DooKey
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2001
- Messages
- 12,434
Loved my Taichi x570. Paid $299 from Amazon a couple of years back. My daughter still has it. Too bad $300 doesn't buy a pretty high-end board anymore.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
AMD Ryzen 7000 Series Reviews
- Thread starter ChadD
- Start date
OKC Yeakey Trentadue
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2021
- Messages
- 485
Its like they did everything just to show a benchmark advantage in each bracket for gaming. This was done likely to steal thunder from RTR-S for the masses.
Forget x3d models, AMD really needs to push out (non x) models that drop performance by 5% for 20%+ power savings. That, and cheaper quality B650 boards will make this platform attractive.
OKC Yeakey Trentadue
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2021
- Messages
- 485
Fail at 7:30. Why are gamers so bad at math???
** To clarify, Steve says "the 7950x gets 6 minutes in Blender while the 7900x gets 8. The 16 cores reduces time by 25% while having 33% more cores, so not perfect scaling.
Sorry but it IS perfect scaling if you actually math it correctry using the inverse of the core count. Ugh...
The X570 Taichi wasn't exactly high end either. Sub-$300 boards have been on the brink of being less than midrange for awhile now.
NightReaver
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2017
- Messages
- 2,457
Maybe not, but it's definitely another quality drop.
I'm surprised anyone cares about SATA M.2 drives.
Where have you been? $300 hasn't been decently high end for years now.
NightReaver
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2017
- Messages
- 2,457
They work just fine for storage. If I find a nice deal on a 1tb+, why not.
DooKey
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2001
- Messages
- 12,434
I guess we just have different views. No biggie. I always considered the $500 boards uber high-end is all. Seemed like the $3-$400 space was good compromise between the low-end and halo motherboards. Meh.
I've been using a Samsung 850 EVO 500GB m.2 as my OS drive for years. It still works great.
You're acting like spending $1500-2000 for a CPU/MB/DDR5 to save $6.13 a year on your power bill is nothing!
You're acting like spending $1500-2000 for a CPU/MB/DDR5 to save $6.13 a year on your power bill is nothing!
People don't seem to be aware that it would take years to break even on the initial cost of a more efficient system in a lot of these cases.
NightReaver
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2017
- Messages
- 2,457
Alright? People do buy them. Depends on the deals and the budget. Doesn't excuse sata being axed from m.2 slots, nor the lowering of the number of sata ports.
Furious_Styles
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2013
- Messages
- 3,831
Yeah they realized that crowd that buys those boards will gladly pay double so they figured why not?
Brackle
Old Timer
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 8,267
You will always get people to pay over the top prices on brand new releases. Be it Nvidia, Intel, AMD, Apple, Samsung.
So in my opinion It is so be expected to get ripped off on release day lol.
NightReaver
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2017
- Messages
- 2,457
It's funny that we thought the X570 Aqua at $1000 was crazy. At least that had full watercooling. Now for $1000 you don't get anything like that.
Armenius
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2014
- Messages
- 36,123
jlbenedict
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- May 22, 2005
- Messages
- 1,964
lmao at this quote from another site:
"Another thing that plagues the X670/X670E platform is the annoyingly long startup time. It takes more than 30 seconds before the BIOS logo appears which is longer than some fanboys have sex"
"Another thing that plagues the X670/X670E platform is the annoyingly long startup time. It takes more than 30 seconds before the BIOS logo appears which is longer than some fanboys have sex"
Its clear theyre seeing SATA is legacy.
Also the price delta between SATA and NVME drives of the same size is so small that it practically falls into penny penching, which probably isn't the buyer they're targeting for X670. Like buying a Ferrari and complaining it won't take the cheapest 87 Octane.
I reckon the budget B series boards will probably have M.2 SATA ports. Or just stick with X570/B550.
That's part of it, but these boards also cost a lot more to make. Not only does it cost more to make everything these days there's also added costs in terms of needing better power delivery compared to previous generations, plus PCI-E Gen 5 (and, possibly, DDR5 but I'm not sure on that) require PCBs with more layers. We saw a price jump from Gen 3 to Gen 4 and now going from 4 to 5 we have another jump.
Furious_Styles
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2013
- Messages
- 3,831
Sorry I don't buy it. I bet they cost marginally more than other boards because they're largely the exact same feature set except with the addition of a few bells and whistles.
NightReaver
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2017
- Messages
- 2,457
Except the lower end X670 boards are nowhere near that comparison, but okay.
*Edit* All I'm getting at is I don't see why it should be acceptable to have less features/options on higher priced boards. It would be one thing if it was to make room for more higher end stuff, but is that really the case? Shouldn't a better motherboard have more option than lower end ones?
All think being equal, not having cables and taking space seem just positive to me, didn't made sense just because we usually 1-2 m.2 slot, but if computer start to have 4 to 6 of them.... why go to a non m.2 sata ssd if pricing is similar ?
RanceJustice
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2003
- Messages
- 6,378
I am curious how this happens, especially on a high end board like the Asus Crosshair Hero (which is squarely in the top tier and only a step or two below the actual best of the best board, the Extreme typically). Is there a reason they've done this? Does it grant some other benefit? Does it require some electrical change or how the slot's connectivity works? If not, they could easily put the functionality back in through a BIOS/UEFI update, at least on some slot. However even if this isn't possible, I wonder if there is some sort of M.2 SATA > NVME converter widget. Anyway, it does seem to be a bit of an edge case, but I do think they should have supported it on at least one or two slots when some of the high end boards support a considerable amount of M.2 NVME drives.
I was actually pleasantly surprised by the pricing for AM5 so far at least on the ultra high end. If we remember that the Z690 (and likely Z790) high end boards easily hit $1300 for the standard Maximus Extreme and a whopping $2000 for the water cooled monoblock edition, I was sure to think that AMD may have followed suit price wise. However, even the Crosshair X670E Extreme is $900-1000, and some other high end boards are in the $700-900 range that's a bit lower than what they could have done - still expensive of course, but it did take some restraint. Likewise, they priced the 7950X at $700 which is less than the 5950X as I recall, when they could have easily made it $899-999 and simply stacked another premium on the 3D version when it arrived. Its by no means cheap, but especially given all the changes and new tech and the "new normal" which is frustrating, its nowhere near as insane as I expected it to be.
Edit: Regarding motherboards, specifically for Asus does it seem strange that A) They went with a mATX "Gene" board rather than the mITX "Impact" when the latter is more popular among SFF builders willing to pay for performance and B) There's no "Extreme Glacial" liquid cooling version? Don't get me wrong I'm sure it would be expensive but its a little annoying to see the Intel boards get things like that on the highest end, but apparently not AMD?
NightReaver
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2017
- Messages
- 2,457
Idk. Bandwidth was mentioned for the less SATA ports, yet some boards with more ports also have more m.2 slots than ones with fewer of both. I don't care if it's seen as "legacy". If I spend more, I want more features for hardware support.
You would be surprised at how much some components cost. Buildzoid often talks about prices of VRMs in his motherboard breakdown videos and those things can get quite pricy. I seem to recall him talking about some that were like $10 per VRM and that was a couple years ago. With boards now all needing much better power delivery compared to before they really can't use the cheap shit anymore and these X670 and X670E boards have some pretty good VRM configurations. The higher-end controllers these require are also going to cost more. Adding more layers to a board isn't really cheap either. Cost-per-layer does not scale at a flat rate.
Now, mind you, I'm not say that is the only reason for the cost increase. It is part of it, but I did agree with you on them charging more because they can. They justify it with a bunch of features that most people will never use, but they look good in marketing and on a spec sheet. This is especially true of the X670E boards.
