# MSI CEO: AMD Plans to Stop Being the Value Alternative, X570 Motherboards to be Expensive



## Raevenlord (Jun 7, 2019)

MSI's CEO Charles Chiang, quoted by Tom's Hardware at COMPUTEX 2019, laid out what we were already seeing with motherboard designs from all vendors of AMD's X570-based motherboards: pricing is likely increasing across the board, and AMD's market positioning won't be of the alternative, lower-value brand. 

As quoted, Chiang said that ""Lots of people ask me, what do you think about today's AMD? I say today's AMD is completely different company compared to two, three, five years ago. They have nice technology and they are there to put the higher spec with the reasonable pricing. But right now they say, "Hey Charles, let's push to marketing to the higher [end]. So let's sell higher-pricing motherboards, higher-spec motherboards, and let's see what will happen in the market. So I don't think that AMD is the company that wants to sell low cost here, low cost there." Which does make sense: AMD isn't in the position of the underdog anymore -at least technology and product-portfolio wise when it comes to consumer CPUs. With better products, comes a desire for higher margins, and a change in direction for a company that was basically forced to almost cut itself out of the market in terms of profits with its previous, non-competitive CPU designs.



 

 

 



Efforts to survive on AMD's part have been immense, with the company severely tightening its belt in all fields, including R&D, in the times leading to the launch of their previous-gen architecture, Bulldozer. And with the way that one architecture panned out in the market, AMD didn't really find a way to dig itself out of the trenches. No like it has with Zen: a lithe, small, highly efficient design that allowed the company to not only make up lost ground on technology and CPU performance but also on profits. That the company wants to price its products in higher segments, alongside their performance improvements and competitiveness against Intel's slow-moving lineup, makes all sorts of sense from a business perspective.



 

 

 

Charles Chiang said that there a multitude of factors contributing to the higher pricing of X570 motherboards: that AMD is planning to charge more for each chipset (compared to the ASMedia-designed X470), but also because of the integration of PCIe 4.0. PCIe 4.0 support has meant a higher-TDp chipset (which has required a throwback to the days of old with active cooling over AMD's chipset, which has increased its TDp up to 10 W compared to the previous gen's X470's 3 W); and because PCIe switches are another best entirely in terms of complexity and power delivery capabilities. All of these add cost, and this cost will end up being passed on to end users (at least partially): as it always is.

*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## ZoneDymo (Jun 7, 2019)

Can you imagine Intel being the value option...


----------



## phanbuey (Jun 7, 2019)

2019 going on 2006



ZoneDymo said:


> Can you imagine Intel being the value option...


" That being said, our overclocked E6300 was able to equal and in all cases but one outperform AMD's Athlon 64 FX-62. In fact, in quite a few benchmarks, the overclocked E6300 is essentially out of reach of anything AMD can offer with their current K8 designs. At $183, the value here is tremendous, and if you're willing to overclock the benefits don't get any clearer than that. "





						Intel Core 2 Duo E6300 & E6400: Tremendous Value Through Overclocking
					






					www.anandtech.com


----------



## dirtyferret (Jun 7, 2019)

As long as performance meets price, meets demand, there is nothing wrong with that...its just when it doesn't....


----------



## Eskimonster (Jun 7, 2019)

If the support is premium for the quality stuffs sold is there no arguments from me, i dont mind paying a bit more for my merchandise with a service included.


----------



## xkm1948 (Jun 7, 2019)

Still waiting for Zen2 based TR3. Come on AMD!


----------



## raptori (Jun 7, 2019)

More like MSI plans to ... nice try CEO.


----------



## RH92 (Jun 7, 2019)

ZoneDymo said:


> Can you imagine Intel being the value option...


Well it all depends , if AMD gets too cocky that could definitely happen but yeah let's hope AMD aren't stupid enough to take this path !


----------



## brian111 (Jun 7, 2019)

As even an AMD rep was reported to say during Computex, unless you are interested in PCI Express 4.0 it makes sense to get a X470 or B450 motherboard from a value perspective.  Beyond that, I'm sure the X570 motherboards will begin to come down in price (to a degree) the longer they are out, as always.


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Jun 7, 2019)

brian111 said:


> As even an AMD rep was reported to say during Computex, unless you are interested in PCI Express 4.0 it makes sense to get a X470 or B450 motherboard from a value perspective.  Beyond that, I'm sure the X570 motherboards will begin to come down in price (to a degree) the longer they are out, as always.



On that note, do you know if there has been official confirmation of a b550 chipset for Ryzen 2? can't say I recall seeing anything and I would have thought they would have been announced by now with the release being 1 month away


----------



## brian111 (Jun 7, 2019)

NdMk2o1o said:


> On that note, do you know if there has been official confirmation of a b550 chipset for Ryzen 2? can't say I recall seeing anything and I would have thought they would have been announced by now with the release being 1 month away



The only thing I heard in particular was that they won't be out for a while, possibly next year.  Nothing beyond that.


----------



## bogami (Jun 7, 2019)

So, MSI decided to Increased prices !, of the new chipst X570 matherboards and wait for what's going to happen !. Basically it could be as good as the previous generation, but this is not enough profit for them, which only gained higher operating temperatures ! (which is essentially large bad, for mor mony). They will definitely justify the price with a loud fan .I suggest a deliberate blockage of the purchase from consumers , until they reach the real ground prices with the MSI X570 chipset motherboards ! This is bare extortion in any book . yes, my money will go elsewhere, it looks like it . And also a proposal for a purchase !


----------



## Basard (Jun 7, 2019)

ZoneDymo said:


> Can you imagine Intel being the value option...



Not really.... More like the over-priced, under-performing option.  At least that's how it was at the turn of the century.


----------



## dicktracy (Jun 7, 2019)

That's what I've been saying...
If AMD loses, their fanbase loses.
If AMD wins, their budget-minded fanbase also loses because they will start charging @ Intel prices (just like they did when they actually had the performance crown with Athlon 64 days).
I also doubt we'll see a 64 core TR if Zen2 REALLY matches Skylake outside of useless CInebench.


----------



## zlobby (Jun 7, 2019)

If I recall correctly even X370, X470 and X399 boards were expensive AF upon launch. Heck, even now ASUS' top ZENITH and Crosshair cost a small fortune.

I also believe people still prefer budget solutions, judging from the interest in the smaller A- and B- series chipsets, which should signal OEM/ODM/etc. something.

Someone's business strategy may well be a bullet in their foot, if they get too greedy.


----------



## olymind1 (Jun 7, 2019)

NdMk2o1o said:


> On that note, do you know if there has been official confirmation of a b550 chipset for Ryzen 2? can't say I recall seeing anything and I would have thought they would have been announced by now with the release being 1 month away



What i would like to see is that B550 boards also would have PCI-E 4.0 support, but only for the 1x PCI-E x16 for the VGA and 1x PCI-E x4 slot for an NVMe SSD, whiches' controllers are included in the processor anyway. 

For my preference and price range i don't need anything extra, 1x PCI-E x1 for my sound card, and 6 sata connectors and a few USB ports. For those a PCI-E 3.0 capable B550 chip is more than enough i think.


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Jun 7, 2019)

I expect there to be a large selection of x570 motherboards starting at quite low prices, say at the top end of b550 boards (if they actually come into fruition) with incremental incrseases from your lower end, mid range high end and enthusiast, then you have the ridiculous watercooled all singing all dancing premium £1.5k boards that about 10 people will buy


----------



## MAXLD (Jun 7, 2019)

olymind1 said:


> What i would like to see is that B550 boards also would have PCI-E 4.0 support, but only for the 1x PCI-E x16 for the VGA and 1x PCI-E x4 slot for an NVMe SSD, whiches' controllers are included in the processor anyway.
> 
> For my preference and price range i don't need anything extra, 1x PCI-E x1 for my sound card, and 6 sata connectors and a few USB ports. For those a PCI-E 3.0 capable B550 chip is more than enough i think.




Y. B550's are basically what will dictate if X570's are even worth considering. If they do the same as B450, with boards having good enough VRM/phases, good looks, and whatnot, then most of the 3600X/3700X people will just get a B550 and be happy with it. (I think even if they shipped with current PCI-E 3.0)

Then again, if those nice mid-X570 boards like the Gigabyte X570 Aorus Pro arrive at around $170~$180, then I think people might make the effort. The VRM/phases on those look really solid, according to Buildzoid.


----------



## zlobby (Jun 7, 2019)

NdMk2o1o said:


> watercooled all singing all dancing premium £1.5k boards that about 10 people will buy



I really lol'd and scared the bejeezus of my hamster, Maverick!


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Jun 7, 2019)

phanbuey said:


> 2019 going on 2006
> 
> 
> " That being said, our overclocked E6300 was able to equal and in all cases but one outperform AMD's Athlon 64 FX-62. In fact, in quite a few benchmarks, the overclocked E6300 is essentially out of reach of anything AMD can offer with their current K8 designs. At $183, the value here is tremendous, and if you're willing to overclock the benefits don't get any clearer than that. "
> ...



I got a E6300 to 3.9ghz on air


----------



## bug (Jun 7, 2019)

This should be a reality check for those that thought AMD was undercutting Intel's prices out of the goodness of their hearts. But it won't be.


----------



## danbert2000 (Jun 7, 2019)

I see no issue with AMD wanting top dollar for their chipset that beat Intel to PCIe 4.0. Especially considering that they're not forcing people to adopt X570 to use Ryzen 3000 CPUs like you know Intel would have. You can get a cheap B450 board and still be able to get top performance with M.2 NVMe, a high-end GPU, and a 12 core processor. I don't understand what people are complaining about here. If you don't want to pay the high price, then don't. Expecting everything that comes out from AMD to be budget priced is toxic to the concept of technological advancements. Rich enthusiasts can buy the X570 boards, and everyone else will benefit from the profit margin on those boards when AMD puts that money towards R&D. We're not actually missing out on anything, people. If you must overclock to the max and have your PCIe 4.0, pay for it.


----------



## bug (Jun 7, 2019)

danbert2000 said:


> I see no issue with AMD wanting top dollar for their chipset that beat Intel to PCIe 4.0. Especially considering that they're not forcing people to adopt X570 to use Ryzen 3000 CPUs like you know Intel would have. You can get a cheap B450 board and still be able to get top performance with M.2 NVMe, a high-end GPU, and a 12 core processor. I don't understand what people are complaining about here. If you don't want to pay the high price, then don't. Expecting everything that comes out from AMD to be budget priced is toxic to the concept of technological advancements. Rich enthusiasts can buy the X570 boards, and everyone else will benefit from the profit margin on those boards when AMD puts that money towards R&D. We're not actually missing out on anything, people. If you must overclock to the max and have your PCIe 4.0, pay for it.


