Talk:Socket AM3

Yes it is real cryptic. Look at this sentence: "The AM3 socket has 941 pin contacts[1] while current AM3 processors have only 938 pins." AM3 socket is incompatible with AM3 processor?!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.236.66.73 (talk) 19:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Need to update this page considerably. A lot more stuff known about these chips.

Conflicting info
According to http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=3169 The info on this page regarding backwards-compatability is, well, backwards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.42.102.246 (talk) 00:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It also notes that it's expected late 2008 but then mentions that it won't be out until 2009 later on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.26.113.31 (talk) 16:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

There are some socket AM3 Phemom ES photos available on the web, which show it's pins, of course, ALMOST same, but not explicitly inentical to socket AM2+, where 2 pins are missing. It is actually 938 contacts, any these stayed 938 pins mechanically compatible with the socket AM2+ ones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.66.140.163 (talk) 04:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

941 socket contacts
Before someone decides to revert this back to 938 contacts and change back why AM2 processors cannot fit into AM3 sockets, please look into these pictures http://www.tweaktown.com/news/10928/first_look_at_asrock_s_am3_based_m3a790gxh_128m/index.html. Click on them for a bigger view. That's definitely 941 contacts. My previous source, which was from a sample board was nullified, so I'll give you a RETAIL board as the source. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.48.106.62 (talk) 16:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

http://www.amd.com/us/products/desktop/processors/athlon-ii-x2/Pages/AMD-athlon-ii-x2-processor-model-numbers-feature-comparison.aspx In this website, there is a sentence, "Packaging: socket AM3 (938-pin) organic micro PGA". It is the Official Website of AMD! --Octopus313 (talk) 09:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This article is about the Socket. The socket has 941 contacts. It doesn't matter how many contacts/pins the CPU have. --Denniss (talk) 10:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Extremely Confusing
The article in it's current state makes absolutely no sense. It makes a statement in one sentence and then contradicts it in another. Is AM3 backwards compatible or is it not? That is what still remains to be answered by this article. --68.5.162.249 (talk) 03:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Your question is ambiguous. When you ask "Is AM3..." are you talking about the socket or the processors? The article gives a complete answer for both, but you have to figure out which question you are asking. It may be a bit confusing, but that is the nature of the topic. The article is not contradictory if you understand its meaning. If you have a better way to represent the information, by all means. Ham Pastrami (talk) 07:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You cannot place an AM2 or AM2+ processor into an AM3 board. AM3 boards only use DDR3 memory.  The integrated memory controller of an AM2 or AM2+ processor will not know how to use DDR3 memory banks because such processors are designed for DDR2 memory only.  This is why socket AM3 boards are keyed so that you cannot place an AM2 or AM2+ processor into them.


 * On the flip side, you can physically place an AM3 processor into an AM2 and AM2+ board. The pin configuration of an AM3 processor allows it to be inserted in an AM2/AM2+ socket.  Furthermore, the AM3 includes a versatile integrated memory controller that includes legacy DDR2 memory support.  There are numerous AM2+ motherboards on the market today that support socket AM3 Athlon II X2/X4 processors and AM3 Phenom II X2/X3/X4 processors.


 * What hasn't been documented well is the level of compatibility AM3 processors have with classic AM2 (pre-AM2+) boards. There are a few older articles that suggest that AM3 processors will work in AM2 boards, but they lack any sort of details.  We don't know if all it takes is a simple BIOS flash, or if most boards are out of luck because of wider min/max voltage requirements that most AM2 boards may lack.  Before any major rewrite of the compatibility section is done, IMHO, we need an authoritative article to cite this information from. Dinjiin (talk) 03:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * In Theory, all AM3 processors will work in any AM2 board. But the board has to support the TDP rating of the CPU (most don't support the 140W TDP processors and some even not the 125W TDP processors) and the board manufacturer has to support a recent Bios for the motherboard with new processor support built-in. Several micro-ATX boards are limited to 95W TDP per design limitations, even the AM2+ ones.--Denniss (talk) 04:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It appears that all of the current Athlon II X4 processors are 95W TDP or lower, as are all of the Phenom II X2/X3 processors. All of the Athlon II X2 processors are 65W TDP or lower.  So, virtually every AM2 mainboard should be able to handle the Athlon II X2 chips from a TDP standpoint, and the majority of enthusiast AM2 boards should be able to handle everything short of the Phenom II X4 processors when it comes to TDP.


