- Joined
- Jun 1, 2010
- Messages
- 368 (0.07/day)
System Name | Very old, but all I've got ® |
---|---|
Processor | So old, you don't wanna know... Really! |
32 lanes is yet... not much. But that is a stretch. It's rather x20 PCIE 5.0, and x12 of PCIE 4.0.
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.
Saddly though, that doesn't translate to more of older gen lanes from the PCIE5.0. I mean Bifurcation from e.g. x8 PCIE 5.0 to x16 PCIE 4.0.
Does it mean the PCH will still be backward compatible with older PCIE generations?There are no more Gen 3-only lanes from the PCH
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.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.
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.
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.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.
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.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.
Last edited: