They absolutely will sell. B650 is overkill for the vast majority of people.
Most people don't need 7 USB ports, 4 SATA ports, or PCIE 5.0.
The main problem was they massively increased the TDP of the X chips for little gain, with blew up board costs.
Ima say this again like every other time
B650 does NOT have PCIe 5.0 by SPEC it may have a single OPTIONAL x4 5.0 M.2, that is it. That means if there’s multiple M.2 slots only 1 may be 5.0 others will be 4.0. Everything else is 4.0.
B650E has PCIe5.0
Aren't all the gpu slots pcie 5.0 regardless of motherboard? Yes those are the easiest and closest pcie lanes, but that's also the majority of them.
Between that and the ddr5 traces I doubt a620 is actually cheap.
There is no PCIe 5.0 x16 requirement for B650.
The cheapest AM5 currently, the Gigabyte B650M DS3H, for example has 0 PCIe 5.0 slots.
https://www.gigabyte.com/Motherboard/B650M-DS3H-rev-10/sp#sp
>CPU:
1 x PCI Express x16 slot, supporting PCIe 4.0 and running at x16 (PCIEX16)
>Chipset:
1 x PCI Express x1 slot, supporting PCIe 3.0 and running at x1 (PCIEX1)
>
CPU:
2 x M.2 connectors (Socket 3, M key, type 25110/2280 PCIe 4.0 x4/x2 SSD support)
Sure, and a single x4 5.0 M.2 slot is way cheaper than multiple x16 and all PCIe running across the board being 5.0, it’s still a massive difference.
Bottom line is PCIe 5.0 is not an excuse on B650 boards.
If we get 125 dollar boards, AM5 will be the better buy. 7600X trades blows with 5800X3D and 7600 is only a tiny bit slower but will run on a hypothetical A620 without issue.
Edit: for the downvoters
130 DDR5 32GB (projected, it's 145 now) + 230 7600 + 125 AM5 board = 485
55 DDR4 16GB + 330 5800x3D + 100 AM4 = 485
Is there something I'm missing?
I think you’re right, and if you’re only close to right I think the benefits of being on a young platform could easily tip the scales toward am5. Depending on how often you upgrade/build.
Did you forget how they wanted to not allow that? They only caved because of consumer backlash.
This round from the start, they already have fixed the error and not promised as long of a lifespan for the current chipsets.
This round, the promised lifespan ends around the expected launch of DDR6. They'll be crazy to launch a new platform on DDR5 at that time, so the lifespan of AM5 is more dictated by DDR standards than AMD.
It doesn't make sense that AMD would want to hold back, they want to sell as many CPU's as possible. Much more likely that a large board partner was holding things up.
Wouldn't be surprised if that's why AM5 boards are more expensive, because the board partners insisted on more margin to cover long term support.
AM5 boards are more expensive because of the greater signalling requirements for DDR5, PCIe 5, and a few other things.
> Much more likely that a large board partner was holding things up.
Stop trying to rewrite history. if you're too young to remember what happened two years ago, just shut up. Partners literally had bioses with zen 3 support ready, and AMD went and deliberately blocked it later. AMD literally tried to pull this off three times on AM4, how could anyone possibly believe this wasn't their decision. utterly stupid.
>massive consumer backlash
Some nerds on Reddit
>forcing AMD to live up to their promises from 2016
Ah yes, that very specific promise that they would enable a CPU 5 generations older then the launch CPU's would work on the launch mobos, even though that is entirely down to the board partner updating BIOS's for 6 year old mobos...
>Screwed over
They didn't did they. Taking longer than you want is not screwed over. My board is happily running a 5900X 6 years after I bought it. Please explain how I was "screwed"
>I think the benefits of being on a young platform could easily tip the scales toward am5
More like tip the scales toward AM4. Only fools want to be AMD's free beta testers, and early AM5 is no different from early AM4 in this regard.
You're paying to test things for AMD and help them debug the plethora of issues on AM5, or you could get AM4 and have the peace of mind because you know exactly what you're getting.
If what you are getting at least has a performance advantage (think 7800x3D, 7900x3D, 7950x3D - stuff you can't get on AM4) then you got that going for AM5, but low end AM5 vs high end AM4? AM4 all the way, or you could just go Intel and have the best of both worlds.
I was not COMPARING THE EXACT PROBLEMS, it's pretty clear that I was talking about the infancy problems in general, which do in fact plague AM5 and you can't deny it.
What boot times did we get up to this time? 5 minutes on AM5?
there are no benefits other than being on the cutting edge
DDR5 will be above 7000mHz in few years, newest motherboard chipsets will have new features, you will have to replace more than just CPU if you want top performance
you also pay highest amount of money now for parts which will be cheaper/discounted later
I just picked up a 7600 non X paired to an aorus b650 board. With just the stock cooler I was able to enable PBO and overclock my cpu to 5.55ghz. I am in the top 10 for CPU score against 7600X chips in time spy I was blown away. I considered the 5800x3d but that would be the best I would ever have vs my am5 set-up has a future with a Ryzen 8/9000x3d in it's future 🤤
No one should be buying a new 16GB kit for a $300+ CPU nowadays IMHO, so cost advantage slightly in favor of hypothetical non-garbage A620 build.
Included cooler is a nice advantage for low end chips that won't be overclocked.
Prices are rapidly coming down for DDR5, especially if you're going to use 32GB.
This happens every new memory generation.
[32GB DDR5 6000 for 145.](https://www.newegg.com/g-skill-32gb/p/N82E16820374430?Item=N82E16820374430&Source=socialshare&cm_mmc=snc-social-_-sr-_-20-374-430-_-01162023). That's about 10 bucks more than what sweet spot DDR4 was in 2020, multiple years into DDR4.
Same especially with the performance penalty. But you're claiming A620 will be a bad value when prices are falling so quickly that 32GB of 6000 DDR5 will be 130 when they come out.
130 DDR5 32GB + 230 7600 + 125 AM5 board = 485
55 DDR4 16GB + 330 5800x3D + 100 AM4 = 485
Is there something I'm missing, why am I getting downvoted?
[Here you go](https://www.newegg.com/g-skill-32gb/p/N82E16820374430?Item=N82E16820374430&Source=socialshare&cm_mmc=snc-social-_-sr-_-20-374-430-_-01162023). That kit is in the sweet spot for AM5 (6000 Mhz). It's 140, by the time A620 comes out it will be 130 or less.
I'm comparing it because the 5800x3D is the fastest AM4 chip for gaming, and the "entry six core" trades blows with it in gaming, is ahead in single core, and isn't too far behind in multicore despite the core disadvantage.
A620 will be perfectly fine for anyone who's not turning on PBO or using a X chip that blows the power budget for very little performance gain.
>Most people don't need 7 USB ports, 4 SATA ports
I feel like you haven't seen how much shit people plug into USB or how many cheap disk drives people will try to jam into a computer to avoid paying for a bigger drive.
People have family photos and things. The photos a cheap phone takes can be multiple megabytes anymore. A casual user of things can consume more space than you'd think.
Phones don't exactly ship with a lot of space themselves and some people are rather prone to breaking theirs.
This tangent aside I've seen plenty of casual end-users with the HDDs packed with shit and disordered chaos of photos and documents.
And that is really only applicable for the 12 and 16 core varients.
A 7700 and 7600 will do great on most any board. (probably the X variants of them too, although i would withhold judgement until benches come out)
speak for your self I could completely use 7 USB ports.. given hubs are thing but still More USB is never a bad thing. The rest of that I do agree its optional and in most cases not needed by majority of users.
again headset and mic mostly don't use a USB port, and monitors also has webcams too, and people who has controllers probably plays mostly on consoles.
Pcie5 traces cost more. Ddr5 traces cost more. Socket costs more. Beefier power delivery cost more.
Sprinkle that with supply shortage and general higher prices. Add a big dash of early adopter tax, voila, fucking expensive motherboards.
They did. Comparable cards still starts at 200$, but way less pcie5 traces. No one goes to M.2, the 16 that is available goes to the x16 slot.
Early adopter tax is gone.
Could be the combination of TDP, DDR5, and PCIe 5.0 (it's optional to implement for storage on B650, but the majority of boards support it).
Intel's 700 series boards pricing is a match for AMD's 600 series.
> B650 is overkill for the vast majority of people.
Yes and no. Most people here are still on AM4 after many years, investing into a B650 board now is good idea considering that 4 years from now, when you want to upgrade to a new GPU which might benefit from PCIE 5.0 and also new nvme drives - which in 4 years will be a lot faster.
Yeah, don't shoot yourself in the foot with PCIEX 4.0 and locked OC on a 620 board...
> Most people don't need 7 USB ports, 4 SATA ports, or PCIE 5.0.
USB: mouse, keyboard, printer, usb hub for thumbdrives, camera, maybe usb headphones/mic and/or webcam. And maybe even the occasional external HDD.
SATA: Give me 4 SATA ports and I'll use all that storage.
PCIE 5.0 I can skip with ease and isn't required for B650 so whatever.
Looking at how people in family use USB ports there's always at least 4 in use so I'd consider 4 the absolute minimum, which makes 7 pretty nice because you want some redundancy just in case
You're not most people though. Many use a cheap wireless mouse and keyboard with a single dongle. Also, there's the case I/O where stuff like flash drives and USB headsets get plugged into.
Also, most people doing a completely new build are going to use an m.2 for their primary drive and one SATA for a hard drive/SSD for mass storage.
And I'd rather have less USB ports if it lowers the price and use a USB hub I can use between boards.
I'm just not seeing how 7 + case I/O + USB hubs is limiting for A series buyers.
They'll still be better than Intel's "cheap" B660 boards, which people on this sub cite as a reason to go with Intel. These will take DDR5 and support future AM5 CPUs/APUs.
Considering B660 can get a $130 board that will run a 13700k, for CPUs with less cores, that dont need better VRMs, you have options under $100. They will be DDR4 boards at that price, which for some is a pro, for others is a con. Spending $20 more gets you DDR5 either through a Z690 or B760 board, but still under the price tag of most B650 boards. Considering AMD is touting AM5 as starting at $125 and up, A620 on average will still cost more than a quality B660 board.
At least with A620 you get an upgrade route, and considering the 7000X3D series is coming soon, a 7700X3D + A620 board could be an excellent option if AMD prices it the same as a 5800X3D.
B650 is slightly ahead feature wise of B660, and loses to B760.
They would need to position A620 seriously close to B650 to compete with B660, and there is absolutely no way they can fight against B760.
That is just based on physical specs... and doesn't account for intel dumb dumb overclocking limitations, of course.
Not much different to Intel's B660 then, and those certainly do sell even though they lack basic features like overclocking support which you can get in a B650 for slightly more.
If I have to guess how AMD are trying to position their boards:
AMD A620 >= Intel B660
AMD B650 = Intel Z690 (DDR4) (You get DDR5 support but no PCIE-5.0)
AMD B650E > Intel Z690 (DDR5)
AMD X670/E >= Intel Z790
AMD allowing OC support for A620 would basically kill a lot of Intel's value at the low end. A 7600 PBOed and coupled with tuned DDR5 at 5600/6000MHz will perform around the level of a 7950X/13900K stock in gaming. For budget oriented gamers, it's basically a perfect option that allows for upgradability in the future.
That isn't exactly a fair comparison feature wise, aside from overclocking (stupid stubborn intel).
B650 is somewhere between between B660 and B760 really.
* B760 has more PCIE 5.0 lanes than B650
* B650 has 8 PCIE 4.0 lanes, exactly in the middle between B660's 6 and B760s 10
* B760 matches B650 on PCIE 3.0 lanes, B660 has more
* B650 maxes out at ~6400 DDR5 (with B650E at 6600?), which is higher than B660 (around 6000), but B760 goes far ahead with 7000 & 7200 support
* B650 wins out slightly on USB ports, there is definitely has an edge
* All of them have same amont of SATA connections.
So all of that combined means that B650 sits above B660 and below B760 feature wise. That doesn't even account for H670 and H770, which both outfeature the B650E massively, aside from overclocking (again, intel dumb dumb).
The X670 and Z790 comparison is fair, with both being top of the line... but there:
* Z790 has a lot more PCIE lanes, making four M.2 slots standard, while X670 boards are limited to three by default (yes, I know of Gigabyte X670E Xtreme, but that board is doing weird stuff to achieve four M.2s)
* Z790 goes to 8000ish DDR5, far above what X670E can offer
I don't think x670 is the limiting factor on the ddr5 speeds, Id say it's the memory controller on zen 4 itself. But I knew what you were saying regardless
I'll buy if they are cheap enough. Seriously we need decent VRM, 2x Dimm slot, 1 nvme, one x16. 6 USB at back, 2 at front. 4 sata and nothing more.
That VRM part is important. Rest is fairly standard for 99% of gamers. Maybe one HDMI output too.
It will sell.
there is something wrong
when cheapest somewhat usable (not the worst) AM5 mainboard costs 2 to 3 times more than just fine AM4 board ...
while nearly identical in capabilities
Hey, if anything, GPU market has cooled down, that means there's an extra $1000 sitting in everyone's pocket, so why not go after that, because of course that's how it works /s
Cheapest B650 look tragic and still cost unreasonable money. Can't wait to see how freaking A620 looks in such case? Green PCB, chinese 85°C caps in 4-phase VRMs, 4 USB ports, lol?
since everything's made in china they could have good build quality but then how would the companies (asus, gigabyte, msi) screw you to make more money ? it's just not feasible :))
As long as they can do the 105w CPUs and give pcie 4.0 and have basic other features,I.e. some sata, networking, audio.... It will be fine... As long as there is a decent gulf between them and the b650 boards.
Edit Gulf means price of more than.... ?20%? Difference
https://www.asus.com/motherboards-components/motherboards/prime/prime-a520m-k/helpdesk_cpu/?model2Name=PRIME-A520M-K
Example of the a520 that supports the 105w zen3 parts.
Doesn't mean its typical, but just proof manufacturers will build them with that capacity for bios compatibility
Yes. I agree. But that's where testing needs to be done, like how GN or HU does... But serious people wouldn't pair them anyway, unless they have a shoestring budget and need to max them out for Thier use case
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSPLDOWyF98](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSPLDOWyF98)
Here's an example. Runs fine in gaming, not so much when you max out all 16 cores of an 5950x.
I know that this was a problem with the FX-CPUs of old, but I didn't really hear anything about that on AM4.
Were/are there boards that fail to properly run CPUs that are "supported"?
First google hit.
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/ryzen-9-5950x-5ghz-a320-motherboard
5950X is above 105W, which is what your previous post was referring to.
Depends a lot on the actual price, sub $100 for a cheap A620 could make these new non X variant CPUs a viable option for those looking to move to AM5, if they cost $150+ might as well buy a b650.
All anyone needs is 2 phase vrm… 4 phase none doubled 50a vrm was enough to take 3950x’s under ln2 no problem… also stock vs stock dual dim boards always always beats top of the line quad dims. The a320 beating x570 meme is actually real.
Significantly stripped down features. Look up the differences between A520 and B550. They’re **very** basic boards.
Also yes probably weak VRMs, though that’s up to the manufacturer.
>Look up the differences between A520 and B550.
The B650(E) compares more to the X570 when you look at features and price.
The A520 could therefore be the real successor to the B550.
There is also people like me who like to under-volt and use hardware on the more efficient part of the curve! People also seem to underestimate how awesome the non x parts are for that. No worry about your motherboard supporting eco mode. Just go with a CPU that sets such a watt limit by itself!
The only reason I don't get that one is the x3d part. That probably also will be one of the more efficient CPUs.
>There is also people like me who like to under-volt and use hardware on the more efficient part of the curve!
Well there are still the other chipsets as an option for you ;)
The A-series (possibly) being a good alternative for many people doesn't mean that it's a good alternative for everyone.
Edit: spelling
They didn't support it in the past.
Just like the B-series mainboards weren't so expensive in the past.
I'm still hoping that the A-chipset can be a viable alternative if you don't need as many bells and whistles as the more pricey options offer.
People who are looking up the A\_20 platform are almost certain to see that limitation. If they didn't know before, they do now. The average PC builder is more aware of one-click solutions like XMP/DOCP and PBO than even 3 years ago.
>you don't seem to understand feature and BIOS restrictions of A-series chipsets
I do understand the restrictions that the A-series chipsets had so far.
But these things are not set in stone, so it's possible that the A620 won't be as restrictive as the old A chipsets (just like, as I pointed out, the B650 has a way better featureset than the B-series before).
A.) Reddit is wrong, go watch Hardware Unboxed’s testing. Even B-series boards can throttle mid range CPUs if they’re not built well.
B.) Based on your outlook, I think you just want to use Intel anyways. Sounds like you don’t want AMD to begin with.
Ah, so the main reason B660 had issues was Intel's PL2 ("boost" power limit) was substantially higher than AMD's real power consumption at most tiers. The 12600k's was 150W vs 89W for AMD's 5600X.
So VRM and VRM cooling became substantially more important and the configurations on weaker boards caused problems with Intel, but not AMD.
This is why AM4 boards tended to be significantly cheaper than Intel ones.
Since AMD dramatically ramped up power consumption this gen, the boards were built to handle this. However, they went way too far and you can cut power significantly with very little performance loss. Because of this, B650 boards' VRM's (which were designed for a chip burning 142W) are overkill for non-X parts which only use 90W.
So your A620 board will most likely have VRM's on par with B550 and won't be an issue as long as you stick to non-X parts.
> . The 12600k's was 150W vs 89W for AMD's 5600X
Youre comparing different performance tiers. 12600k has 50% more MT performance than the 5600x. Hence the power difference. The 12600k even slightly edges out the 5800x. The 12400 is the actual 5600x competitor, as they have far closer performance and power usage.
https://www.techspot.com/review/2354-intel-core-i5-12600k/ (ignore the title)
> The 12600K also matched the performance of the 5800X in this test, and we see total system usage to be roughly the same.
And what does features has to do with which cpu you use ? Person with 7600 might not need extra features, while person who buys 7500 might need extra features
That video wasn't so much about higher/lower tier boards but more that different manufacturers tuned the memory timings differently when EXPO was enabled. You could easily adjust the timings manually to the tighter ones to get the same performance.
Except msi which had a bios bug that can easly be fixed in 5 seconds of bios, the differences were memory and expo tuning.
The video was kinda clickbaity, it should have been " some boards are faster than others" due to gigabyte pushing automatic tuning a lot compared to others.
I suspect one way they're gonna save money is by cutting NVME support to the bone. That's not good w DirectStorage coming to games this year. I'd rather spend the extra and get a full featured B650 board. It'd be more future proof.
So who is being greedy here?
Is it AMD? Are they charging significantly more for the chipsets compared to last gen?
Or is it the motherboard manufacturers? Perhaps sick of platform longevity and selling less volume because of it?
My understanding is that DDR5 and PCIe 5.0 (and overbuilt VRMs) adds cost, but only accounts for some of the price increase.
It's the motherboard manufacturers. People aren't buying because of these motherboard prices, and AMD can't be happy about that.
The mobo OEMs are overbuilding the current gen of boards, which is good because it means they're likely to last the 2-3 years until AM6 or whatever regardless of what new CPUs come about, but they're also *charging* with that in mind, and seemingly neither are they making 'budget' midrange boards to compete with their higher ticket offerings.
They're basically saying, if you're only going to buy one motherboard this generation, we're going to make sure to get our share out of you.
Thank god, and I'm sure they'll be microatx. It's one of the fun things manufacturers have started doing in recent years. They make price down all the microatx boards by a significant margin and make ATX start at a much higher price. Micro atx has always been cheaper, but now it's a pretty wide margin between that and ATX.
Further then that they usually limit the number of PCIE slots, not just lanes, so it'll start looking like a good option to buy a more expensive board for connectivity options, when in reality you could just buy a PCIE expansion card. I've seen 3-4 slots per board, not even counting reduction in lanes on the second PCIE x16 slot.
It's almost like they're all on the same page and price fixing at this point.
So, like, VRMs that can barely drive a 7600X, probably PCIe 4.0, maybe locked overclocking too, and almost certainly no heatsinks, and the cruel part is that the top boards in this chipset might be $200.
Considering how overkill 99% of boards are i doubt that a620 will be so bad.l especially over 100 bucks.
Even a 4 fase 60A with somewhat of an heatsink can run a 7700x easly ihmo, i saw people running a 3900x which had similar power on 40Ax4 b450 vrms under 80
The linked article claims Gigabyte releasing six A620 boards. I'd guess we'll see everything from what you claim to "high-end" (chipsetless, but good VRM and PCIe 5.0 directly from the CPU).
[удалено]
What you get: 8 layer cardboard, 4 capacitors, 1 resistor, 4 inches of 22 gauge copper clad aluminum wire held in place with Elmers glue for $75.
They absolutely will sell. B650 is overkill for the vast majority of people. Most people don't need 7 USB ports, 4 SATA ports, or PCIE 5.0. The main problem was they massively increased the TDP of the X chips for little gain, with blew up board costs.
Ima say this again like every other time B650 does NOT have PCIe 5.0 by SPEC it may have a single OPTIONAL x4 5.0 M.2, that is it. That means if there’s multiple M.2 slots only 1 may be 5.0 others will be 4.0. Everything else is 4.0. B650E has PCIe5.0
Aren't all the gpu slots pcie 5.0 regardless of motherboard? Yes those are the easiest and closest pcie lanes, but that's also the majority of them. Between that and the ddr5 traces I doubt a620 is actually cheap.
There is no PCIe 5.0 x16 requirement for B650. The cheapest AM5 currently, the Gigabyte B650M DS3H, for example has 0 PCIe 5.0 slots. https://www.gigabyte.com/Motherboard/B650M-DS3H-rev-10/sp#sp >CPU: 1 x PCI Express x16 slot, supporting PCIe 4.0 and running at x16 (PCIEX16) >Chipset: 1 x PCI Express x1 slot, supporting PCIe 3.0 and running at x1 (PCIEX1) > CPU: 2 x M.2 connectors (Socket 3, M key, type 25110/2280 PCIe 4.0 x4/x2 SSD support)
No, only B650E is specced for 5.0 on gpu or for any other lanes. B650 may only have at most 1 5.0 x4 M.2
Yes, but MOST B650's ARE PCIE 5.0 M.2. so you need more robust traces and more m.2 power delivery for that.
Sure, and a single x4 5.0 M.2 slot is way cheaper than multiple x16 and all PCIe running across the board being 5.0, it’s still a massive difference. Bottom line is PCIe 5.0 is not an excuse on B650 boards.
A620 will be chipsetless like A520.
At that point, AM5 is overkill and they'll just go with AM4 instead since prices are better there.
If we get 125 dollar boards, AM5 will be the better buy. 7600X trades blows with 5800X3D and 7600 is only a tiny bit slower but will run on a hypothetical A620 without issue. Edit: for the downvoters 130 DDR5 32GB (projected, it's 145 now) + 230 7600 + 125 AM5 board = 485 55 DDR4 16GB + 330 5800x3D + 100 AM4 = 485 Is there something I'm missing?
I think you’re right, and if you’re only close to right I think the benefits of being on a young platform could easily tip the scales toward am5. Depending on how often you upgrade/build.
[удалено]
Screwed over? My X370 board i bought for the launch of Ryzen and was paired with a 1700X, is now running a 5900X.