Well, backwards compatibility may look nice on the box, but it's always a bitch. Look at iOS: it says it will keep your phone updated forever, but you hear all the time complaints from people for getting the new OS version, but not all the features on older hardware. And there are real hardware limitations that prevent offering some of the features. And iOS is just software. AM4 is no different: the socket is reusable, but some features, like PCIe 4.0 are not.
No matter how you go about backwards compatibility, there'll be those that see it as a boon and others that will see it as a ruse.

You're spot-on about having to pay top-dollar for top-tier products though.


----------



## GoldenX (Jun 7, 2019)

Meh, I don't care about PCIe 4 anyway. Nothing that has the power to justify being on it is going to be cheap anyway.
Show some more performance numbers, AMD.


----------



## bug (Jun 7, 2019)

GoldenX said:


> Meh, I don't care about PCIe 4 anyway. Nothing that has the power to justify being on it is going to be cheap anyway.
> Show some more performance numbers, AMD.


I'm thinking with lane splitting and everything, you could connect several NVMe drives directly to the CPU. But we'd need NVMe PCIe 4.0 x2 drives instead of the current 3.0 x4 drives first.


----------



## GoldenX (Jun 7, 2019)

bug said:


> I'm thinking with lane splitting and everything, you could connect several NVMe drives directly to the CPU. But we'd need NVMe PCIe 4.0 x2 drives instead of the current 3.0 x4 drives first.


More, faster swap for the Swapgod.


----------



## bug (Jun 7, 2019)

GoldenX said:


> More, faster swap for the Swapgod.


Not swap, but if you need a lot of disk space, two drives can be had for less than a single drive of equal capacity (if that's even available).
But for the masses, PCIe 4.0 will do nothing for at least a couple more years.


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Jun 7, 2019)

bug said:


> And there are real hardware limitations that prevent offering some of the features. And iOS is just software. AM4 is no different: the socket is reusable, but some features, like PCIe 4.0 are not.


So no pcie4 = bad


bug said:


> But for the masses, PCIe 4.0 will do nothing for at least a couple more years.


but no pcie4 = no big deal


----------



## bug (Jun 7, 2019)

NdMk2o1o said:


> So no pcie4 = bad
> 
> but no pcie4 = no big deal


My first post was about CPU backwards compatibility always coming with caveats. No need to read it any other way.


----------



## RichF (Jun 7, 2019)

The tiny fans are expensive. All that innovation to pay for.

Also, this is what happens when you've got duopoly. It's nicer than monopoly but hardly the same thing as adequate competition. There is a less room for luxurious margin increases when there is more competition.


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Jun 7, 2019)

bug said:


> My first post was about CPU backwards compatibility always coming with caveats. No need to read it any other way.



Yea I get that totally   it's just you're damned if you do and damned if you don't really, though it's totally a good thing that 4/3 series motherboard owners can still upgrade to Ryzen 2 with their current boards and RAM etc which is pretty sweet, even if there is some new and fancy feature available on the latest and greatest that's always going to be a caveat as otherwise there would be no reason to move to 570 from x470/x370 etc so best of both worlds, those that have to have the latest greatest etc buy a x570 motherboard, those that don't and just want to pop in an upgrade to their current Ryzen CPU = win


----------



## TheGuruStud (Jun 7, 2019)

phanbuey said:


> 2019 going on 2006
> 
> 
> " That being said, our overclocked E6300 was able to equal and in all cases but one outperform AMD's Athlon 64 FX-62. In fact, in quite a few benchmarks, the overclocked E6300 is essentially out of reach of anything AMD can offer with their current K8 designs. At $183, the value here is tremendous, and if you're willing to overclock the benefits don't get any clearer than that. "
> ...



The super shill days of shrimpi and toms. I still have a bad taste in my mouth. Quite a few of the big sites LOVED those synthetics, b/c it made netburst look good. Of course, they were as accurate as a Flat Earthers calling NASA fake.

Core2 systems were too pricey. I OCed the cheapo athlons in many gaming PCs and they performed flawlessly for many years. (Rinse and repeat with phenom II and C2D).


----------



## Crackong (Jun 8, 2019)

It is not Intel, for Intel you always have to buy the newest expensive chipest for new CPUs until the cheaper chipset arrives like 6 months later.
For AMD, you can always pick the B450 for cheap alternative right now for Ryzen 3000.


----------



## GoldenX (Jun 8, 2019)

C2D was only good at high frequencies (final and FSB). The lower end Pentiums and Celerons (800MHz FSB) were trash, beaten by a lot older (and cheaper) Athlon 64 X2 models. The only great good thing about them was the lower power consumption

Anyway, on topic. This is meh for us that don't worry about high end stuff. PCI-e 4 will be mostly irrelevant for a couple of years, so right now, it's just maketing to sell new boards. Unless, of course, you need a 15GB/s SSD for your work, or as @bug says, you can do some smart saving on high end stuff with it.

I would like a new line of AM4 ITX cheap boards without chipsets please, a la AM1. A400 or A500?


----------



## s3thra (Jun 8, 2019)

phanbuey said:


> 2019 going on 2006
> 
> 
> " That being said, our overclocked E6300 was able to equal and in all cases but one outperform AMD's Athlon 64 FX-62. In fact, in quite a few benchmarks, the overclocked E6300 is essentially out of reach of anything AMD can offer with their current K8 designs. At $183, the value here is tremendous, and if you're willing to overclock the benefits don't get any clearer than that. "
> ...


Ah the good old days. It's exciting to see things competitive again after all these years.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jun 8, 2019)

GoldenX said:


> Show some more performance numbers, AMD.


The reviews will be out soon and the numbers will become known.



s3thra said:


> Ah the good old days. It's exciting to see things competitive again after all these years.


Right?


----------



## renz496 (Jun 8, 2019)

bug said:


> This should be a reality check for those that thought AMD was undercutting Intel's prices out of the goodness of their hearts. But it won't be.



if you think it logically it should be like this. even when AMD is not the best option they already make few moves to optimize their profit. but some people still think "no AMD is no greed company like intel or nvidia there is no way they going to charge crazy price". AMD try to stop being the value brand after 2011. remember $550 7970? i still remember how in forums when some people defending that "AMD will not going to charge more than $400 for s single GPU no matter how fast they are". AMD, intel, Nvidia. All of them are profit making company.


----------



## Fergutor (Jun 8, 2019)

HA!


...oh, the fanboys...


----------



## Bones (Jun 8, 2019)

MSI looking for an excuse to charge more for the new boards to go with the new chips while still using garbage-grade components (Nikos). 
Charge more for less, pass the reasons "Why" along as AMD being responsible.....

Yeah, makes the bottom line look really good. 
That's how I see it anyway.


----------



## kapone32 (Jun 8, 2019)

X570 boards have Wifi 6, 6 to 8 layer PCBs, 10 Gigabit Ethernet and 16 Phase VRM controllers. They will be more costly than X470 simply because of those and other factors.


----------



## moproblems99 (Jun 8, 2019)

danbert2000 said:


> I see no issue with AMD wanting top dollar for their chipset that beat Intel to PCIe 4.0. Especially considering that they're not forcing people to adopt X570 to use Ryzen 3000 CPUs like you know Intel would have. You can get a cheap B450 board and still be able to get top performance with M.2 NVMe, a high-end GPU, and a 12 core processor. I don't understand what people are complaining about here. If you don't want to pay the high price, then don't. Expecting everything that comes out from AMD to be budget priced is toxic to the concept of technological advancements. Rich enthusiasts can buy the X570 boards, and everyone else will benefit from the profit margin on those boards when AMD puts that money towards R&D. We're not actually missing out on anything, people. If you must overclock to the max and have your PCIe 4.0, pay for it.



As long as X470/B450 supports any new XFR and PBO, I'll buy one of those and then wait to see if X570/X550 have any merit.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 8, 2019)

PCIe 1.0 = 2.5 GT/s
PCIe 2.0 = 5 GT/s
PCIe 3.0 = 8 GT/s
PCIe 4.0 = 16 GT/s
PCIe 5.0 = 32 GT/s

PCIe 4.0 represents the largest jump in PCIe performance ever to date and with that, comes costs.  I think PCIe 4.0 is going to be niche for a long time.  PCIe 5.0 may not become mainstream for a decade because it's an even bigger jump.  PCIe 5.0 will probably be used exclusively in mainframes to drive PCIe cache drives for many years.


----------



## Metroid (Jun 8, 2019)

phanbuey said:


> 2019 going on 2006
> 
> 
> " That being said, our overclocked E6300 was able to equal and in all cases but one outperform AMD's Athlon 64 FX-62. In fact, in quite a few benchmarks, the overclocked E6300 is essentially out of reach of anything AMD can offer with their current K8 designs. At $183, the value here is tremendous, and if you're willing to overclock the benefits don't get any clearer than that. "
> ...



And that was stock clock speed, Conroe used to overclock 50% or higher. 

I told many times here the x570 will cost an arm and a leg. Reason why I'm planning  to buy a cheap b450. Pay attention, we are lucky amd is letting these new processors in old am4 chipsets, amd probably has had alot of complaints of motherboard manufactures. Those manufactures wanted only x570.


----------



## Kissamies (Jun 8, 2019)

PCI-E 3.0 is still fine for years with graphics cards: https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_RTX_2080_Ti_PCI-Express_Scaling/6.html

But yeah, NVMe drives are getting faster and faster, so having more bandwith with those is a great thing


RichF said:


> The tiny fans are expensive. All that innovation to pay for.


Why they can't just go back ~10 years when motherboard had proper heatsinks AND they looked literally cool. Now they're almost always just chunks of aluminium. A decade ago it was hella rare to see a fan in a chipset heatsink.



Metroid said:


> And that was stock clock speed, Conroe used to overclock 50% or higher.


In some cases, even 100% OC was possible (Pentium E2140, C2D E4300, E6300 etc)


----------



## RichF (Jun 8, 2019)

I doubt B450 is going to have the memory clocking capability of X570. Losing B die (shuttering of production) might compound the problem.


Chloe Price said:


> Why they can't just go back ~10 years when motherboard had proper heatsinks AND they looked literally cool. Now they're almost always just chunks of aluminium. A decade ago it was hella rare to see a fan in a chipset heatsink.


Three highly-finned copper heatsinks connected with copper heatpipes. This was before the innovation of plastic shrouds, flat sinks with poor surface area, and rainbow LEDs. (Note, the board below isn't ideal but it's still better than some of the recent designs.)


