mahirzukic2OH NOES, the new 32 MB BIOS rom chip costs 2$ instead of 1$:
2.55$
2.62$

Mind you, these are from Aliexpress, if a company bought these in bulk of 10k+ quantities, they'd probably get them for a 1$ a pop or less.

Bottom line is: No amount of reasons or factors could make a 80$ AM4 board turn into 300$ AM5 board. NO AMOUNT OF REASONS.





Well except for greed.

I am not surprise that they are banging on Am5 being future proof for couple of generations to validate the price hikes. They didn't think people will check worthiness of it.
Great job you guys thoroughly checked through. Sigh even the PCIE 5 not entirely actual lol,

prtskgYou guys are not taking into consideration Intel development fund which Intel provides board developers. This helps with keeping cost low and maximizing profit. Since AM5 came out, Alderlake sale hasn't increased. People are waiting for Raptorlake or are buying 5000 series CPUs, especially 5800X3D (MF data). AM5 boards also have more memory for bios update this time compared to AM4.

Why on earth would I give a shit about Intel MDF (market development funding)? As a consumer that's simply not my problem! If AMD aren't going to subsidise their platform or design a cheaper platform to serve the mass-market, they'll lose that market of course. It's frickin' obvious to anyone with more than a couple of braincells to rub together.

AMD want to know why customers aren't buying AM5 boards which drive AM5 CPU sales, and the simple answer is that the boards are too expensive.

As a customer I don't give a flying f*ck about the internal market bureacracy, I buy based on whether the product is good value or not - and that's a stance that's likely shared by an overwhelming majority of AMD's customers. Nobody likes overpaying.

Chrispy_Why on earth would I give a shit about Intel MDF (market development funding)? As a consumer that's simply not my problem! If AMD aren't going to subsidise their platform or design a cheaper platform to serve the mass-market, they'll lose that market of course. It's frickin' obvious to anyone with more than a couple of braincells to rub together.

AMD want to know why customers aren't buying AM5 boards which drive AM5 CPU sales, and the simple answer is that the boards are too expensive.

As a customer I don't give a flying f*ck about the internal market bureacracy, I buy based on whether the product is good value or not - and that's a stance that's likely shared by an overwhelming majority of AMD's customers. Nobody likes overpaying.

That's a stance held by any reasonable person. Hell even fanboys can be dissuaded by a high price tag, obviously.
Usually people buy whatever is best for their use case (or the one they think they will be doing) within the budget they decide to allocate to it.
It's that simple. Just buy whatever is best for your usage which falls within your budget. People don't really care about AMD or Intel, just as much as AMD or Intel don't care about people.

mahirzukic2OH NOES, the new 32 MB BIOS rom chip costs 2$ instead of 1$:
2.55$
2.62$

Mind you, these are from Aliexpress, if a company bought these in bulk of 10k+ quantities, they'd probably get them for a 1$ a pop or less.

Bottom line is: No amount of reasons or factors could make a 80$ AM4 board turn into 300$ AM5 board. NO AMOUNT OF REASONS.





Well except for greed.

The bigger cost now is likely to be for the MCU that's being installed that's used to flash the UEFI without the need of a CPU in the board. Mostly due to shortages than anything else.

Chrispy_Why on earth would I give a shit about Intel MDF (market development funding)? As a consumer that's simply not my problem! If AMD aren't going to subsidise their platform or design a cheaper platform to serve the mass-market, they'll lose that market of course. It's frickin' obvious to anyone with more than a couple of braincells to rub together.

AMD want to know why customers aren't buying AM5 boards which drive AM5 CPU sales, and the simple answer is that the boards are too expensive.

As a customer I don't give a flying f*ck about the internal market bureacracy, I buy based on whether the product is good value or not - and that's a stance that's likely shared by an overwhelming majority of AMD's customers. Nobody likes overpaying.

It's very simple. Intel's MDF means lower board costs for you. The board makers count on getting a kickback and thus sell their boards at lower profit margins, which benefits you.

AMD either doesn't have the budget or is willing to offer such a program for some other reason, so you end up paying more in the end.

That said, there's something else going on right now, as the prices are a lot higher than they were supposed to be, as I've pointed out several times already. Having taken a closer look, the board makers added more margin than I was initially told and some SKUs are over 30% more expensive than initially planned.

I'm a big fan of Gigabyte z670 Aero D board design and at present cost is looking nice for those considering for a DDR5 Intel board. It's as good or better than a lot of x6709E and z790 boards that cost more. It's basically similar to a x670E Asus pro Art for Intel, but heavily discounted. That's a big problem for AMD and Asus both.

Now cut down the prices if you want people to buy them.

mahirzukic2OH NOES, the new 32 MB BIOS rom chip costs 2$ instead of 1$:
2.55$
2.62$

Mind you, these are from Aliexpress, if a company bought these in bulk of 10k+ quantities, they'd probably get them for a 1$ a pop or less.

Bottom line is: No amount of reasons or factors could make a 80$ AM4 board turn into 300$ AM5 board. NO AMOUNT OF REASONS.





Well except for greed.

I guess all those Gen5 redrivers are free and don't increase the cost at all eh?

Dudebro-420Now cut down the prices if you want people to buy them.

Why would they cut price if they can sell the same CCDs in servers?
And this is sales report from Mindfactory -

stimpy88If only they had listened to me and put a DDR4 mem controller on the die...

It's not necessary. AM4 is the plaform for anyone who wants to continue with DDR4 for couple of years.
If you want more premium platform, wait until prices decrease on AM5.
Or go Intel on their latest platform that will not be upgradable out of the box.

Tek-CheckIt's not necessary. AM4 is the plaform for anyone who wants to continue with DDR4 for couple of years.
If you want more premium platform, wait until prices decrease on AM5.
Or go Intel on their latest platform that will not be upgradable out of the box.

Or just buy a Mac!

:p

If you check motherboards pairs like MSI PRO B650M-A/B660M-A WIFI or MSI MAG B650M/B660M Mortar WIFI etc, you can see that in Germany stores are selling the AMD ones with +€65, +€70 and the specs are very similar with no PCI-e 5.0 for the AMD ones (so no PCI-e 5.0 excuse there...)

cvaldesOr just buy a Mac!

:p

True. There are even more choices.

ir_cowI guess all those Gen5 redrivers are free and don't increase the cost at all eh?

The issue is I doubt we'll see much real world tangible upside to PCIE 5.0 for a long time and probably beyond the practical lifetime expectations of the platform itself. If it adds this much cost why even bother at this point in time is a fair question to be raised. I know well like and want newer standards, but you have to step back and look at it objectively as well from a value angle to the consumer and trying to pitch that sale to the consumer as well for the hardware makers. It's a really hard sell with these x670E and z790 prices we've seen.

If you want PCIE 5.0 at a more reasonable price get last gen z670 if you're fine with a Intel system meanwhile AMD side is just between a rock and hard spot outside of AM4, but at least 5800X3D performs well and is a reasonable alternative. I don't know how well 5800X3D will appear on value in relation to a 13600K however especially paired with a DDR4 board where it's mostly just a similar cost comparison across each. How close a striking distance does Raptor Lake's entry level unlocked chip get and what is performance like at the same power levels between each plus how wide is the MT gap looking across varied applications? Those are all going to be important to people consider both priced similarly which is a lot of people probably. AMD does have a perk in it's favor though if someone is already on AM4 socket they might simply upgrade the CPU which reduces the cost factor a nice bit.

I think what I touched upon is a lot of the questions people are going to be asking and looking at considering a upgrade between now and whatever arrives later that should have better price to value tangibles that aren't here yet for PCIE 5.0 and DDR5 systems in the early infancy of both options. I see the 5800XD and 13600K as a possible slugfest over mind share in the coming days, weeks, and months.

ModEl4MSI PRO B650M-A/B660M-A WIF... the specs are very similar with no PCI-e 5.0 for the AMD ones (so no PCI-e 5.0 excuse there...)

You don't need "PCIe 5.0 excuse". It's enough if you look into details, then zoom out and look into wider perspective and how much upgrades platforms offer.

On B650, you get x16 Gen4 slot, whereas Intel's is Gen3. WiFi is 6E, Intel's is 6. There are three more USB 10 Gbps and one more 5 Gbps ports on B650. Memory support is slightly higher on B650. You can say it's minor difference, but each one of those features adds to the cost and will matter for individual users, depending what people look for.

Plus, the elephant in the room is no upgrades on Intel's platform. You buy it once for one gen CPU and that's it. On B650, part of premium is ability to slot in Zen5 CPU without having to buy a new system, which is a huge advantage. Small advantages in features and big advantage in upgradability cost ~€65 more.

I bet Mortar brings similar situation. I'd go for B650. Pay a bit more now, big save later by buying only a CPU. No brainer.

CPU-wise, Intel is a better option with 13600K than 7600X/7700X, if you really need it for multi-threaded workloads for several years. However, i5 is unlikely to be better in gaming against both AMD's CPUs.

So, yes, it all depends on what is it that you want to save on now or in future, and which features you need to use.

HofnaerrchenI highly support upgradebility and long-lived platforms. A reason I did go for AM4 in 2018 myself and I will contine using that system for quite a while, at least another 2-3 years if nothing bad happens but if I had to get a new system right now I would rather choose AM4 again. The entry price for AM5 as well as energy consumption of Zen 4 and Alder/Rocket Lake is not very compelling to me. Maybe intel and AMD do better with the next generation.

If you want less power, wait for desktop APU next year. It will be either 65W (6-core) or 95W (8-core), or both on different SKUs.

ModEl4I'm really 50%-50% as to if we are going to have 3 V-Cache models (7950X3D/7900X3D/7800X3D) or just 7800X3D.
If AMD increase the PPT of 7800X3D to 230W it will not have to make regression in frequency like in 5000 series case.
But even in this case (no actual frequency reduction) i don't see more than +18% in 720p and +12.5% in 1080p TPU testbed vs 7700X based on performance increase that V-Cache brought to 5000 series!
Cores and frequency doesn't help much Zen4 in gaming as you can see below and if we are going to see 7900X3D and 7950X3D probably there will be regression in actual clocks vs the regular 7950X/7900X models due to not having PPT increase.
So the gaming performance difference it will be nearly equivalent to 7800X3D (if 7800X3D actual clocks are similar to 7700X)
In a few days we are going to see the Raptor Lake results, but if for example 13700K/KF is 10% faster vs 12700K/KF in 720p (around 6.9% in 1080p) this means that in 1080p 13700K/KF will be just -5% (or even less) from 7800X3D on average!
13600K box street price ($329) is exactly what Intel recommends in their website, so partners can match Intel's RCP and this is the only part that Intel increased pricing in relation with 12th gen so far, so there is a reason partners to have low margins.
13700K/KF models have not seen an increase in price and also they are very competitive across the stack and probably will force for example 12900K to drop to 13700K level or less since 13700K will be a little bit faster (their RCP difference is $180, so the drop will be big).So partners regarding 13700K have not an incentive to play with such low margins as in i5 13600K's case but if reason arise (Zen4 V-Cache), they can sell 13700KF as low as $399!
Even if 7800X3D has only $100 SEP difference with 7700X, paying $100 more for 7800X3D vs 13700KF will just get you 5% (max) in 1080p average TPU results while if you use that $100 difference to upgrade to the next VGA tier (for example RX6750X->RX 6800 or 3070Ti->3080 10GB etc)
will get far superior gaming upgrade.
And all this without touching the motherboard/memory side cost options difference...
So AMD needs to drop prices all over, Zen4 V-Cache models won't save them if the pricing strategy doesn't change!

Oh man! Those gigantic screenshots are killing us and take entire monitor real estate! Please, drag diagonally to minimize before posting.

Raiden85Problem is the boards, CPU prices are very decent. If the boards weren't an absolute rip-off then maybe they would sell more chips. An Asus X670 Hero costs much more than my X570 Formula did with a water block.

True that. It's a longevity and early launch premium.

InnsaeiReally stupid, I was considering getting my Aunt a PC for her office and personal usage including family member usage whereby nieces and nephews can play some demanding games during visits and stays.
I had in mind to consider AMD AM5 for longevity and future proof, we factored in DDR5 cost and was kind of manageable. After seeing the cost of AM5 pricing, I was shocked! Ludicrous or outrage pricing for a mid to high end models.

To be fair, unless your Aunt, nieces and nephews are "in the know" about PC hardware, I doubt they'd even notice a difference between AM4 and AM5, performance-wise. With that in mind, why not just build them a nice AM4 based rig and call it a day?

Also, "future proofing" doesn't exist in the PC world. Even the stuff you can buy today will be "outdated" in 6 months. That's the way it's always been.

The motherboard prices are the real killer. AM5 motherboard prices are tone deaf to the market. AMD should have worked with the motherboard vendors better to produce affordable options, because what's out there is motherboards for the elite, to run a people's CPU.

Tek-CheckYou don't need "PCIe 5.0 excuse". It's enough if you look into details, then zoom out and look into wider perspective and how much upgrades platforms offer.

On B650, you get x16 Gen4 slot, whereas Intel's is Gen3. WiFi is 6E, Intel's is 6. There are three more USB 10 Gbps and one more 5 Gbps ports on B650. Memory support is slightly higher on B650. You can say it's minor difference, but each one of those features adds to the cost and will matter for individual users, depending what people look for.

Plus, the elephant in the room is no upgrades on Intel's platform. You buy it once for one gen CPU and that's it. On B650, part of premium is ability to slot in Zen5 CPU without having to buy a new system, which is a huge advantage. Small advantages in features and big advantage in upgradability cost ~€65 more.

I bet Mortar brings similar situation. I'd go for B650. Pay a bit more now, big save later by buying only a CPU. No brainer.

CPU-wise, Intel is a better option with 13600K than 7600X/7700X, if you really need it for multi-threaded workloads for several years. However, i5 is unlikely to be better in gaming against both AMD's CPUs.

So, yes, it all depends on what is it that you want to save on now or in future, and which features you need to use.

