Watch out for upside down components that catch on fire.

truehighroller1Watch out for upside down components that catch on fire.

:)

$30 is not “steep” and Asus has a x670e crosshair hero for $699, whereas the z790 hero is $629 on Newegg. Still more expensive than the z690 version, but cheaper than x670e.

Nanochip$30 is not “steep” and Asus has a x670e crosshair hero for $699, whereas the z790 hero is $629 on Newegg. Still more expensive than the z690 version, but cheaper than x670e.

Considering the board layout is almost identical, it is. There wasn't much effort put into the new product.
It's hard to compare pricing between different retails on unreleased hardware as well, buy yes, X670/E boards are seriously overpriced right now and need to come down to the kind of levels they should be at, as no-one's going to be bying them with the current markups.

TheLostSwedeConsidering the board layout is almost identical, it is. There wasn't much effort put into the new product.
It's hard to compare pricing between different retails on unreleased hardware as well, buy yes, X670/E boards are seriously overpriced right now and need to come down to the kind of levels they should be at, as no-one's going to be bying them with the current markups.

Agree to disagree on the “steep” $30 point. The other point on x670e pricing, completely agree.

NanochipAgree to disagree on the “steep” $30 point. The other point on x670e pricing, completely agree.

I changed it to pretty steep, better?
Also changed the wording in the previous line of text to make it clear that the Intel board is the more attractive of the two options price wise vs. the X670 board.

Is there anything that effectively uses the bandwidth of PCIe 5 and gives me more performance in some real scenario? I'm almost falling into the temptation to buy an X670. XD

DenverIs there anything that effectively uses the bandwidth of PCIe 5 and gives me more performance in some real scenario? I'm almost falling into the temptation to buy an X670. XD

Today? No. But even an X670 board supports PCIe 5.0 NVMe drives, which might be more useful for now compared to the x16 slot.

Z790 is very boring, it need to be cheaper for me to choose it over z690..

TheLostSwedeToday? No. But even an X670 board supports PCIe 5.0 NVMe drives, which might be more useful for now compared to the x16 slot.

I would like to see how Direct Storage would use the full potential of these SSDs, the truth is that the software (games mainly) doesn't keep up with the hardware advancement, unfortunately

Both X670E and Z790 seem a bit boring given the pricing. You can't even buy PCIE 5.0 nVME or PCIE 5.0 graphics cards at the moment anyway.

DarkswordBoth X670E and Z790 seem a bit boring given the pricing. You can't even buy PCIE 5.0 nVME or PCIE 5.0 graphics cards at the moment anyway.

The Phison E26 based PCIe Gen 5 NVMe drives are supposed to come out around the end of this year, the problem is what the average user is supposed to do with similar drives right now. By the time DirectStorage will actually become a thing maybe we'll have PCIe Gen 6 drives around, at this rate.

---

[/HR]
At least Intel's prices appear to be sane enough when compared to the previous generation, with the current economy maybe they'll start recovering some market share if AMD doesn't stop being greedy...

DenverIs there anything that effectively uses the bandwidth of PCIe 5 and gives me more performance in some real scenario? I'm almost falling into the temptation to buy an X670. XD

No.
PCIe 3.0 is nice compared to SATA HDD but after that, the diminishing returns hit so hard, so the advantage is only if you copy and paste large files (sequential load) on the same drive or between similar drives.
Other than that - you won't see shorter loading times or more FPS in games.

The SSDs have two weaknesses. The fast speed has a limit of its internal buffer. When you hit that buffer, the speed dramatically decreases.
For example, you want to copy a file A with size 100 GB from one folder to the other - the first 80 GB of it will be transferred at maximum rate, while the rest 20 GB will be much much slower.

And the second - member @Valantar can tell you about the NAND flash random access low speeds.
So, when you deal with thousands of very small files, you don't get any acceleration, no matter if the drive supports PCIe 3.0 or PCIe 30.0.

