AM5 board recommendation

[Ruru]

Wouldn't even have to do that on an air cooler.

The U12A series by Noctua especially is interesting (7 heatpipes on a single tower), basically performs like a dual tower (liquid cooling performance territory).

True. Also you can just get new mounting hardware for new sockets for their old coolers. Probably an U12 from 2005 would still work today?

 

[jarablue]

If you want no holds barred. this is the X670E E Strix from Asus. This has everything you listed and even has room for 5 M2 drives. For B650E you are not as featured for what you want as you can see from the 2nd pic. I will also add that with the X870 focused on USB 4.0 X670E is a great root as you have some serious CPU support to look forward to. I get the notion of a budget CPU but the 7900X3D is currently $278 US on Newegg.com. Regardless of the narrative I can promise you that you won't in anyway regret that chip at that price.

View attachment 357398View attachment 357399D

It's 397$ on newegg right now the 7900X3d NOT 298$

I have the asus x670-p wifi board and it hauls ass with my 7900X cpu.

Get whatever you can afford.

 

[Sunny and 75]

B650E-E is the best.

That's also a great board, although not the best price/performance-ratio-wise (on the expensive side a bit).

x670-p wifi

That's more expensive than B650 Tomahawk WIFI which has got better VRM setup.

Get whatever you can afford.

This^

 

[jarablue]

That's also a great board, although not the best price/performance-ratio-wise.


That's more expensive than B650 Tomahawk WIFI which has got better VRM setup.


This^

I have had board with garbage vrms that outlasted good vrm boards. It's all totally overblown.

I have been building these things since 1993. You can get junk that outlasts a motherboard that cost 700 dollars. It really boils down to get whatever you like and have the money for. That's it. VRM nonsense sounds like a cool hardware upgrade but they don't really matter unless you're into competitive overclocking and doing really high end stuff.

 

[Ruru]

I have had board with garbage vrms that outlasted good vrm boards. It's all totally overblown.

I have been building these things since 1993. You can get junk that outlasts a motherboard that cost 700 dollars. It really boils down to get whatever you like and have the money for. That's it. VRM nonsense sounds like a cool hardware upgrade but they don't really matter unless you're into competitive overclocking and doing really high end stuff.

Personally I see going for better VRM a thing if you overclock or or have the flagship CPU with high power draw.

I have a meh-tier board yet still works fine with 5800X with some power tuning and PBO+200.

 

[kapone32]

It's 397$ on newegg right now the 7900X3d NOT 298$

I have the asus x670-p wifi board and it hauls ass with my 7900X cpu.

Get whatever you can afford.

I guess that was only for 1 day on Newegg.

 

[Sunny and 75]

You can get junk that outlasts a motherboard that cost 700 dollars.

The B650 Tomahawk WIFI does not cost 700 USD, it costs around 180 USD which is about 30 USD cheaper than your ASUS board (which is overall inferior in terms of feature set compared to the MSI's offering).

That is NOT to say your ASUS board is faulty or anything, mind you, it handles any CPU you throw at it, more than fine in fact.

Here's what I've said:

That's more expensive than B650 Tomahawk WIFI which has got better VRM setup.

I saw you mention the model of your MB, and I got curious so I looked it up on Newegg, Amazon, etc. to see the price and the specs. TBH, I was surprised to see the difference between the two MBs!

Looking at their prices, at first, you'd think the MSI board is the inferior one most likely since it's cheaper, but, that is not the case at all, quite the opposite in fact. In addition to better VRM configuration, the MSI board has better audio chip and slightly faster WIFI (also a pre-installed I/O shield which is nice).

Spoiler

ASUS brand tax, it must be

Although the ASUS board does have an M.2 PCIe 5.0 option when paired with a Ryzen 7000 processor (it has to be said), with current PCIe 5.0 NVMe drives' pricing, most (myself included) can't afford that kind of SSD (and you won't notice the difference anyway vs a PCIe 4.0 SSD, even if you can afford one).

