Expected price of MSI Meg X570?

And then on other side the cheaper boards (funny how one can consider a 230 euro MSI board cheap) will run in x16/x4 setup instead of x8/x8, which will make X470 actually superior for PCI-E 3.0 cards, where with X570 a combo of x16 3.0 GPU and x8 3.0 HBA would result in HBA running only in x4 3.0 mode on cheaper X570, while the X470 in same price range would run then at x8/x8.
 
Dan_D said:
I hadn't ever heard that about the GPU being such a factor in that. I'll actually test that. Although, at 1080P, its almost a moot point as you are dealing with a resolution that's largely CPU limited, even on older cards like the 980Ti and 1080Ti. So if there is a benefit to higher RAM speeds beyond DDR4 3200MHz, then I'd imagine its probably academic. For example, an overclock of a few hundred megahertz at CPU limited resolutions could result in big gains, but we are talking 350 vs. 400FPS. In resolutions where the GPU does most of the work, the difference becomes 1-2FPS.
Click to expand...

It depends on the game. I know it makes a difference in PUBG, where a 1080ti can struggle to keep 144fps at 1080p.
 
Dermen said:
It depends on the game. I know it makes a difference in PUBG, where a 1080ti can struggle to keep 144fps at 1080p.
Click to expand...

That's something I may investigate. However, at 1920x1080, you are still dealing with a CPU limited resolution. I did a quick look at PUBG benchmarks, and it doesn't seem to be massively demanding. Legit Reviews tested it and the RTX 2080 Ti actually showed better performance at 2560x1440 than it does at 1920x1080. It wasn't by a huge margin, but it was consistent. Of course at 3840x2160, the game is simply too demanding to hit 144FPS, but it does damn near hit 100FPS. In contrast, you'd be hard pressed to maintain 60FPS at max settings in certain activities. On my machine I see dips down to the high 40's on occasions where there are allot of visual effects going on and a ton of enemies on screen. Ghost Recon Wildlands is the same way. Most of the time, its no problem to stay beyond 60FPS, but on occasion it does drop into the mid-50's or so.

To further that point, all the Ryzen reviews showed a huge hit in gaming performance at 1920x1080. The reason was simple: At 1920x1080, you are dealing with a resolution where the CPU is a limiting factor. At higher resolutions, this performance gap diminished to almost nothing.
 
Dan_D said:
That's something I may investigate. However, at 1920x1080, you are still dealing with a CPU limited resolution. I did a quick look at PUBG benchmarks, and it doesn't seem to be massively demanding. Legit Reviews tested it and the RTX 2080 Ti actually showed better performance at 2560x1440 than it does at 1920x1080. It wasn't by a huge margin, but it was consistent. Of course at 3840x2160, the game is simply too demanding to hit 144FPS, but it does damn near hit 100FPS. In contrast, you'd be hard pressed to maintain 60FPS at max settings in certain activities. On my machine I see dips down to the high 40's on occasions where there are allot of visual effects going on and a ton of enemies on screen. Ghost Recon Wildlands is the same way. Most of the time, its no problem to stay beyond 60FPS, but on occasion it does drop into the mid-50's or so.

To further that point, all the Ryzen reviews showed a huge hit in gaming performance at 1920x1080. The reason was simple: At 1920x1080, you are dealing with a resolution where the CPU is a limiting factor. At higher resolutions, this performance gap diminished to almost nothing.
Click to expand...
Right, so removing the GPU limit and focusing on the CPU as the limit, is the point. When the CPU is the limit, faster RAM often makes a difference. Because it improves the CPU performance.

Even in more balanced situations, you still often see better minimums and less of the longer frame times.
 
Dan_D said:
That's something I may investigate. However, at 1920x1080, you are still dealing with a CPU limited resolution. I did a quick look at PUBG benchmarks, and it doesn't seem to be massively demanding. Legit Reviews tested it and the RTX 2080 Ti actually showed better performance at 2560x1440 than it does at 1920x1080. It wasn't by a huge margin, but it was consistent. Of course at 3840x2160, the game is simply too demanding to hit 144FPS, but it does damn near hit 100FPS. In contrast, you'd be hard pressed to maintain 60FPS at max settings in certain activities. On my machine I see dips down to the high 40's on occasions where there are allot of visual effects going on and a ton of enemies on screen. Ghost Recon Wildlands is the same way. Most of the time, its no problem to stay beyond 60FPS, but on occasion it does drop into the mid-50's or so.

To further that point, all the Ryzen reviews showed a huge hit in gaming performance at 1920x1080. The reason was simple: At 1920x1080, you are dealing with a resolution where the CPU is a limiting factor. At higher resolutions, this performance gap diminished to almost nothing.
Click to expand...


While true, this was mostly due to early AGEA code limiting ram speed and tech reviewers using super slow DDR4 2400 with high timings. Since the IF clock is tied to memory speed, the newer AGEA code that allowed almost any brand IC to reach its rated speed (up to ~3200~3600). AMD refined the memory controller a good bit with Zen+, and they are claiming they have done it again in a big way with Zen2's memory "sweet spot" being 3733c17. While this is on X570, I would imagaine most x470 boards should be able to do at least 3400~3600 with good kits.

EDIT: With AMD now offering a 2:1 ratio for ram to IF speed, that should help allow the CPU to run at it's maximum performance for those that are on x470 or already have a decent 3200 kit and do not want to replace it. I would like to go to 3600~3733 but without knowing if x470 is going to handle it properly makes it a risk.

The faster ram speed gave Ryzen much better frame times, which is way more important then raw fPS....Smoothness, especially if you do not have a VRR enabled panel, is a big deal and should be the sole focus for the best possible gaming experience. You can have 1000FPS and if you are seeing frame times look like a scatter graph then you are not going to enjoy your experience.
 
Dan_D said:
As I said, POST times are influenced by a variety of factors. That said, I haven't noticed a real difference between similarly equipped X470 and Z390 motherboards or even X399 and X299 vs. those either.
Click to expand...

I timed my POST/boot times last night since I wanted to see why this was bothering me so much.

My Z87 Pro/4770k/2x8GB RAM with an 850 Pro hit the desktop in 28 seconds.

The Crosshair7/2700X/4x16GB RAM with an 840 Pro hit the desktop in 55. I also converted the OS install from MBR to GPT with mbr2gpt (built in to Windows 10 via the recovery mode) so I could do native UEFI instead of emulated BIOS.

The Crosshair was faster to boot from the time when the Windows dots started to spin, but the time from blank screen to the ROG logo really took long. I've heard that the X399/299s take their time as well, but also the Z390s?

I'll remove 3 sticks and DOCP from the x470 build tonight so we can see if that is causing it.
 
Last edited:
Yes, but again, you compare a DDR3 system with DDR4. In your case it might be down to DDR4 memory training being slow.
 
tangoseal said:
Oh yeah that was an older build and I think since the 200 series intel chipsets Gigabyte has had a lot more growth and attention to detail. They are directly competing now for top spot between Asus and MSI easily.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, Gigabyte is still wonky for me...
 
gigabyte has their moments but they obviously had zero trust in AMD and ryzen because their 300 series and 400 series were god awful and was quite obvious they put very little effort into the boards.. x570 that's a different story now because they know it's their only source of profit from their motherboard division til mid 2020.
 
sirmonkey1985 said:
gigabyte has their moments but they obviously had zero trust in AMD and ryzen because their 300 series and 400 series were god awful and was quite obvious they put very little effort into the boards.. x570 that's a different story now because they know it's their only source of profit from their motherboard division til mid 2020.
Click to expand...

See I cant argue against that.

The x399 was nice but the rest I agree were meh.
 
Last edited:
sirmonkey1985 said:
gigabyte has their moments but they obviously had zero trust in AMD and ryzen because their 300 series and 400 series were god awful and was quite obvious they put very little effort into the boards.. x570 that's a different story now because they know it's their only source of profit from their motherboard division til mid 2020.
Click to expand...

All of the GIGABYTE X470 motherboards I tested were pretty good. The 300 series sucked from EVERYONE. The chipset was a cautionary tale on how not to launch a chipset and motherboard platform. It took months of AGESA code work and BIOS updates from manufacturers to get the 300 series mostly straightened out. The 400 series was pretty good out of the gate. The only 300 series products that weren't terrible to begin with were all X399.
 
"mainstream" x570 is likely to only be ~$30 more range (due to trade war crap)
the middle range and up absolutely are going to be pricier .. IMO likely $100+ compared to x470 or x370 type thing (then again, they have WAY more on the board, so, price go up)

I believe the "top boards" so far leaked are ~$800, so, not all that much higher than the previous flagships from MSI, ASUS etc etc.

when has fancy name added to the base name, or a new name is when price up seems like, then again, knowing them makers, MSI as of late (Asus always) want to price as premium pricing, possible pressure from Nvidia ????

anywho, guesstimate, top end sub $1k (top end limited ~$1200...though a motherboard above $800 USD I would be seriously appaled, well, unless for Threadripper i.e quad channel or dual cpu ability....

hoping the Pro Carbon AC or w/e is even better than the B450 gaming pro carbon AC for around the same price ($200 +/-$20) as it is a "poor mans" high end board (even better than many others)

anywho....few more days we will know ^.^
 
Just guessing, but after really looking at the MSI MEG X570 GODLIKE, I'd be surprised if it was less than $699.99 MSRP and about $650 or so street price. That's if we are lucky. It could end up closer to the $800 mark. There are a ton of features on this motherboard. It has a fairly expensive PCB, VRM configuration, heat sink, and a ton of other features that nickle and dime you to death. It has a lot of the same extras and more that drove the Maximus XI Formula with its relatively cheap VRM's into the $450 range. Meanwhile the 14 phase Maximus XI APEX cost less. Crap like the LiveDash display, onboard buttons, LN2 features, and extra audio DACs and so on. There are IC's for all the monitoring and fan control, dual BIOS ROMs, etc. You also have four network solutions for it. Gigabit, 2.5GbE, 10GbE and wireless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top