DenverIs there anything that effectively uses the bandwidth of PCIe 5 and gives me more performance in some real scenario? I'm almost falling into the temptation to buy an X670. XD

No, and there won't be anything for a long time. The first PCIe 5.0 SSDs may appear until the end of the year but they will be limited to only ~10GB/s. The theoretical maximum of PCIe 5.0 is 16GB/s but no SSD will ever reach this due to overhead. The fastest PCIe 5.0 SSDs might eventually reach 15.x GB/s.

So, why are PCIe 5.0 SSDs limited to ~10GB/s for now? It's all in the NAND. The actual memory is not fast enough yet. We will have to wait for new NAND generations to boost PCIe 5.0 SSDs beyond the 10GB/s barrier.
The memory makers have all announced slowing down production and cost savings procedures because of the macroeconomic challenges. It will most likely be a pretty long wait until we get "next gen NAND" SSDs that shoot significantly beyond 10GB/s.

And for graphics cards it's completely pointless. I'm sure that you can plug a PCIe 4.0 based RTX 4090 in a PCIe 3.0 slot and it will run just as well as in a PCIe 4.0 or 5.0 slot as long as it is a x16 slot. The difference will be 0% to 2% max.

Yes, it would make more sense to run RAM disks, for instance 128 GB everything like Windows and applications is on a DDR4-type memory, of course with capability to keep the data without applied voltage to the memory chips.


Do RAM Disks Still Have a Place in Organizations Today? | ITPro Today: IT News, How-Tos, Trends, Case Studies, Career Tips, More

128 GB of DDR4, here I come :D

ARFNo.
PCIe 3.0 is nice compared to SATA HDD but after that, the diminishing returns hit so hard, so the advantage is only if you copy and paste large files (sequential load) on the same drive or between similar drives.
Other than that - you won't see shorter loading times or more FPS in games.

The SSDs have two weaknesses. The fast speed has a limit of its internal buffer. When you hit that buffer, the speed dramatically decreases.
For example, you want to copy a file A with size 100 GB from one folder to the other - the first 80 GB of it will be transferred at maximum rate, while the rest 20 GB will be much much slower.

And the second - member @Valantar can tell you about the NAND flash random access low speeds.
So, when you deal with thousands of very small files, you don't get any acceleration, no matter if the drive supports PCIe 3.0 or PCIe 30.0.

PCIe 3.0 even hits massive diminishing returns for the average consumer compared to SATA SSDs. If you look at SSD reviews, PCIe 3.0 to PCIe 5.0 SSDs are hardly faster in real world tests like game loading time.

The only thing that really provided a decent uplift was Intel Optane SSDs and those were crazy expensive for what you got.

TheLostSwedeI changed it to pretty steep, better?
Also changed the wording in the previous line of text to make it clear that the Intel board is the more attractive of the two options price wise vs. the X670 board.

X670 has a total of 44 PCIe lanes with up to 20 of those being PCIe 5.0 on X670E.
Z790 has a total of 28 PCIe lanes with 16 of those being PCIe 5.0.

X670 and X670E is really two classes above Z790 in regards to IO. Even B650E, which has 36 PCIe lanes and 20 of which are PCIe 5.0, is packing far more than Z790. Ultimately Z790 should be compared to B650E / B650 boards or even A class AM5 boards depending on how many PCIe lanes those end up having. If I had a choice between a similarly priced B650E and Z790 board with all other factors being equal I'd take the B650E board due it the long term platform support and increased IO capability.

Nanochip$30 is not “steep” and Asus has a x670e crosshair hero for $699, whereas the z790 hero is $629 on Newegg. Still more expensive than the z690 version, but cheaper than x670e.

The Z790 Hero also doesn't have a PCIe 5.0 SSD slot and is packing 28 PCIe lanes vs the 44 of the X670E version. $30 more but you are getting vastly more on the X670E board.

If all you are looking for is getting the latest processors, B650/650 is still packing more IO than Z790 and will hit price points lower then that of X670E.

IMO, given the capabilities of the Z790 chipset and the fact that it will not support future generations of processors, any Z790 board needs to be priced significantly lower than it's B650/B650E counterpart to be worthwhile. Not really comparable to X670/X670E due to the vast differences in capabilities.

TheLostSwedeConsidering the board layout is almost identical, it is. There wasn't much effort put into the new product.
It's hard to compare pricing between different retails on unreleased hardware as well, buy yes, X670/E boards are seriously overpriced right now and need to come down to the kind of levels they should be at, as no-one's going to be bying them with the current markups.

X670 / X670E boards are overpriced but a lot of people seem to think they are comparable to X570. They are not. X670 is packing more PCIe lanes (44 in total) than last gen and 20 of them are PCIe gen 5.0 vs PCIe gen 4.0. PCIe 5.0 redrivers are very expensive. There's the added cost of having two chips in the chipset that bumps up the cost too. I paid $300 for my X570 Taichi, a reasonable price for the X670 Taichi (given the capabilities of the chipset) would be $400 - $450.

Z790 is even worse in regards to price unfortunately. A mere 28 PCIe lanes with only 16 being PCIe 5.0 is quite a bit less than even what B650 / B650E offers. Looking at the pricing of many of the high end Z790 motherboards like the Z790 Aorus Master, they are charging the same price as X670E. That is a complete joke, chances are a B650E version of the Aorus Master is going to cost around $300 and have better IO capability.

People are quick to point out the pricing of X670/X670E (and yes it can be better) but then you also have Z790 boards coming in at the same price while providing vastly less on a platform that won't receive future CPU support. Z790 needs to be priced under B650 boards for it to be worthwhile. B650 is still providing you more PCIe lanes while also supporting future CPU generations.

www.newegg.com/p/pl?N=100007627%20601394305%20601409372 <---- Z790 boards listed on Newegg.

For those people who want to keep their existing DDR4 memory the ASUS TUF Gaming Z790-Plus Wi-Fi D4 is $290 from that list on Newegg. The Z690 equivalent is selling for $235 so a $55 price increase is reasonable. This board has a PCIe 5.0 graphics slot with PCIe 4.0 M.2 drives. At this price I don't think buyers are likely to be bothered about the absence of a PCIe 5.0 storage drive.

evernessince[...]
X670 has a total of 44 PCIe lanes with up to 20 of those being PCIe 5.0 on X670E.
Z790 has a total of 28 PCIe lanes with 16 of those being PCIe 5.0.

X670 and X670E is really two classes above Z790 in regards to IO. Even B650E, which has 36 PCIe lanes and 20 of which are PCIe 5.0, is packing far more than Z790. Ultimately Z790 should be compared to B650E / B650 boards or even A class AM5 boards depending on how many PCIe lanes those end up having. If I had a choice between a similarly priced B650E and Z790 board with all other factors being equal I'd take the B650E board due it the long term platform support and increased IO capability.
[...]

Where are you getting these figures?
AMD X670E platform, in terms of lanes available for use and not tied up in platform requirements (socket-chipset connection and chipset-chipset connection):
Socket:
5.0 - 24 lanes
Chipset:
4.0 - 12 lanes
3.0 - 8 lanes

That's a total of 44 PCIe lanes.


Intel Z790 platform, with the same conditions as above:
Socket:
5.0 - 16 lanes
4.0 - 4 lanes
Chipset:
4.0 - 20 lanes
3.0 - 8 lanes

That's a total of 48 PCIe lanes.


Just for fun:
AMD X570 platform, with same conditions as above:
Socket:
4.0 - 20 lanes
Chipset:
4.0 - 16 lanes

That's a total of 36 PCIe lanes.


X570, unlike X670E and Z790, also has 8 dedicated SATA ports. X670E and Z790 share their SATA PHYs with PCIe PHYs, meaning any SATA ports on the latter two chipsets come at the direct cost of PCIe lane count. Though, given the supposed provenance of X570, these were probably originally PCIe lanes, just hard configured to be SATA-only by AMD's X570 platform spec.


Sources:
X670E: www.anandtech.com/show/17585/amd-zen-4-ryzen-9-7950x-and-ryzen-5-7600x-review-retaking-the-high-end/4
Z790: www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/content-details/743835/intel-700-series-chipset-family-platform-controller-hub-datasheet-volume-1-of-2.html
X570: www.anandtech.com/show/14161/the-amd-x570-motherboard-overview

Think I paid like $220 for my Z97 Hero when it was current and new.
These prices are just way too much for the average person.

Nanochip$30 is not “steep” and Asus has a x670e crosshair hero for $699, whereas the z790 hero is $629 on Newegg. Still more expensive than the z690 version, but cheaper than x670e.

It is considering the value of the USD.
But x670 motherboards' prices are just stupid.

jeremyshawWhere are you getting these figures?
AMD X670E platform, in terms of lanes available for use and not tied up in platform requirements (socket-chipset connection and chipset-chipset connection):
Socket:
5.0 - 24 lanes
Chipset:
4.0 - 12 lanes
3.0 - 8 lanes

That's a total of 44 PCIe lanes.


Intel Z790 platform, with the same conditions as above:
Socket:
5.0 - 16 lanes
4.0 - 4 lanes
Chipset:
4.0 - 20 lanes
3.0 - 8 lanes

That's a total of 48 PCIe lanes.


Just for fun:
AMD X570 platform, with same conditions as above:
Socket:
4.0 - 20 lanes
Chipset:
4.0 - 16 lanes

That's a total of 36 PCIe lanes.


X570, unlike X670E and Z790, also has 8 dedicated SATA ports. X670E and Z790 share their SATA PHYs with PCIe PHYs, meaning any SATA ports on the latter two chipsets come at the direct cost of PCIe lane count. Though, given the supposed provenance of X570, these were probably originally PCIe lanes, just hard configured to be SATA-only by AMD's X570 platform spec.


Sources:
X670E: www.anandtech.com/show/17585/amd-zen-4-ryzen-9-7950x-and-ryzen-5-7600x-review-retaking-the-high-end/4
Z790: www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/content-details/743835/intel-700-series-chipset-family-platform-controller-hub-datasheet-volume-1-of-2.html
X570: www.anandtech.com/show/14161/the-amd-x570-motherboard-overview

It appears that my earlier figures were misleading. Looking at the block diagrams, AMD's chipset figures also include lanes from the CPU whereas Intel's do not. When I posted that comment I had looked through multiple articles (including Intel's official page for Z790 that you linked) prior to posting and it seems that most parroted AMD's chipset figures that also include CPU lanes while articles on Z790 (including the one on TechPowerUp) only included lanes from the CPU.

Why_Mewww.newegg.com/p/pl?N=100007627 601394305 601409372 <---- Z790 boards listed on Newegg.

Here are few listed on B&H, pricing is quite inline with others. So overall prices of these boards have certainly doubled especially for entry level SKUs.
www.bhphotovideo.com/c/products/ci/19864/N/3835434462?filters=fct_a_cpu-socket_3756%3Alga-1700%2Cfct_chipset_4896%3Aintel-z790%2Cfct_motherboard-chipset_5058%3Aintel

UpgrayeddThink I paid like $220 for my Z97 Hero when it was current and new.
These prices are just way too much for the average person.

Paid $230 for my asus p8z77 v pro motherboard new. No crazy RGBs, 8 phase VRM, plenty of USB 3.0 and 2.0 connectors, could host 3 GPUs, and still works a decade later.

These new board prices are absolutely insane for what you get. The AMD boards are WAY worse.

On a side note, just noticed B&H also has listed Asus B650 boards and here are their pricing: