More details about AMD's Bulldozer-based FX lineup emerge

There's also an MSI 890FX board, the GD-65 which has 'AM3+ CPU Support' written below the CPU socket. Not sure what to make of it, seeing as we've been told that BD would not be compatible with current chipsets.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...30565&cm_re=msi_890_fx-_-13-130-565-_-Product

It looks to be true Dokk
http://www.techspot.com/vb/topic162591.html#post1017347

Interesting. However, that makes me wonder what would motivate enthusiasts to move to a 990, if BD is indeed compatible with certain 890's. What would a potentially pricier 990FX have over an 890?

Probably not much more than compatibility, possibly increased memory bandwidth. Its a little more difficult to say with a new CPU/socket. but from the 790-890 and from the P55-X58 there has traditionally been small performance increases, usually increased PCIE lanes is a majority of what you are paying for, and some additional OC'ing ability/features.

Judging by the feature set of the new chipsets, I'd say you're looking at only one-and-a-half differences from the "old" 890/870 chipsets.
As G pointed out I guess there is now official support for DDR3-1866+, and the other (dubious) new feature is IOMMU virtualization according to wiki. I say dubious since IOMMU is already available to some 890FX boards whose BIOS supports the ACPI IVRS table feature. So now it's going to be widespread I suppose it counts as a new feature.
A quick look at the manufacturers 890FX BIOS revisions shows a few boards capable of being flashed with a BIOS with IVRS;
MSI 890FXA-GD70
Asus M4A89TD Pro and Pro/USB3 (BIOS 1006 and BIOS 3012)
Asus Crossfire IV Formula and Extreme (outlined by G in another thread-we seem to be coming full circle!)
Gigabyte 890FXA-UD7 and -UD5 (may need a rev 3.1 board?)
Biostar TA890FXE
ASRock 890FX Deluxe5 (seems to be AM3+ ready. Not sure about the Deluxe3 and 4)
Other than that the 990FX is a 890FX, 990X is 890GX (more or less), and the 970 is a 870. The two new southbridges (SB950 and 920) look the same as their predecessors (SB850 and 810).

I might be missing some facts on this- so grain of salt time with the AM3+ compatible boards- might pay to get a definite before shelling out for one if you're looking at a BD upgrade. I think I've handled about three AMD boards in the last year, so feel free to correct and/or add

This does concern me a bit then. If BD can be 'dropped into' an 890 with few alterations, that leads me to think that the architecture isn't too different from their current chips. I hope this isn't the case, because it means that they may still be behind Intel, and are once again catering to the 'budget' crowd; not that there's anything wrong with that in the big scheme of things.

However, it seems only certain BD chips will support this backwards compatibility so I should reserve judgement. Plus, I'm of limited knowledge, so I'm perhaps simplifying the whole thing.

I was checking through a few threads on socket compatibility and noticed these posts (#2 and #12) by JF-AMD ( John Fruehe -AMD Server marketing). Simply stated you need an AM3+ socket (942 pin outs for a 940 pin CPU) and BD wont fit into a AM3 (941 pin outs for a 938 pin CPU). So either there is some FUD flying around, or Asus/Gigabyte/MSI/ASRock/Biostar boards already have the extra pinout rather than the blank- and have that pinout connected up- meaning that the C4E/C4F and others were built from the get-go as AM3+.
The plot thickens...

Here you go everyone...

http://event.asus.com/2011/mb/AM3_PLUS_Ready/

cheers

With the risk of being misunderstood, I will have a try at explaining Bulldozer and AM3+.

Bulldozer is indeed a true eight core processor since it has eight integer units, however, unlike Intel using Hyper-Threading to pump out maximum performance from each core, AMD tried to increase efficiency, lower costs and decrease die size of it's not-at-all bad architecture trough sharing various logic components like Fetch and Decode, Floating Point Unit and Level 2 cache, components that aren't always fully utilised and consume more power in their initial dedicated forms.
All this saved power may then be used to pump up those cores to raise processing performance trough speed.
Unlike old single core processors ( like my Sempron 3000+ ) which have true efficiency thanks to their single integer/single FPU, single L2 cache design, multi core processors like Bulldozer and Nehalem suffer from programing inefficiency. One way to increase performance is to raise core clock but we all know that higher clocks translate into higher power consumption and temps. High temperatures can be lowered with better coolers but power consumption is limited by motherboard TDP design, since not all manufacturers allow high TDP parts on their mobos for economic reasons.
From my point of view, AMD's approach to efficiency trough architectural improvements is logical and superior to Intel's, even though it's a bit too late.
AMD and, later, Intel developed features like Cool'n'Quiet and EIST which decrease clock and voltage of unused cores, but this didn't solve TDP issues so they introduced Turbo to raise performance of used cores while staying within TDP limits.
These features depend in some measure of chipset design. AMD wants and needs Bulldozer at it's peak efficiency and performance and to obtain it they will introduce AM3+/AM3b and 900-series chipsets.
If you already own a 7/800-series motherboard and your manufacturer offers you compatibility with the new FX chips then keep it. But if you are buying a new PC/fully upgrading your PC/have too much money and don't know how to spend it then a 900-series mobo will be the logical buy.

Pffffff too much writing .

Next summer I'll be upgrading too to an FX-8130P/980GX/DDR3 because my 1,8 sempron is hopelessly slow these days. Sandy Bridge just doesn't float my boat ).

nice box art An eight core processor,OMG! I want one........