With such ridiculous motherboard prices, they ain't gonna sell any better...

GeorgeManWith such ridiculous motherboard prices, they ain't gonna sell any better...

They gonna sell now higher quantities :). But yeah, overpriced it is what it is.

Awesome! Hopefully a domino affect will happen & lower the damn mobo prices.

GeorgeManWith such ridiculous motherboard prices, they ain't gonna sell any better...

When a few years back AMD motherboards where much cheaper than Intel motherboards, people didn't seem to have a problem with that. Because FPS counter and single thread performance off course.

Now everyone talks about motherboard pricing.

The same with thermals, power consumption, multithreading performance. When AMD had an advantage, over Nvidia or Intel, it was unimportant. When AMD had a disadvantage, it was the de facto deciding factor in choosing hardware.


That being said, Tom's Hardware had a very analytical article about, why AMD's motherboards could be more expensive than Intel's.
Why AMD’s Ryzen 7000 and Motherboards Cost So Damn Much | Tom's Hardware

More than what in that article is said, I also have a theory that, this time motherboard manufacturers are not willing to support a motherboard for 3-4 years for free. So I believe that AM5 motherboards integrate also a small TAX for that extra long time BIOS support. A motherboard manufacturer selling an LGA 1700 motherboard, know that will not have to add new architecture support for that LGA 1700 motherboard after 2023. On the other hand, the same manufacturer knows that the AM5 motherboard sold today, will need to get BIOS updates for at least until 2025. That much have a cost.

LionheartAwesome! Hopefully a domino affect will happen & lower the damn mobo prices.

That fault lies with motherboard makers for ridiculous prices on boards(which might have held back sales of CPUs).

Price wars are so nice to see. Black Friday/day after Xmas sales could see unbeatable lower prices.

Everyone complaining about price…computer builds are fast enough to last six plus years instead of around three before needing upgrades as in the past. Computer component manufacturers know this too. You now have to pay more upfront but the computer cost over time is much lower.

When I look at the gaming difference compared to my 5600X, especially as I play at 4k, and I think, new mobo, new ram, new cpu, mahoosive cost for it all, and for the small jump in perf... I probably won't change for like 3-4 years. But by then I'll probably be thinking AM5 will be getting older and wait for AM6, or jump ship to Intel, but their sockets usually last an even shorter time.

The fact that you can run a 5800X 3D on some old b350 board that got an updated bios is great for the consumer. Wonder if we will have AM5 being any where near that wallet friendly.

john_When a few years back AMD motherboards where much cheaper than Intel motherboards, people didn't seem to have a problem with that. Because FPS counter and single thread performance off course. Now everyone talks about motherboard pricing.

People were happy to pay more a few years back as the premium gap was far less. Eg, I recall Z170 Skylake boards (last gen before Ryzen) were usually £90-£110 with the most expensive being ASUS PRO GAMING AURA ITX at £130. At the same time, AMD boards were often £70-£90 so there was only really £30-£40 in it. Today it's whole different story with the B650M MSI MORTAR Wi-Fi selling for £260 or +160% more than what I paid (£99) for similar brand B460M MSI MORTAR Wi-Fi not that long ago. A few years back there were budget options for both brands. Today the only sane budget option is "stick with last gen"...

john_The same with thermals, power consumption, multithreading performance. When AMD had an advantage, over Nvidia or Intel, it was unimportant. When AMD had a disadvantage, it was the de facto deciding factor in choosing hardware.

There have always been some fanboys, but people have always cared about power consumption and some regularly have 'selective memories' the other way around. Eg, it doesn't take long to find even 10 year old GPU reviews where AMD were praised for being more power efficient than nVidia including here on TPU with "Low power consumption, excellent performance per watt" being top comment in the Thumbs Up category. Or 20 year old reviews where Intel were mocked for "130w space heater" Pentium 4's...

@Daven I so agree, my 3770k does the job still. And hardware is getting better then it ever has, the longevity of a modern pc is longer then ever

BSim500People were happy to pay more a few years back as the premium gap was far less. Eg, I recall Z170 Skylake boards (last gen before Ryzen) were usually £90-£110 with the most expensive being ASUS PRO GAMING AURA ITX at £130. At the same time, AMD boards were often £70-£90 so there was only really £30-£40 in it. Today it's whole different story with the B650M MSI MORTAR Wi-Fi selling for £260 or +160% more than what I paid (£99) for similar brand B460M MSI MORTAR Wi-Fi not that long ago. A few years back there were budget options for both brands. Today the only sane budget option is "stick with last gen"...


