Wednesday, December 8th 2021
Intel Z690 Motherboard Costs Explained
There has been a lot of discourse about the cost of Z690 motherboards, so we decided to ask around to find out what has changed compared to the previous generation of Intel motherboards. There are obviously several factors that have come together to create something like the perfect storm, as the simple answer is that all parts combined have resulted in more expensive motherboards, but there are a few key components that are major contributing factors.
A lot of speculation has been about the cost of the PCB itself and although it's correct that the PCB is a contributing factor, we're talking about a couple of dollars in extra cost, not only for the higher quality PCB materials themselves but also the fact that boards with DDR5 memory are more costly to produce, as more care needs to be taken with the overall design. However, the big surprise to us is that the single part that has driven up the cost the most is the physical LGA-17xx CPU socket and retention mechanism, which is apparently around four times as expensive as the LGA-12xx socket.Although we don't have a precise cost of either socket, an LGA-115x socket costs around US$5 in comparatively small volumes and as motherboard makers are buying far greater volumes of sockets, they are likely to pay less per unit. Even so, it seems like LGA-17xx sockets should be somewhere around US$10-15, even in large volumes. This makes the CPU socket the second most expensive component on most Z690 motherboards after the chipset, which has a list price of US$51, which is $1 more than the Z590 chipset.
Another contributing factor is the power design, as Intel moved from IMVP8 to IMVP9.1, which meant a move from DrMOS (Driver MosFet) to SPS (Smart Power Stage) modules. This design change has led to the use of not only more expensive power designs, but these parts are also in short supply, which means that each power phase is about twice the price on a Z690 motherboard compared to a Z590 motherboard. On the plus side, they should be more efficient and have lower thermals than a DrMOS type design and prices are likely to come down over time. However, as we're seeing boards with more power stages than in the past, this is as far as we can tell, the second most costly design change of the Z690 motherboards. It's also not possible to use an IMVP8 power design for a Z690 motherboard, so there's no way of saving any cost here, except using fewer power phases.
On high-end motherboards that have two PCIe 5.0 slots, a PCIe 5.0 retimer is also needed. Unfortunately we were unable to find the pricing of PCIe 5.0 retimers, but an eight lane PCIe 4.0 retimer costs around US$45 on fairly low quantities, so an estimated guess is that the motherboard makers are paying as much as US$20-30 each for them in greater quantities. However, this isn't a concern for most Z690 motherboards, as it's not required for a single PCIe 5.0 slot.
As far as the physical PCIe 5.0 SMT slots are concerned, the cost difference is 10 to 20 percent, which means a few cents per connector, in the kind of quantities that the motherboard makers purchase. A requirement here is that the board makers need to have the right kind of SMD/SMT and pick and place machines to be able to mount the PCIe 5.0 SMT slots, since older through hole slots were added by hand at the motherboard factories. As such, it's likely that some of the cost of investing in new machines are likely to spill over to the cost of each motherboard, until the machines are paid off.
None of the above takes into consideration the current situation in the world, where there's a shortage or a price hike of just about every conceivable part that goes into making a motherboard. This includes everything from the cost of aluminium to resistors and capacitors. One thing of note here is that most motherboard makers used to place their component orders three to four months ahead of production, something that is no longer possible when many, if not most components have a 52 week lead time. As such, they have had to make big changes to how they place orders and this too is likely to lead to further increases in costs. We're also hearing whispers of potential price increases coming early next year for some parts, so if you haven't gotten the motherboard you were looking to buy yet, now might be as good a time as ever to do so.
A lot of speculation has been about the cost of the PCB itself and although it's correct that the PCB is a contributing factor, we're talking about a couple of dollars in extra cost, not only for the higher quality PCB materials themselves but also the fact that boards with DDR5 memory are more costly to produce, as more care needs to be taken with the overall design. However, the big surprise to us is that the single part that has driven up the cost the most is the physical LGA-17xx CPU socket and retention mechanism, which is apparently around four times as expensive as the LGA-12xx socket.Although we don't have a precise cost of either socket, an LGA-115x socket costs around US$5 in comparatively small volumes and as motherboard makers are buying far greater volumes of sockets, they are likely to pay less per unit. Even so, it seems like LGA-17xx sockets should be somewhere around US$10-15, even in large volumes. This makes the CPU socket the second most expensive component on most Z690 motherboards after the chipset, which has a list price of US$51, which is $1 more than the Z590 chipset.
Another contributing factor is the power design, as Intel moved from IMVP8 to IMVP9.1, which meant a move from DrMOS (Driver MosFet) to SPS (Smart Power Stage) modules. This design change has led to the use of not only more expensive power designs, but these parts are also in short supply, which means that each power phase is about twice the price on a Z690 motherboard compared to a Z590 motherboard. On the plus side, they should be more efficient and have lower thermals than a DrMOS type design and prices are likely to come down over time. However, as we're seeing boards with more power stages than in the past, this is as far as we can tell, the second most costly design change of the Z690 motherboards. It's also not possible to use an IMVP8 power design for a Z690 motherboard, so there's no way of saving any cost here, except using fewer power phases.
On high-end motherboards that have two PCIe 5.0 slots, a PCIe 5.0 retimer is also needed. Unfortunately we were unable to find the pricing of PCIe 5.0 retimers, but an eight lane PCIe 4.0 retimer costs around US$45 on fairly low quantities, so an estimated guess is that the motherboard makers are paying as much as US$20-30 each for them in greater quantities. However, this isn't a concern for most Z690 motherboards, as it's not required for a single PCIe 5.0 slot.