It really boils down to get whatever you like and have the money for.

Absolutely.

I've recommended the MSI board because it has better price/performance ratio than similarly priced offerings (it's below 200 USD price point and has the feature set that rivals much more expensive MBs).

However, if the OP can't afford the MSI board's asking price (~180 USD), then, OFC, there are cheaper alternatives to consider. Such as these boards, to name a few:

• B650M-HDV/M.2 by ASRock (supports M.2 PCIe 5.0 when paired with a Ryzen 7000 processor)
• B650 Eagle AX by GIGABYTE (supports M.2 PCIe 5.0 when paired with a Ryzen 7000 processor)
• Prime B650M-K by ASUS (supports M.2 PCIe 5.0 when paired with a Ryzen 7000 processor)
• B650M Gaming Plus WIFI by MSI

 

[Ruru]

Even the cheapest A620 board can outlast a Crosshair since every board is an invidual sample after all.

 

[jarablue]

The B650 Tomahawk WIFI does not cost 700 USD, it costs around 180 USD which is about 30 USD cheaper than your ASUS board (which is overall inferior in terms of feature set compared to the MSI's offering).

That is NOT to say your ASUS board is faulty or anything, mind you, it handles any CPU you throw at it, more than fine in fact.

Here's what I've said:

I saw you mention the model of your MB, and I got curious so I looked it up on Newegg, Amazon, etc. to see the price and the specs. TBH, I was surprised to see the difference between the two MBs!

Looking at their prices, at first, you'd think the MSI board is the inferior one most likely since it's cheaper, but, that is not the case at all, quite the opposite in fact. In addition to better VRM configuration, the MSI board has better audio chip and slightly faster WIFI (also a pre-installed I/O shield which is nice).

Spoiler

ASUS brand tax, it must be

Although the ASUS board does have an M.2 PCIe 5.0 option when paired with a Ryzen 7000 processor (it has to be said), with current PCIe 5.0 NVMe drives' pricing, most (myself included) can't afford that kind of SSD (and you won't notice the difference anyway vs a PCIe 4.0 SSD, even if you can afford one).


Absolutely.

I've recommended the MSI board because it has better price/performance ratio than similarly priced offerings (it's below 200 USD price point and has the feature set that rivals much more expensive MBs).

However, if the OP can't afford the MSI board's asking price (~180 USD), then, OFC, there are cheaper alternatives to consider. Such as these boards, to name a few:

• B650M-HDV/M.2 by ASRock (supports M.2 PCIe 5.0 when paired with a Ryzen 7000 processor)
• B650 Eagle AX by GIGABYTE (supports M.2 PCIe 5.0 when paired with a Ryzen 7000 processor)
• Prime B650M-K by ASUS (supports M.2 PCIe 5.0 when paired with a Ryzen 7000 processor)
• B650M Gaming Plus WIFI by MSI

My board supports pcie gen5 nvmes. Not sure how my board is inferior when the board you listed does not support that at all.

To me that is worth 30$ alone. Please list things that matter on how my board is inferior then that board. I am quite interested. Thanks.

 

[Sunny and 75]

A620

That's also an option and more options are always welcome

My board supports pcie gen5 nvmes.

I've already said so. Even the ASRock board I mentioned (which is about half as much expensive) supports that as well.

To me that is worth 30$ alone.

To each their own, mate, cheers!

 

[jarablue]

Well asrock is asrock. And asus is asus. I really could care less. I have had 0 problems with my board. Has been worth every penny.

It doesn't even matter. We are dreaming this life anyways. Welcome to the matrix.

 

[Sunny and 75]

Well asrock is asrock. And asus is asus. I really could care less. I have had 0 problems with my board. Has been worth every penny.

It doesn't even matter. We are dreaming this life anyways. Welcome to the matrix.

The same.