----------



## Metroid (Jun 8, 2019)

Chloe Price said:


> PCI-E 3.0 is still fine for years with graphics cards: https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_RTX_2080_Ti_PCI-Express_Scaling/6.html
> 
> But yeah, NVMe drives are getting faster and faster, so having more bandwith with those is a great thing
> 
> ...




So true, my old asus p6t was heatsink only. it cost an arm and a leg but it was high end.






						Intel 5 Series - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				





*X58*1TylersburgSLGBT (B2),
SLGMX (B3),
SLH3M (C2)AC82X58 (IOH)November 2008LGA 1366QPI36× PCIe 2.0 (IOH);
6× PCIe 1.1 (ICH)YesYesNone6 portsNone12 portsNo28.6 W2

1366 tdp = 28.6 watts and the x570 is only 11 watts.






						P6T Deluxe/OC Palm - Support
					






					www.asus.com
				






RichF said:


> I doubt B450 is going to have the memory clocking capability of X570. Losing B die (shuttering of production) might compound the problem.



Well that is the plan however reviews can change my mind and I'm sure they will do tell us if x570 is worth or not.



brian111 said:


> As even an AMD rep was reported to say during Computex, unless you are interested in PCI Express 4.0 it makes sense to get a X470 or B450 motherboard from a value perspective.  Beyond that, I'm sure the X570 motherboards will begin to come down in price (to a degree) the longer they are out, as always.



I still have that 2 kilos pure copper thermaltake cpu cooler. It is amazing. Yeah right now it makes no sense a x570.



Bones said:


> MSI looking for an excuse to charge more for the new boards to go with the new chips while still using garbage-grade components (Nikos).
> Charge more for less, pass the reasons "Why" along as AMD being responsible.....
> 
> Yeah, makes the bottom line look really good.
> That's how I see it anyway.



And the interesting thing is that only msi comes publicly to say, you don't see asrock, gigabyte or asus bragging about it. Also remember that msi wanted to disable ryzen 3000 series support for its old am4 motherboards.


----------



## phanbuey (Jun 8, 2019)

RichF said:


> I doubt B450 is going to have the memory clocking capability of X570. Losing B die (shuttering of production) might compound the problem.
> 
> Three highly-finned copper heatsinks connected with copper heatpipes. This was before the innovation of plastic shrouds, flat sinks with poor surface area, and rainbow LEDs. (Note, the board below isn't ideal but it's still better than some of the recent designs.)
> 
> View attachment 124497


I used to have that exact board in a lian li v1000 case (upside down orientation) and the VRM heat would make it crash lol... I had to strap a fan on the CPU wb to make it stable.


----------



## RichF (Jun 8, 2019)

Personally, I would like to see AMD get one of the hybrid VRM coolers so I can easily and affordably hook the board up to my loop. I am not going to spend $1000 for a board just to get integrated water, like with that Aqua thing. ASUS and Gigabyte offered those hybrid sink boards for Intel quads with multiple iterations, at least from the ASUS end. Someone said hybrid sinks aren't very impressive when used with air but people can always use the tiny fan innovation to work around that. 



phanbuey said:


> I used to have that exact board in a lian li v1000 case (upside down orientation) and the VRM heat would make it crash lol... I had to strap a fan on the CPU wb to make it stable.


There shouldn't have been flat surfaces on the sinks as there are on that board. I also assume there could be more height on the main VRM sink. But, did you forget your Delta fans?


----------



## Xzibit (Jun 8, 2019)

FordGT90Concept said:


> PCIe 1.0 = 2.5 GT/s
> PCIe 2.0 = 5 GT/s
> PCIe 3.0 = 8 GT/s
> PCIe 4.0 = 16 GT/s
> ...



AMD chipset is going to be less congested
X470 - PCIe 3.0 / x4 = 4 GT/s
to
X570 - PCIe 4.0 / x4 = 8 GT/s


----------



## silentbogo (Jun 8, 2019)

Metroid said:


> 1366 tdp = 28.6 watts and the x570 is only 11 watts.


Where did you get 11W estimate? AFAIK the only number I've heard was _no less than_ 15W, and given the thermal density of x570 you'll probably need an active cooling system even at the most optimistic TDP.


----------



## kapone32 (Jun 8, 2019)

FordGT90Concept said:


> PCIe 1.0 = 2.5 GT/s
> PCIe 2.0 = 5 GT/s
> PCIe 3.0 = 8 GT/s
> PCIe 4.0 = 16 GT/s
> ...



Um Intel will have PCI-E 5.0 on their 2020 release.


----------



## Pumper (Jun 8, 2019)

As if X470 are cheap.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jun 8, 2019)

is it really x570 is gonna be expensive or is it more like x570 is gonna get more ridiculously expensive high-end boards ? we'll see.
z390 has a plethora of premium high end boards but at the same time you can get z390 gaming x with a 10 phase vrm and keep the costs reasonable.


----------



## Metroid (Jun 8, 2019)

silentbogo said:


> Where did you get 11W estimate? AFAIK the only number I've heard was _no less than_ 15W, and given the thermal density of x570 you'll probably need an active cooling system even at the most optimistic TDP.



Check x570 tdp table on the link below.









						List of AMD chipsets - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




"AMD's addition of PCIe 4.0 support for its platform, and whipping up the PCIe 4.0 Radeon RX5700 and fostering the NVMe SSD ecosystem, are powerful value-adds. As the first PCIe 4.0 platform, Ryzen does offer something you can't get anywhere else -- access to leading platform I/O performance. That does come at the cost of higher power consumption; we're told the chipset sucks down 11-15W compared to the previous-gen's 3.5W with PCIe 3.0. That requires the active cooling via fans that we've seen on motherboards here at the show, but we're sure that many enthusiasts won't mind the return of chipset fans if they get leading throughput in exchange. "









						AMD Unveils 5 Third-Gen Ryzen CPUs, Including 12-Core Flagship
					

AMD's Third-gen Ryzen processors span from six cores and 12-threads up to 12 cores and 24-threads and bring along a 15% improvement in IPC.




					www.tomshardware.com
				




TDP table

x570 = 11w
x470 = 4.8w
x370 = 6.8w
b450 = 4.8w
b350 = 6.8w

Here is hoping, some motherboard manufacturer releases a heatsink only like 1366 used to.


----------



## silentbogo (Jun 8, 2019)

Metroid said:


> Check x570 tdp table on the link below.


I've learned to double-check wikipedia. Whoever added those numbers only used Anandtech as a reference, who also likes to pull their numbers out of the ass occasionally.
Here's where it came from:


> This is different to the 15W being reported - it appears AMD is making two variants of the chipset, with the 11W on consumer boards and the 15W for enterprise, with the 15W having more PCIe lanes.


No sources, no further explanations, and so far not a single other source to support this claim.
If you google "AMD x570 11W", you'll be quick to notice that the first two pages are tech sites monkey-quoting each other with this number, without any tangible sources or validation.


----------



## Mamya3084 (Jun 8, 2019)

Waiting on threadripper 3... hopefully October, since that's when they usually launch.


----------



## Metroid (Jun 8, 2019)

silentbogo said:


> I've learned to double-check wikipedia. Whoever added those numbers only used Anandtech as a reference, who also likes to pull their numbers out of the ass occasionally.
> Here's where it came from:
> 
> No sources, no further explanations, and so far not a single other source to support this claim.
> If you google "AMD x570 11W", you'll be quick to notice that the first two pages are tech sites monkey-quoting each other with this number, without any tangible sources or validation.



Since there is nothing official on tdp, nothing much we can do than to wait for reviews. It might be even more than 15 watts.


----------



## nemesis.ie (Jun 8, 2019)

It will also depend on what it's doing, the max will be with 2 x PCIE4 NVME drives running at full tilt and maybe some network/USB at the same time.

Under normal load/bursting to secondary storage it should be a lot less - put the storage you need to be fast on the CPU lanes.

If you need more than 1 x fast drive and some "extra or larger or cheaper", it might be time to go to Threadripper or you won't be worried about a few watts from the chipset.

Does anyone actually have a power/heat to small fan RPM table?  If the heatsink is well designed and the fan only needs to spin up to e.g. 600 rpm, it may not even be heard - assuming a good implementation.


----------



## Aldain (Jun 8, 2019)

Here is the thing, IF ALL HIGH END X570 MOBO-S are like this, then AMD and the x570 AIB-s deserve every single cent they can get..

Remarkable amd board


----------



## Metroid (Jun 8, 2019)

nemesis.ie said:


> Does anyone actually have a power/heat to small fan RPM table?  If the heatsink is well designed and the fan only needs to spin up to e.g. 600 rpm, it may not even be heard - assuming a good implementation.



The only thing we know is 4x4 cm, normal case fans are 12x12 cm, for example, almost silent fans runs at 800 rpm on 12x12, so this has to be 3 times less, which means for this 4x4 cm fan to be almost silent then it needs 300 rpm or so. It can cool it, no problem, 15 watts, but the heatsink needs to be using the full area of it, which means 4x4 cm too or a tad bigger.



Aldain said:


> Here is the thing, IF ALL HIGH END X570 MOBO-S are like this, then AMD and the x570 AIB-s deserve every single cent they can get..
> 
> Remarkable amd board



Well they need to justify the price somehow, expect that motherboard to cost > $400 usd. What is the point paying more than $400 for it and getting 100mhz more x b450 in overclocking, and the b450 cost $50. It can have billion phase vrm for that matter if it cant give a much much much much better overclocking than a $50 b450 is a no go for me.  Back then people used to pay more for motherboards because those motherboards used to give a much much better overclocking than the cheap ones.


----------



## shmuck (Jun 8, 2019)

Are the x570 boards supposed to be better at overclocking Ryzen 3000 and RAMs than x470? PCIe 4 is of 0 interest to me whatsoever so I wonder if x570 will be worth it with the price hike at all.


----------



## Metroid (Jun 8, 2019)

shmuck said:


> Are the x570 boards supposed to be better at overclocking Ryzen 3000 and RAMs than x470? PCIe 4 is of 0 interest to me whatsoever so I wonder if x570 will be worth it with the price hike at all.



Well, we don't know that yet, we are all assuming something here, my assumption is no, one might think --> "but this chipset was designed by amd inhouse and not asmedia, so it might be lot more overclocking friendly". I myself think a b450 that cost $50 will only be a tad inferior than the x570 on overclocking. Does the 4 to 20x more in price justifies it? only you can decide that.

Also, saving on the motherboard, money wise can be put on to buy a 3900x($499) instead of a 3700x($329). That is $170 usd difference. Better to spend on a better processor that will give you 33% more multithread performance and likely 4% in single thread than to spend that on a motherboard that will give you 1% in overclocking.


