AMD's budget Ryzen 3300X can outperform an old $350 Intel i7

mnewxcv said:
not for nothing, but I'd guess the new i3 will also be faster than the old i7. It's natural progression when competition exists.
Click to expand...

I'd wager that a new i3 is nearly on par with the old 4 core 4 thread i7's

Being the same architecture and process.

The only real variable is clock speed.
 
fightingfi said:
https://www.pcgamer.com/amd-ryzen-3...source=facebook&utm_campaign=buffer_pcgamerfb

ive never seen intel so down before its lots of fun dont you think LOL :D

I got so *tired* of buying a new cpu with a new motherboard every time you had to upgrade or chose to re-install everything spend days tweaking again............Thanks AMD Im happier Now :D :D
Click to expand...

I'm not defending Intel's actions. They have a tendency to replace their motherboards and chipsets far more than is actually necessary. However, there are positive things that result from that. The people that complain about changing motherboards are often the same people who come into the forum and make threads about replacing their CPU and not being able to flash it, or asking about AMD CPU compatibility, because its not as cut and dry as they thought it would be. These same people also find that there may be additional limitations of memory clocking or that their old budget boards don't support some of the features that the new CPU's do.

When we are talking about $150 to $200 motherboards, I generally couldn't care less about having to replace the board to get the best possible computing experience and the most out of my new processor. When you are talking about $600+ motherboards, then I think we are well into constant motherboard changes being an issue. Of course, the more expensive motherboards didn't make as many compromises in their designs and using a newer CPU with a high end motherboard that's a generation old often comes with fewer problems. The weird thing is that the people who buy the ultra-cheap motherboards tend to be the ones that don't want to replace their boards. The ones who have the $600+ motherboards are often the ones who will replace it each time there is a new chipset to get the latest features, the best memory clocks, and the best overclocking.

But when you change motherboards and chipsets each generation, you avoid the pitfalls of requiring an old CPU to even get the system to POST with a newer CPU. You avoid your BIOS ROM being to small to support a broad range of CPU's. You get up to date VRM designs and implementations that generally allow for better overclocking of modern CPU's. You also get the ability to clock RAM higher than you might on the older motherboards with those newer CPU's. Modern power savings features often don't work on legacy motherboards. The list of disadvantages goes on and on. Intel broadly avoids all that crap. If you match up the socket with the CPU you are normally good to go. Intel's had broad socket compatibility in the past and the same problems AMD's platform has were all very much present. It has also had artificially short life spans for chipsets and sockets and occasionally people have found enough evidence to call them out on that.

You pick your poison, but whether you were tired of buying new motherboards or not, there are plenty of valid reasons to go either direction. Personally, even with AMD's broad socket compatibility I opt for newer motherboards. I've even replaced the motherboard without replacing the CPU in order to gain access to newer platform features when there was something there I wanted. Of course, this was largely back when Intel's CPU's were stagnant and there was far more innovation on the motherboard side. These days CPU's are moving forward again on the AMD side, so it's largely had reasons to upgrade each generation while Intel hasn't.
 
Dan_D said:
I'm not defending Intel's actions. They have a tendency to replace their motherboards and chipsets far more than is actually necessary. However, there are positive things that result from that. The people that complain about changing motherboards are often the same people who come into the forum and make threads about replacing their CPU and not being able to flash it, or asking about AMD CPU compatibility, because its not as cut and dry as they thought it would be. These same people also find that there may be additional limitations of memory clocking or that their old budget boards don't support some of the features that the new CPU's do.

When we are talking about $150 to $200 motherboards, I generally couldn't care less about having to replace the board to get the best possible computing experience and the most out of my new processor. When you are talking about $600+ motherboards, then I think we are well into constant motherboard changes being an issue. Of course, the more expensive motherboards didn't make as many compromises in their designs and using a newer CPU with a high end motherboard that's a generation old often comes with fewer problems. The weird thing is that the people who buy the ultra-cheap motherboards tend to be the ones that don't want to replace their boards. The ones who have the $600+ motherboards are often the ones who will replace it each time there is a new chipset to get the latest features, the best memory clocks, and the best overclocking.

But when you change motherboards and chipsets each generation, you avoid the pitfalls of requiring an old CPU to even get the system to POST with a newer CPU. You avoid your BIOS ROM being to small to support a broad range of CPU's. You get up to date VRM designs and implementations that generally allow for better overclocking of modern CPU's. You also get the ability to clock RAM higher than you might on the older motherboards with those newer CPU's. Modern power savings features often don't work on legacy motherboards. The list of disadvantages goes on and on. Intel broadly avoids all that crap. If you match up the socket with the CPU you are normally good to go. Intel's had broad socket compatibility in the past and the same problems AMD's platform has were all very much present. It has also had artificially short life spans for chipsets and sockets and occasionally people have found enough evidence to call them out on that.

You pick your poison, but whether you were tired of buying new motherboards or not, there are plenty of valid reasons to go either direction. Personally, even with AMD's broad socket compatibility I opt for newer motherboards. I've even replaced the motherboard without replacing the CPU in order to gain access to newer platform features when there was something there I wanted. Of course, this was largely back when Intel's CPU's were stagnant and there was far more innovation on the motherboard side. These days CPU's are moving forward again on the AMD side, so it's largely had reasons to upgrade each generation while Intel hasn't.
Click to expand...

USB flashback in each iteration takes care of at least 4 of your points.
 
Well if that isn’t a trigger to finally upgrade the 7700k in my gaming box I don’t know what is.

I’m definitely old now though. I think about it and just think “ugh, can’t be bothered”, even though the performance has been annoying me for a while and even my laptop is faster.

Wish I could just be lazy and swap in a 9900KS even though I’m gonna go threadripper so I can do some machine consolidation
 
Iratus said:
I’m definitely old now though. I think about it and just think “ugh, can’t be bothered”, even though the performance has been annoying me for a while and even my laptop is faster.
Click to expand...

You know I had the same feeling last night as I was swapping out my Z170/6700K to a Ryzen 3900X/Asus X570-P. "I really don't want to do this shit any more." lol I am at the age where I look at digitalstormpc and think "you know, house is paid off, I am not hurting like my 20s/30s, I can afford to buy this damn thing already assembled." Updated the bios to 1407, VOILA! Endless boot to UEFI. Not one drive on Windows install was available. "Fuck this AMD SHIT." Then I shift F-10 clean the drives all off and it installed. Everything looks ok for what the 3900X is temp wise and fluctuations. Done. Next one being bought. Turning in my [H]ard badge. Wouldn't have done it if RamonGTP didn't call me out...sumbitch...;):ROFLMAO:
 
SnowBeast said:
You know I had the same feeling last night as I was swapping out my Z170/6700K to a Ryzen 3900X/Asus X570-P. "I really don't want to do this shit any more." lol I am at the age where I look at digitalstormpc and think "you know, house is paid off, I am not hurting like my 20s/30s, I can afford to buy this damn thing already assembled." Updated the bios to 1407, VOILA! Endless boot to UEFI. Not one drive on Windows install was available. "Fuck this AMD SHIT." Then I shift F-10 clean the drives all off and it installed. Everything looks ok for what the 3900X is temp wise and fluctuations. Done. Next one being bought. Turning in my [H]ard badge. Wouldn't have done it if RamonGTP didn't call me out...sumbitch...;):ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...

If you are going to buy a prebuilt, why bother at all, unless you have a very specific reason to do so. You are never to old do to this stuff, it is what is fun and rewarding. I have 3 computers at home that I use all on my own, since I am single and live alone. I will build my own until the opportunity no longer exists.
 
ManofGod said:
If you are going to buy a prebuilt, why bother at all, unless you have a very specific reason to do so. You are never to old do to this stuff, it is what is fun and rewarding. I have 3 computers at home that I use all on my own, since I am single and live alone. I will build my own until the opportunity no longer exists.
Click to expand...
I don't game much anymore, but I have a wife and 3 kids with 6 desktops + home server. I have my kids help with builds and swapping parts or upgrading the server . Great for them to learn these things and costs me a bit less to buy. I don't keep everything cutting edge (would cost way to much).
As per the previous comment from Dan_D. I buy cheap mothersboards for my kids builds. They are playing minecraft. If I can re-use it for an upgrade, that means I can spend more on the GPU or CPU. If I have to spend more $ on the MB, then that's less budget I can spend on the components. I feel if you have the money to keep replaceing $600 motherboards, the frustration of having to flash a bios is probably not worth your time. When your entire budget for a build is $600, you stretch every penny. I've got a B450 MB and full intend to upgrade the CPU when the new 4000 series comes out. I don't care for PCIE 4.0 for my desktop. Unless the B550 comes out at a really low price point I see no reason to upgrade. I'll be looking for the 4600/4600x series which should be fine on on older board. If I was buying 3950x or 4950x cpu's, then maybe I would worry more about the motherboard.
 