Both B660s have also PCIe 4.0 16X just like AMD ones.
Only PCIe 4X is 3.0 for Intel's (but M.2 is still PCIe 4.0 on Intel so you're covered for SSD though)

Regarding WiFi both Mortars are 6E.

Regarding USB both Mortars have 1x USB-C 3.2 (20Gb/s) and 3x USB-A 3.1 (10Gb/s).
The difference is that except the above AMD's Mortar has 4x USB-A 3.0 (5Gb/s) while Intel's rest USB-A are version 2.0.
And yes the above differences are insignificant and should have cost 10€ more or whatever not 70€.
I really don't know why you feel that you need to defend and justify AMD's Motherboard pricing strategy to price them nearly 70€ above the competition.
Instead you should be asking for lower pricing in order the AM5 platform to be more accessible to all AMD supporters and anyway we still haven't seen the promised $125 B650s!
Maybe is no brainer for you but for a large portion of users that like AM4 it seems it isn't.
i5 12600K/KF already is slightly faster than 7600X in 1080p and being only 1.6% slower than 7700X chances are that 13600K/KF will be faster...
And regarding 7700X Intel also have i7 13700KF anyway!

TheLostSwedeHave you ever been involved in making such a product and know the costs involved? I have and as much as I agree that they're overpriced right now, much of that isn't on the board makers.

Or probably even AMD...........I don't even want to fathom a guess as to how many 'middlemen' there are inbetween. To get something from Taiwan/China to middle of North America.............probably about 5 different shipping/transportation fees/companies along the way, if not more. Add in shipping ports, distribution channels, warehousing/storage, etc. before the retailer/e-tailer, then shipping to the final customer.

The day AMD tells me I must buy everything new to upgrade my PC, I better buy Raptor Lake, Ryzen 7000 is about the same performance of Alder Lake ONE YEAR LATE! .. Also 5800X3D for gaming is way better buy

ModEl4Both B660s have also PCIe 4.0 16X just like AMD ones. Only PCIe 4X is 3.0 for Intel's (but M.2 is still PCIe 4.0 on Intel so you're covered for SSD though)

Look, I will list for you 28 features (14 on each board), to show that both B650 Pro and Mortar boards are more advanced than B660 boards. You will need to learn to pay attention to details and appreciate board design effort in future in order to avoid rushed and emotional conclusions.

B650 Pro board is more advanced and promising because:
- B650 has second PCIe slot at Gen4 x4, so twice bandwidth (64 Gbps) for additional AIC storage of other peripheral; B660 has Gen3 x4
- B650 Pro has internal USB 10 Gbps for front I/O, B660 has 5 Gbps
- B650 supports NVMe and SATA storage RAID, B660 supports only SATA RAID
- B650 has WiFi 6E, B660 is WiFi 6
- B650 has three more USB 10 Gbps and one more 5 Gbps ports on B650
- B650 has memory support is slightly higher on B650
- B650 has Flash BIOS button , B660 does not (is it an important feature!)
- B650 supports one additional 4-pin fan connector
- B650 comes with less bloatware and AIDA64 Extreme, B660 does not
- B650 had more elabore AM5 1718 socket, with more pins
- B650 board has additional brackets for CPU cooler, B660 does not
- B650 has larger chipset heatsink
- B650 has larger and more spacious VRM heatsink covering rear I/O, B660 has a miserable VRM heatsink
- B650 is future-proof for Zen5 simple CPU, B660 is end-of-life product, aka DOA
So, B650 overall has 14 more advanced features than B660 board. Do you still expect B650 Pro to cost the same as B660? Nonsense.

ModEl4Regarding WiFi both Mortars are 6E. Regarding USB both Mortars have 1x USB-C 3.2 (20Gb/s) and 3x USB-A 3.1 (10Gb/s).
The difference is that except the above AMD's Mortar has 4x USB-A 3.0 (5Gb/s) while Intel's rest USB-A are version 2.0.
And yes the above differences are insignificant and should have cost 10€ more or whatever not 70€.

The below differences are not insignificant and do not cost €10 more. I hope the list helps you appreciate those differences.
Regarding both Mortar boards, differences are significant enough to explain different price.
- B650 memory support is slightly higher on B650
- B660 second slot is Gen3 x4, on B650 it is Gen4 x4, so twice bandwidth
- B650 has onboard graphics on DP port is 4K/60 on B660, and DP port on B650 supports 8K/60
- B650 has four USB 5 ports at rear I/O on B650, and four USB 2.0 on B660
- B650 has Flash BIOS button , B660 does not (is it an important feature!)
- B650 has a better audio chip ALC4080 with front supprt for high bit audio, B660 has ALC1220
- B650 supports one additional 4-pin fan connector
- B650 comes with less bloatware and AIDA64 Extreme, B660 does not
- B650 comes with one more SATA cable
- B650 comes with WiFi antenna, B660 does not
- B650 had more elabore AM5 1718 socket, with more pins
- B650 board has additional brackets for CPU cooler, B660 does not
- B650 board has more robust and longer NVMe drive heatsink
- B650 is future-proof for Zen5 simple CPU, B660 is end-of-life product, aka DOA
So, B650 overall has 14 more advanced features than B660 board. Do you still you expect B650 Mortar to cost the same as B660? Another nonsense.

ModEl4I really don't know why you feel that you need to defend and justify AMD's Motherboard pricing strategy to price them nearly 70€ above the competition.
Instead you should be asking for lower pricing in order the AM5 platform to be more accessible to all AMD supporters and anyway we still haven't seen the promised $125 B650s!
Maybe is no brainer for you but for a large portion of users that like AM4 it seems it isn't.

AMD does not tell vendors how much to charge for boards. AMD can only reduce the price of Prom21 chipset. I do not defend or justify anything. I am simply showing you and others here the differences, which can explain why MSI values B650 boards more. There was simply more labour hours, care, software, components, material and technologies invested into design of B650 boards. All of that does not cost €10.

If you want B650 to cost the same as Intel's B660, then it is B660 that also needs to be cheaper for another €60-70, because B660 is a worse board of the two, especially that VRM heatsink. It's a joke. Whatever the price, those two boards cannot cost the same.

Don't get me wrong. Both boards are equally overpriced because they are new. Prices will have to go down soon, for Black Firday, Xmas, and onwards, but B650 boards are definitively more advanced and priced accordingly.

ModEl4i5 12600K/KF already is slightly faster than 7600X in 1080p and being only 1.6% slower than 7700X chances are that 13600K/KF will be faster...
And regarding 7700X Intel also have i7 13700KF anyway!

No. 12600K is on average 10% slower in 1080p gaming than 7600X. Your graph comes from a single review. The graph below comes from 3D Centre in Germany, one of the most advanced tech analysis team in the world, who gather data from all individual reviews at launch, and later on, to re-validate results.
Chances are that 13600K will neither be faster in gaming than 7600X nor 7700X. It will be faster in productivity workloads than both Ryzen CPUs.
13700K compares with 7900X and 13900K compares with 7950X. Chances are that 13700K will not be faster in gaming than 7700X either.


Happy digesting of the information above.

nikilanrzThe day AMD tells me I must buy everything new to upgrade my PC, I better buy Raptor Lake, Ryzen 7000 is about the same performance of Alder Lake ONE YEAR LATE! .. Also 5800X3D for gaming is way better buy

You have a lot to read, digest and learn. Welcome to a good place for that. I have learnt a lot.

Tek-CheckLook, I will list for you 28 features (14 on each board), to show that both B650 Pro and Mortar boards are more advanced than B660 boards. You will need to learn to pay attention to details and appreciate board design effort in future in order to avoid rushed and emotional conclusions.

B650 Pro board is more advanced and promising because:
- B650 has second PCIe slot at Gen4 x4, so twice bandwidth (64 Gbps) for additional AIC storage of other peripheral; B660 has Gen3 x4
- B650 Pro has internal USB 10 Gbps for front I/O, B660 has 5 Gbps
- B650 supports NVMe and SATA storage RAID, B660 supports only SATA RAID
- B650 has WiFi 6E, B660 is WiFi 6
- B650 has three more USB 10 Gbps and one more 5 Gbps ports on B650
- B650 has memory support is slightly higher on B650
- B650 has Flash BIOS button , B660 does not (is it an important feature!)
- B650 supports one additional 4-pin fan connector
- B650 comes with less bloatware and AIDA64 Extreme, B660 does not
- B650 had more elabore AM5 1718 socket, with more pins
- B650 board has additional brackets for CPU cooler, B660 does not
- B650 has larger chipset heatsink
- B650 has larger and more spacious VRM heatsink covering rear I/O, B660 has a miserable VRM heatsink
- B650 is future-proof for Zen5 simple CPU, B660 is end-of-life product, aka DOA
So, B650 overall has 14 more advanced features than B660 board. Do you still expect B650 Pro to cost the same as B660? Nonsense.