There have always been some fanboys, but people have always cared about power consumption and some regularly have 'selective memories' the other way around. Eg, it doesn't take long to find even 10 year old GPU reviews where AMD were praised for being more power efficient than nVidia including here on TPU with "Low power consumption, excellent performance per watt" being top comment in the Thumbs Up category. Or 20 year old reviews where Intel were mocked for "130w space heater" Pentium 4's...

I remember Intel motherboards with the top chipset at sometimes over 200 euros while AMD's equivalent where selling around 100 euros. So it wasn't a 30-40 pounds difference. I talk about full ATX motherboards. Also Z170 motherboards came out in 2015, so 2 years before Ryzen. By 2017 obviously their prices would have gone down. Looking at a 2015 article randomly chosen from Google, I do not see prices as low as90-110 pounds. Back then the pound was at about 1.48 of a dollar, so even in this case the price for the cheapest Z170 in that article was 190/1.48=128 pounds. Add now, how much, 20% TAX and we go over 150 pounds.

But you do have a point that prices in general where lower for motherboards. Much lower in the AMD platform. I have 2 MSI X470 motherboards. I bought the first one at a little over 100 euros and the second one at a historical low of 86 euros. Brand new. At the same time X570 boards where selling at twice the price, with even regression in specs, meaning my X470 was splitting the 16 lanes of the Ryzen CPU in the two first X16 slots, while most X570 boards where connecting only one PCIe X16 to the CPU.

As for fanboys, it wasn't just fanboys, but the majority of posters. And finding an article that declares energy efficient a card that was low-mid range category, it's not really difficult. Having to go back to the PressHOT era for an Intel example, more proves my point.

Stupid CEO's are getting a taste of reality, especially in this economy. Let's hope Nvidia gets their too, if stupid whales full of cash stop buying their overpriced cards.

It should be emphasized that the effective price on newegg for an AM5 CPU + motherboard has increased with this change, not decreased. This is because they revoked the very large CPU+mobo combo discounts they were running when these CPU-only discounts went live, and those combo discounts were larger than these new discounts. And they covered a wide range of motherboards from most of the brands, too. So you're effectively paying more now today in the US than you were two days ago if you're buying a Zen 4 platform.

Bomby569Stupid CEO's are getting a taste of reality, especially in this economy. Let's hope Nvidia gets their too, if stupid whales full of cash stop buying their overpriced cards.

You overestimate the kind of people who buy expensive hardware. Most of them aren't "stupid whales full of cash" but people working simple jobs just putting aside more and more money to be able to afford expensive hardware.

dj-electricYou overestimate the kind of people who buy expensive hardware. Most of them aren't "stupid whales full of cash" but people working simple jobs just putting aside more and more money to be able to afford expensive hardware.

Most people spend around 1000/1500$ for the all machine (many people even less). Just look at the steam surveys if you doubt this.

People that spend that on a GPU are not your average consumers, i'm sure they are not stealing and work hard but they are still the whales Nvidia wants to catch with these prices. These are not smart buys, these are "i want the latest and greatest and i can afford whatever they ask"
They are also the ones that enables Nvidia and destroys the market for the rest of us.

A definitive mark for magnitude of zen4 low attractiveness.
I don't recall such agressive price cut so close to on the shelf lunch.
Not going ddr4 and adding E variant to motherboard have it's added score to how bad value zen4 is right now.

john_As for fanboys, it wasn't just fanboys, but the majority of posters. And finding an article that declares energy efficient a card that was low-mid range category, it's not really difficult. Having to go back to the PressHOT era for an Intel example, more proves my point.

