Following this week’s launch of AMD’s new Ryzen 3000 series of processors, reports have once again begun circulating that PCIe 4 will be available on some existing 300 & 400 series boards. This comes despite AMD’s official statement last month that they would not be allowing the feature on older boards, as PCIe 4’s tighter signal integrity standards would have led to, at best, a highly fragmented market where some boards work, some boards don’t, and some boards may be outright marginal. At the time the company stated that the feature would be stripped from the AGESA that goes into the final Ryzen 3000 launch BIOSes for older boards.

So, to get right to the heart of matters, I reached out to AMD PR this evening to find out what’s going on with PCIe 4 support. The short version then is that no, AMD’s plans have not changed: PCIe 4 support will be disabled in the shipping AGESA for these boards.

Our plan is unchanged. For the reliability and consistency reasons cited at Computex, we still intend to disable PCIe Gen 4 for pre-X570 motherboards. That AGESA is being released to motherboard manufacturers soon.

As things stand, any boards that currently support the feature would be using pre-release AGESAs, and as we’ve seen with our own BIOS issues, the Ryzen 3000 BIOS situation is still evolving fast. So with AMD intending to permanently disable the feature – and prevent any workarounds – AMD’s goals haven’t wavered. At best, the few boards that have beta BIOSes with the feature will lose them in the future, unless users opted to stick with an unsupported (and almost certainly buggy) BIOS.

Going forward, proper PCIe 4 support will continue to require an AMD 500-series board specifically designed to meet the signal integrity requirements for the higher speed standard. Right now, this includes boards based on AMD’s X570 chipset; and while the company hasn’t announced other 500-series chipsets, we’re expecting to see more in due time.

POST A COMMENT

88 Comments

View All Comments

  • valinor89 - Monday, July 15, 2019 - link

    Some reviewers are flat out discouraging people from getting an X570 board if they dont really need PCIE Gen 4 Reply
  • azfacea - Saturday, July 13, 2019 - link

    I dont get what there is so much hate for 30 dollar premium on x570 when you get pcie4. If it was up to intel we'd be on pcie3 and quad cores well into 2025.

    you do realize that if no1 buys pcie4 there wont be pcie5 ??

    AMD deserves a nobel prize for bringing pcie4 to mainstream and helping to reduce the cost of it and surrounding stuff like high quality PCB etc etc.

    its one thing to complain at NAVI being so late, more power hungry than nvidia with a 7nm advantage and no RT/Tensor Cores, but on pcie 4 cmon. they just doubled your bandwidth and u cant stop nagging at their margins.
    Reply
  • HStewart - Saturday, July 13, 2019 - link

    "intel we'd be on pcie3 and quad cores well into 2025.

    you do realize that if no1 buys pcie4 there wont be pcie5 ??"

    This is bias statement as it comes - Intel will have picie5 and just because pice4 could fail with AMD implementation. ( too early - maybe there is reason why Intel skip it ) does not mean PCIe5 will not exist.

    You are leaving with AMD blinders on.

    Yes Intel is struggling with 10nm and new machines but they have a lot of technology. Just remember Pentium 4 days and then intel came out with I series and dominated AMD so much.
    Reply
  • sa666666 - Saturday, July 13, 2019 - link

    Wondering how long it would take for you to come along with your shilling. It must really be killing you to see AMD in the news so much over the past few weeks.

    And spare me your "AMD blinders on" spiel. You can't comment like that whatsoever, since your Intel blinders are so thick it's a wonder you don't bang into things everywhere you go.

    What Intel did after Pentium 4 was essentially buy the market and force everyone to avoid AMD. And they lost a monopoly lawsuit over it. I don't think things will be so easy for them this time around. They may have to actually compete on merit. Yes, I know, a foreign concept.
    Reply
  • melgross - Sunday, July 14, 2019 - link

    Oh, stop it! You, and others here shill for AMD plenty. We’ll see just how long they have their minor advantage. This has happened before, in the early 2000’s, though you, and a lot of others are either too young to have experienced it, or choose to forget. Reply
  • Korguz - Sunday, July 14, 2019 - link

    melgross, and you obviously havent been here long enough to see how he tries to turn ANY good news for amd, into bad, trying tp spread lies and BS about amd, while making intel look like the best thing since slice bread. when confronted with proof of this, he vanishes. he refuses to acknowledge any of the negative things intel has done over the years. Reply
  • melgross - Monday, July 15, 2019 - link

    I’ve been here since the very beginning of the site. But no, I don’t bother to memorize everybody’s “name”.

    And well, I’ve been around long enough to also know that AMD is often it’s own worst enemy. They’ve made so many major blunders over the decades that it’s amazing they’re still around.

    But both companies have done some very good things as well as some very bad things.
    Reply
  • sa666666 - Sunday, July 14, 2019 - link

    I use both Intel and AMD, and recognize that both have had pros and cons over the years. AMD is currently in the lead, but no doubt Intel will come back at some point. I want that to happen, so they can cut each others' throats instead of doing it to us, the customer.

    I was around in that timeframe, and long before that too. But this is about more than Intel vs. AMD. This is specifically about HStewart, and his extremely annoying posts. I've frequent lots of hardware boards, and even some that were before the Web/Internet was a thing. And I can say that in 25+ years of all this, I've __never__ seen someone that has shilled so hard for a company. If you had any experience here, you would have seen this too. He __really__ gets on my nerves with his illogical, incoherent comments, and I will take the opportunity whenever possible to take him down a notch.
    Reply
  • Tewt - Monday, July 15, 2019 - link

    "minor advantage" "AMD blinders"

    Who is the shill now? Wow, the hypocrisy is off the charts. Let's conveniently leave out the behind the doors payments Intel made to OEMs to stifle any advantages AMD had back in the 2000s. Apparently Intel thought that "minor advantage" was enough to engage in unfair practices and rather pay a fine than forego the profits they were going to make.

    And as always, it's an AMD ARTICLE. You may have a point if this were an Intel article and people were saying the same things but you are the one trying to promote Intel's superiority when the article is NOT about them. This article is obviously for fans of AMD products so you can't be more in the wrong with your statements.
    Reply
  • melgross - Monday, July 15, 2019 - link

    Since you want to bri g that up, you sh;u,d know that both before and after Intel stopped doing that, AMD’s sales didn’t change.

    It’s also interesting that most industries have similar sales and incentive packages, and it’s considered to be perfectly legal.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now