The below differences are not insignificant and do not cost €10 more. I hope the list helps you appreciate those differences.
Regarding both Mortar boards, differences are significant enough to explain different price.
- B650 memory support is slightly higher on B650
- B660 second slot is Gen3 x4, on B650 it is Gen4 x4, so twice bandwidth
- B650 has onboard graphics on DP port is 4K/60 on B660, and DP port on B650 supports 8K/60
- B650 has four USB 5 ports at rear I/O on B650, and four USB 2.0 on B660
- B650 has Flash BIOS button , B660 does not (is it an important feature!)
- B650 has a better audio chip ALC4080 with front supprt for high bit audio, B660 has ALC1220
- B650 supports one additional 4-pin fan connector
- B650 comes with less bloatware and AIDA64 Extreme, B660 does not
- B650 comes with one more SATA cable
- B650 comes with WiFi antenna, B660 does not
- B650 had more elabore AM5 1718 socket, with more pins
- B650 board has additional brackets for CPU cooler, B660 does not
- B650 board has more robust and longer NVMe drive heatsink
- B650 is future-proof for Zen5 simple CPU, B660 is end-of-life product, aka DOA
So, B650 overall has 14 more advanced features than B660 board. Do you still you expect B650 Mortar to cost the same as B660? Another nonsense.

AMD does not tell vendors how much to charge for boards. AMD can only reduce the price of Prom21 chipset. I do not defend or justify anything. I am simply showing you and others here the differences, which can explain why MSI values B650 boards more. There was simply more labour hours, care, software, components, material and technologies invested into design of B650 boards. All of that does not cost €10.

If you want B650 to cost the same as Intel's B660, then it is B660 that also needs to be cheaper for another €60-70, because B660 is a worse board of the two, especially that VRM heatsink. It's a joke. Whatever the price, those two boards cannot cost the same.

Don't get me wrong. Both boards are equally overpriced because they are new. Prices will have to go down soon, for Black Firday, Xmas, and onwards, but B650 boards are definitively more advanced and priced accordingly.

No. 12600K is on average 10% slower in 1080p gaming than 7600X. Your graph comes from a single review. The graph below comes from 3D Centre in Germany, one of the most advanced tech analysis team in the world, who gather data from all individual reviews at launch, and later on, to re-validate results.
Chances are that 13600K will neither be faster in gaming than 7600X nor 7700X. It will be faster in productivity workloads than both Ryzen CPUs.
13700K compares with 7900X and 13900K compares with 7950X. Chances are that 13700K will not be faster in gaming than 7700X either.


Happy digesting of the information above.


You have a lot to read, digest and learn. Welcome to a good place for that. I have learnt a lot.

Tell us how miserable the cooling is on these B660 boards.

www.newegg.com/p/N82E16813145373
GIGABYTE B660 AORUS MASTER DDR4 $164.99

www.gigabyte.com/Motherboard/B660-AORUS-MASTER-DDR4-rev-10#kf

www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1687328-REG/msi_mag_b660m_mortar_wifi.html
MSI MAG B660M MORTAR WIFI DDR5 $179.99

www.msi.com/Motherboard/MAG-B660M-MORTAR-WIFI
www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1687327-REG/msi_mag_b660_tomahawk_wifi.html/
MSI MAG B660 TOMAHAWK WIFI DDR4 $189.99

www.msi.com/Motherboard/MAG-B660-TOMAHAWK-WIFI-DDR4

www.scan.co.uk/products/asus-rog-strix-b660-a-gaming-wifi-d4-intel-b660-s-1700-ddr4-pcie-50-sata3-3x-m2-25gbe-ax-wifi-atx
ASUS ROG STRIX B660-A GAMING WIFI D4 £199.99

rog.asus.com/motherboards/rog-strix/rog-strix-b660-a-gaming-wifi-d4-model/

www.scan.co.uk/products/asus-tuf-gaming-b660-plus-wifi-d4-intel-b660-s-1700-ddr4-pcie-50-sata3-3x-m2-25gbe-wifi6
ASUS TUF GAMING B660-PLUS WIFI D4 £169.98

www.asus.com/Motherboards-Components/Motherboards/TUF-Gaming/TUF-GAMING-B660-PLUS-WIFI-D4/

Why_MeTell us how miserable the cooling is on these B660 boards.

Why would I do that? I am not a reviewer of motherboards. TPU and HUB review motherboards and they will tell you soon. I replied to the member with a list of different features to make a point that he cannot judge two products superficially without looking into details of features and design.

Even if passive VRM cooling is or is not miserable on any given board, there is still, crucially, VRM robustness itself to be tested. Steve from HUB found in his large review of dozens of motherboards that several boards could not deliver enough power to CPU, despite stating on package that they support highest SKUs. So, even if passive cooling looks ok, a board still could be under par for a different reason.

Tek-CheckWhy would I do that? I am not a reviewer of motherboards. TPU and HUB review motherboards and they will tell you soon. I replied to the member with a list of different features to make a point that he cannot judge two products superficially without looking into details of features and design.

Even if passive VRM cooling is or is not miserable on any given board, there is still, crucially, VRM robustness itself to be tested. Steve from HUB found in his large review of dozens of motherboards that several boards could not deliver enough power to CPU, despite stating on package that they support highest SKUs. So, even if passive cooling looks ok, a board still could be under par for a different reason.