----------



## Xuper (Jun 8, 2019)

If AMD sells cheap , make no mistake , THEY WILL LOSE! This needs to be end.


----------



## Metroid (Jun 8, 2019)

Pay attention to this video here, 5:40 minutes,


----------



## Vayra86 (Jun 8, 2019)

ZoneDymo said:


> Can you imagine Intel being the value option...



Its really quite simple, brand is irrelevant and performance / tech lead is worth a premium.

Its a real trend...


----------



## shmuck (Jun 8, 2019)

Metroid said:


> Well, we don't know that yet, we are all assuming something here, my assumption is no, one might think --> "but this chipset was designed by amd inhouse and not asmedia, so it might be lot more overclocking friendly". I myself think a b450 that cost $50 will only be a tad inferior than the x570 on overclocking. Does the 4 to 20x more in price justifies it? only you can decide that.
> 
> Also, saving on the motherboard, money wise can be put on to buy a 3900x($499) instead of a 3700x($329). That is $170 usd difference. Better to spend on a better processor that will give you 33% more multithread performance and likely 4% in single thread than to spend that on a motherboard that will give you 1% in overclocking.



Thanks for the B450 suggestion. I don't actually need the extra features of x?70 boards, so it's a shame that B550 will not be available from the get-go. Right now I'm weighing up 3800X and B450 Tomahawk/Carbon.


----------



## Metroid (Jun 8, 2019)

*They found a way to ditch the X570 chipset fan!*










As if there was not a way to hehe, 1366 x58 is a good example of that.


----------



## turbogear (Jun 8, 2019)

When I saw these new x570 board announcements and all the features they put in for example ASUS announcing Crosshair VIII Formula having waterblock, OLED display, dual ethernet with one being 5G and WIFI 6, I was already thinking wow these things are going to be expensive. 
My expectation for example for ASUS Formula is that it would be priced similar to or even higher than Intel version of ASUS Formula board.


----------



## RH92 (Jun 8, 2019)

Aldain said:


> Here is the thing, IF ALL HIGH END X570 MOBO-S are like this, then AMD and the x570 AIB-s deserve every single cent they can get..



1) As Buildzoid mentioned in the video this is the only X570 board with this kind of quality so that answers the IF .

2) Also as Buildzoid mentioned there is a point of diminishing returns in VRM quality . You can't add 40 phases and expect 4 times better results than a 10 phase that won't happen !  Most quality B450/X470  should OC 8cores and probably 12cores as good as any high end X570  , only 16cores will probably favor X570 and even there it depends .

Don't get me wrong those are very very nice mobos but they will certainly come at a very high price aswell wich for most users and usecases won't  make alot of sense !


----------



## kapone32 (Jun 8, 2019)

Pumper said:


> As if X470 are cheap.



I have noticed that all AM4 boards cost more now than this point last year.


----------



## springs113 (Jun 8, 2019)

Mamya3084 said:


> Waiting on threadripper 3... hopefully October, since that's when they usually launch.


I remember buying my 1950x in august along with vega...somewhere along the lines of 8-15 i believe.  Threadripper always came out before school started in my state.


----------



## Vario (Jun 8, 2019)

Metroid said:


> *They found a way to ditch the X570 chipset fan!*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I love the exclamation point.  As if we are all so excited about this fact!


----------



## Fatalfury (Jun 8, 2019)

Xuper said:


> If AMD sells cheap , make no mistake , THEY WILL LOSE! This needs to be end.



then the same goes for every corporate company like Intel and Nvidia.


----------



## Aldain (Jun 8, 2019)

RH92 said:


> 1) As Buildzoid mentioned in the video this is the only X570 board with this kind of quality so that answers the IF .
> 
> 2) Also as Buildzoid mentioned there is a point of diminishing returns in VRM quality . You can't add 40 phases and expect 4 times better results than a 10 phase that won't happen !  Most quality B450/X470  should OC 8cores and probably 12cores as good as any high end X570  , only 16cores will probably favor X570 and even there it depends .
> 
> Don't get me wrong those are very very nice mobos but they will certainly come at a very high price aswell wich for most users and usecases won't  make alot of sense !



Actually AFAIK Msi godlike and the ASROCK creator boards are the same as the gigabyte one. As for you point for not  making sense for many users, you are absolutely  correct , but it does not deter from the fact that this board is better than all x470/z390/ intel HEDT x299 boards and on par with the Asus Zenith  AMD HEDT x399 board. For mainstream that is just insane.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jun 8, 2019)

I say good! There's no reason for amd to be the budget option if they deliver a product of same or better quality than intel.Only reason they were the value alternative is they had to be.Maybe now they just don't anymore.


----------



## Zubasa (Jun 8, 2019)

This is just MSI CEO's own opinion anyway, IDK why there needs to be a 4 pages worth of posts debating this.



cucker tarlson said:


> I say good! There's no reason for amd to be the budget option if they deliver a product of same or better quality than intel.Only reason they were the value alternative is they had to be.Maybe now they just don't anymore.


Exactly, as long as the product has the performance to back up the price tag by all means.


----------



## Kissamies (Jun 8, 2019)

Now that when I started to think, I remember that the last time I had an active cooled chipset, that was a NForce 3 Ultra S939 board. Yeah, with an AGP slot.. Of course I changed that to a Zalman passive heatsink, those were the thing back then.

But, at least I'm pretty sure that these X570 motherboard fans aren't as noisy as ~15 years ago.



Pumper said:


> As if X470 are cheap.


Paid 119eur from my MSI X470 board, though this was from Christmas sale. But my point is, you can grab a cheap good board with some luck and good timing.




Metroid said:


> So true, my old asus p6t was heatsink only. it cost an arm and a leg but it was high end.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Exactly. I had a P6T SE (flashed to P6T) which doesn't have even that much of a beefy cooling like the Deluxe seems to have, and I didn't have any problems running i7-920 @ 4.2GHz without any extra chipset/VRM cooling.


----------



## Shatun_Bear (Jun 8, 2019)

ZoneDymo said:


> Can you imagine Intel being the value option...



They have to be when they're trying to push old process, inefficient 14nm+++ CPUs whilst their rival has 7nm CPUs on a platform with more advanced features (like PCIE4). Crazy situation tbf.


----------



## GoldenX (Jun 8, 2019)

Shatun_Bear said:


> They have to be when they're trying to push old process, inefficient 14nm+++ CPUs whilst their rival has 7nm CPUs on a platform with more advanced features (like PCIE4). Crazy situation tbf.


The tortoise and the hare.


----------



## Metroid (Jun 8, 2019)

Chloe Price said:


> Exactly. I had a P6T SE (flashed to P6T) which doesn't have even that much of a beefy cooling like the Deluxe seems to have, and I didn't have any problems running i7-920 @ 4.2GHz without any extra chipset/VRM cooling.



Those were good times. The value was there, i7 920, the best value x performance cpu of all time to date in cpu history. Hopefully we will have a "good time' like that again.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jun 8, 2019)

Metroid said:


> Those were good times. The value was there, i7 920, the best value x performance cpu of all time to date in cpu history. Hopefully we will have a "good time' like that again.


2500K imo
it's not just about longevity,2500k wasn't especially outstandings as far as longevity goes.
it's more about what performance it offered at the price point it was released.
but when it lanuched it could handle high end gpus flawlessly,to the point there was just no real need for i7.
now you want to max out a 2080Ti on a 165hz display you need a friggin 9900K.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Jun 8, 2019)

kapone32 said:


> Um Intel will have PCI-E 5.0 on their 2020 release.



In what products though? Desktop PCs? Laptops? As those are mainstream products...
I think not. It will be in a few Xeon SKUs to start with and that's it.


----------



## nemesis.ie (Jun 8, 2019)

And nothing stopping AMD releasing AM5/DDR5/PCIe 5.0 boards when the time is right either.

As an aside, I see a few posts asking "how good is the X570 chipset for overclocking?" - I don't think the chipset has ANY bearing on this, it's the quality of the board and UEFI that determines that, the chipset is just a fancy peripheral hub with integrated PCIe switch, it's no different than plugging a card in a slot, it just takes 4 lanes from the CPU and connects "a bunch of stuff" to it.  It doesn't actually do anything to the CPU settings/clocks etc.


----------



## kapone32 (Jun 8, 2019)

I am only going to reference WIFI 6. You can buy routers that are 802.11AX but they start at $300 as a minimum and just under $700 here in Canada. The problem is that a Wifi 6 card is a brand new adapteranf cards are usuaslly 1/2 of their compliant router in terms of cost. Wifi 6 should add at least a $50 premium to boards that don't have it.


----------



## nemesis.ie (Jun 8, 2019)

What's interesting is that these components integrated on motherboards seem to work out much cheaper, e.g. the 10G Aquantia on an ASRock M/B (price premium) is much cheaper than buying a separate card.


----------



## kapone32 (Jun 8, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


> In what products though? Desktop PCs? Laptops? As those are mainstream products...
> I think not. It will be in a few Xeon SKUs to start with and that's it.



The made an announcement that I understood to mean when they release the 10nm data center products. With the current state, I would not be surprised in the least for them to respond to the all out assault from AMD with a variant of that on the desktop in 2021 or 2022 as they refine the 10nm process. Even if they put it onto the chipset of next Gen desktop boards.



nemesis.ie said:


> What's interesting is that these components integrated on motherboards seem to work out much cheaper, e.g. the 10G Aquantia on an ASRock M/B (price premium) is much cheaper than buying a separate card.
> [/QUOTE
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Metroid (Jun 8, 2019)

cucker tarlson said:


> 2500K imo
> it's not just about longevity,2500k wasn't especially outstandings as far as longevity goes.
> it's more about what performance it offered at the price point it was released.
> but when it lanuched it could handle high end gpus flawlessly,to the point there was just no real need for i7.
> now you want to max out a 2080Ti on a 165hz display you need a friggin 9900K.



Core i5-2500K
SR008 (D2)
43.3 GHz1/2/3/44 × 256 KiB6 MiBHD Graphics 3000850–1100 MHz95 WLGA 1155DMI 2.0January 2011
CM8062300833803
BX80623I52500K
BXC80623I52500K
$216


Core i7-920
SLBCH (C0)
SLBEJ (D0)
2.67 GHz1/1/1/2[Note 1]44 × 256 KiB8 MiB1 × 4.8 GT/s QPI20×3 × DDR3-10660.8–1.375 V130 WLGA 1366November 2008
BX80601920
AT80601000741AA
$284

I think is pretty clear the winner here, 4 cores 8 threads in 2008 and at $284.


----------



## nienorgt (Jun 8, 2019)

I'm perfectly fine with X570 being costly because it have the specs that back it up.
But I hope that AMD will keep it's value alternatives with the B550 (or whatever they call the B450 replacement) with cheap price and keeping the overclocking feature available for the mass unlike Intel.


----------



## Metroid (Jun 8, 2019)

GIGABYTE X570 Aorus Pro AM4 Motherboard: Mid Range at $249.









						GIGABYTE X570 Aorus Pro AM4 Motherboard: Mid Range at $249
					






					www.anandtech.com
				




I guess b450 at $50 will be the only choice, saving around $200 to buy a better cpu.


----------



## nemesis.ie (Jun 8, 2019)

@kapone32

NewEgg are taking the piss I think?









						Asrock X470 Taichi AMD X470 (Socket AM4) DDR4 ATX Motherboard
					

Socket AM4,  AMD Ryzen 2 Support, 4x DDR4 DIMM, 3x PCIE x16, 2x PCIE x1, 8 SATA 3, 2x M.2, 3x USB 3.1, 10x USB 3.0, 802.11ac WiFI, Bluetooth 4.2, 7.1 HD Audio,




					www.overclockers.co.uk
				












						Asrock X470 Taichi Ultimate AMD X470 (Socket AM4) DDR4 ATX Motherboard
					

Socket AM4,  AMD Ryzen 2 Support, 4x DDR4 DIMM, 3x PCIE x16, 2x PCIE x1, 8 SATA 3, 2x M.2, 3x USB 3.1, 10x USB 3.0, 802.11ac WiFI, Bluetooth 4.2, 7.1 HD Audio, 10 Gigabit LAN,




					www.overclockers.co.uk
				




£40 difference.

Also notice the price drops? Making room for X570 stock?

They also posted "Ideal for gen 3 Ryzen" for their 4500MHz RAM kit ....









						Team Group Xtreem "8Pack Edition" 16GB (2x8GB) DDR4 PC4-36000C18 4500MHz Dual Channel Kit - Black
					

4500MHz RAM Speed, CAS 18-20-20-44 Timings, 1.45v VDIMM, Samsung B-Die, Ideal for 3rd gen Ryzen, Lifetime Warranty with OcUK.




					www.overclockers.co.uk
				




Interesting times.


----------



## Deleted member 158293 (Jun 8, 2019)

Don't want x570?  Then stay with/get x470 with niw CPU.  Choice is great when upgrading, something still needing some getting used to again after the CPU dark ages.


----------



## mstenholm (Jun 8, 2019)

@kapone32 
Did you read down to the CPU compatibility ? No AMD mentioned there  We can always hope.


----------



## Valantar (Jun 8, 2019)

MAXLD said:


> Y. B550's are basically what will dictate if X570's are even worth considering. If they do the same as B450, with boards having good enough VRM/phases, good looks, and whatnot, then most of the 3600X/3700X people will just get a B550 and be happy with it. (I think even if they shipped with current PCI-E 3.0)
> 
> Then again, if those nice mid-X570 boards like the Gigabyte X570 Aorus Pro arrive at around $170~$180, then I think people might make the effort. The VRM/phases on those look really solid, according to Buildzoid.


The Aorus Pro is $250.

This really shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. PCIe 4.0 requires higher PCB quality (likely through more layers) than 3.0 to ensure signal integrity, as well as redrivers driving up the BOM. Same goes for RAM traces if motherboard makers want to compete in the >4000MT/s RAM space. Then there's the cost of a large-die chipset that includes a PCIe 4.0 switch. X570 will be more expensive than previous AM4 X*70 series across the board - and that's fine, as it brings a lot to the table.

Hopefully when B550 launches it's a selectively stripped-down option that allows for cheaper boards - ideally maintaining rough feature parity but moving down to a PCIe 3.0 switch - even with less lanes that would still be useful, and a lot cheaper to produce. You'd still get PCIe 4.0 through the PCIe_x16_0 slot and the first m.2 slot (unless motherboard makers screw up the traces entirely), but cut pretty much every other element driving up prices of X570 boards.



GoldenX said:


> Meh, I don't care about PCIe 4 anyway. Nothing that has the power to justify being on it is going to be cheap anyway.
> Show some more performance numbers, AMD.





bug said:


> I'm thinking with lane splitting and everything, you could connect several NVMe drives directly to the CPU. But we'd need NVMe PCIe 4.0 x2 drives instead of the current 3.0 x4 drives first.


I see _forward _compatibility as the main reason to go X570. Even if I am - despite my best intentions when buying my 1600X - planning to upgrade to an X570 setup a scant two years after my last go around, most people buying a motherboard+CPU combo today ought to plan to keep it for 4 years at the very least (heck, I kept my last setup for 8!). (Also, part of the reason I'm upgrading again is that last time around had me quite budget-limited, and this time around I can go balls-to-the-wall, which will be great for longevity.) AMD has given CPU performance a surprise jolt these past few years, but performance increases are going to flatten out very soon. In 3-4 years, PCIe 4.0 SSDs will be ubiquitous, as will GPUs, and a 3700X (or even a 3600!) is still going to be a _good_ CPU. The main gain of X570 isn't necessarily per-device bandwidth, but total bandwidth and thus the total amount of connectable high-speed devices. It's rather obvious that we'll start seeing PCIe 4.0 x2 SSDs in the coming years, likely at prices somewhere in between current x2 and x4 drives (if not lower as flash prices keep dropping). That makes them a no-brainer for adding storage over time - no real performance sacrifice, but cheaper than x4 drives, and hopefully you'll be able to connect more.



kapone32 said:


> _*Some *_X570 boards have Wifi 6, 6 to 8 layer PCBs, 10 Gigabit Ethernet and 16 Phase VRM controllers. They will be more costly than X470 simply because of those and other factors.


There, fixed it for you. Only the increase in PCB layers is universal. 10GbE is definitely staying a premium option given that controller chips alone are $50 or more. Those VRM layouts are flagship boards only. And there have been quite a few boards shown off without WiFi.



silentbogo said:


> Where did you get 11W estimate? AFAIK the only number I've heard was _no less than_ 15W, and given the thermal density of x570 you'll probably need an active cooling system even at the most optimistic TDP.


11W was the number consistently given by both AMD and partner reps at the AMD event - though sources like that are rarely specifically named and sure don't leave a paper trail. It seems somewhat unclear whether this is average power or max TDP - some have stated one, some the other (with 15W being named the max in the cases where 11W is said to be average). In any case, the TDP is supposed to be slightly lower than the EPYC version of the chipset, but not much, and reportedly it won't throttle down significantly when not in use.


kapone32 said:


> Um Intel will have PCI-E 5.0 on their 2020 release.


Server and datacenter only. Likely only the >3000-pin socket designs to begin with too (Xeon Scalable, if I understand their naming correctly), with it possibly trickling down to lower-end Xeon (>2000-pin sockets), HEDT and consumers over the coming years - but there's little reason to expect that to be a quick process. If PCIe 4.0 is driving up motherboard costs, 5.0 will be an utter nightmare.


kapone32 said:


> I am only going to reference WIFI 6. You can buy routers that are 802.11AX but they start at $300 as a minimum and just under $700 here in Canada. The problem is that a Wifi 6 card is a brand new adapteranf cards are usuaslly 1/2 of their compliant router in terms of cost. Wifi 6 should add at least a $50 premium to boards that don't have it.


m.2 WiFi cards are usually in the $20 range, pretty much regardless of the standard and performance. PCIe AICs are much more expensive, simply because that's seen as a retail part and is thus sold at "consumer-facing" prices, while the m.2 cards do the same job (arguably more, as PCIe AICs usually don't have bluetooth) but at off-brand/replacement part prices.

What I find interesting is that they're all calling it Intel AX200, when the AX200 is a CNVi part that only works on Intel's newest chipsets - AFAIK, the regular m.2 PCIe version is called the AX201 (at least according to various regulatory agencies) but has yet to be officially launched. I suppose they might have stealth launched it and ditched the differentiated naming - it's pretty much the same product, after all.


----------



## IceShroom (Jun 8, 2019)

Valantar said:


> In any case, the TDP is supposed to be slightly lower than the EPYC version of the chipset, but not much, and reportedly it won't throttle down significantly when not in use.


EPYC processors and its platform don't have chipset. EPYC processors are full SoC. 
And I dont like to pay to Dollar for board in 2019 which dont have Type-C front header.


----------



## Valantar (Jun 8, 2019)

IceShroom said:


> EPYC processors and its platform don't have chipset. EPYC processors are full SoC.
> And I dont like to pay to Dollar for board in 2019 which dont have Type-C front header.


Regular desktop Ryzen is also a full SoC - the chipset is an optional add-on for additional I/O beyond what's integrated into the die. The A300 and X300 "chipsets" are really BIOS settings for not having an external chipset, more or less. I'm also reasonably sure EPYC has all SATA and other non-PCIe I/O disabled for current designs (unlike Ryzen) - at least their datasheets don't mention it at all, making a "chipset" (a secondary southbridge, really) a useful and "cheap" (in terms of I/O) solution to adding SATA and other controllers. AMD themselves have stated that the X570 chipset is based off an enterprise design.


----------



## medi01 (Jun 8, 2019)

Did MSI CEO start working on how to get Intel marketshare back, or it's an unrelated comment?

AMD's gross margins are at 40%.
Intel/Nvidia's at 60%, on top of having times bigger market shares.

AMD must earn more, to be viable long term. R&D isn't free.


----------



## Assimilator (Jun 8, 2019)

TheGuruStud said:


> The super shill days of shrimpi and toms. I still have a bad taste in my mouth. Quite a few of the big sites LOVED those synthetics, b/c it made netburst look good. Of course, they were as accurate as a Flat Earthers calling NASA fake.
> 
> Core2 systems were too pricey. I OCed the cheapo athlons in many gaming PCs and they performed flawlessly for many years. (Rinse and repeat with phenom II and C2D).



Wow, you're still butthurt about the performance of Conroe? That's a long time to be carrying resentment around, even for a fanboy.



nemesis.ie said:


> What's interesting is that these components integrated on motherboards seem to work out much cheaper, e.g. the 10G Aquantia on an ASRock M/B (price premium) is much cheaper than buying a separate card.



Uh, yeah, because the mobo manufacturers buy in bulk and negotiate discounts.


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 8, 2019)

Eskimonster said:


> If the support is premium for the quality stuffs sold is there no arguments from me, i dont mind paying a bit more for my merchandise with a service included.


Support is no different than before.... price is just higher.