7700k looks WAY faster in gaming; especially when overclocked. In most gaming benchmarks it's anywhere from 3600x level to above the 3950x. Matches my experience from side-grading from a 7700k @ 4.9 to the 3700x.

 
SnowBeast said:
You know I had the same feeling last night as I was swapping out my Z170/6700K to a Ryzen 3900X/Asus X570-P. "I really don't want to do this shit any more." lol I am at the age where I look at digitalstormpc and think "you know, house is paid off, I am not hurting like my 20s/30s, I can afford to buy this damn thing already assembled." Updated the bios to 1407, VOILA! Endless boot to UEFI. Not one drive on Windows install was available. "Fuck this AMD SHIT." Then I shift F-10 clean the drives all off and it installed. Everything looks ok for what the 3900X is temp wise and fluctuations. Done. Next one being bought. Turning in my [H]ard badge. Wouldn't have done it if RamonGTP didn't call me out...sumbitch...;):ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...

SAD!
 
Bankie said:
7700k looks WAY faster in gaming; especially when overclocked. In most gaming benchmarks it's anywhere from 3600x level to above the 3950x. Matches my experience from side-grading from a 7700k @ 4.9 to the 3700x.
Click to expand...
You do realize you linked a video to the slower 3100 to make a point about the 3300x right? I'm looking at upgrading my son's 6600k with the 3300x, should be a pretty good upgrade. Has enough cores for most games and decent boost clocks on zen 2. Most benches I've found have the 3300x out in front of the 7700k in most things, which is pretty impressive for a $120 chip. So my choices for his platform are find a used 7700k for $200+... Or buy the 3300x for $120 + $80 MB... For $200 brand new and have more performance. If i were to go Intel, what can you get for that price that can keep up with/outpace a 7700k?
 
Ready4Dis said:
You do realize you linked a video to the slower 3100 to make a point about the 3300x right? I'm looking at upgrading my son's 6600k with the 3300x, should be a pretty good upgrade. Has enough cores for most games and decent boost clocks on zen 2. Most benches I've found have the 3300x out in front of the 7700k in most things, which is pretty impressive for a $120 chip. So my choices for his platform are find a used 7700k for $200+... Or buy the 3300x for $120 + $80 MB... For $200 brand new and have more performance. If i were to go Intel, what can you get for that price that can keep up with/outpace a 7700k?
Click to expand...

So are you saying the 3300x is going to be faster than the 3600x and 3950x at gaming? Because the 7700k OC'd quite often is which is why I posted it.
 
Bankie said:
So are you saying the 3300x is going to be faster than the 3600x and 3950x at gaming? Because the 7700k OC'd quite often is which is why I posted it.
Click to expand...
I'm saying benchmarks I've found puts the 3300x pretty much the same as 7700k. I was saying its a great price to get that good of performance. I wasn't saying the 7700k was crap, it was a good CPU 3 years ago. Now you can get the same performance with a $120 part, which is a really good improvement.
 
Bankie said:
So are you saying the 3300x is going to be faster than the 3600x and 3950x at gaming? Because the 7700k OC'd quite often is which is why I posted it.
Click to expand...

The key to the speed boost of the 3300x is that there's a single CCX in the CPU, which has a significant impact on reducing latency between cores. GN found that it makes up to a 20% difference clock for clock versus the 3100.



Whether the 3300x is faster than a 3600x comes down not to clock rates but whether a game can use more cores. If you watch the GN video you'll see their examples of this in action. Also, it is quite an exaggeration to say a 7700k is way faster. Even at 5.1GHz there's at best a small advantage over a 3300x at stock speeds. In many cases they are effectively equivalent.

