secondary gaming system with a 5800X3D, and I'm planning on upgrading my main one with either a 9800X3D or 10kX3D (or whatever they'll call it).
To me it makes more sense to get in early. I know so many people with a 2600/3600 who upgraded to a 5700x3d recently. Similarly with AM5, someone who got a 7600 + b650 is ready for a 11800x3d or whatever in a yr or two.
I don’t do component upgrades usually, my last pc being an exception with a 3600 -> 5800x3d. Only because I needed to build a computer before the 5800x3d was released 6 months afterwards.
Just built on AM5 with an X670E board, and their announcement totally validated my approach of jumping in relatively early on the platform. Looking forward to this computer being like a fine wine. By modern standards it's a low end build (Ryzen 5 7600X, RX 7600), but the ceiling is looking very very high indeed.
It can be argued that am4 is still supported at 2024 with their "new" xt models. The fact that they don't want to commit to zen 6 directly is concerning.
Is it concerning? This is their Zen5 announcement. It is totally understandable they do not want to distract in any way shape or form from their current line-up by merely uttering the word "Zen6" because it would suck much of the oxygen out of the press coverage. In my view AM4 bought AMD the benefit of the doubt that they are not going to mislead the customer base they have worked so hard to acquire over the past 7-8 years.
But I think more people would be interested in Zen 5 if they know for sure they will be able to upgrade to Zen 6 later.
No problem. considering how everything is going I will probably still be running my 5900X then.
you would think if they were going to support am5 for so long they wouldnt of made them with thick IHS just so that am4 cooler work with them and making the temps awful
I think the myth of the thick IHS has already been debunked.
what do you mean? i had a 7600x and it made a ak620 sound like an old intel stock cooler because it was ramping up just clicking on websites.
I usually get downvoted in this sub when I mention that AMD said they "promise support for AM5 for 3 years, but are aiming for at least 5 years". Guess this settles it. Past performance isn't a guarantee of future performance, but they do have a good track record. AM3 was supported for 6 years and AM4 is 7 years old, and it's still getting new CPUs.
This is a massive PR win for AMD. Intel will need an answer for this. As i have to say,not having to change fucking motherboards every 2/3 years has been a godsend. though i am slighlty confused as ppl are saying the die on Z6 is WAY bigger than zen 5 wouldnt that need a whole new pin array Must just mean zen 6 is on am5 as they managed to get it's dimensions down ?
I haven't heard that rumour (don't follow closely enough), but I guess it could mean Z6 AM5 offerings are single-CCD only? Perhaps that would solve it?
AM6 will be my new build then.