Images of pins for z370 & z270

[NumLock21]

Pics of the differences in pin layout for z370 and z270. Z370 has more vcc, to go with what intel been saying that coffeelake needs more power. It seems what they did was change those rsvd (reserved) pins to power (vcc) and ground (vss).

 

 

• VSS: 377 -> 391 (+14)
• VCC: 128 -> 146 (+18)
• RSVD: 46 ->25

 

Z270

 

Z370

 

Close up

 

https://videocardz.com/73126/coffeelake-and-kabylake-lga1151-pins-are-different

[Skiiwee29]

Great find. 

[RollinLower]

that makes sense really, with the coffee lake chips having more cores and using more power. i wonder what the thermal output of one of these chips would be.

[rip]

So the pins are RGB? 

[Dylanc1500]

But... But it posts!!!! Intel last minute changed the pins around so they were different and would need a new motherboard!!

 

waaaait for it....

 

To be honest I'm a little surprised by the amount of people that assumed it would be the exact same pin out.

[SquintyG33Rs]

  On 10/3/2017 at 5:46 PM, Dylanc1500 said:

But... But it posts!!!! Intel last minute changed the pins around so they were different and would need a new motherboard!!

 

waaaait for it....

 

To be honest I'm a little surprised by the amount of people that assumed it would be the exact same pin out.

yeah they had to change it to prevent people to put them into old motherboards. even if they wouldn't have bios support.

though i personnaly don't think they did this just to screw over consummers. i think there was some sort of incompatibility unstability problem they found and instead of leaving that open for pottential problems and having to fix it through multiple bios updates they just straight up locked out the possibility of it happening.

[DocSwag]

  On 10/3/2017 at 6:00 PM, SquintyG33Rs said:

yeah they had to change it to prevent people to put them into old motherboards. even if they wouldn't have bios support.

though i personnaly don't think they did this just to screw over consummers. i think there was some sort of incompatibility unstability problem they found and instead of leaving that open for pottential problems and having to fix it through multiple bios updates they just straight up locked out the possibility of it happening.

they increased number of pins for stuff like ground and vcore. Which makes sense as they need better power delivery for 6 core cpus.

[mynameisjuan]

  On 10/3/2017 at 5:46 PM, Dylanc1500 said:

To be honest I'm a little surprised by the amount of people that assumed it would be the exact same pin out.

Same. More cores, more power. 

 

  On 9/29/2017 at 5:47 AM, Master Disaster said:

Hmmmmm, so that one guy who swore blind Intel had to change the socket layout to accommodate CLs extra cores and updated memory support was talking out of his ass.

So what again about me talking out my ass?

[Bananasplit_00]

im going to say that unless those extra cores were wired directly to those new power pins instead of it being a joint input for the CPU, it would have worked fine on a majority of Z270 boards. i highly doubt those extra two cores are enough to make most motherboards crumble. some lower end ones possiably? but i doubt the majority of Z270 would have any actiual problem and im pretty sure this is mostly just because of motherboard sales tbh

[mynameisjuan]

  On 10/3/2017 at 6:36 PM, Bananasplit_00 said:

just because of motherboard sales tbh

Why do people keep saying this? Intel only makes like $7 on the socket on each mobo. 

[Bananasplit_00]

  On 10/3/2017 at 6:58 PM, mynameisjuan said:

Why do people keep saying this? Intel only makes like $7 on the socket on each mobo. 

because motherboard manufacturers? if your new CPU is a drop in swap then anyone thats upgradeing will just drop it in instead of buying a new motherboard, and therefore cutting sales of new motherboards quite a bit compared to what it could have been

[mynameisjuan]

  On 10/3/2017 at 7:00 PM, Bananasplit_00 said:

because motherboard manufacturers? if your new CPU is a drop in swap then anyone thats upgradeing will just drop it in instead of buying a new motherboard, and therefore cutting sales of new motherboards quite a bit compared to what it could have been

But how is the blame on intel? Everyone is saying intel did this for money when they are not even the ones that will make the money.

[Bananasplit_00]

  On 10/3/2017 at 7:04 PM, mynameisjuan said:

But how is the blame on intel? Everyone is saying intel did this for money when they are not even the ones that will make the money.

they make some money, but the industry puts pressure on them too, lots of companies survive on createing a selling motherboards, and while that has a really shitty profit margin it can still be a major part of the income  if not all of it. and as you said, Intel ARE makeing money off this too so there is economical benefit for them to do this aswell

[AncientNerd]

  On 10/3/2017 at 6:58 PM, mynameisjuan said:

Why do people keep saying this? Intel only makes like $7 on the socket on each mobo. 

Um, chipset they make money on the chipset. 