 * Several users of a motherboard user forum are reporting that they were successful in using the Athlon II X2 in their circa 2Q-06 based AM2 motherboards. Here is an image of one such system.  So, it appears that it is possible.  Now all we need is for a reliable news organization to report it so that we have a credible source to cite. Dinjiin (talk) 08:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * TDP is not an issue of socket compatibility, that has to do with other aspects of the board's design. Credible sources already reported on the compatibility when the socket was introduced. The existing refs have this information. I don't know why you are treating this as controversial or ambiguous. Backwards compatibility of the processors is one of the bullet points for marketing. But why are we putting so much attention on that anyway? This article is about the AM3 socket. What you can do with AM2 boards is not the focus. Go to Socket AM2 or Socket AM2+ if you want to discuss that in detail. Ham Pastrami (talk) 09:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * An older board that is out of spec for AM3 would not receive an AM3 BIOS update, for the obvious reasons. Unless I've misunderstood what you're saying, it sounds like you are arguing an imaginary scenario. If a BIOS update is available, then all considerations like voltage have already been accounted for. Ham Pastrami (talk) 09:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You bring up a valid point. This is an article about the AM3 socket, not about the AM3 processor.  Perhaps we need to include a link pointing to a legacy AM2/AM2+ compatibility section in the Socket AM2 and AM2+ articles so that we don't cross pollute issues, like we've done here.   I've opened a section in the Socket AM2 discussion tab so that we can stop cluttering this article's page. Dinjiin (talk) 21:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * +1 Most AMD-related article in the wikipedia are confusing and/or lacking information. Is this simple inaptitude? 77.3.138.210 (talk) 14:49, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Not "AM3 only" but "AM3 models only" !!
It's a bit complicated. I cannot use my Phenom II X2 940 BE on an AM3 board. It's a matter of mechanical limitation, since the pins do not match. Try it out! (I'm not responsible for your hardware though :)) What you guys mean is not that "Phenom II works with AM3 chipsets only" (which is untrue, since AM2+ supports them perfectly) but it's the MODELS that matter. My local dealer called the guy a weirdo who returned his X2 940 BE to him "just because of the point-something megahertz. NOPE !! It's not that. He wanted to use an AM3 board, but couldn't because the 940 did not fit in. -andy 217.50.59.176 (talk) 14:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Not surprising because the 940 is one of the few AM2+ Phenom II Cpu. --Denniss (talk) 16:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Not surprising for YOU, but please consider there might also be less tech-savvy people. OK, so be it. Let's not get into argument about this detail stuff. What I now did was SIMPLY append the "models" so that it reads "AM3 models only", since it's just much clearer that way. I hope you won't go reverting that too now. HAND. -andy 217.50.59.176 (talk) 18:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Mobo requirements necessary to accomodate Bulldozer/Bobcat?
Does anyone have any information on the new AM3+ or AM3R2 motherboard requirements necessary to accomodate AMD's next generation chips (Bulldozer and/or Bobcat) announced on Tuesday, August 24th? See link http://www.amd.com/us/press-releases/Pages/amd-x86-innovation-new-core-designs-2010aug24.aspx  According to the press release a new CPU socket maybe needed ... implication only as taken from this post on forums http://www.amdzone.com/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=52&t=137898&start=25  Details would be appreciated. One has to expect that Motherboard manufacturers need to know at the least the pin design and some specific system criteria before they develope the underlying hardware to support this new series of chips? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.14.141.91 (talk) 17:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Compatibility
Questions:
 * AM3 CPU in an AM3+ socket
 * Can A AM3 CPU Work In A AM3+ Socket?

The same questions are of course valid for other CPU-Socket/Mainboard-Socket-combinations. The article doesn even try to answer this, instead there is talk about this or that manufacturer. See for yourselves: []. IMHO a simple list would be more prudent, e.g.:
 * all/most/no AM2-CPUs work in AM3-Sockets
 * all/most/no AM2+-CPUs work in AM3-Sockets
 * all/most/no AM3+-CPUs work in AM3-Sockets


 * all/most/no AM3-CPUs work in AM2-Sockets
 * all/most/no AM3-CPUs work in AM2+-Sockets
 * all/most/no AM3-CPUs work in AM3+-Sockets.

References are of course a must. 77.3.138.210 (talk) 15:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

What??
>The sole principal change from AM2+ to AM3 is support for DDR3 SDRAM.

Either it is the sole change or is the principal change. Not both.

size
why doesn't anyone ever put the actual size of the socket as measured in cm or inches? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.179.15.45 (talk) 00:01, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

SIZE
do they have a physical size that could be measured and added to the description? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.179.15.45 (talk) 00:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)