• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

The B650E Aorus Stealth Ice is Gigabyte's First Motherboard for AMD CPUs with its Connectors on the Back

Really? Only one USB-C?
I see at least 3 dedicated USB-C ports on this board (one rear-panel which is a nearly useless location for USB-C) and one internal header that supports two more ports. You can also get USB-C adapters for 3.2G2 ports if you only need 10Gbps.

The point is, you won't find many USB-C ports on the rear panel because USB-C devices are almost exclusively portable devices that would need a case connector on the front. A dual-port header is included on just about any modern motherboard and if your case manufacturer is being a d*** by not including the relevant ports, blame your case manufacturer, not the motherboard vendor or AMD. If you really need more USB-C ports, you can adapt the USB 3.2G2 19-pin header for 10Gbps, and even the 3.2G1 9-pin headers if you just need basic connectivity for an input peripheral or charging. Adapters are on Amazon and Ebay globally for very low prices and you can get them for mere cents from Aliexpress if you have two weeks of patience.
 
Ugh, here we go, a brilliant idea in terms of functionality being ruined in the name of aesthetics. GIVE ME MY GOD DAMN PCIE SLOTS YOU MORONS AT GIGABYTE. And why are we still keeping the M.2 slots on the top surface, as opposed to putting them with all the other connectors? For that matter, why isn't the chipset on the bottom surface too? Then we can put that big stupid non-functional heatsink there so that it doesn't get in the way of the PCIe slots.
You never disappoint :roll:
The problem with "top" and "bottom" is that they are ambiguous on their own. For example, does "top" refer to the side of the board with the CPU socket when the board is sitting horizontally, or to the bit with the EPS12V connector when the board is vertical? Same problem with "front" and "back"/"rear".

I would qualify those words with "surface" to remove that ambiguity, i.e. "top surface" and "bottom surface". "Underside" works but it doesn't really have a common complementary antonym; "overside" and "topside" are correct but not often heard. Yes, English is a dumb language.
How about obverse and reverse?
Proprietary BS seems to be this year's bright idea from the intellectually bankrupt hardware vendors, because that's a lot easier then actually innovating. Probably "AI" told them to do it... pity it didn't tell them that the only reason the PC ecosystem works is because it's non-proprietary.
I'm sure you can order spares from Gigabyte.
This is what the antenna looks like.
1720698864263.png
1720698876885.png


Asus variant
1720699240779.png

1720699252511.png
1720699271854.png


Front and back, its not the bottom when most people use it vertically
The back is still where the I/O shield is, or what do you call that?

Dunno, but I feel like 3 usb-C on the I/O should be minimum these days, header aside.
The issue is that we end up with "compromised" USB-C ports, no matter what.
You either get data and nothing else, or data and DP Alt Mode. USB4/Thunderbolt is still really rare, but I guess we should see more of that on next gen boards.
However, I think only Asus offers a handful of boards than can do 65 W USB PD and then only via the port on the case.
Also, keep in mind that the cable used to connect the to the case USB-C port, removes that much distance for any cables connected to the case connector.
In all fairness, we'll never see all ports supporting full USB PD, but you'd hope for at least one, so you don't need a separate charger for your phone.

Uhhhh...... NO.

Yeah - I get it.
Some cases may be setup to allow this but at the same time, now you'll have the privilege of hunting trouble on both sides of the board at times.
Someone's "Better Idea" which, to me is a "Bastardization" of the core concept just to be different can turn out to be a nightmare too.

Being different in itself is easy to do..... I mean it works but like it is with automotive designs, the engineers behind it only need to worry about whether it actually works or not - Actually working with it (Fixing it) is someone else's headache.

If you like what you see, by all means do go for it but personally I'm not gonna touch one of these.
At least everyone decided to more or less copy Asus design, minus the proprietary graphics card power connector.
So we won't be getting half a dozen different solutions that have ultra limited case compatibility.

I see at least 3 dedicated USB-C ports on this board (one rear-panel which is a nearly useless location for USB-C) and one internal header that supports two more ports. You can also get USB-C adapters for 3.2G2 ports if you only need 10Gbps.
The header only supports one USB Type-C port, due to the lack of directionality of USB-C.
The point is, you won't find many USB-C ports on the rear panel because USB-C devices are almost exclusively portable devices that would need a case connector on the front. A dual-port header is included on just about any modern motherboard and if your case manufacturer is being a d*** by not including the relevant ports, blame your case manufacturer, not the motherboard vendor or AMD. If you really need more USB-C ports, you can adapt the USB 3.2G2 19-pin header for 10Gbps, and even the 3.2G1 9-pin headers if you just need basic connectivity for an input peripheral or charging. Adapters are on Amazon and Ebay globally for very low prices and you can get them for mere cents from Aliexpress if you have two weeks of patience.
ASRock has a suitable board coming.
1720700057980.png

 

Attachments

  • 1720699229290.png
    1720699229290.png
    1.3 MB · Views: 59
Last edited:
1000~2.png

Always thought this was most common nomenclature.

And this really should have been a mATX design with that much wasted PCB space.
 
What? No P/S2? They expect me to get a P/S2 to USB adapter?

And this really should have been a mATX design with that much wasted PCB space.

I was thinking the same thing. If no extra PCI slots are on the board it just looks like a large waste of space.
 
Let me first say I love both the aesthetic and functional design of this motherboard and I hope this trend continues.

My only concern is is imagine a first time PC builder with a limited budget buying this used motherboard 10+ years from now and buying the cheapest case they can find that isn't compatible with cable routing.... yikes
Compatibility is the biggest concern for this form factor.

The dominant factor in all the form factors we've seen succeed in the last 30 years has been ubiquity at mainstream price points.

If global availability and pricing of these boards and their associated cases fails to stay close to the availability and pricing of the dominant ATX regular standard, they're dead. Maybe not right now, but they'll just slowly die off like all the other standards we've had that tried to improve things but needed different cases and boards. Look at where Flex-ATX, Nano-ITX, STX, BTX variants, DTX variants, and EVGA's failed HPTX to name just a few that were killed by poor availability, pricing, or both.
 
Ngl, bottom got me as well, i was skeptical how they managed to put everything down there, turns out you mean on the Backside
 
What? No P/S2? They expect me to get a P/S2 to USB adapter?
My X570 board from 2018 didn't have it, why should a board from 2024 have them? What's next, where's the serial port?

That M2 heatsink will cause some clearance issues. And yeah, it's an ATX board with a single PCI-E slot.
 
View attachment 354777
Always thought this was most common nomenclature.

And this really should have been a mATX design with that much wasted PCB space.
Fine, let's go with your naming convention, article updated.

And yes, this could've been a mATX board, but are there any suitable cases for those?

My X570 board from 2018 didn't have it, why should a board from 2024 have them? What's next, where's the serial port?
MSI got your back/rear/bottom.

1720701327519.png

That M2 heatsink will cause some clearance issues. And yeah, it's an ATX board with a single PCI-E slot.
Actually, no. I have one like that on my board and there are surprisingly no issue with clearance.
 
Last edited:
Always thought this was most common nomenclature.
Not just the most common, but the most correct - since the original ATX standard is defined as a vertical tower with (now outdated) top-mounted PSU and clearly identifies parts of an ATX PC using the terms you've shown. An ATX board has a rear I/O panel, front panel headers, socket retention backplates.

There's nothing in the standard that describes the topside of the PCB, so there's some ambiguity there since front is the opposite of both rear and back, with the spec already explicitly defining front and rear. I guess as a result, the confusion will continue! Until the first mITX board appeared that jammed an M.2 slot on the back of the motherboard, there was no need to distinguish between the front and back of a motherboard, but I guess when using terms front and back people just need to clarify if they're referring to the motherboard as a single item, or the PC as a whole.
 
Silly arrangement...
 
I don't see where that says it's for motherboards with the connectors on the back.


Fixed...
1720701830111.png


In general it looks like the keep out zones for the cutouts are located near the mounting points.
 

Attachments

  • 1720701799130.png
    1720701799130.png
    507.7 KB · Views: 43
Asus variant
Ah, that's not as common, but at least it's not a proprietary standard. I've used those before on DIY electronics and you can buy them from most hardware stores, as well as adapters to the more common variant we think of as "standard" antenna connectors which is just a regular threaded two-wire co-ax cable available in loads of gauges and used in many industries and sectors other than PCs.
ASRock has a suitable board coming
You can always count on ASRock to make the weird stuff nobody else does ;)
  • Mining board with 16 PCIe x1 slots?
  • NAS board with 18 SATA ports?
  • Premium boards with 23 USB on them?
I'm sure that's only the tip of the iceberg for ASRock...!
 
View attachment 354777
Always thought this was most common nomenclature.

And this really should have been a mATX design with that much wasted PCB space.
Here let's add forward and aft, upper and lower, front and back, top and bottom. Diagonal. Longitudinal, Lateral, Azimuth Axis.

Uhhhh...... NO.

Yeah - I get it.
Some cases may be setup to allow this but at the same time, now you'll have the privilege of hunting trouble on both sides of the board at times.
Someone's "Better Idea" which, to me is a "Bastardization" of the core concept just to be different can turn out to be a nightmare too.

Being different in itself is easy to do..... I mean it works but like it is with automotive designs, the engineers behind it only need to worry about whether it actually works or not - Actually working with it (Fixing it) is someone else's headache.

If you like what you see, by all means do go for it but personally I'm not gonna touch one of these.
Neither Will I, yafsdfg
 
Last edited:
I kind of like it. It has a very clean look.

It does feel very proprietary though. if they could manage connections on both sides of the board (I don't see how) that would allow for more mounting options.

Not loving that it only has one PCIe slot though.
 
So you really expect me to use overside, backside and underside from now on?
Front and rear will do.

ASRock has a suitable board coming.
View attachment 354776
Where do we plug in our wired mice, webcam, speakers etc?
 