This is actually why this chip is a 7700k killer. It has the same core and thread count, and better IPC. In games where more cores matter then neither of these CPUs is in the top tier. Note that people with a 7700k shouldn't sell their chip and run out and buy a 3300x. It is just that anyone looking for performance in that tier now has a no-brainer option. Just buy the 3300x and call it a day. Used 7700k chips should now have a value of less than $100.
 
So basically this is a beast cpu for the price.

But it seems that the 1600af is recommended over both if you can find one sub 100 dollars.
 
tangoseal said:
So basically this is a beast cpu for the price.

But it seems that the 1600af is recommended over both if you can find one sub 100 dollars.
Click to expand...
I don't know, 1600af is good if you plan to OC I guess, but the 3300x would probably still beat it in gaming and be pretty on par with mutlithreads (even with less cores). @$85 shipped the 1600AF was a great budget CPU, at $100+ it's a hard sell. Check around on benchmarks, 3300x seems to win by like 20% in gaming (just my rough guess after seeing a few charts may be more or less). It also wins in a good amount of other things like audio encoding zip compressor, browser speeds etc.
I would suggest finding benchmarks for what you use and then make the decision if the price difference is worth it. Right now, 1600AF are @$150... Absolutely horrible deal. Can get a 3600 for $20 more.
 
“But we need 8 core 16 thread CPUs minimum with the new consoles coming out!” They said...

Looks like a fast 4c8t cpu can still get it done for a while longer yet. For me these are interesting for general computing use, HTPC, upgrading an already ultra budget AM4 board with a first gen Ryzen quad, or setting up a new system on AM4 with the mind to eventually move to the 3900x or 3950x.

Still , personally, I feel that a 6c12t cpu is really the budget sweet spot and will last longer. These R3s are punchy and interesting but I’m not feeling it at even $120.
 
Last edited:
TheHig said:
“But we need 8 core 16 thread CPUs minimum with the new consoles coming out!” They said...

Looks like a fast 4c8t cpu can still get it done for a while longer yet. For me these are interesting for general computing use, HTPC, upgrading an already ultra budget AM4 board with a first gen Ryzen quad, or setting up a new system on AM4 with the mind to eventually move to the 3900x or 3959x.

Still , personally, I feel that a 6c12t cpu is really the budget sweet spot and will last longer. These R3s are punchy and interesting but I’m not feeling it at even $120.
Click to expand...
Well, after the consoles come out games/engines (especially those migrated from console) will tend to be more friendly towards cores. Of course there is only so much you can thread in a game, so point of diminishing returns. 4/8 works really well, especially when it's a single CCX with reduced latency. This is why it has so much better performance than the 3100 and can hang or beat the 3600 in lots of cases. But it still gets beat by in heavily threaded and by 3600x and higher due to lack of cores. This isn't bad, it's only $120 CPU and is more than enough for most normal usages. If building a cheap box for a limited budget but they want to play some games, this is a pretty good middle ground deal. Would make a great CPU for my daughter's PCs for example (heck, it easily beats my current 1600 in pretty much everything, but it'd be more of a sidegrade for me). May be give my MB to my daughter with a 3300x, get a used b350 atx to replace my aging server with my 1600 where the extra cores help. Dunno yet, waiting for b550's and more zen3 info to see if I can reuse my b450 or not.
 
doublejack said:
The key to the speed boost of the 3300x is that there's a single CCX in the CPU, which has a significant impact on reducing latency between cores. GN found that it makes up to a 20% difference clock for clock versus the 3100.



Whether the 3300x is faster than a 3600x comes down not to clock rates but whether a game can use more cores. If you watch the GN video you'll see their examples of this in action. Also, it is quite an exaggeration to say a 7700k is way faster. Even at 5.1GHz there's at best a small advantage over a 3300x at stock speeds. In many cases they are effectively equivalent.

This is actually why this chip is a 7700k killer. It has the same core and thread count, and better IPC. In games where more cores matter then neither of these CPUs is in the top tier. Note that people with a 7700k shouldn't sell their chip and run out and buy a 3300x. It is just that anyone looking for performance in that tier now has a no-brainer option. Just buy the 3300x and call it a day. Used 7700k chips should now have a value of less than $100.
Click to expand...