 

[Zazigalka]

My board supports pcie gen5 nvmes. Not sure how my board is inferior when the board you listed does not support that at all.

To me that is worth 30$ alone. Please list things that matter on how my board is inferior then that board. I am quite interested. Thanks.

Worse audio,I'd have to buy a new one.Pcie version 4.0 is fine for now and years to come. Also, there's 65eur difference in Poland. Not worth it.

 

[AusWolf]

Personally I see going for better VRM a thing if you overclock or or have the flagship CPU with high power draw.

That's what it's all about, really. If you want to power a Phoenix 2 APU, like the 8500G, you don't have to look at the VRM specs at all. With a 7800X3D, I'd go with anything that has a VRM heatsink, just in case. The highest-end, most robust design is only needed for the 7950X.

 

[Zazigalka]

The B650 Tomahawk WIFI does not cost 700 USD, it costs around 180 USD which is about 30 USD cheaper than your ASUS board (which is overall inferior in terms of feature set compared to the MSI's offering).

That is NOT to say your ASUS board is faulty or anything, mind you, it handles any CPU you throw at it, more than fine in fact.

Here's what I've said:

I saw you mention the model of your MB, and I got curious so I looked it up on Newegg, Amazon, etc. to see the price and the specs. TBH, I was surprised to see the difference between the two MBs!

Looking at their prices, at first, you'd think the MSI board is the inferior one most likely since it's cheaper, but, that is not the case at all, quite the opposite in fact. In addition to better VRM configuration, the MSI board has better audio chip and slightly faster WIFI (also a pre-installed I/O shield which is nice).

Spoiler

ASUS brand tax, it must be

Although the ASUS board does have an M.2 PCIe 5.0 option when paired with a Ryzen 7000 processor (it has to be said), with current PCIe 5.0 NVMe drives' pricing, most (myself included) can't afford that kind of SSD (and you won't notice the difference anyway vs a PCIe 4.0 SSD, even if you can afford one).


Absolutely.

I've recommended the MSI board because it has better price/performance ratio than similarly priced offerings (it's below 200 USD price point and has the feature set that rivals much more expensive MBs).

However, if the OP can't afford the MSI board's asking price (~180 USD), then, OFC, there are cheaper alternatives to consider. Such as these boards, to name a few:

• B650M-HDV/M.2 by ASRock (supports M.2 PCIe 5.0 when paired with a Ryzen 7000 processor)
• B650 Eagle AX by GIGABYTE (supports M.2 PCIe 5.0 when paired with a Ryzen 7000 processor)
• Prime B650M-K by ASUS (supports M.2 PCIe 5.0 when paired with a Ryzen 7000 processor)
• B650M Gaming Plus WIFI by MSI

that eagle board is a brilliant find !!! thanks. just 140 eur new . lacks a few usb ports, but I'm willing to give up on the urge to have usb on the back and buy a hub instead, for the price under most b650 boards it offers wifi and pcie5 for the m.2 as well. that's insane value.It has basic audio, but I remembered I can hook up mu speakers to the Fiio DAC too and not lose audio quality. I'm staying on the 10700 system for now, but I'll be keeping an eye on this thread to be better informed when I feel like upgrading.

 

[Knight47]

Why are people recommending boards with 2 or 4 sata ports when OP asked fir at least 6?

 

[Zazigalka]

Why are people recommending boards with 2 or 4 sata ports when OP asked fir at least 6?

It's not a must actually. 3x nvme is, so is wifi. more sata, usb, bluetooth and better audio are welcome, but not essential. It's nice to see ppl read the OP though.

I don't really have a budget limit to be honest, I just don't like to spend money on computer stuff. I prefer to spend it on other things. I just got myself like my 6th pair of Nike AF1's and another pair of Clark Wallabees cause I saw a color I didn't have, I'm a total shopping addict. My two wardrobes are filled with things I wore once.

 

[Zazigalka]

I was waiting for 9000 series to see the perf/pirce before I decide anything but meh, the performance is almost identical to 7000 series and the prices need a proper adjustment before those cpus are worth buying over other amd or even intel offerings.

9700x launched at 1699PLN here. For comparison, other 8c cpu's are
7800x3d - 1630
7700 - 1270
13700kf -1400
12700kf - 830!
5700x3d - 820 !
12900k -1350

It's only about 20eur cheaper than 7900x3d, can't imagine anyone picking 9700x over 7900x3d really.
If I wanted to build on the budget, a full 12700kf+msi z790-P board/5700x3d + x570 that check all boxes for me would still be cheaper than 9700x by itself. I wouldn't even need to buy new memory.

 

[#22]

I was waiting for 9000 series to see the perf/pirce before I decide anything but meh, the performance is almost identical to 7000 series and the prices need a proper adjustment before those cpus are worth buying over other amd or even intel offerings.

CPUs tend to debut with prices being significantly higher then they sell in next few months when market starts verifying them. Especially 9700X can't sell for 1700 PLN due to both low single and multicore performance for the price. It makes it chip "gaming only", so one rivaling with even their own cheaper or/AND! faster R7s.

9700x launched at 1699PLN here. For comparison, other 8c cpu's are
7800x3d - 1630
7700 - 1270
13700kf -1400
12700kf - 830!
5700x3d - 820 !
12900k -1350

It's only about 20eur cheaper than 7900x3d, can't imagine anyone picking 9700x over 7900x3d really.
If I wanted to build on the budget, a full 12700kf+msi z790-P board/5700x3d + x570 that check all boxes for me would still be cheaper than 9700x by itself. I wouldn't even need to buy new memory.

Don't suggest with number or type of cores like E-cores. It's about looking at single and multicore performance where e.g. 13700K compared to 7700 has ~50% more of the latter. Ofc it needs to pull then 250W, but as a fun fact I'll add that another "8-core" 13900K will do the same job pulling 125W, so half of that. And you want more multicore even for gaming. Today it may only smoothen framerate distribution, tommorow - as games get more complicated - prevent more noticeable stutter and in worse cases games having problems with loading graphics.

7900X3D is stinker and btw I HOPE this quite active user who bought it, won't come here to start another stupid discussion trying hard to defend it. He must be in some pc hell, maybe for some pc sins: first bought himself well known crap with some absurdly fancy motherboard, so there were funds even for 7950X3D, then feels the need to defend it whenever somebody says 7900X3D and rather never convinces anybody...

 

[Dr. Dro]

It's 397$ on newegg right now the 7900X3d NOT 298$

I have the asus x670-p wifi board and it hauls ass with my 7900X cpu.

Get whatever you can afford.

No one should buy the 7900X3D anyway, it's a total stinker unless they can get it for 7600X, perhaps 7700 money. The reason it devalued so hard is that nobody wants it, the 7900X performs much more consistently, the 7900 has a low power and thermal footprint for a 12-core processor, the 7800X3D handily outperforms it at gaming and the 7950X3D is superior at gaming AND productivity. Topology issues leave the 7900X3D in an unenviable position, its 6 3D+6 standard architecture prevents it from offering the best of either world. Applications and games that require 8 cores will not scale well on it, since it carries the drawback of 6+6 from the 7900/5900 series CPUs and the 3D die also has 3D's drawbacks, namely lower clock speeds and higher latencies which get in the mix.

Now that it is available, 9700X is a compelling option for gaming PCs, since it's an incredibly efficient part. It might not be a chart topper, but its power footprint is so low you should be able to build incredibly silent and high-performance PCs with it.

7900X3D is stinker and btw I HOPE this quite active user who bought it, won't come here to start another stupid discussion trying hard to defend it. He must be in some pc hell, maybe for some pc sins: first bought himself well known crap with some absurdly fancy motherboard, so there were funds even for 7950X3D, then feels the need to defend it whenever somebody says 7900X3D and rather never convinces anybody...

Indeed, they will not miss a single opportunity to hijack a thread to embellish their 7900X3D and shill it to anyone they can, best thing you can do is just laugh it off

 

[Zazigalka]

Color me surprised, expected 7900x3d to beat 7800x3d. Must be some sort of CCD related stuff. I'm unaware of anyone really arguing its superiority, but I'm new here. I mean, the charts speak for themselves, right ? If 7950x3d is behind 7800x3d and 13700k, I expect 7900x3d to be similar, if not worse.

 

[kapone32]

No one should buy the 7900X3D anyway, it's a total stinker unless they can get it for 7600X, perhaps 7700 money. The reason it devalued so hard is that nobody wants it, the 7900X performs much more consistently, the 7900 has a low power and thermal footprint for a 12-core processor, the 7800X3D handily outperforms it at gaming and the 7950X3D is superior at gaming AND productivity. Topology issues leave the 7900X3D in an unenviable position, its 6 3D+6 standard architecture prevents it from offering the best of either world. Applications and games that require 8 cores will not scale well on it, since it carries the drawback of 6+6 from the 7900/5900 series CPUs and the 3D die also has 3D's drawbacks, namely lower clock speeds and higher latencies which get in the mix.

Now that it is available, 9700X is a compelling option for gaming PCs, since it's an incredibly efficient part. It might not be a chart topper, but its power footprint is so low you should be able to build incredibly silent and high-performance PCs with it.

Indeed, they will not miss a single opportunity to hijack a thread to embellish their 7900X3D and shill it to anyone they can, best thing you can do is just laugh it off

Blah Blah Blah

Ryzen 7900X3D Now $200 Off!

Give your gaming rig a big boost with AMD's second-most powerful gaming processor, currently down to under $400 on Amazon.https://www.pcworld.com/article/241...

www.youtube.com

 

[Zazigalka]

@kapone32 I ask politely not to spam this thread with 7900x3d discussion, any 400eur+ cpu is not even remotely in my plans, unless it runs on a 50eur board that has 3xnvme. I'll be reporting irrelevant posts.

 

[Dr. Dro]

Color me surprised, expected 7900x3d to beat 7800x3d. Must be some sort of CCD related stuff. I'm unaware of anyone really arguing its superiority, but I'm new here. I mean, the charts speak for themselves, right ? If 7950x3d is behind 7800x3d and 13700k, I expect 7900x3d to be similar, if not worse.

It is. If you don't mind, I will explain how it works for you.

The 12-core Ryzen 9's have an unique topology, as they're basically two 6-core Ryzen 5's conjoined. For example, both the 5900X and 7900X are built out of two 5600X and 7600X "compute dies", respectively. The 5950X and 7950X processors are likewise built out of two 5800X and 7800X, respectively. With the new Ryzen 9 X3D's, AMD did something different: one compute die is identical to its standard counterpart, while the other is identical to its X3D counterpart. This means that they carry both the strengths and weaknesses of both types of CPUs - so the 7950X3D is built out of one 7800X and one 7800X3D die, and the 7900X3D is built out of one 7600X and one "7600X3D".

A long standing weakness of the 12-core Ryzen 9's has been the fact that they have 6 cores per CCD, which causes a relative performance regression compared to the 8- and 16-core models on applications which spread across 8+ CPU threads. This is because there is a certain penalty for synchronizing and accessing data on the other compute die, as well as a bandwidth bottleneck involved. The 16-core model isn't affected as badly because both partitions contain a full 8-core 16-thread processor complete with all of its resources, so in the worst case scenario for the 7950X3D, it'll not scale as well as the standard 7950X or an eventual model that would have two X3D-equipped compute dies. To help optimize scheduling and making sure that applications perform as well as they can, AMD provides a software driver that will cause Windows to attempt to throw certain workloads to a "side" of the processor, necessarily depriving programs of some of the other side's resources.