As far as the physical PCIe 5.0 SMT slots are concerned, the cost difference is 10 to 20 percent, which means a few cents per connector, in the kind of quantities that the motherboard makers purchase. A requirement here is that the board makers need to have the right kind of SMD/SMT and pick and place machines to be able to mount the PCIe 5.0 SMT slots, since older through hole slots were added by hand at the motherboard factories. As such, it's likely that some of the cost of investing in new machines are likely to spill over to the cost of each motherboard, until the machines are paid off.
None of the above takes into consideration the current situation in the world, where there's a shortage or a price hike of just about every conceivable part that goes into making a motherboard. This includes everything from the cost of aluminium to resistors and capacitors. One thing of note here is that most motherboard makers used to place their component orders three to four months ahead of production, something that is no longer possible when many, if not most components have a 52 week lead time. As such, they have had to make big changes to how they place orders and this too is likely to lead to further increases in costs. We're also hearing whispers of potential price increases coming early next year for some parts, so if you haven't gotten the motherboard you were looking to buy yet, now might be as good a time as ever to do so.
41 Comments on Intel Z690 Motherboard Costs Explained
Dell make their own boards afaik, but maybe that was some time ago.
ECS seems to have lost a lot of the OEM/ODM business.
The article is based on the cost of current Z690 motherboards from the Taiwanese consumer brands. As to what pricing will be when the lower tier chipsets from Intel are released, I don't know. It's very likely that costs will go down as volumes go up, it's usually the case, but I expect there to still be a higher cost than what we've seen in the past.
but it's a 500$+ board so it would be ridiculous...on second thought not so ridiculous... At one of our "trusted" etailers i can only see 2x 250$ boards; all the rest are 350$+ or way above...
Have no clue if it's a trend or a global one, i didn't follow the Z690 prices too closely.
If sensible entry-level Z590 boards had a $200 median and the equivalent Z690 boards have a $300 median then that extra $100 is split about 40/40/20 on the socket/power phases/PCB+slots+misc respectively. Does that sound about right? Whatever the cost to the manufacturer is usually results in at least a doubling of the cost to the end user after all.
Yes, perhaps towards the end of 2022 there may be some PCIe 5.0 GPUs by then but you're not going to use it for a hypothetical SSD before then because it's only the PEG slot that gets Gen5, so you'd need to cripple your GPU by running it using chipset lanes, hampered by both the latency of the extra hop and the limited DMI bandwidth that's shared with absolutely everything else. All that just to run a PCIe 5.0 SSD in the PCIe 5.0 slot and get bigger benchmark numbers in sequential QD32 testing, but near-zero real-world benefits.
So, for all intents and purposes, with a high-end board only remaining "high-end" for a short period of time before it's no longer meeting that title, PCIe Gen5 slots on Z690 will be irrelevant during the halo period of Z690. The flagship enthusiasts will have moved on by then and the Gen5 will only be relevant to whoever is buying a cheap, 2 or 3 generation used Z690 board on ebay three years from now.
AM5 will launch toward the end of next year. By then we should have Gen5 SSD's and perhaps Gen5 GPU's depending if the 7000 and 40 series are Gen5.
What im hoping for more is a unified Gen5 solution like AMD did with X570 where all slots are Gen4 regardless of their connection to CPU/PCH
Intel's current solution is anything but unified with an odd mix of Gen3, 4 and 5.
PCIe 4.0 spec was ratified in Oct 2017 and the first graphics card that could use it launched 21 months later, when AMD simultaneously launched the 5700XT and X570 chipset.
PCIe 5.0 spec was ratified less than six months ago. Intel have made the chipset, but nobody has made anything that needs it yet.
Kioxia have announced plans to start producing PCIe datacenter SSDs in 2022, but these won't be faster than PCIe 4.0 models, they'll simply be using the extra bandwidth to reduce the lanes down to two per drive so that they can cram more SSDs into the same server. It has zero use for consumers so we're still technically at the zero count for even planned PCIe 5.0 products.
Same reason why AMD jumped to PCIe 4.0 when PCIe 3.0 was considered "good enough". It was new(ish), it was underutilized, and it spurred development of consumer-ready PCIe 4.0 peripherals (NVMe mostly, but also allowed for higher-end bifurcation on certain mobos and also advanced console storage). It also helped AMD further squeeze into the enterprise environment with EPYC utilizing PCIe 4.0 for ever faster PCIe-based I/O.
Further, AMD having PCIe 4.0 was a big enough deal that Intel got some heat for not having their own CPUs PCIe 4.0 ready; we had a few stories here where mobomakers and some shareholders were upset that Intel wasn't able to counter Ryzen's further jump to PCIe 4.0 with CPUs of their own. Now Intel is trying to take the lead again and spur development of consumer grade PCIe 5.0 AICs while also using it to help advance their own enterprise R&D in an attempt to counter AMD's heavily played up marketing of the PCIe speeds AMD was lording over them.
The only thing I wish Intel actually competed in though was marketing 5GbE or 10GbE onto their boards; instead of the pathetic jump to only 2.5GbE. I'd like to see a push for more consumer-ready 5GbE or 10GbE switches/routers. Maybe AMD can use their new partnership to try and push that end of the spectrum too.
@W1zzard's power scaling article yesterday proved that a 125W non-K Alder Lake part is going to be extremely competitive, all Intel have to do is nail the $200 CPU and $100 motherboard market whilst letting people use DDR4. DDR4-3600 is cheap and potent.