Last edited:
I really like this clean aesthetic. My only small gripe is the speed of the USB-C slot on the rear I/O. I use a CalDigit Element hub with a single TB-4 uplink that I trade off between my work computer and desktop that has all my peripherals routed through. I would like to see manufacturers increase that speed up to USB4/TB4 at the minimum.
 
Ah, that's not as common, but at least it's not a proprietary standard. I've used those before on DIY electronics and you can buy them from most hardware stores, as well as adapters to the more common variant we think of as "standard" antenna connectors which is just a regular threaded two-wire co-ax cable available in loads of gauges and used in many industries and sectors other than PCs.
With plastic connectors and push-in clips around the antennas connectors? I have never seen those before.
You can always count on ASRock to make the weird stuff nobody else does ;)
  • Mining board with 16 PCIe x1 slots?
  • NAS board with 18 SATA ports?
  • Premium boards with 23 USB on them?
I'm sure that's only the tip of the iceberg for ASRock...!
Meh, it's all lame now compared to the dual CPU slot/socket motherboards that they used to be famous for.

Yes, from a quick look, a bunch support it.

For example the Adata case from yesterday, InWin D5, Corsair 3500X or Asus GT302 all have the appropiate cutouts.
I guess I haven't been paying attention, as I'm not into fish tanks.
I guess the motherboard plate is going to get weaker and weaker, until it bends when you screw in the motherboard.
ThermalTake is guaranteed to do a super cheap case that will bend when you install the board.

Where do we plug in our wired mice, webcam, speakers etc?
Welcome to the future. I'm sure a lot of Apple users are feeling your pain.

1720705175246.png


I really like this clean aesthetic. My only small gripe is the speed of the USB-C slot on the rear I/O. I use a CalDigit Element hub with a single TB-4 uplink that I trade off between my work computer and desktop that has all my peripherals routed through. I would like to see manufacturers increase that speed up to USB4/TB4 at the minimum.
It's not the physical port itself that's the issue, as it can do 40 Gbps, but that requires certain APUs and that limits your PCIe and M.2 interfaces instead...

Topside instead of overside maybe?
But it's not at the top...

1720705291526.png
 
Last edited:
On further consideration I think this is actually pretty dumb. Gigabyte hasn't tried to do anything clever with the onboard connectors, they've literally just flipped them. But what they have here is a real opportunity to mimimise electrical trace lengthy and save a fuckton of money - which they haven't taken! This is better explained with a picture so here's some Paint work:

1720704959007.png


Now the power connectors are near the parts of the board that need the most power (I don't know precisely where those are so I put the 24-pin between the CPU and PCIe slots; sue me).
Now the chipset connectors are (mostly) on the opposite side of the chipset.

Instead of cutting half-a-dozen extra, irregularly-shaped holes in a chassis motherboard tray, you only need 2 or 3 larger ones (so chassis machining is cheaper and faster). And of course cables don't need to be as long, nor is routing them so much of a pain. But most importantly, trace lengths are far shorter, which also means you don't need traces that are as thick, so as a board manufacturer you basically just win. You can then put the money saved from that into even more unnecessary "thermal armour" on the bottom surface!
 
On further consideration I think this is actually pretty dumb. Gigabyte hasn't tried to do anything clever with the onboard connectors, they've literally just flipped them.
First you complain about it not being a standard and then you complain about Gigabyte not doing anything clever...
FYI, as I already mentioned, everyone is following Asus layout more or less here, so moving the connectors, means that there would no longer be a standard.
If you want to be angry at someone for not doing enough from the start, talk to Asus, as they started this mess.

But what they have here is a real opportunity to mimimise electrical trace lengthy and save a fuckton of money - which they haven't taken! This is better explained with a picture so here's some Paint work:

View attachment 354785

Now the power connectors are near the parts of the board that need the most power (I don't know what those are so I took a guess, sue me).
Now the chipset connectors are (mostly) on the opposite side of the chipset.
Are you a PCB layout engineer now? Trust me, that layout wouldn't work. You'd get a metric ton of crosstalk and interference and the boards wouldn't pass EMI testing. I have been involved in enough board design projects to know that what you're proposing above isn't feasible.
Instead of cutting half-a-dozen extra, irregularly-shaped holes in the motherboard tray, you only need 2 or 3 larger ones (so chassis machining is cheaper and faster). And of course cables don't need to be as long, nor is routing them so much of a pain. But most importantly, trace lengths are far shorter, which also means you don't need traces that are as thick, so as a manufacturer you basically just win. You can then put the money saved from that into even more unnecessary "thermal armour" on the bottom surface!
I fully agree that this should've been in a more organised manner, but as the four big motherboard makers refuse to sit down in the same room to discuss things like this, this is what we get. Intel is no longer running the show and mandate form factors, which is also why we're stuff with ATX, instead of having started over fresh with something that is a bit more thought out. However, if you think you can get these companies to meet up and agree on a common standard, the world would owe you a favour.
 
Back
Top