That was the case around the Z170 era. Prices have been moving up since then and with the X570 launch the ultra high end boards were all around $650 to $800. With Z690, we saw that gap increase even more. Not counting the Glacial model, the ROG Maximus Z690 Extreme was $1,100. That was probably just about the most expensive board aside from some other monoblock equipped models or the MSI Z690 GODLIKE which came with an AIO, RAM and some other gimmicks.
Some of the cost increases are tied to rising costs and shortages all over the world. The margins are certainly higher on the halo products but they are razor thin to non-existent on the low and even midrange boards.
Last edited:
The embargo has lifted. Techpowerup, among other sites, has preliminary info. From the title: "Intel 13th Gen Core "Raptor Lake" Desktop Processors Launched: +15% ST, +41% MT Uplift"
Ars Technica (I think, maybe it was Anandtech) has a review today. They say that you get like a 41% increase in MT perf at those stock (high) voltages and thermals, but if you enable the 65W Eco mode, you'll get...the same performance as the 5950X, but at 65W instead of 170 or whatever it was the 5950X will take at full power. That's pretty fricking impressive in its own way.
AM5 CPU has no SATA support, it all comes from the chipset.
Yea. I took a look at it as well.
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/202...ew-zen-4-starts-off-expensive-but-impressive/
Second to last image slideshow. Don't want to overload the post with a bunch of images, but there's a bunch there in different games as well as multithreaded benchmarks. The fact that there is hardly any performance dip at all in a gaming environment when dropped to either 105 or 65w is very impressive. Beating a 12900k in multithreaded cinebench run at 65W speaks to zen 4's strength. I wish they had 1440p and 4k benchmarks though with the lower power targets. But for those looking for a lower power cpu, it has the capability, and is more efficient than zen 3 for sure. Considering we have competition this time around though, makes sense why they went for a PBO from stock CPU considering leaked raptor lake benches. I'm expecting Intel and AMD to be pushing their cpus to the silicon limits till one breaks away.
Derbauer's already delidding them and got the temps to mid 70s with direct die contact. He didn't much talk about clock speed boosts or performance gains, said that was in the next video.
In the comments, after people complained about all the typos and gibberish sentences, they admitted they were throwing up stuff as fast as they could. We should see those soon.
Hope so. If raptor lake fails to tickle my fancy, and the 7950x can still be such a performer at 65w...Leaning towards it atm. Use an eco mode for daily tasks, and go full power when I'm in my 3d workspaces...Nice blend for sure. But really comes down to price. Want a DDR4 to 5 comparison for raptor lake. The board cost and ddr5 price of zen 4 is a bit of a disappointment. Especially considering I already have 64gb of ddr4 to use.
Legendary Gamer
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2012
- Messages
- 1,272
I personally didn't... Until working at BP... Where they seem to throw these damn things in every system. Sometimes I feel like I would be better off banging two stones together to create a spark as an instructional approach. These people in the IT department didn't even understand Dual Channel Memory and were running 90% of their systems in single channel mode. I had to explain the difference in speed and even then, it didn't really register for them. So, I shut up and kept collecting a paycheck. In my experience, trying to help ends up getting you fired.
Any time there's a question asked in the title of an article (or video in this case) the answer is usually "no".
My Gigabyte Z690I Ultra Plus DDR4 (itself a replacement for the badly-designed Ultra DDR4) took almost that long--and close to a minute to boot to Windows--and that was, as noted, with DDR4. It also took 30+ seconds to go to sleep or wake up from sleep.
There was talk on some reviews of the motherboard makers tweaking the BIOS to reduce that time. Apparently part of it was enterprise-level mitigations for sidechannel RAM attacks, and those probably aren't very important for home use and might get removed (or a BIOS option to disable).
learners permit
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2005
- Messages
- 1,295
More mature bios tweaking eco 65/105 modes with the ability to hot switch between the three modes via Ryzen master should be a sweet setup for production types that also game on their rigs.