NdMk2o1o said:


> I expect there to be a large selection of x570 motherboards starting at quite low prices, say at the top end of b550 boards (if they actually come into fruition) with incremental incrseases from your lower end, mid range high end and enthusiast, then you have the ridiculous watercooled all singing all dancing premium £1.5k boards that about 10 people will buy


What is quite low? IIRC, asrocks cheapest x570 is $199.


----------



## nemesis.ie (Jun 8, 2019)

@Assimilator I didn't mean interesting in the sense of "why is that" I meant it's interesting in the sense that you can save some money.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jun 8, 2019)

RichF said:


> (Note, the board below isn't ideal but it's still better than some of the recent designs.)


That was an excellent board, what you talking about?


----------



## nemesis.ie (Jun 8, 2019)

I assumed @RichF meant there is room for improvement, not that's it's not excellent.

It could have the slots moved around a bit and the colour scheme is definitely "not ideal".

I think you are reading too much into the way people phrase things.


----------



## IceShroom (Jun 9, 2019)

Valantar said:


> Regular desktop Ryzen is also a full SoC - the chipset is an optional add-on for additional I/O beyond what's integrated into the die. The A300 and X300 "chipsets" are really BIOS settings for not having an external chipset, more or less. I'm also reasonably sure EPYC has all SATA and other non-PCIe I/O disabled for current designs (unlike Ryzen) - at least their datasheets don't mention it at all, making a "chipset" (a secondary southbridge, really) a useful and "cheap" (in terms of I/O) solution to adding SATA and other controllers. AMD themselves have stated that the X570 chipset is based off an enterprise design.


Never heard that kind of thing from AMD. You maybe quoting GN comment on that matter, but letter he corrected by saying that EPYC has no chipset.


----------



## Captain_Tom (Jun 9, 2019)

bug said:


> This should be a reality check for those that thought AMD was undercutting Intel's prices out of the goodness of their hearts. But it won't be.



Hopefully it is _also _a reality check to Intel Fanboys who called Infinity Fabric a "One Trick Pony" too.....

Hahaha I am of course not holding my breath


----------



## Turmania (Jun 9, 2019)

Normally, competition is good for consumers. In this case with AMD/Intel and Nvdia they bring the prices up.strange industry this is.


----------



## XiGMAKiD (Jun 9, 2019)

And B550 should be the best bang for the buck


----------



## Metroid (Jun 9, 2019)

Turmania said:


> Normally, competition is good for consumers. In this case with AMD/Intel and Nvdia they bring the prices up.strange industry this is.



AMD paid a lot for r&d, truth to be told, the box and cooler cost a lot more than the cpu itself to be manufactured and for Intel is the same.



XiGMAKiD said:


> And B550 should be the best bang for the buck



Well the idea here is sell the highest margin motherboards to whoever has more money than sense then when things simmer down, sales decrease then is time for b550, that will attract the people with more sense than money.


----------



## Frick (Jun 9, 2019)

phanbuey said:


> 2019 going on 2006
> 
> 
> " That being said, our overclocked E6300 was able to equal and in all cases but one outperform AMD's Athlon 64 FX-62. In fact, in quite a few benchmarks, the overclocked E6300 is essentially out of reach of anything AMD can offer with their current K8 designs. At $183, the value here is tremendous, and if you're willing to overclock the benefits don't get any clearer than that. "
> ...



And before that the Athlons were the good choice. And anyway that situation is not comparable to anything today. My  iirc €90 E4300 (1.8Ghz) did 2.8Ghz on a €60 motherboard without any kind of voltage trickery, I did 3.2 Ghz when upping the voltage iirc. And that was the norm.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Jun 9, 2019)

Turmania said:


> Normally, competition is good for consumers. In this case with AMD/Intel and Nvdia they bring the prices up.strange industry this is.



How so? With the increasing R&D costs and the cost of making ICs on a cutting edge node, the cost of each part is going to have to go up every year, or are you expecting these "for profit" companies to sell their parts at cost or below cost? 
To be honest, I'm not surprised that prices are going up. However, the rate at which some prices (*cough* Nvidia *cough*) have increased is a bit surprising.
It's clear some companies are taking advantage of being the industry leader, by quite a large margin compared to the cost of the actual hardware.
I think the industry as a whole has lost touch with their customers and we've ended up in a strange place where people seemingly strive to buy $1,000+ pieces of hardware, which I agree is strange, but it's not strange that we see more expensive hardware, as it's also a lot more capable and a lot more complex.


----------



## john_ (Jun 9, 2019)

AMD needs market share and it can get it as long as Intel is stuck at 14nm. AMD will wait to see how much those expensive X570 boards will cost to Ryzen 3000 sales. If it becomes a problem, B550 will come really soon. If people are happy to use B450 or X470 motherboards with Ryzen 3000 CPUs, then things will stay complicated. Pay the extra money for the X570 or buy a 400 series chipset motherboard and keep thinking that "one day I will have to update my mobo".


----------



## bug (Jun 9, 2019)

john_ said:


> AMD needs market share and it can get it as long as Intel is stuck at 14nm. AMD will wait to see how much those expensive X570 boards will cost to Ryzen 3000 sales. If it becomes a problem, B550 will come really soon. If people are happy to use B450 or X470 motherboards with Ryzen 3000 CPUs, then things will stay complicated. Pay the extra money for the X570 or buy a 400 series chipset motherboard and keep thinking that "one day I will have to update my mobo".


Market share will fix itself, AMD has a strong position for now in the mid-range. What they need now is a solid high-end so they grab some server market share (and the cash/margins that go with that, too). Oh, some GPUs that aren't rehashes of an architecture built over 5 years ago would be nice, too.


----------



## Vya Domus (Jun 9, 2019)

john_ said:


> If people are happy to use B450 or X470 motherboards with Ryzen 3000 CPUs, then things will stay complicated. Pay the extra money for the X570 or buy a 400 series chipset motherboard and keep thinking that "one day I will have to update my mobo".



The problem is the mob mentality of needing to own the absolute highest end motherboard and being fear mongered into doing the same by clueless "enthusiasts". How many times have you seen on tech forums people writing things along the lines of : "oh don't touch that board because it will go up in flames with those VRMs, here buy this top of the line board instead".

Everything up until now points to X570 being an unnecessary addition for the most part. Intel for example understands very well the fact that high end boards are redundant so they've done the only thing left to ensure that their newest chipsets remain relevant no matter what : locking important features such as over clocking and restricting new CPUs being used on other chipsets.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Jun 9, 2019)

Vya Domus said:


> Everything up until now points to X570 being an unnecessary addition for the most part.



Unless of course you have an older board that doesn't support the new CPUs, in which case you might want to consider X570, budget allowing...


----------



## kapone32 (Jun 9, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> Support is no different than before.... price is just higher.
> 
> What is quite low? IIRC, asrocks cheapest x570 is $199.



Is that US?


----------



## bug (Jun 9, 2019)

Vya Domus said:


> The problem is the mob mentality of needing to own the absolute highest end motherboard and being fear mongered into doing the same by clueless "enthusiasts". How many times have you seen on tech forums people writing things along the lines of : "oh don't touch that board because it will go up in flames with those VRMs, here buy this top of the line board instead".
> 
> Everything up until now points to X570 being an unnecessary addition for the most part. Intel for example understands very well the fact that high end boards are redundant so they've done the only thing left to ensure that their newest chipsets remain relevant no matter what : locking important features such as over clocking and restricting new CPUs being used on other chipsets.


Tbh I've always thought you should never cheap out on the mobo. But at the same time, I've always bought based on my needs. My current mobo is the most expensive I've ever owned and only because I wanted 3 M.2 slots. I was hoping I will move to all M.2 some day, but since the SSD prices didn't fall enough, my SATA drives are still around. I would have been more stingy if this were a friend's budget instead, though


----------



## TheLostSwede (Jun 9, 2019)

16 cores incoming tomorrow?





Source: https://videocardz.com/newz/amd-ryzen-9-3950x-to-become-worlds-first-16-core-gaming-cpu


----------



## ZoneDymo (Jun 9, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


> 16 cores incoming tomorrow?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



still though, with the 3900x being 500 dollar, I fear this one will be like 700 if not more.


----------



## mstenholm (Jun 9, 2019)

ZoneDymo said:


> still though, with the 3900x being 500 dollar, I fear this one will be like 700 if not more.


I paid the full $999 back in the days for my 3670s. I would be OK with only 700 for this one.


----------



## dicktracy (Jun 9, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


> 16 cores incoming tomorrow?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Fits well with the narrative of AMD abandoning their budget fanbase. I just hope we'll get a 64 cores TR under $3k lol


----------



## ZoneDymo (Jun 9, 2019)

dicktracy said:


> Fits well with the narrative of AMD abandoning their budget fanbase. I just hope we'll get a 64 cores TR under $3k lol



well abandoning, abandoning, they just have some high end stuff as well for high end prices, 8 cores 16 threads for 330 dollar is great value.


----------



## kapone32 (Jun 9, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


> 16 cores incoming tomorrow?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It would seem to me that the AM4 Ryzen2 has more OC based on more cores. A 4.7 boost clock vs the 4.6 on the 3900X may not seem like much but it is interesting.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Jun 9, 2019)

kapone32 said:


> It would seem to me that the AM4 Ryzen2 has more OC based on more cores. A 4.7 boost clock vs the 4.6 on the 3900X may not seem like much but it is interesting.



Not the case, at least not from what I know. The 12 core part is apparently so far the best overclocker, but that is based on a small sample size, since there are only so many chips in circulation right now.


----------



## Dave65 (Jun 9, 2019)

Think id rather hear that from AMD, not MSI!


----------



## bug (Jun 9, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


> 16 cores incoming tomorrow?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ha, i saw that and immediately dismissed it because of videocardz. But if you thought it was worth a repost, that changes thigs a bit 
My buying range stays around the $250 mark though.


----------



## john_ (Jun 9, 2019)

Vya Domus said:


> The problem is the mob mentality of needing to own the absolute highest end motherboard and being fear mongered into doing the same by clueless "enthusiasts". How many times have you seen on tech forums people writing things along the lines of : "oh don't touch that board because it will go up in flames with those VRMs, here buy this top of the line board instead".
> 
> Everything up until now points to X570 being an unnecessary addition for the most part. Intel for example understands very well the fact that high end boards are redundant so they've done the only thing left to ensure that their newest chipsets remain relevant no matter what : locking important features such as over clocking and restricting new CPUs being used on other chipsets.


 The funny part here is MSI being a good example of "don't touch that board because it will go up in flames with those VRMs" at least on the AM3+ platform. They had produced a number of boards that where supporting 125W CPUs, but only in theory. In reality the chances of ending up with a dead motherboard where much higher compared to what someone would expect.

