A few cryboys in the forums, sure PR cares, but big deal.
CPUs are probably the least upgraded part in a PC, usually because there rarely are worthwile upgrades that are similar enough to be compatible.
Optical is extensively used in audio equipment, offering a low-latency problem-free audio interface.
If they add the expense of a built-in audio chip, they might as well add the only useful port to that chip.
Outside home AV, HDMI and DisplayPort in audio equipment is very rare. HDMI and DisplayPort are designed as AV standards, not as pure audio standards.
While Toslink being optical was originally mostly a gimmick, they do have substantial advantage of eliminating some hiss and other artifacts.
I was actually making fun of the claims from the product specifications about the built-in audio features.
Optical may be very useful for anyone hooking up audio equipment, especially for hobby musicians. Remember that such equipment may last for decades, and may not have USB etc.
But for the average user, as I said, using either optical or USB to an external DAC is something everyone should do. It will probably be the biggest upgrade in sound quality for most people. These days you can find good DACs with headphone amps or speaker preamps (often both) for less than $100. This gives very clean audio output and smooth volume adjustment, something you wouldn't get through a built-in audio chip in the motherboard no matter how good the chip is.
Just because toslink uses an optical signal it doesn't mean it is low latency, much less problem free. Toslink is a dead standard, audio purists try to argue that it's not but it is. It doesn't support any new technologies, has a limited bandwidth and cables are expensive and fragile. Home entusiasts like to use it and think that it's somehow special but i've never seen it on an actual stage or production environment.
Having an optical out is kind of meh, could be usefull for creators and anyone who'd want to use an external DAC+amp but those same people will also want a much better interface than what realtek provides anyway
Do we really need a 12 + 4 vrm design? lol. I bet in it's complete lifecycle you wont be peaking to any of that really. VRM has become a bit over the top last years really.
I mean take a proper server board for example that can hold a 64 core 128 thread Epyc. Simple 4 fase design with proper and more then enough current/switching frequency etc to do it's job under 24/7 load.
Better to have it and not need it than needing it and not having it
The comparison with server boards is also not that fair since the airflow and load profile on the vrm is very different (much more cooling available, a lot less spikes to to deal with)
Last edited: