With modern motherboards looking more like microATX boards in an ATX form, do we really need PCIe lanes for anything else than M.2 SSDs?
I mean, this is my old AM3+ board View attachment 353538
7 expansion slots, the two main PCIe slots having the option to play x8 + x8 for SLi/CrossFire for a total of 42 PCIe 2.0 lanes and here is a modern example of an ATX board View attachment 353537
More or less, empty PCB with extra room for M.2 SSDs.
I would take the first variant, without doubts. Streamlined design, no BS, no RGB, plenty of PCIE slots (would prefer all of them being X16, even if they wouldn't be fully accessible due to lanes limit). I would prefer the PCIE card for couple bucks to put the M.2 vertically, rather than put it down on motherboard, with no airflow, whatsoever. I don't know, who in right mind would put PCIE 4.0, let alone PCIE 5.0 furnace SSD under the same furnace hot VGA. I don't even mention accessibility. It takes only one screw to undo, in case of addon card, while the onboard slots require to disassemple half of the motherboard, just to gain access to the single SSD.
But actually having both is more reasonable, for different case scenarios. The middle ground, with a single or couple M.2 slots, and the rest of the slots being usual PCIE. For the price the MB asking, there can be easilly have a couple of addon cards for M.2, that cost couple bucks.
There is no good reason for PCIe slots and M.2 slots to be an "either/or". Manufacturers should offer motherboards with multiple PCIe slots and M.2 drive access should be provided by an add-in PCIe card bundled with said motherboard. That way the consumer can choose to use the PCIe lanes that they paid for in the way that they choose - for example if they want to install two GPUs instead of a bunch of M.2s.
The current trend of putting more and more M.2 slots on motherboards, consuming more and more PCIe lanes forcing those lanes to either be used by M.2s or essentially not exist, is anti-consumer and anti-choice and has only come about because manufacturers are looking for every possible way to cut down on every expense (it's not as if a PCIe add-in card for M.2 drives costs a billion bucks anyway, but MUH PROFIT MARGINS). Yet consumers have bought into this because the manufacturers claim it's "more convenient"... yeah, it's so more convenient to have less choice. Even the so-called workstation motherboards suffer from this same idiotic plague.
There is, of course, nothing stopping manufacturers including both ordinary PCIe slots and M.2 slots on their boards, and switching bandwidth between them as one or the other is used. Except of course the manufacturers don't do that because, again, "it's expensive" - while having consumers roll over and take it in the ass is free.
Indeed. The usual PCIE slot, even at X8, would suit the storage much better. No need for the Aluminium slabs covering the entire MB surface. Just put the hot SSD on AIC, and the in-take fans would do their job. But then it would require for MB makers to actually invest in better design... However, the empty space under the second and third PCIE-slots make sense, since that is dead zone, that can't really be used for anything, including delicate SSD.
I also prefer having PCIe slots instead of M2 connectors. The former take up less space and an M2 on an add-in-card can have much better cooling.
Just one or two M2 slots is enough for most users (with SSD's you can have many threads accessing the same disk without problems unlike HDD's).
MB's these days only cater to gamers and overclockers which also adds costs. There are lot's of users that don't need these 'features'.
Compare this with an X13SAE MB and you will see that the power-supply section can be much smaller.
By the way: this is the only MB I found that comes close to what I would prefer.
As written this virus now also affects WS boards and these are the boards where you need extra slot's the most.
They are often used for a long time and you want to be able to upgrade in the future. E.g. to 10Gbit or 25Gbit.
Having the extra slots means you should be able to use the MB for a much longer time which lowers your TCO.
I would say there is a market for MB's with more slots but manufacturers do not produce them because it's not to their advantage to bring out MB's that can be used for a long time...
Planned obsolesence.
The reason the additional PCIe lanes from the processor are only v4 might be that it's difficult to have 2 M2 slot's close to the processor.
The graphics card also needs to be close or you need redrivers/retimers which is expensive.
Using v4 you can place that 2nd M2 slot a bit further away without incurring extra costs.
Exaclty! The more well-thought motherboards, can be in service, for much longer periods. I dare to say, a decade, easilly (especially, when the decent ATX board costs half a grand). And having the lot of PCIE slots, extend that vastly. But this seems works against the MB vendor plans.
"Intel is expected to increase both the native- and overclocked memory speeds for this platform, and we might even see DDR5 memory kits with XMP 3.0 profiles for 10000 MT/s or more"
While AMD languishes away on "possibly" supporting a whopping 6400...
Given the shift towards rear connectors, and cases with increasingly open-backed/skeletal motherboard mounts to allow access for airflow or installation convenience, lower power M2 slots should be on the back of the mobo (PCIe 4.0 and earlier), while keeping PCIe slots on the front, and just include a plastic shroud broken up into sections that can slot into the unused PCIe slots as protective+decorative covers.
Maybe even offer the ability for choosing between a front PCIe slot or an M2 slot behind, similar to how using an M2 drive in one slot disables a SATA port or two, or decreases the speed due to alternating data between both the M2 and SATA drives (varies by motherboard; some disable, others just reduce data speeds).
I would prefer the PCIE card for couple bucks to put the M.2 vertically, rather than put it down on motherboard, with no airflow, whatsoever. I don't know, who in right mind would put PCIE 4.0, let alone PCIE 5.0 furnace SSD under the same furnace hot VGA. I don't even mention accessibility. It takes only one screw to undo, in case of addon card, while the onboard slots require to disassemple half of the motherboard, just to gain access to the single SSD.
But actually having both is more reasonable, for different case scenarios. The middle ground, with a single or couple M.2 slots, and the rest of the slots being usual PCIE.
The fifth NVMe is moved in a temporary(permanent?) position, with the help of a PCIe riser extension cable, so I could use that PCIe slot that was covered by the graphics card. The motherboard is the X470 GAMING PLUS MAX. Obviously some NVMe's are connected through PCIe X1, but even that way they are a better option than a typical SATA SSD.
For the price the MB asking, there can be easilly have a couple of addon cards for M.2, that cost pennies.
It's more like 3+ euros than less than 1. I think that price is for new members. Of course that doesn't change the fact that a PCIe slot can house an NVMe SSD perfectly with a very small extra cost, a cost that the motherboard manufacturer could cover considering the prices of modern motherboards.
They are needed to make the motherboard look expensive and good looking. Remove them and the truth reveals itself. An empty PCB. Who would pay 400 euros/dollars for a big empty PCB?
Yeah I'd prefer more PCIe slots.
I personally run multiple PCIe expansion cards (sound card, HBA, NIC, etc).
Thankfully my NVMe U.2 drives come with cables for m.2 slots.
With modern motherboards looking more like microATX boards in an ATX form, do we really need PCIe lanes for anything else than M.2 SSDs?
I mean, this is my old AM3+ board
7 expansion slots, the two main PCIe slots having the option to play x8 + x8 for SLi/CrossFire for a total of 42 PCIe 2.0 lanes and here is a modern example of an ATX board
More or less, empty PCB with extra room for M.2 SSDs.
There are boards with a good balance between PCIe slots (4) and M.2 drives (4), for example Asrock PG Lightning.
It's all down to which interfaces individual users need more.
There are boards with a good balance between PCIe slots (4) and M.2 drives (4), for example Asrock PG Lightning.
It's all down to which interfaces individual users need more.
The 990X Gigabyte in my first example had a cost of about 100 euros 14 years ago. I guess it would cost around 200 today because it was using the second best chipset(not the 990FX). And it was offering 2 PCIe X16 slots connected to the north bridge with 16 lanes being able to work as x8 + x8 if two pcie cards where connected to them(SLi support also had royalty costs).
The X470 MSI that I am using costed me 90 euros. But it was a very good price to be fair. Let's say it's standard cost was 120 euros 5 years ago, so probably less than 200 today. Two PCIe x16 slots connected to the CPU with the option to work as x8 + x8.
The ASRock in the above example only connects one PCIe slots to the CPU. The other 3 slots are connected to the chipset and only one of the PCIe x16s is X4, the other is X1. And the price in Greece for the ASRock is around 260 euros. We pay more, we get less. There are options but all feel - from my perspective at least - like scams. That's why I am describing those as "microATX boards in ATX form", because they look like being designed as microATX boards and then manufacturers just add a little more PCB for a couple of X1 slots or M.2 slots while also doubling the final price of the product.
PEG, display, and two m.2 connect to the CPU, everything else to the chipset. This can be said about any modern platform, more or less, so how is this in any way newsworthy?
The ASRock in the above example only connects one PCIe slots to the CPU. The other 3 slots are connected to the chipset and only one of the PCIe x16s is X4, the other is X1. And the price in Greece for the ASRock is around 260 euros. We pay more, we get less. There are options but all feel - from my perspective at least - like scams. That's why I am describing those as "microATX boards in ATX form", because they look like being designed as microATX boards and then manufacturers just add a little more PCB for a couple of X1 slots or M.2 slots while also doubling the final price of the product.
- you are splitting hair in half now. The initial point was more PCIe slots
- there are such boards, even with two Gen5 slots, despite the fact that no one in the world can make any meaningful use of two Gen5 slots
- if I was motherboard vendor, I would not be offering two Gen5 slots and other chipset slots either; waste of material
- you can blame Intel and AMD pushing for PCIe 5.0 adoption three years too early, when we would not have Gen5 GPUs until next year
I am seeing and pointing at this behavior in motherboards from the day the X570 came out and it was the reason I stayed with the X470. I didn't suddenly started splitting hairs. More PCIe slots are good when they are also useful as they where in the past. Having 7 PCIe X16 slots for example and 6 of them being X1 on the chipset isn't really a gift because of their limited bandwidth.
- there are such boards, even with two Gen5 slots, despite the fact that no one in the world can make any meaningful use of two Gen5 slots
- if I was motherboard vendor, I would not be offering two Gen5 slots and other chipset slots either; waste of material
- you can blame Intel and AMD pushing for PCIe 5.0 adoption three years too early, when we would not have Gen5 GPUs until next year
Yeah, usually much more expensive. There are use cases like second graphics card, fast network as already said in one of the first posts, or other hardware that needs bandwidth. Even an adapter housing two M.2 slots that could use that second x8 slot to add faster gen 5.0 NVMes when usually there is only one PCIe 5.0 M.2 slot on the motherboard. But I do agree that the trend today isn't more PCIe expansion cards/adapters, because most people don't really need them and manufacturers prefer to over charge for motherboards that are mostly empty in their half area.
I don't need 2 Gen5 slots but I would like to have 2 slots (2x x8) or even 3 (x8, x4, x4) from the processor. I would be happy if they were just Gen4 or even Gen3.
That is because the 10Gbit card I use on my desktop systems is a X520-DA1 which is a Gen2 card with 8 lanes. Having a slot with 4 lanes of Gen2+ would be fast enough.
These cards are pretty inexpensive and very well supported in all OS-es because they date from 2011. Never had issues with them. And they low-power too.
Intels cards have less issues and better support than Aquantia (especially since they were taken over by Marvell).
Most controllercards available today are still Gen2 & Gen3 and that is changing only very slowly.
An example of why I feel I need extra slots (preferably some with 4 lanes besides slots with just 1 or 2 lanes).
In future I might (need to) add an NPU card. The latest processors have a dedicated npu even though they have graphics on board.
And since AI is developing very fast I might need to upgrade it to a faster version that needs a wider and faster slot.
I do agree that a basic desktop system for the average user, based on an apu or laptop processor doesn't need many slots.
Being able to add 2 M2's and 1 or 2 cards is probably enough for that use-case.