[mynameisjuan]

  On 10/3/2017 at 7:08 PM, Bananasplit_00 said:

they make some money, but the industry puts pressure on them too, lots of companies survive on createing a selling motherboards, and while that has a really shitty profit margin it can still be a major part of the income  if not all of it. and as you said, Intel ARE makeing money off this too so there is economical benefit for them to do this aswell

Yeah they could have easily increased the CPUs by $7 to offset the profits they would of loss not altering the socket. However, I still want to see your proof why they never needed to go this route? More cores mean more power draw and more cores mean new or more silicon needed then extra contacts. Maybe people should explain why its not need instead of spouting intel being a money grab.

[Jahramika]

  On 10/3/2017 at 7:04 PM, mynameisjuan said:

But how is the blame on intel? Everyone is saying intel did this for money when they are not even the ones that will make the money.

Really dude? Intel gets a licensing fee off every board that has their socket on it

[snortingfrogs]

Good info, hopefully this will shut up most of the Intel haters.

[Bananasplit_00]

  On 10/3/2017 at 7:25 PM, mynameisjuan said:

Yeah they could have easily increased the CPUs by $7 to offset the profits they would of loss not altering the socket. However, I still want to see your proof why they never needed to go this route? More cores mean more power draw and more cores mean new or more silicon needed then extra contacts. Maybe people should explain why its not need instead of spouting intel being a money grab.

here:

https://ark.intel.com/products/88046/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E3-1285-v4-6M-Cache-3_50-GHz

95W chip on LGA1150, the 8700K is rated at, drumroll please! 95W! wow, amazing! we definatly needed even more voltage pins here! stability or some shit. these extra pins might take some thermal stress of the socket pins but they are most likely extremely over speced for what they are doing, at 0.74W per VCC pin on Kabylake with this chip. From what i can find LGA 1150 is at would you belive it, 0.74W per VCC pin! And these are the same pins, they are the same size, there is litteraly one more VCC pin on LGA1151(128) then on LGA1150(127), thats your extra pin for you. These voltage input pins feed the FIVR(Fully Intergrated Voltage Controller) and then that spits out all the voltages needed from the 1.8V or whatever you feel like setting the input voltage too. These extra pins are not needed, sure i dont MIND them, but they dont NEED them to be there. you are not going to burn out your Kabylake LGA1151 motherboard just because of those two extra cores

[mynameisjuan]

  On 10/3/2017 at 7:38 PM, Jahramika said:

Really dude? Intel gets a licensing fee off every board that has their socket on it

If you would of read my previous comments you maybe would of realized that I know that.

[Bananasplit_00]

  On 10/3/2017 at 7:48 PM, snortingfrogs said:

Good info, hopefully this will shut up most of the Intel haters.

While i dont HATE Intel beyond the fact that it seems like we here in the north wont be getting much in the way of supply for Coffee Lake, these extra pins are REALLY not needed here

[Mira Yurizaki]

  On 10/3/2017 at 7:48 PM, snortingfrogs said:

Good info, hopefully this will shut up most of the Intel haters.

Not really. They'll ask questions like

• Why was there 46 "reserved" pins to begin with?
• How come they didn't put those 46 pins to use? And if they didn't have any use, why bother with those pins at all?
• If there were a bunch of reserved pins, then what makes the other LGA 115x sockets special?

[Jito463]

  On 10/3/2017 at 8:15 PM, M.Yurizaki said:

Not really. They'll ask questions like

• Why was there 46 "reserved" pins to begin with?
• How come they didn't put those 46 pins to use? And if they didn't have any use, why bother with those pins at all?
• If there were a bunch of reserved pins, then what makes the other LGA 115x sockets special?

That goes along with my question, of why they couldn't have designed the 200 series chipsets to support CL in the first place?  Considering it's been less than a year since the 200 series launched, they could have easily planned ahead and made the 200's compatible, thereby negating any need for a 300 series.  I'm also still curious why 6th and 7th gen processors can't function on the 300 series.  It should be a relatively simple matter for the board to detect the processor and disable the extra voltage pins if it's not CL.

[AresKrieger]

  On 10/3/2017 at 8:23 PM, Jito463 said:

That goes along with my question, of why they couldn't have designed the 200 series chipsets to support CL in the first place?

I doubt intel planed for amd to actually make a decent product, so they needed to boost the power on the chips given that they didn't make a new architecture just refined one.

 

[AresKrieger]

  On 10/3/2017 at 7:54 PM, Bananasplit_00 said:

95W chip on LGA1150, the 8700K is rated at, drumroll please! 95W! wow, amazing! we definatly needed even more voltage pins here!

TDP =/= power draw, so that is almost entirely irrelevant

[Bananasplit_00]

  On 10/3/2017 at 8:30 PM, AresKrieger said:

TDP =/= power draw, so that is almost entirely irrelevant

dosent change my conclusion that these extra pins are not needed, oh and Kabylake at stock sits in its power draw more or less smack dab on that TDP, and moveing forward  id expect the same from them.