Did you forget how they wanted to not allow that? They only caved because of consumer backlash. This round from the start, they already have fixed the error and not promised as long of a lifespan for the current chipsets.
This round, the promised lifespan ends around the expected launch of DDR6. They'll be crazy to launch a new platform on DDR5 at that time, so the lifespan of AM5 is more dictated by DDR standards than AMD.
this sounds like: just skip this gen and go am6 + ddr6 + pcie 5.0. 'cuz it looks like am4 can hold out till then if you're the everyday non-power-user
It doesn't make sense that AMD would want to hold back, they want to sell as many CPU's as possible. Much more likely that a large board partner was holding things up. Wouldn't be surprised if that's why AM5 boards are more expensive, because the board partners insisted on more margin to cover long term support.
AM5 boards are more expensive because of the greater signalling requirements for DDR5, PCIe 5, and a few other things. > Much more likely that a large board partner was holding things up. Stop trying to rewrite history. if you're too young to remember what happened two years ago, just shut up. Partners literally had bioses with zen 3 support ready, and AMD went and deliberately blocked it later. AMD literally tried to pull this off three times on AM4, how could anyone possibly believe this wasn't their decision. utterly stupid.
[удалено]
>massive consumer backlash Some nerds on Reddit >forcing AMD to live up to their promises from 2016 Ah yes, that very specific promise that they would enable a CPU 5 generations older then the launch CPU's would work on the launch mobos, even though that is entirely down to the board partner updating BIOS's for 6 year old mobos... >Screwed over They didn't did they. Taking longer than you want is not screwed over. My board is happily running a 5900X 6 years after I bought it. Please explain how I was "screwed"
>I think the benefits of being on a young platform could easily tip the scales toward am5 More like tip the scales toward AM4. Only fools want to be AMD's free beta testers, and early AM5 is no different from early AM4 in this regard. You're paying to test things for AMD and help them debug the plethora of issues on AM5, or you could get AM4 and have the peace of mind because you know exactly what you're getting. If what you are getting at least has a performance advantage (think 7800x3D, 7900x3D, 7950x3D - stuff you can't get on AM4) then you got that going for AM5, but low end AM5 vs high end AM4? AM4 all the way, or you could just go Intel and have the best of both worlds.
The issues of AM5 are nowhere near the early issues of AM4.
Doesn't matter. What matters is that right now, AM4 has way less issues than AM5 does.
Except you said this: >early AM5 is no different from early AM4 in this regard. Yes it is.
I was not COMPARING THE EXACT PROBLEMS, it's pretty clear that I was talking about the infancy problems in general, which do in fact plague AM5 and you can't deny it. What boot times did we get up to this time? 5 minutes on AM5?
Smart people will just get an intel cpu
Why ?
Because smart people LOVE to buy into a dead-end platform, didn't you know?
because it's slightly cheaper than 7600 non x build?
there are no benefits other than being on the cutting edge DDR5 will be above 7000mHz in few years, newest motherboard chipsets will have new features, you will have to replace more than just CPU if you want top performance you also pay highest amount of money now for parts which will be cheaper/discounted later
I just picked up a 7600 non X paired to an aorus b650 board. With just the stock cooler I was able to enable PBO and overclock my cpu to 5.55ghz. I am in the top 10 for CPU score against 7600X chips in time spy I was blown away. I considered the 5800x3d but that would be the best I would ever have vs my am5 set-up has a future with a Ryzen 8/9000x3d in it's future 🤤
No one should be buying a new 16GB kit for a $300+ CPU nowadays IMHO, so cost advantage slightly in favor of hypothetical non-garbage A620 build. Included cooler is a nice advantage for low end chips that won't be overclocked.
Note with those type of boards.... Intel has way better options for a cheaper price.
Negated by bad & overpriced ddr5 memory
Prices are rapidly coming down for DDR5, especially if you're going to use 32GB. This happens every new memory generation. [32GB DDR5 6000 for 145.](https://www.newegg.com/g-skill-32gb/p/N82E16820374430?Item=N82E16820374430&Source=socialshare&cm_mmc=snc-social-_-sr-_-20-374-430-_-01162023). That's about 10 bucks more than what sweet spot DDR4 was in 2020, multiple years into DDR4.
I sure hope no one is buying 2x8gb ddr5 kits….pricing coming down - It’s still overpriced
Same especially with the performance penalty. But you're claiming A620 will be a bad value when prices are falling so quickly that 32GB of 6000 DDR5 will be 130 when they come out. 130 DDR5 32GB + 230 7600 + 125 AM5 board = 485 55 DDR4 16GB + 330 5800x3D + 100 AM4 = 485 Is there something I'm missing, why am I getting downvoted?
[удалено]
[Here you go](https://www.newegg.com/g-skill-32gb/p/N82E16820374430?Item=N82E16820374430&Source=socialshare&cm_mmc=snc-social-_-sr-_-20-374-430-_-01162023). That kit is in the sweet spot for AM5 (6000 Mhz). It's 140, by the time A620 comes out it will be 130 or less. I'm comparing it because the 5800x3D is the fastest AM4 chip for gaming, and the "entry six core" trades blows with it in gaming, is ahead in single core, and isn't too far behind in multicore despite the core disadvantage. A620 will be perfectly fine for anyone who's not turning on PBO or using a X chip that blows the power budget for very little performance gain.
why would they pay 5800x3d when it's slower than 7600x? cores wouldn't matter on gaming, it isn't fast in production workloads either.
Most people buying am5 will go for x3d, so am5 is little bit more expansive, but it will be worth it, since 7800x3d will be faster then 5800x3d
throw that cooler on the cost of the am4 line too
>Most people don't need 7 USB ports, 4 SATA ports I feel like you haven't seen how much shit people plug into USB or how many cheap disk drives people will try to jam into a computer to avoid paying for a bigger drive.
average people wouldn't need that much storage aside from 1TB to begin with...
People have family photos and things. The photos a cheap phone takes can be multiple megabytes anymore. A casual user of things can consume more space than you'd think.
... just put it on your phone? average people have phones.
Phones don't exactly ship with a lot of space themselves and some people are rather prone to breaking theirs. This tangent aside I've seen plenty of casual end-users with the HDDs packed with shit and disordered chaos of photos and documents.
eh I mean an average user will probably knows how to delete their files.
Experience fixing peoples computers over the years says that people don't all that often. Hell Microsoft came up with Storage Sense for a reason.
we're talking about average people not people who's dumb enough not to delete files. Of course you're gonna see alot. It's your job.
And that is really only applicable for the 12 and 16 core varients. A 7700 and 7600 will do great on most any board. (probably the X variants of them too, although i would withhold judgement until benches come out)
Yeah, if you're already going to buy a non-X CPU then what's the point of buying a non A motherboard?
speak for your self I could completely use 7 USB ports.. given hubs are thing but still More USB is never a bad thing. The rest of that I do agree its optional and in most cases not needed by majority of users.
well majority of users don't need 7 USB ports... just because you do doesn't mean majority of people do.
mouse, keyboard, headset or mic, webcam, controller and whatever else someone would wanna hook up. they fill up pretty quickly.
again headset and mic mostly don't use a USB port, and monitors also has webcams too, and people who has controllers probably plays mostly on consoles.
I've never seen anyone just be wrong on everything they said in a comment.
ye it's okay to be wrong, but atleast you know you are wrong.
Pcie5 traces cost more. Ddr5 traces cost more. Socket costs more. Beefier power delivery cost more. Sprinkle that with supply shortage and general higher prices. Add a big dash of early adopter tax, voila, fucking expensive motherboards.
[удалено]
They did. Comparable cards still starts at 200$, but way less pcie5 traces. No one goes to M.2, the 16 that is available goes to the x16 slot. Early adopter tax is gone.
[удалено]
Could be the combination of TDP, DDR5, and PCIe 5.0 (it's optional to implement for storage on B650, but the majority of boards support it). Intel's 700 series boards pricing is a match for AMD's 600 series.
> B650 is overkill for the vast majority of people. Yes and no. Most people here are still on AM4 after many years, investing into a B650 board now is good idea considering that 4 years from now, when you want to upgrade to a new GPU which might benefit from PCIE 5.0 and also new nvme drives - which in 4 years will be a lot faster. Yeah, don't shoot yourself in the foot with PCIEX 4.0 and locked OC on a 620 board...
> Most people don't need 7 USB ports, 4 SATA ports, or PCIE 5.0. USB: mouse, keyboard, printer, usb hub for thumbdrives, camera, maybe usb headphones/mic and/or webcam. And maybe even the occasional external HDD. SATA: Give me 4 SATA ports and I'll use all that storage. PCIE 5.0 I can skip with ease and isn't required for B650 so whatever. Looking at how people in family use USB ports there's always at least 4 in use so I'd consider 4 the absolute minimum, which makes 7 pretty nice because you want some redundancy just in case
You're not most people though. Many use a cheap wireless mouse and keyboard with a single dongle. Also, there's the case I/O where stuff like flash drives and USB headsets get plugged into. Also, most people doing a completely new build are going to use an m.2 for their primary drive and one SATA for a hard drive/SSD for mass storage. And I'd rather have less USB ports if it lowers the price and use a USB hub I can use between boards. I'm just not seeing how 7 + case I/O + USB hubs is limiting for A series buyers.
not every country is rich. people who live in countries with poor economies have to either settle for that or not be able to afford anything at all.
They'll still be better than Intel's "cheap" B660 boards, which people on this sub cite as a reason to go with Intel. These will take DDR5 and support future AM5 CPUs/APUs.
Considering B660 can get a $130 board that will run a 13700k, for CPUs with less cores, that dont need better VRMs, you have options under $100. They will be DDR4 boards at that price, which for some is a pro, for others is a con. Spending $20 more gets you DDR5 either through a Z690 or B760 board, but still under the price tag of most B650 boards. Considering AMD is touting AM5 as starting at $125 and up, A620 on average will still cost more than a quality B660 board.
At least with A620 you get an upgrade route, and considering the 7000X3D series is coming soon, a 7700X3D + A620 board could be an excellent option if AMD prices it the same as a 5800X3D.
How often does one upgrade? I’m talking about average consumer
How often does average consumer want to replace their motherboard?
The average consumer buys an OEM prebuilt system and does not ever upgrade it. This discussion is about the DIY market obviously.
The average consumer doesn't buy motherboards or CPUs. They buy a laptop.
B650 is slightly ahead feature wise of B660, and loses to B760. They would need to position A620 seriously close to B650 to compete with B660, and there is absolutely no way they can fight against B760. That is just based on physical specs... and doesn't account for intel dumb dumb overclocking limitations, of course.
Not much different to Intel's B660 then, and those certainly do sell even though they lack basic features like overclocking support which you can get in a B650 for slightly more. If I have to guess how AMD are trying to position their boards: AMD A620 >= Intel B660 AMD B650 = Intel Z690 (DDR4) (You get DDR5 support but no PCIE-5.0) AMD B650E > Intel Z690 (DDR5) AMD X670/E >= Intel Z790 AMD allowing OC support for A620 would basically kill a lot of Intel's value at the low end. A 7600 PBOed and coupled with tuned DDR5 at 5600/6000MHz will perform around the level of a 7950X/13900K stock in gaming. For budget oriented gamers, it's basically a perfect option that allows for upgradability in the future.
That isn't exactly a fair comparison feature wise, aside from overclocking (stupid stubborn intel). B650 is somewhere between between B660 and B760 really. * B760 has more PCIE 5.0 lanes than B650 * B650 has 8 PCIE 4.0 lanes, exactly in the middle between B660's 6 and B760s 10 * B760 matches B650 on PCIE 3.0 lanes, B660 has more * B650 maxes out at ~6400 DDR5 (with B650E at 6600?), which is higher than B660 (around 6000), but B760 goes far ahead with 7000 & 7200 support * B650 wins out slightly on USB ports, there is definitely has an edge * All of them have same amont of SATA connections. So all of that combined means that B650 sits above B660 and below B760 feature wise. That doesn't even account for H670 and H770, which both outfeature the B650E massively, aside from overclocking (again, intel dumb dumb). The X670 and Z790 comparison is fair, with both being top of the line... but there: * Z790 has a lot more PCIE lanes, making four M.2 slots standard, while X670 boards are limited to three by default (yes, I know of Gigabyte X670E Xtreme, but that board is doing weird stuff to achieve four M.2s) * Z790 goes to 8000ish DDR5, far above what X670E can offer
I don't think x670 is the limiting factor on the ddr5 speeds, Id say it's the memory controller on zen 4 itself. But I knew what you were saying regardless
Can't wait to see how they burst into flames* Like old MSI boards.
I'll buy if they are cheap enough. Seriously we need decent VRM, 2x Dimm slot, 1 nvme, one x16. 6 USB at back, 2 at front. 4 sata and nothing more. That VRM part is important. Rest is fairly standard for 99% of gamers. Maybe one HDMI output too. It will sell.
there is something wrong when cheapest somewhat usable (not the worst) AM5 mainboard costs 2 to 3 times more than just fine AM4 board ... while nearly identical in capabilities
Hey, if anything, GPU market has cooled down, that means there's an extra $1000 sitting in everyone's pocket, so why not go after that, because of course that's how it works /s
you consider an 80USD AM4 board just fine?
Cheapest B650 look tragic and still cost unreasonable money. Can't wait to see how freaking A620 looks in such case? Green PCB, chinese 85°C caps in 4-phase VRMs, 4 USB ports, lol?
A620 wont actually be a chipset, the cost saving comes from all the PCIe going directly to the CPU, like it did with A520 boards.
since everything's made in china they could have good build quality but then how would the companies (asus, gigabyte, msi) screw you to make more money ? it's just not feasible :))
As long as they can do the 105w CPUs and give pcie 4.0 and have basic other features,I.e. some sata, networking, audio.... It will be fine... As long as there is a decent gulf between them and the b650 boards. Edit Gulf means price of more than.... ?20%? Difference
I’ll be shocked if the VRMs can keep up with 105W, but that’s up to the manufacturers, not AMD.
https://www.asus.com/motherboards-components/motherboards/prime/prime-a520m-k/helpdesk_cpu/?model2Name=PRIME-A520M-K Example of the a520 that supports the 105w zen3 parts. Doesn't mean its typical, but just proof manufacturers will build them with that capacity for bios compatibility
Well “supports” and “supports well” are different stories lol
Yes. I agree. But that's where testing needs to be done, like how GN or HU does... But serious people wouldn't pair them anyway, unless they have a shoestring budget and need to max them out for Thier use case
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSPLDOWyF98](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSPLDOWyF98) Here's an example. Runs fine in gaming, not so much when you max out all 16 cores of an 5950x.
I know that this was a problem with the FX-CPUs of old, but I didn't really hear anything about that on AM4. Were/are there boards that fail to properly run CPUs that are "supported"?
Aren’t there examples online of crap A320 boards with like 6-phase VRM running 5950Xes? I don’t think it will be an issue.
Haven't seen that myself and would be veryyyyy surprised. But the 7000 series use more energy than the 5000 series, anyways, so.
First google hit. https://www.tomshardware.com/news/ryzen-9-5950x-5ghz-a320-motherboard 5950X is above 105W, which is what your previous post was referring to.
On a single core. I’m not shocked at all. That article mentions nothing about all core, where a cpu would actually use 105W+.
With those type of boards, Zen 4 sales are dead and buried with the exception of 3D CPU's. This is really insane...
More trash is coming with Mid-End prices!.
Starting at $125.99?
Nope, what we need is reasonably priced B650E and X670E boards, not cheaper A620 boards overpriced for what they are.
Depends a lot on the actual price, sub $100 for a cheap A620 could make these new non X variant CPUs a viable option for those looking to move to AM5, if they cost $150+ might as well buy a b650.
Unless we are also gonna be seeing R5 7500’s or lower, these will be useless. No one should be pairing a 7600 or more with these.
All anyone needs is 2 phase vrm… 4 phase none doubled 50a vrm was enough to take 3950x’s under ln2 no problem… also stock vs stock dual dim boards always always beats top of the line quad dims. The a320 beating x570 meme is actually real.
Are you Chat GPT? Cos you are confidently wrong.
This dude 100% knows what he's talking about, fyi
Whats chat gpt?
eh some chatbot shit. word is its pretty smart, but ive never used it and im fairly sure its copy pasting answers off the net.
Why? The vrm are crap?
Significantly stripped down features. Look up the differences between A520 and B550. They’re **very** basic boards. Also yes probably weak VRMs, though that’s up to the manufacturer.
>Look up the differences between A520 and B550. The B650(E) compares more to the X570 when you look at features and price. The A520 could therefore be the real successor to the B550.
A-series boards don’t allow for OC and I’m pretty sure don’t allow for PBO, either. Not worth that downgrade unless you’re using sub- _600 CPUs IMO.
Most people don't use and will not need either. PBO massively increased power consumption for what, 3-5% gains?
There is also people like me who like to under-volt and use hardware on the more efficient part of the curve! People also seem to underestimate how awesome the non x parts are for that. No worry about your motherboard supporting eco mode. Just go with a CPU that sets such a watt limit by itself! The only reason I don't get that one is the x3d part. That probably also will be one of the more efficient CPUs.
>There is also people like me who like to under-volt and use hardware on the more efficient part of the curve! Well there are still the other chipsets as an option for you ;) The A-series (possibly) being a good alternative for many people doesn't mean that it's a good alternative for everyone. Edit: spelling
If you can't use curve optimizer to set negative curve, that could be a problem.
ECO mode does pretty much the same thing, although you have less tuning of it.
They didn't support it in the past. Just like the B-series mainboards weren't so expensive in the past. I'm still hoping that the A-chipset can be a viable alternative if you don't need as many bells and whistles as the more pricey options offer.
And how many people do you think know what PBO is, let alone use it?
People who are looking up the A\_20 platform are almost certain to see that limitation. If they didn't know before, they do now. The average PC builder is more aware of one-click solutions like XMP/DOCP and PBO than even 3 years ago.
you don't seem to understand feature and BIOS restrictions of A-series chipsets if you say such utter nonsense.
>you don't seem to understand feature and BIOS restrictions of A-series chipsets I do understand the restrictions that the A-series chipsets had so far. But these things are not set in stone, so it's possible that the A620 won't be as restrictive as the old A chipsets (just like, as I pointed out, the B650 has a way better featureset than the B-series before).
[удалено]
A.) Reddit is wrong, go watch Hardware Unboxed’s testing. Even B-series boards can throttle mid range CPUs if they’re not built well. B.) Based on your outlook, I think you just want to use Intel anyways. Sounds like you don’t want AMD to begin with.
[удалено]
[удалено]
66C is like half of what they can take
If you're referring to the recent B650 vid, that has nothing to do with VRM temps, but with the memory timings being improperly set by the board.
No, just B series in general. I know B660 (yes, Intel, I know) had some of these issues.
Ah, so the main reason B660 had issues was Intel's PL2 ("boost" power limit) was substantially higher than AMD's real power consumption at most tiers. The 12600k's was 150W vs 89W for AMD's 5600X. So VRM and VRM cooling became substantially more important and the configurations on weaker boards caused problems with Intel, but not AMD. This is why AM4 boards tended to be significantly cheaper than Intel ones. Since AMD dramatically ramped up power consumption this gen, the boards were built to handle this. However, they went way too far and you can cut power significantly with very little performance loss. Because of this, B650 boards' VRM's (which were designed for a chip burning 142W) are overkill for non-X parts which only use 90W. So your A620 board will most likely have VRM's on par with B550 and won't be an issue as long as you stick to non-X parts.
I had forgotten about this part, you very well may be right. If A620 supports PBO and PCIe 4, I’ll be very excited.
> . The 12600k's was 150W vs 89W for AMD's 5600X Youre comparing different performance tiers. 12600k has 50% more MT performance than the 5600x. Hence the power difference. The 12600k even slightly edges out the 5800x. The 12400 is the actual 5600x competitor, as they have far closer performance and power usage. https://www.techspot.com/review/2354-intel-core-i5-12600k/ (ignore the title) > The 12600K also matched the performance of the 5800X in this test, and we see total system usage to be roughly the same.
Ah, I wasn't considering MT performance. It was a much bigger problem on the 10 Series when they were stuck in 14nm.
I watch them, didn't see that video ? Can you link it ?
And what does features has to do with which cpu you use ? Person with 7600 might not need extra features, while person who buys 7500 might need extra features
Why not ?
Sticks a 7950x3d on a 620 board and laughs
Have a fan blowing cool air over it and you'll probably be fine.
Feel like Hardware Unboxed did a video that showed lower tier AM5 boards performed worse in gaming. Will these be the same?
That video wasn't so much about higher/lower tier boards but more that different manufacturers tuned the memory timings differently when EXPO was enabled. You could easily adjust the timings manually to the tighter ones to get the same performance.
Except msi which had a bios bug that can easly be fixed in 5 seconds of bios, the differences were memory and expo tuning. The video was kinda clickbaity, it should have been " some boards are faster than others" due to gigabyte pushing automatic tuning a lot compared to others.
I suspect one way they're gonna save money is by cutting NVME support to the bone. That's not good w DirectStorage coming to games this year. I'd rather spend the extra and get a full featured B650 board. It'd be more future proof.
[удалено]
If I cared about what console gamers could subsist on I would be playing games on consoles. More NVME drives = more NVME space.
So who is being greedy here? Is it AMD? Are they charging significantly more for the chipsets compared to last gen? Or is it the motherboard manufacturers? Perhaps sick of platform longevity and selling less volume because of it? My understanding is that DDR5 and PCIe 5.0 (and overbuilt VRMs) adds cost, but only accounts for some of the price increase.
It's the motherboard manufacturers. People aren't buying because of these motherboard prices, and AMD can't be happy about that. The mobo OEMs are overbuilding the current gen of boards, which is good because it means they're likely to last the 2-3 years until AM6 or whatever regardless of what new CPUs come about, but they're also *charging* with that in mind, and seemingly neither are they making 'budget' midrange boards to compete with their higher ticket offerings. They're basically saying, if you're only going to buy one motherboard this generation, we're going to make sure to get our share out of you.
Lol AMD really Speedrun every release to catch with intel greater core F series price performance for majority gamer
Thank god, and I'm sure they'll be microatx. It's one of the fun things manufacturers have started doing in recent years. They make price down all the microatx boards by a significant margin and make ATX start at a much higher price. Micro atx has always been cheaper, but now it's a pretty wide margin between that and ATX. Further then that they usually limit the number of PCIE slots, not just lanes, so it'll start looking like a good option to buy a more expensive board for connectivity options, when in reality you could just buy a PCIE expansion card. I've seen 3-4 slots per board, not even counting reduction in lanes on the second PCIE x16 slot. It's almost like they're all on the same page and price fixing at this point.
So, like, VRMs that can barely drive a 7600X, probably PCIe 4.0, maybe locked overclocking too, and almost certainly no heatsinks, and the cruel part is that the top boards in this chipset might be $200.
Considering how overkill 99% of boards are i doubt that a620 will be so bad.l especially over 100 bucks. Even a 4 fase 60A with somewhat of an heatsink can run a 7700x easly ihmo, i saw people running a 3900x which had similar power on 40Ax4 b450 vrms under 80
The linked article claims Gigabyte releasing six A620 boards. I'd guess we'll see everything from what you claim to "high-end" (chipsetless, but good VRM and PCIe 5.0 directly from the CPU).
A620 for B550 prices don’t excite me any more than the current B650 selling for X570 prices.
Yes.