Specifically, in the case of the 7900X3D, you get hit by this problem two-fold: one is that it's 6+6 and thus affected by the aforementioned problem, and the other is that due to one of its compute dies being X3D equipped, one of the dies is slower and has even higher operating latencies, which causes this penalty to become more severe. The end result is that the 7900X3D is a master of none, all while also being unable to become a competent jack of all trades. It will perform at best like a 7600X or an eventual 7600X3D in a best case scenario - but it will never perform as well as a 7800X, 7800X3D or 7950X3D because of the nature of its design.

If you're curious about how a Ryzen 5 X3D would be, AMD made a limited run for the United States of the 5600X3D, and there is a review:

AMD Ryzen 5 5600X3D Review: New Mid-Range Gaming Champ Is a Micro Center Exclusive

95% of the 5800X3D’s gaming performance for 20% less cash

www.tomshardware.com

Unfortunately, it was not released worldwide, and since W1zzard is based in Germany, I believe he was not sampled as there is no TPU review of it.

Blah Blah Blah

Ryzen 7900X3D Now $200 Off!

Give your gaming rig a big boost with AMD's second-most powerful gaming processor, currently down to under $400 on Amazon.https://www.pcworld.com/article/241...

www.youtube.com

Someone can't help themselves But it's OK, take our advice to heart and buy the 9800X3D this time around.

 

[Zazigalka]

It is. If you don't mind, I will explain how it works for you.

The 12-core Ryzen 9's have an unique topology, as they're basically two 6-core Ryzen 5's conjoined. For example, both the 5900X and 7900X are built out of two 5600X and 7600X "compute dies", respectively. The 5950X and 7950X processors are likewise built out of two 5800X and 7800X, respectively. With the new Ryzen 9 X3D's, AMD did something different: one compute die is identical to its standard counterpart, while the other is identical to its X3D counterpart. This means that they carry both the strengths and weaknesses of both types of CPUs - so the 7950X3D is built out of one 7800X and one 7800X3D die, and the 7900X3D is built out of one 7600X and one "7600X3D".

A long standing weakness of the 12-core Ryzen 9's has been the fact that they have 6 cores per CCD, which causes a relative performance regression compared to the 8- and 16-core models on applications which spread across 8+ CPU threads. This is because there is a certain penalty for synchronizing and accessing data on the other compute die, as well as a bandwidth bottleneck involved. The 16-core model isn't affected as badly because both partitions contain a full 8-core 16-thread processor complete with all of its resources, so in the worst case scenario for the 7950X3D, it'll not scale as well as the standard 7950X or an eventual model that would have two X3D-equipped compute dies. To help optimize scheduling and making sure that applications perform as well as they can, AMD provides a software driver that will cause Windows to attempt to throw certain workloads to a "side" of the processor, necessarily depriving programs of some of the other side's resources.

Specifically, in the case of the 7900X3D, you get hit by this problem two-fold: one is that it's 6+6 and thus affected by the aforementioned problem, and the other is that due to one of its compute dies being X3D equipped, one of the dies is slower and has even higher operating latencies, which causes this penalty to become more severe. The end result is that the 7900X3D is a master of none, all while also being unable to become a competent jack of all trades. It will perform at best like a 7600X or an eventual 7600X3D in a best case scenario - but it will never perform as well as a 7800X, 7800X3D or 7950X3D because of the nature of its design.

If you're curious about how a Ryzen 5 X3D would be, AMD made a limited run for the United States of the 5600X3D, and there is a review:

AMD Ryzen 5 5600X3D Review: New Mid-Range Gaming Champ Is a Micro Center Exclusive

95% of the 5800X3D’s gaming performance for 20% less cash

www.tomshardware.com

Unfortunately, it was not released worldwide, and since W1zzard is based in Germany, I believe he was not sampled as there is no TPU review of it.



Someone can't help themselves But it's OK, take our advice to heart and buy the 9800X3D this time around.

Thanks for explaining.