A friend is on a 4690. I told him about the 3300x was: It's not a $120 upgrade, it's more like $400 for new mb & ram (he's on haswell). He has an RX580 @ 1080p. I'm guessing he probably isnt' cpu limited yet...
 
/dev/null said:
A friend is on a 4690. I told him about the 3300x was: It's not a $120 upgrade, it's more like $400 for new mb & ram (he's on haswell). He has an RX580 @ 1080p. I'm guessing he probably isnt' cpu limited yet...
Click to expand...
Why is it $400? Get a b450 for $80 and throw $75 (16gb) worth of ram at it....
120+80+75 = $275... That's about how much a 7700k costs used. Are you pairing it with a high end x570 for a ryzen 3 CPU?
That said, his CPU and GPU are probably close enough matched that he won't get much without upgrading both.

Edit: Newegg has a few b450's starting at $65
 
/dev/null said:
A friend is on a 4690. I told him about the 3300x was: It's not a $120 upgrade, it's more like $400 for new mb & ram (he's on haswell). He has an RX580 @ 1080p. I'm guessing he probably isnt' cpu limited yet...
Click to expand...

Well that's true. Going from a 4690 to a 3300x is not a $120 upgrade. If your friend sold his 4690 / mobo / ram and purchased a B450 based mobo and 16GB of DDR4-3200 value ram the total upgrade cost could easily be less than $200, though. It would cost maybe $300ish out of pocket for the new combo, less whatever they can get for the old combo. I think it is an upgrade worth considering. Gaming improvements at 1080p with an RX 580 may or may not be noticeable depending on your friend's display refresh rate and game selection, but literally everything your friend does on their computer will be and feel faster. I felt noticeable gains going from a 1600x to a 3600, so coming from haswell the difference should be even bigger.

That said, there is a compelling reason to consider holding off on an upgrade right now. We're not too far from DDR5 platforms according to rumors. Zen 4 may support it, and Samsung is allegedly gearing up for mass production of it in 2021. From that perspective it doesn't make a lot of sense to get into a DDR4 platform while it is nearing EOL as the mainstream best option. I had a 2500k I was content with and planned to continue using it, skipping DDR4 entirely and going straight to DDR5. The issue was my motherboard died so I was forced to upgrade. A 4690 is still a viable gaming cpu at 1080p these days, as is a 2500k really (caveats assumed that not all games run really well and details may have to be turned down, but they'll generally play ok enough).
 
doublejack said:
Well that's true. Going from a 4690 to a 3300x is not a $120 upgrade. If your friend sold his 4690 / mobo / ram and purchased a B450 based mobo and 16GB of DDR4-3200 value ram the total upgrade cost could easily be less than $200, though. It would cost maybe $300ish out of pocket for the new combo, less whatever they can get for the old combo. I think it is an upgrade worth considering. Gaming improvements at 1080p with an RX 580 may or may not be noticeable depending on your friend's display refresh rate and game selection, but literally everything your friend does on their computer will be and feel faster. I felt noticeable gains going from a 1600x to a 3600, so coming from haswell the difference should be even bigger.

That said, there is a compelling reason to consider holding off on an upgrade right now. We're not too far from DDR5 platforms according to rumors. Zen 4 may support it, and Samsung is allegedly gearing up for mass production of it in 2021. From that perspective it doesn't make a lot of sense to get into a DDR4 platform while it is nearing EOL as the mainstream best option. I had a 2500k I was content with and planned to continue using it, skipping DDR4 entirely and going straight to DDR5. The issue was my motherboard died so I was forced to upgrade. A 4690 is still a viable gaming cpu at 1080p these days, as is a 2500k really (caveats assumed that not all games run really well and details may have to be turned down, but they'll generally play ok enough).
Click to expand...
I think for him the lack of cheap x570 & the non-existent B550 are causing him to wait. He wants to spend $100 on a basic board & have compatibility with Zen3.
 
doublejack said:
Well that's true. Going from a 4690 to a 3300x is not a $120 upgrade. If your friend sold his 4690 / mobo / ram and purchased a B450 based mobo and 16GB of DDR4-3200 value ram the total upgrade cost could easily be less than $200, though. It would cost maybe $300ish out of pocket for the new combo, less whatever they can get for the old combo. I think it is an upgrade worth considering. Gaming improvements at 1080p with an RX 580 may or may not be noticeable depending on your friend's display refresh rate and game selection, but literally everything your friend does on their computer will be and feel faster. I felt noticeable gains going from a 1600x to a 3600, so coming from haswell the difference should be even bigger.