But you are right that many people pay more money than they should, for features that they probably don't need right now, or would probably never use. With X570 there are two things that could send people buy those motherboards. They are made with Ryzen 3000 in mind, but we will have to wait and see if there is any real advantage there, and the support for PCIe 4.0, that probably will be useless for like 99% of consumers, at least in the first year. Overcockers of course will find that 50MHz higher overclock at 0.01V lower voltage for the CPU and 10MHz higher overclock for the RAM, is justifying $100 or more.



ZoneDymo said:


> still though, with the 3900x being 500 dollar, I fear this one will be like 700 if not more.




I wouldn't use the word fear for a price tag of $700 for a beast that has 16 cores. This is last year's ThreadRipper at a lower price than the starting price for the 16 core ThreadRipper. Thinking of that, we might get surprised with a lower or even a higher price. Anything is possible, depending on how AMD will market it.  Destroy Intel's high end line? Max $700. Try to convince the world + dog that it is the premium brand? $999.


----------



## moproblems99 (Jun 9, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


> Unless of course you have an older board that doesn't support the new CPUs, in which case you might want to consider X570, budget allowing...



That's true, but you still have the option of X470 and B450.  That is likely they direction I will be headed while the 5 series mobos figure themselves out.  It seems the only thing you lose is PCIE4 while XFR and PBO are the same among series. 5 and 4


----------



## TheLostSwede (Jun 9, 2019)

moproblems99 said:


> That's true, but you still have the option of X470 and B450.  That is likely they direction I will be headed while the 5 series mobos figure themselves out.  It seems the only thing you lose is PCIE4 while XFR and PBO are the same among series. 5 and 4



That we know so far...
X570 also gives you more peripheral connectivity and a faster chipset/CPU interface.


----------



## Metroid (Jun 9, 2019)

Dave65 said:


> Think id rather hear that from AMD, not MSI!



you will hear loud and clear if amd prices the 3950x for $999 hehe


----------



## moproblems99 (Jun 9, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


> That we know so far...
> X570 also gives you more peripheral connectivity and a faster chipset/CPU interface.



Well we can't know what we don't know can we?  If ifs and buts were candy and nuts....

More connectivity: great!
Faster chipset interface: how much does it matter?
PCIE4: doesn't exactly matter right now.

Unless something massive changes, I don't see any reason that 400 series boards aren't still a really good option.


----------



## Valantar (Jun 9, 2019)

Turmania said:


> Normally, competition is good for consumers. In this case with AMD/Intel and Nvdia they bring the prices up.strange industry this is.


It still is. If AMD is moving to matching prices compared to Intel's Z390 boards - or even exceeding them somewhat - they're doing so while providing a dramatically better and more future-proof featureset (unless, that is, what you need is just a _lot_ of PCIe regardless of speed, in which case Intel's chipsets are better).


Vya Domus said:


> The problem is the mob mentality of needing to own the absolute highest end motherboard and being fear mongered into doing the same by clueless "enthusiasts". How many times have you seen on tech forums people writing things along the lines of : "oh don't touch that board because it will go up in flames with those VRMs, here buy this top of the line board instead".
> 
> Everything up until now points to X570 being an unnecessary addition for the most part. Intel for example understands very well the fact that high end boards are redundant so they've done the only thing left to ensure that their newest chipsets remain relevant no matter what : locking important features such as over clocking and restricting new CPUs being used on other chipsets.


You're right about the mob mentality part - the DIY PC community definitely tends towards rabid consumerism and near-deification of high-end parts regardless of perceptible or even measurable real-world differences (just look at how gung-ho people can be about _needing_ ultra quality in their games), and we all stand to gain from a more sensible approach to what hardware is actually useful and necessary for our use cases. I don't quite see that as making X570 unnecessary, though - it's a flagship platform with never before seen features. Those are rarely immediately useful, but platforms like this are necessary to bring production costs for new tech down and ensure its adoption so that lower-end products can start prioritizing said new tech in the future. I'd say AMD's "exclusive" high-end features of additional PCIe 4.0 and CF/SLI beats out Intel's similar designation of OC'ing and CF/SLI. OCing doesn't make much sense on the high end unless you're a competitive overclocker, and has much more of an impact lower down the CPU product stack. PCIe 4.0 on the other hand is currently not very useful, but will be for people waiting for new SSDs, and for people wanting to make a somewhat future-proof purchase.


dicktracy said:


> Fits well with the narrative of AMD abandoning their budget fanbase. I just hope we'll get a 64 cores TR under $3k lol


A $700 high-clocked 16-core CPU is cheap even by 2019 standards. I don't get why people are clamoring for 64-core TR, though. What non-enterprise workloads will that be useful for?


----------



## kapone32 (Jun 9, 2019)

moproblems99 said:


> That's true, but you still have the option of X470 and B450.  That is likely they direction I will be headed while the 5 series mobos figure themselves out.  It seems the only thing you lose is PCIE4 while XFR and PBO are the same among series. 5 and 4



The issue I have with that is that in today Canada the B450 and X470 boards are so expensive. I bought a As rock B450 Pro 4  for $89.99 after $30 rebate about 5 months ago and now the price is $144.99 that is exactly what I paid for the XX470 Master SLI/AC around the same time. Based on that price my thought process is that the cheapest X570 boards will be at least $300 CAD e.g. the Asrock X570 top baord at $1000 Us would be $1324 CAD. I expect that we will see most X570 boards north of $300 here in Canada. 









						AMD X470 | Newegg.ca
					

Search Newegg.ca for AMD X470. Get fast shipping and top-rated customer service.




					www.newegg.ca
				




As you can see on this link that the cheap X470 boards are under $200 Canadian but anything half decent is at least $250 if not north of $300. Even the Crosshair has one listing for $650 CAD.


----------



## moproblems99 (Jun 9, 2019)

kapone32 said:


> The issue I have with that is that in today Canada the B450 and X470 boards are so expensive. I bought a As rock B450 Pro 4  for $89.99 after $30 rebate about 5 months ago and now the price is $144.99 that is exactly what I paid for the XX470 Master SLI/AC around the same time. Based on that price my thought process is that the cheapest X570 boards will be at least $300 CAD e.g. the Asrock X570 top baord at $1000 Us would be $1324 CAD. I expect that we will see most X570 boards north of $300 here in Canada.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




That is a Canadian problem and not systemic of board makers or AMD.  The price of the ASRock B450 Pro south of your border is $79.99 with no rebate.

https://www.newegg.com/p/pl?Submit=ENE&IsNodeId=1&N=100007625 601311650 601318817


----------



## kapone32 (Jun 9, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


> Not the case, at least not from what I know. The 12 core part is apparently so far the best overclocker, but that is based on a small sample size, since there are only so many chips in circulation right now.



Well according to AMD the boost clock on the 3900X is 4.6, while the 16 core according to the image provided is 4.7 GHZ



moproblems99 said:


> That is a Canadian problem and not systemic of board makers or AMD.  The price of the ASRock B450 Pro south of your border is $79.99 with no rebate.
> 
> https://www.newegg.com/p/pl?Submit=ENE&IsNodeId=1&N=100007625 601311650 601318817



I know and there is envy on this side of this border, that you guys get gear for such a decent price. I was only talking about Canada in terms of the cost of X570 boards.


----------



## Shatun_Bear (Jun 9, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


> Not the case, at least not from what I know. The 12 core part is apparently so far the best overclocker, but that is based on a small sample size, since there are only so many chips in circulation right now.



So where is this '5ghz' 16-core CPU you were claiming was being shown behind closed doors? This leak from an actual reputable source which I believe has the 16-core as 3.6Ghz base clock, 4.7Ghz boost.


----------



## bug (Jun 9, 2019)

Shatun_Bear said:


> So where is this '5ghz' 16-core CPU you were claiming was being shown behind closed doors? This leak from an actual reputable source which I believe has the 16-core as 3.6Ghz base clock, 4.7Ghz boost.


If the retail part does 4.7GHz, a good overclocker should be able to break the 5GHz barrier. Nothing unbelievable here.


----------



## kapone32 (Jun 9, 2019)

bug said:


> If the retail part does 4.7GHz, a good overclocked should be able to break the 5GHz barrier. Nothing unbelievable here.



Agreed especially with  water cooling


----------



## Shatun_Bear (Jun 10, 2019)

bug said:


> If the retail part does 4.7GHz, a good overclocker should be able to break the 5GHz barrier. Nothing unbelievable here.



The claim was 5Ghz boost clock CPU not overclocking. And when people talk overclocking, they mean all-core. This CPU is 16-core, so that will rule out 5Ghz all-core, so that doesn't explain the rumours either.


----------



## B-Real (Jun 10, 2019)

You can still buy the cheap B450 and not too espensive X470 mobos for the very well priced Zen2 CPUs, so I don't get the meaning of this.


----------



## moproblems99 (Jun 10, 2019)

Shatun_Bear said:


> The claim was 5Ghz boost clock CPU not overclocking. And when people talk overclocking, they mean all-core. This CPU is 16-core, so that will rule out 5Ghz all-core, so that doesn't explain the rumours either.



If Intel pulls out some competition for it you may just see it.


----------



## Deleted member 157276 (Jun 10, 2019)

Captain_Tom said:


> Hahaha I am of course not holding my breath



You did with Zen 2, which you claimed would have 40% better single-threaded performance over Zen+. And now you're going off making predictions about Zen 3 "bring[ing] another 10-15% performance increase while cutting energy usage in half AGAIN". Why do you keep holding your breath through these nonsensical predictions?


----------



## TheLostSwede (Jun 10, 2019)

Shatun_Bear said:


> So where is this '5ghz' 16-core CPU you were claiming was being shown behind closed doors? This leak from an actual reputable source which I believe has the 16-core as 3.6Ghz base clock, 4.7Ghz boost.



Ah, back putting words in my "mouth" again? I said the was a 5GHz part, I never mentioned core count.



Shatun_Bear said:


> The claim was 5Ghz boost clock CPU not overclocking. And when people talk overclocking, they mean all-core. This CPU is 16-core, so that will rule out 5Ghz all-core, so that doesn't explain the rumours either.



FYI, the 16 core has been clocked to 5.5GHz (all cores), but unfortunately using LN2. This was a while ago, but it was not something I've mentioned before, as it's not a useful metric.


----------



## nemesis.ie (Jun 10, 2019)

@La Menthe Actually, it's not massively off 40% single core gain- ~15% IPC uplift and then put ~12% clock speed improvement on top: That's about 30%.  Plus they may purposely be keeping the clocks at "sane" levels. Add another 5% for OC (assuming it will do it) and you have 37%.