John there is no conspiracy beyond people seeing what they want to see. AMD have been consistently praised 20, 15, 10, 3, 2, 1 years ago when they get GPU's & CPU's right, and praised again recently for Ryzen's. Outside of the usual "Enthusiast Echo Chamber" people have been praising efficiency and criticising "space heaters" in general for +20 years. The "gap" in the mid 2010's when AMD weren't praised much was when they remained on FX chips for far too long than was healthy culminating in some complete absurdities like the FX-9590 being beaten by an i3 at both 1/4 the price & wattage in some games. When Ryzen corrected that, they got a LOT of praise. Intel stuffed the prices up when they were in the lead. And recently so have AMD. The only difference is Intel still makes affordable i3's as an affordable "entry point" to adopting a new socket then upgrading later, whilst AMD has been starving the market of 5300X / 5300G / 7300X, etc, so their budget entry point is far higher. At one point Intel's main competition weren't even AMD but rather existing Intel customers remaining on Intel's previous gen and not upgrading. AMD are in the same boat today with many AM4 users thinking AM5 isn't worth the high CPU + Motherboard + DDR5 combined premium vs keeping what they've got and spending the same money on a better GPU. Hence the reduction in prices due to previously reported "AM5 demand dropping like a rock". There's no anti-AMD conspiracy there, it's just basic economics.

The problem lies with motherboards more than CPU's I would say... You basically pay double over a similar tier of mobo compared to AM4, and that's with the increased DDR5 costs (which is understandable given it's long term). The overpriced CPU's in terms of core counts compared to Intel doesn't make it better.

Bomby569Most people spend around 1000/1500$ for the all machine (many people even less). Just look at the steam surveys if you doubt this.

People that spend that on a GPU are not your average consumers, i'm sure they are not stealing and work hard but they are still the whales Nvidia wants to catch with these prices. These are not smart buys, these are "i want the latest and greatest and i can afford whatever they ask"
They are also the ones that enables Nvidia and destroys the market for the rest of us.

Agreed, the people buying up 4090s like they're $1 each totally offset the "buying power" of working class consumers who are abstaining and hoping prices are lowered

thegnomeThe problem lies with motherboards more than CPU's I would say... You basically pay double over a similar tier of mobo compared to AM4, and that's with the increased DDR5 costs (which is understandable given it's long term). The overpriced CPU's in terms of core counts compared to Intel doesn't make it better.

The problem is the all package, you can't really buy just one of the parts. AMD lost sight of reality, especially in this economy, sitting on top of all their piles of money.

BSim500John there is no conspiracy beyond people seeing what they want to see. AMD have been consistently praised 20, 15, 10, 3, 2, 1 years ago when they get GPU's & CPU's right, and praised again recently for Ryzen's. Outside of the usual "Enthusiast Echo Chamber" people have been praising efficiency and criticising "space heaters" in general for +20 years. The "gap" in the mid 2010's when AMD weren't praised much was when they remained on FX chips for far too long than was healthy culminating in some complete absurdities like the FX-9590 being beaten by an i3 at both 1/4 the price & wattage in some games. When Ryzen corrected that, they got a LOT of praise. Intel stuffed the prices up when they were in the lead. And recently so have AMD. The only difference is Intel still makes affordable i3's as an affordable "entry point" to adopting a new socket then upgrading later, whilst AMD has been starving the market of 5300X / 5300G / 7300X, etc, so their budget entry point is far higher. At one point Intel's main competition weren't even AMD but rather existing Intel customers remaining on Intel's previous gen and not upgrading. AMD are in the same boat today with many AM4 users thinking AM5 isn't worth the high CPU + Motherboard + DDR5 combined premium vs keeping what they've got and spending the same money on a better GPU. Hence the reduction in prices due to previously reported "AM5 demand dropping like a rock". There's no anti-AMD conspiracy there, it's just basic economics.

Ehhhh...I remember when Nvidia released Maxwell, Nvidia fanboys and apologists couldn't shut up about power efficiency, but now after the 30 and 40 series, the only time they mention lower efficiency is when they say it doesn't matter. As for AMD, I've always thought they were held to higher standards than others, like with Ryzen 5000....people couldn't stop crying about the $50 price bump, despite the fact that they were basically the best processors on the market....so it implies that people expect AMD to simultaneously create the best hardware while charging second tier, budget prices.

DavenEveryone complaining about price…computer builds are fast enough to last six plus years instead of around three before needing upgrades as in the past. Computer component manufacturers know this too. You now have to pay more upfront but the computer cost over time is much lower.

No man , six years are too many , perfomance drops after two or three

With the 7950x hitting 574$ how low will the 5950x during black friday (or the entire zen3 line up for that matter)?

trsttteWith the 7950x hitting 574$ how low will the 5950x during black friday (or the entire zen3 line up for that matter)?

Not too low. The same but one tier down.


ryzen 9 5900x | Newegg.com

still needs to be lower, but I guess if you take into account the free memory at Micro center, it suddenly reasonable!