That said, there is a compelling reason to consider holding off on an upgrade right now. We're not too far from DDR5 platforms according to rumors. Zen 4 may support it, and Samsung is allegedly gearing up for mass production of it in 2021. From that perspective it doesn't make a lot of sense to get into a DDR4 platform while it is nearing EOL as the mainstream best option. I had a 2500k I was content with and planned to continue using it, skipping DDR4 entirely and going straight to DDR5. The issue was my motherboard died so I was forced to upgrade. A 4690 is still a viable gaming cpu at 1080p these days, as is a 2500k really (caveats assumed that not all games run really well and details may have to be turned down, but they'll generally play ok enough).
Click to expand...
The parts are literally $275, so I agree it could be $200 if he sells his stuff for $75. If he's upgrading to an equivelent intel CPU, it's going to be at least that much too. He couild upgrade to a used 7700k and pay $200 just for the CPU plus another $100 for a used Z170 board and still need ram (and have all used parts)... not sure how that makes any more sense. I do agree, any upgrade to a new platform is more than just the CPU but that isn't an AMD thing... it's an if you want to upgrade from an old platform thing.
 
/dev/null said:
I think for him the lack of cheap x570 & the non-existent B550 are causing him to wait. He wants to spend $100 on a basic board & have compatibility with Zen3.
Click to expand...
Yeah, AMD really screwed up on this one... no b450/x470 support going forward and no B550's still... putting people in a crappy proposition to buy a low/mid CPU. If the B550's came out last year most would have been buying those instead of B450's and now find out their out of luck going forward. It's not like they had a great option, with an x570 they would spend as much or more on their motherboard than the CPU.
 
Ready4Dis said:
Yeah, AMD really screwed up on this one... no b450/x470 support going forward and no B550's still... putting people in a crappy proposition to buy a low/mid CPU. If the B550's came out last year most would have been buying those instead of B450's and now find out their out of luck going forward. It's not like they had a great option, with an x570 they would spend as much or more on their motherboard than the CPU.
Click to expand...
I got my B550 from microcenter for something like $69 bucks. Really good deal. It supported the APUs and will support the next generation. So I'm happy.
 
kac77 said:
I got my B550 from microcenter for something like $69 bucks. Really good deal. It supported the APUs and will support the next generation. So I'm happy.
Click to expand...
You sure it wasn't a b450? "AMD B550 motherboards are expected to be available beginning June 16, 2020".. they still aren't even for sale yet.
 
Ready4Dis said:
Yeah, AMD really screwed up on this one... no b450/x470 support going forward and no B550's still... putting people in a crappy proposition to buy a low/mid CPU. If the B550's came out last year most would have been buying those instead of B450's and now find out their out of luck going forward. It's not like they had a great option, with an x570 they would spend as much or more on their motherboard than the CPU.
Click to expand...
It's called clear out the old stock before you release something that on day 1 will make all your other extremely low margin products obsolete.
This is the opposite of screwing up.
How much money do you think AMD makes on a chipset sale? If they were stuck with a million unsellable b450 chips that would be catastrophic. Dr Su ain't no dole
 
travm said:
It's called clear out the old stock before you release something that on day 1 will make all your other extremely low margin products obsolete.
This is the opposite of screwing up.
How much money do you think AMD makes on a chipset sale? If they were stuck with a million unsellable b450 chips that would be catastrophic. Dr Su ain't no dole
Click to expand...
This is true, but it also means a lot of people are hesitant to purchase right now. There are no options. People waiting is no good for business either. I get it, the x570 is their own design they make money from, b550 is made by 3rd party. They wanted to be the only one in the market to make some $. Still leaves a bad taste as most figured (and AMD did nothing to tamp out rumors) since the b550 was so late to the party they might as well pick up a b450 or x470. That all said, it's mildly annoying but doesn't bother me enough to really care, which is probably what they are backing on.

Edit:. Just for example, I was hoping to update my b450 with a new CPU, buy a new MB and drop my old chip into a server to replace my old one, and get my son one of the 3300x's. I was ready to start buying things up then realized it's a no go. So now I'll sit in limbo for months instead of buying 2 new CPUs and new MB's...
 
travm said:
It's called clear out the old stock before you release something that on day 1 will make all your other extremely low margin products obsolete.
This is the opposite of screwing up.
How much money do you think AMD makes on a chipset sale? If they were stuck with a million unsellable b450 chips that would be catastrophic. Dr Su ain't no dole
Click to expand...

I think there's a lot to this. At the time I bought my 3600 the local Microcenter still had a ton of B350 and x370 boards in stock. I was pretty shocked since the 400 series launched with Zen+. There were some massive discounts on the 300 series boards to clear them out at that point. I snagged a second B350 Tomahawk for a whopping $9 after the CPU / mobo combo discount. Even at the asking price of $59 for the board it was a steal IMO. (A handed down 1600, a $9 B350 Tomahawk and 16GB of DDR4-2800 by OLOy I got for $42 makes for a bangin' plex server on the cheap.)

Since there was an ample supply of both B350 and B450 boards at the launch of Zen 2 I can totally understand why B550 was not released. It is kind of strange that the demand for Zen+ and Zen 2 CPUs seems to exceed the demand for socket AM4 boards.
 
Ready4Dis said:
This is true, but it also means a lot of people are hesitant to purchase right now. There are no options. People waiting is no good for business either. I get it, the x570 is their own design they make money from, b550 is made by 3rd party. They wanted to be the only one in the market to make some $. Still leaves a bad taste as most figured (and AMD did nothing to tamp out rumors) since the b550 was so late to the party they might as well pick up a b450 or x470. That all said, it's mildly annoying but doesn't bother me enough to really care, which is probably what they are backing on.

Edit:. Just for example, I was hoping to update my b450 with a new CPU, buy a new MB and drop my old chip into a server to replace my old one, and get my son one of the 3300x's. I was ready to start buying things up then realized it's a no go. So now I'll sit in limbo for months instead of buying 2 new CPUs and new MB's...
Click to expand...
wait who makes the B450?
 
Dan_D said:
I'm not defending Intel's actions. They have a tendency to replace their motherboards and chipsets far more than is actually necessary. However, there are positive things that result from that. The people that complain about changing motherboards are often the same people who come into the forum and make threads about replacing their CPU and not being able to flash it, or asking about AMD CPU compatibility, because its not as cut and dry as they thought it would be. These same people also find that there may be additional limitations of memory clocking or that their old budget boards don't support some of the features that the new CPU's do.

When we are talking about $150 to $200 motherboards, I generally couldn't care less about having to replace the board to get the best possible computing experience and the most out of my new processor. When you are talking about $600+ motherboards, then I think we are well into constant motherboard changes being an issue. Of course, the more expensive motherboards didn't make as many compromises in their designs and using a newer CPU with a high end motherboard that's a generation old often comes with fewer problems. The weird thing is that the people who buy the ultra-cheap motherboards tend to be the ones that don't want to replace their boards. The ones who have the $600+ motherboards are often the ones who will replace it each time there is a new chipset to get the latest features, the best memory clocks, and the best overclocking.

But when you change motherboards and chipsets each generation, you avoid the pitfalls of requiring an old CPU to even get the system to POST with a newer CPU. You avoid your BIOS ROM being to small to support a broad range of CPU's. You get up to date VRM designs and implementations that generally allow for better overclocking of modern CPU's. You also get the ability to clock RAM higher than you might on the older motherboards with those newer CPU's. Modern power savings features often don't work on legacy motherboards. The list of disadvantages goes on and on. Intel broadly avoids all that crap. If you match up the socket with the CPU you are normally good to go. Intel's had broad socket compatibility in the past and the same problems AMD's platform has were all very much present. It has also had artificially short life spans for chipsets and sockets and occasionally people have found enough evidence to call them out on that.

You pick your poison, but whether you were tired of buying new motherboards or not, there are plenty of valid reasons to go either direction. Personally, even with AMD's broad socket compatibility I opt for newer motherboards. I've even replaced the motherboard without replacing the CPU in order to gain access to newer platform features when there was something there I wanted. Of course, this was largely back when Intel's CPU's were stagnant and there was far more innovation on the motherboard side. These days CPU's are moving forward again on the AMD side, so it's largely had reasons to upgrade each generation while Intel hasn't.
Click to expand...

Maybe microsoft has changed and they very well could have done, but last time I tried to change my motherboard because it fried when everything else was good I had to buy windows again. I may very well be out of date here. But I thought they pinned it on your motherboard.
 
mattador said:
Maybe microsoft has changed and they very well could have done, but last time I tried to change my motherboard because it fried when everything else was good I had to buy windows again. I may very well be out of date here. But I thought they pinned it on your motherboard.
Click to expand...
They do, but for future reference you just tell them that you had the motherboard replaced under warranty. They'll reset the activation ;)
 
Ready4Dis said:
Yeah, AMD really screwed up on this one... no b450/x470 support going forward and no B550's still... putting people in a crappy proposition to buy a low/mid CPU. If the B550's came out last year most would have been buying those instead of B450's and now find out their out of luck going forward. It's not like they had a great option, with an x570 they would spend as much or more on their motherboard than the CPU.
Click to expand...

i'm going to say asmedia probably screwed the pooch on this one.. i think AMD should of just bit the bullet and released their own b550 chipset after asmedia failed to deliver b550 when it was suppose to. but i'm going to guess they already invested to much money into it to just walk away from the contract. i still have a sneaky feeling that we'll end up seeing some b450 and x470 boards supporting zen 3 unofficially by claiming the bios is "beta" so then they can pass the blame on the customer when something doesn't work right. was really popular from board partners back during phenom II when a lot of the old am2 boards supported phenom II using a beta bios and there was no point in contacting support for help if you had that bios installed.


tangoseal said:
So basically this is a beast cpu for the price.

But it seems that the 1600af is recommended over both if you can find one sub 100 dollars.
Click to expand...

the AF's a better buy but is super hard to find at msrp price. apparently they're still making them but not enough to push out the scalpers from inflating the price.
 
sirmonkey1985 said:
i'm going to say asmedia probably screwed the pooch on this one.. i think AMD should of just bit the bullet and released their own b550 chipset after asmedia failed to deliver b550 when it was suppose to. but i'm going to guess they already invested to much money into it to just walk away from the contract. i still have a sneaky feeling that we'll end up seeing some b450 and x470 boards supporting zen 3 unofficially by claiming the bios is "beta" so then they can pass the blame on the customer when something doesn't work right. was really popular from board partners back during phenom II when a lot of the old am2 boards supported phenom II using a beta bios and there was no point in contacting support for help if you had that bios installed.




the AF's a better buy but is super hard to find at msrp price. apparently they're still making them but not enough to push out the scalpers from inflating the price.
Click to expand...
No, asmedia had these ready and sampling since the x570s came out... And seeing as they helped and design the x570 I doubt it's them holding it up.
 
I'm not even sure how anyone can be cranked about this. Old motherboards are compatible with new processors... Are we really complaining that the currently available super budget motherboards, cannot be upgraded to the next generation of unreleased processors? I understand how it would be desirable to buy a new motherboard now with a longer upgrade path, but it does not make any sense for AMD to release such a thing that would immediately make all their existing budget inventory obsolete.
If the upgrade path is important to you, spend the extra $75 on a X570 motherboard.
I'm more excited about still being able to drop these chips into my old X370.
 
  • Like
Reactions: N4CR
like this
travm said:
I'm not even sure how anyone can be cranked about this. Old motherboards are compatible with new processors... Are we really complaining that the currently available super budget motherboards, cannot be upgraded to the next generation of unreleased processors? I understand how it would be desirable to buy a new motherboard now with a longer upgrade path, but it does not make any sense for AMD to release such a thing that would immediately make all their existing budget inventory obsolete.
If the upgrade path is important to you, spend the extra $75 on a X570 motherboard.
I'm more excited about still being able to drop these chips into my old X370.
Click to expand...
I think it's more than hey are just now releasing things like the 3300x... Nobody wants to put a $120 chip on a $200 motherboard... If you pick up a b450 it'll work but zero going forward. It really leaves no option right now. If b550's came out in a reasonable time frame, then this wouldn't be the case. I'm honestly not even that upset, but they could have stopped the rumors sooner.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top