I'm not saying it is 40%, but it may be a lot closer than you might think.

It's also quite possible that the lower silicon quality chiplets have been used in desktop, maybe they found that the lower bins were actually still very good so put them in the high-end desktop parts instead of keeping them for Epyc/TR. Maybe the TR parts will be even better or there are also even better ones being slowly binned to release another tier of parts.

How about R10 (RFX?) with 5+GHz boost at a later date?

We just don't know and whinging about a 10% deficit versus RUMOURS when we are seeing such amazing value versus what was available 2 years ago (and even current pricing from the competition) seems a little bit unfair.

We also don't know yet if (maybe only on X570) if XFR/the latest iteration of PBO will add something, maybe it kicks in over these boost figures? Given the difference in advertised clocks of 3800 vs 3800X I have to kind of think there must be something more to the X variant - it could well be something that will not be revealed/unlocked until the final AGESA which maybe board partners don't even have yet (speculation).


----------



## DeathtoGnomes (Jun 10, 2019)

Geez, the same arguments over and over.  No one sees this as a PR stunt to hype the 570 chipset from MSI.


----------



## Deleted member 157276 (Jun 10, 2019)

nemesis.ie said:


> @La Menthe Actually, it's not massively off 40% single core gain- ~15% IPC uplift and then put ~12% clock speed improvement on top: That's about 30%.  Plus they may purposely be keeping the clocks at "sane" levels. Add another 5% for OC (assuming it will do it) and you have 37%.
> 
> I'm not saying it is 40%, but it may be a lot closer than you might think.



Except you're taking several senseless liberties with your arithmetic here, exaggerating the numbers at every turn in a desperate attempt to prove him right. You add up 12% and 15%, deciding it's 30% (when it's really 27%) already before your final number. Then you take that 30% to add 5% on top of it, which somehow becomes 37%. So 32%, the real final number, became 37% through some quick manipulation...

And all that's assuming the numbers you calculated were correct, which they even aren't -- yes, they too are purposefully exaggarted by you. IPC is 13% from the most accurate numbers we've seen. Clock speed certainly isn't 12%, as 4.7GHz is only 9% higher than 4.3 GHz (12% implies a 4.9 GHz turbo). OC isn't worth speculating about, as it can be 0 or as little as it was with 2700X (at which point we convert it to 0 anyway, to account for both chips' similiar OC potential) for all we know.

That gives us a total of 21% (or 23%, assuming IPC actually is a straight 15%) better singlethreaded performance, half of the numbers @Captain_Tom claimed.

And now he's off rambling about an additional 15% higher performance uplift + 2x reduction in power (7nm EUV wil supposedly magically cut power usage in half from current 7nm processes -- equal to, or arguably even more than, what we just saw from GloFo 12nm+ to TSMC 7nm with Zen 2) for Zen 3.



nemesis.ie said:


> We just don't know and whinging about a 10% deficit versus RUMOURS when we are seeing such amazing value versus what was available 2 years ago (and even current pricing from the competition) seems a little bit unfair.



20%, not 10%. And I agree, which is why I told him several times to stop making ridiculous speculation, as the conservative predictions and numbers, for which people like me were presenting, were already a prospect of great improvements. You know, the same kinds he's making about Zen 3 now.


----------



## Deleted member 158293 (Jun 10, 2019)

kapone32 said:


> The issue I have with that is that in today Canada the B450 and X470 boards are so expensive. I bought a As rock B450 Pro 4  for $89.99 after $30 rebate about 5 months ago and now the price is $144.99 that is exactly what I paid for the XX470 Master SLI/AC around the same time. Based on that price my thought process is that the cheapest X570 boards will be at least $300 CAD e.g. the Asrock X570 top baord at $1000 Us would be $1324 CAD. I expect that we will see most X570 boards north of $300 here in Canada.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That is more a Canadian currency problem, not tech industry related.  While Canada has great unemployment figures, this goes hand&hand with cheap currency.   Sub-contracting to Canada can be viable in some markets, which is something I'm also looking at.  Unfortunately for Canadians their cost of living may only get more expensive from here on out for quite some time. 

Back to motherboards, component & R&D wise they look like they justify their cost.


----------



## nemesis.ie (Jun 10, 2019)

@La Menthe

A couple of % here and there. You are exaggerating too.


----------



## kapone32 (Jun 10, 2019)

yakk said:


> That is more a Canadian currency problem, not tech industry related.  While Canada has great unemployment figures, this goes hand&hand with cheap currency.   Sub-contracting to Canada can be viable in some markets, which is something I'm also looking at.  Unfortunately for Canadians their cost of living may only get more expensive from here on out for quite some time.
> 
> Back to motherboards, component & R&D wise they look like they justify their cost.



How can the cost be justified. These are nob sub contracting issues. We have most manufacturers offices here in Canada. I don't know about the US but the cost can be directly attributed to the distributors e.g The X399 Phantom Gaming 6 has an MSRP of $249.99 US but in Canada. 









						As rock X399 PHantom Gaming 6 | Newegg.ca
					

Search Newegg.ca for As rock X399 PHantom Gaming 6. Get fast shipping and top-rated customer service.




					www.newegg.ca
				




The cost of this board on Newegg.com is indeed $249.99 but we have to pay the distributor's tax here in Canada  so the extra $83.17 US is applied.


----------



## Deleted member 157276 (Jun 10, 2019)

nemesis.ie said:


> @La Menthe
> 
> A couple of % here and there. You are exaggerating too.



Where did I exaggarate? Point it out please. Unlike you who was outright manipulating the numbers at every point, from the start to the very end.


----------



## Deleted member 158293 (Jun 10, 2019)

kapone32 said:


> How can the cost be justified. These are nob sub contracting issues. We have most manufacturers offices here in Canada. I don't know about the US but the cost can be directly attributed to the distributors e.g The X399 Phantom Gaming 6 has an MSRP of $249.99 US but in Canada.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Let's see...

Exchange rate is roughly $1.33 + bank fees = 1.37 exchange rate, so $249.99 US * 1.37 = $342.49 CAD + 15%(+) import/custom & brokerage fees = $393.86 CAD.  I'd add 5% min. for internally handling all the paperwork and/or territory courtesy split commission = $413.55.  Maybe a bit of gouging, $425 might be a more fair value.  I may also be missing a fee or 2, or the 5% is too low, but that's the general idea.


----------



## Captain_Tom (Jun 10, 2019)

La Menthe said:


> You did with Zen 2, which you claimed would have 40% better single-threaded performance over Zen+. And now you're going off making predictions about Zen 3 "bring[ing] another 10-15% performance increase while cutting energy usage in half AGAIN". Why do you keep holding your breath through these nonsensical predictions?



Someone didn't watch the Zen 2 reveal.   I change none of those predictions - I stand by them.  It's also hilarious how you call my Zen 3 prediction wrong when it isn't 2021 yet.

My lord this website has turned into an Intel fanboy party....



Shatun_Bear said:


> The claim was 5Ghz boost clock CPU not overclocking. And when people talk overclocking, they mean all-core. This CPU is 16-core, so that will rule out 5Ghz all-core, so that doesn't explain the rumours either.



It is truly perplexing how bad some people's comprehension is.   AMD has 5GHz 16-cores waiting, they just haven't released them because Intel is about to be busy struggling to keep up with AMD's R5 series...


----------



## Deleted member 157276 (Jun 10, 2019)

Captain_Tom said:


> Someone didn't watch the Zen 2 reveal.   I change none of those predictions - I stand by them.



You stand by 40% single-core performance claims, when we now have Zen 2 out with 20% single-core performance? Thank you for confirming your cognitive dissonance, and how little seriously we ought to take you.


Captain_Tom said:


> It's also hilarious how you call my Zen 3 prediction wrong when it isn't 2021 yet.



Don't worry, I'll wait until it comes ut before quoting you on it, just like I did with Zen 2. Until then, I'm merely contesting your predictions on technical grounds, however, as they have no foundation in any realistic expectation there is (just as I did back when you made the ridiculous Zen 2 predictions). Not just the 10-15% better performance (which I assume you mean by increased IPC) for Zen 3, but also in the expectation that 7nm EUV will double the power efficiency.

I would like you to explain to us on what grounds you base that prediction on? *According to Anandtech**, early reports of 7nm EUV will offer "~8% lower power consumption at the same complexity and frequency (between 6% and 12% to be more precise)".  **Digitimes** echoed something similiar when saying it would be 15%. *Which makes sense, since the transistor density increases by only 20%. However, there's a huge discrepancy between 15% and your claim of 100% (2x), which is frankly technically impossible due to the density. So *explain to us how you came to that deduction?*



Captain_Tom said:


> My lord this website has turned into an Intel fanboy party....



Rebuking false statements does not make one a fanboy. Making them, like you constantly do, does.


----------



## MAXLD (Jun 11, 2019)

Valantar said:


> The Aorus Pro is $250.
> 
> This really shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. PCIe 4.0 requires higher PCB quality (likely through more layers) than 3.0 to ensure signal integrity, as well as redrivers driving up the BOM. Same goes for RAM traces if motherboard makers want to compete in the >4000MT/s RAM space. Then there's the cost of a large-die chipset that includes a PCIe 4.0 switch. X570 will be more expensive than previous AM4 X*70 series across the board - and that's fine, as it brings a lot to the table.
> 
> Hopefully when B550 launches it's a selectively stripped-down option that allows for cheaper boards - ideally maintaining rough feature parity but moving down to a PCIe 3.0 switch - even with less lanes that would still be useful, and a lot cheaper to produce. You'd still get PCIe 4.0 through the PCIe_x16_0 slot and the first m.2 slot (unless motherboard makers screw up the traces entirely), but cut pretty much every other element driving up prices of X570 boards.



Thanks for the link/price. Y, the board is really nice, but any motherboard more than 200 is definitely not a thing would jump into (been there, done that 10~15 years ago). I agree that it's justified by the extra engineering behind it, but major PCI-E 4.0's value will not be justified for a bunch of years (particularly considering the "reasonable price" factor of those uber fast SSDs).

If that's the compromise for the B550 ones (1 slot of each), then I'll be more than perfectly fine with it.


----------



## DeOdView (Jun 11, 2019)

What's wrong with MSI as of late?  No, Seriously... Did AMD pee on your cereal?

I don't remember AMD sell/sold any MB.... 

MSI or any MB MFGs for that matters... I'll buy them around $200 ranges, no problem.....  but for five, six ... $700... you can kissed my you know where!

Here is a cookie >> MSI.


----------