That vid had him attempting to run an i9 with a board such as this. And ya the VRM's on this cheap crappy board is visibly terrible.

www.newegg.com/p/N82E16813145375

Tek-CheckLook, I will list for you 28 features (14 on each board), to show that both B650 Pro and Mortar boards are more advanced than B660 boards. You will need to learn to pay attention to details and appreciate board design effort in future in order to avoid rushed and emotional conclusions.

Lol in my previous response it took me 10 seconds to check specs and point your errors.
You said that:
On B650, you get x16 Gen4 slot, whereas Intel's is Gen3. Wrong
WiFi is 6E, Intel's is 6. Only on the A Wifi not on Mortar so half wrong
There are three more USB 10 Gbps and one more 5 Gbps ports on B650. Only on the A Wifi, on Mortar the 20Gbps and 10Gbps USBs are the same, exactly like i posted, so half wrong again
Memory support is slightly higher on B650. it is essentially insignificant +6200MHz for B660 (tested how many months ago and what was then the faster available DDR5) and +6400MHz for B650 - zero cost difference!

It seems to me that you are that will need to learn to pay attention to details...

Tek-CheckB650 Pro board is more advanced and promising because:
- B650 has second PCIe slot at Gen4 x4, so twice bandwidth (64 Gbps) for additional AIC storage of other peripheral; B660 has Gen3 x4
- B650 Pro has internal USB 10 Gbps for front I/O, B660 has 5 Gbps
- B650 supports NVMe and SATA storage RAID, B660 supports only SATA RAID
- B650 has WiFi 6E, B660 is WiFi 6
- B650 has three more USB 10 Gbps and one more 5 Gbps ports on B650
- B650 has memory support is slightly higher on B650
- B650 has Flash BIOS button , B660 does not (is it an important feature!)
- B650 supports one additional 4-pin fan connector
- B650 comes with less bloatware and AIDA64 Extreme, B660 does not
- B650 had more elabore AM5 1718 socket, with more pins
- B650 board has additional brackets for CPU cooler, B660 does not
- B650 has larger chipset heatsink
- B650 has larger and more spacious VRM heatsink covering rear I/O, B660 has a miserable VRM heatsink
- B650 is future-proof for Zen5 simple CPU, B660 is end-of-life product, aka DOA
So, B650 overall has 14 more advanced features than B660 board. Do you still expect B650 Pro to cost the same as B660? Nonsense.

The below differences are not insignificant and do not cost €10 more. I hope the list helps you appreciate those differences.

I said 10€ or whatever and it was about Mortar, regarding A Wifi model i just stated that the €70 difference is not justified, so I won't even lose my time for the above that you wrote!

Tek-CheckRegarding both Mortar boards, differences are significant enough to explain different price.
- B650 memory support is slightly higher on B650
- B660 second slot is Gen3 x4, on B650 it is Gen4 x4, so twice bandwidth
- B650 has onboard graphics on DP port is 4K/60 on B660, and DP port on B650 supports 8K/60
- B650 has four USB 5 ports at rear I/O on B650, and four USB 2.0 on B660
- B650 has Flash BIOS button , B660 does not (is it an important feature!)
- B650 has a better audio chip ALC4080 with front supprt for high bit audio, B660 has ALC1220
- B650 supports one additional 4-pin fan connector
- B650 comes with less bloatware and AIDA64 Extreme, B660 does not
- B650 comes with one more SATA cable
- B650 comes with WiFi antenna, B660 does not
- B650 had more elabore AM5 1718 socket, with more pins
- B650 board has additional brackets for CPU cooler, B660 does not
- B650 board has more robust and longer NVMe drive heatsink
- B650 is future-proof for Zen5 simple CPU, B660 is end-of-life product, aka DOA
So, B650 overall has 14 more advanced features than B660 board. Do you still you expect B650 Mortar to cost the same as B660? Another nonsense.

It's enough that I'm losing my time to point out your mistakes in Mortar:

www.msi.com/Motherboard/MAG-B650M-MORTAR-WIFI/Specification

www.msi.com/Motherboard/MAG-B660M-MORTAR-WIFI/Specification

B650 memory support is slightly higher on B650 it is essentially insignificant +6200MHz for B660 (tested how many months ago and what was then the faster available DDR5) and +6400MHz for B650 - zero cost difference!
- B660 second slot is Gen3 x4, on B650 it is Gen4 x4, so twice bandwidth
Yes just like i said (you made a mistake saying it's 16X not 4X) and the cost for MSI is $2-3 more i would guess
- B650 has onboard graphics on DP port is 4K/60 on B660, and DP port on B650 supports 8K/60 The DP is the same version 1.4 for both, it's the integrated GPUs that support different resolutions, there is no cost difference for MSI
- B650 has four USB 5 ports at rear I/O on B650, and four USB 2.0 on B660 Just like i mentioned but the cost difference is insignificant also here
- B650 has Flash BIOS button , B660 does not (is it an important feature!) I agree it's nice to have it, what's the cost for MSI $3-5 i would guess?
- B650 has a better audio chip ALC4080 with front supprt for high bit audio, B660 has ALC1220
They are very similar according to Igor's Lab and anyway i wouldn't expect more than $5-10 difference for MSI to implement it
- B650 supports one additional 4-pin fan connector $0.5-1 more?
- B650 comes with less bloatware and AIDA64 Extreme, B660 does not Super, now I'm ready to pay 70€ more lol
- B650 comes with one more SATA cable wrong again, according to above links both have 2
- B650 comes with WiFi antenna, B660 does not wrong again, according to above links both have it
- B650 had more elabore AM5 1718 socket, with more pins yeah more elaborate somehow still LGA with 17 more pins...
- B650 board has additional brackets for CPU cooler, B660 does not oh please stop wasting my time, you try too much...
- B650 board has more robust and longer NVMe drive heatsink are you serious, we are talking about 70€ you are really trying now (I'm not even sure if it's more robust but even if it was what's the cost difference)
- B650 is future-proof for Zen5 simple CPU, B660 is end-of-life product, aka DOA so essentially AMD is charging 60€-55€ more (i deducted the 10€-15€ from the street price difference) in order to offer the up to 2025+ support, so it's not free and it doesn't have anything to do with M/B cost

Tek-Check12600K is on average 10% slower in 1080p gaming than 7600X. Your graph comes from a single review. The graph below comes from 3D Centre in Germany, one of the most advanced tech analysis team in the world, who gather data from all individual reviews at launch, and later on, to re-validate results.
Chances are that 13600K will neither be faster in gaming than 7600X nor 7700X. It will be faster in productivity workloads than both Ryzen CPUs.
13700K compares with 7900X and 13900K compares with 7950X. Chances are that 13700K will not be faster in gaming than 7700X either.


Happy digesting of the information above.


You have a lot to read, digest and learn. Welcome to a good place for that. I have learnt a lot.

Lol i have read the reviews that i think are valid, I don't care about others.
The above table regarding gaming performance difference is not representative at all imo and it's not that i didn't wanted Zen4 to be better, i posted about possible Zen4 gaming performance before we even had any gaming score leaks and i was very optimistic for Zen4 but sadly it didn't turn out so good as AMD claims.
In time i think it will get better as the platform matures, but it will never get to a point that 7600X is 5% faster than 12900K in 1080p like AMD claimed...
Regarding what I have to read, digest and learn probably we don't have the same view (but thanks anyway for welcome, although i would expected it when i joined TPU, why didn't you back then?)

ModEl4Lol i have read the reviews that i think are valid, I don't care about others.

Look, you do you, regarding boards and interpreting reviews. I have no time arguing more about features on four entry boards. Silly. Have more important things to do in daily life than wondering how much one feature cost or another and whether you are satisfied with it.

The general point of listing was to show that B650 is more advanced, because it is. Those more advanced features come in a package, after extra labour hours and components are used. If you do not like the final price of package, that's absolutely fine. I do not like initial prices either. The only thing you cannot argue with me is that those boards should have the same price.

ModEl4On B650, you get x16 Gen4 slot, whereas Intel's is Gen3. Wrong
WiFi is 6E, Intel's is 6. Only on the A Wifi not on Mortar so half wro

Finally, you are requested to give members a benefit of a doubt before pointing back anything in bold text, and ask them to clarify before labelling anything as "wrong".

I initially looked into differences on Pro boards. I did not start from what is the same, but from differences. That's why I did not mention the first GPU slot. B650 does have another x16 slot Gen4 and B660 Gen3. The only thing I didn't explicitly say was that those slots are electrically wired x4. I was not wrong and you did not give me a benefit of a doubt, which is the attitude you are expected to change in future. I do agree that I could have worded it better.

In the original post, I suggested later in the text that Mortar boards might have similar differences, implicitly saying that preceding text was about Pro board. I didn't have time to look at Mortar initially. When I did, I found some differences too. So, posting that I was "half-wrong" was pointless because I separated the two lists later on and I didn't write about Mortar initially. Again, wording could have been better, but it also you who need to give a benefit of a doubt and not nitpick where not needed, but ask for clarification if unclear. It is true that WiFi version has the same antenna and cable. I take that back, as i looked into non-WiFi column.

Vast majority of new boards are overpriced, from low end to halo models. Plus, AM5 chipset link is crippled to 64 Gbps, half of what CPU provides. I will not buy a new AM5 board until this is fixed, either with PCIe switch or new edition of Prom21 chip.

I have nothing more to say about those four entry boards. Never spent so much time in my life on such boards.