X399 but which one?

Discussion in 'AMD MoBos' started by M76, Sep 20, 2018.

  1. M76

    M76 [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    7,725
    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    I'm getting more hyped about pulling the trigger on a Threadripper, but the MB prices are putting me off quite badly.
    Even the cheapest ones are over $300 which is a lot of money for an MB even if it's enthusiast level stuff.

    So why is entry into X399 so much more expensive than X299? You can get a X299 for around $200 that's a huge difference.

    Anyway I guess my question is: Is it safe to buy an ASUS X399-A Prime which seems to be the cheapest solution now?

    I don't want record breaking OCs but if I don't get at least some OC I'd be disappointed.
     
  2. Aluminum

    Aluminum Gawd

    Messages:
    513
    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2015
    Asrock boards are totally worth the few dollars more over the budget Asus. (although even the zenith is a turd in my book)

    The Tachis are only a few dollars more, the micro atx model is cheaper if you get the rebate.
     
    M76 likes this.
  3. atp1916

    atp1916 [H]ard|DCoTM x1

    Messages:
    3,629
    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2004
    Asrock X399 Taichi rockin' solid here with a TR 1950x.

    Using G.Skill DDR4 3200 16-18-18-35 stuff with 0 issues.

    Crunching away as we speak.
     
  4. KazeoHin

    KazeoHin [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    7,523
    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2011
    MSI's Carbon is what I'm running. I'm happy with it.
     
  5. Hakaba

    Hakaba I Think I am Funny, but I'm Not

    Messages:
    405
    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2013
    I have been looking at that board, want to pair it with a 2950x. Can you run lower timing? Or does it have issues doing so?
     
  6. faugusztin

    faugusztin 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,584
    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2008
    I use the Taichi too, with a 2950x and G.Skill F4-3200C14Q-64GTZR. Being it 4x16GB kit, i didn't manage to run it at 3200CL14, but i didn't try to hard, i spent maybe 30 minutes playing around with RAM settings. So i run them at 3000CL14.

    Really the only issue i could mention with ASRock & Threadripper is the fan control. For some reason, ASRock decided that your options for temperature sensor inputs are only Tctrl (Tdie+27C), MB CPU temperature (more or less same as Tctrl) and MB temperature (has nothing to do with CPU temperature). Thus my CPU cooler fan curve starts at 70C (LOL), because really that is 43C CPU Tdie temperature.
     
    Aluminum and Hakaba like this.
  7. Hakaba

    Hakaba I Think I am Funny, but I'm Not

    Messages:
    405
    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2013
    Thanks for the info.
     
  8. cyberguyz

    cyberguyz Gawd

    Messages:
    580
    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2014
    My Asrock 399 Taichi is also pretty solid. I'm running with a pair of G-Skill F4-3200C14D-32GTZ kits. Runs stable at the XMP latencies, but I have to drop the speed back to 3133 due to the module sizes. It will also do 3.7 on all cores without touching voltages. I found the latest bios 3.3 is less stable for me than the 3.2 or beta bios (I stayed with 3.2 which for me is working well). I previously had an Gigabyte Aorus X399 gaming 7 board. It went tits-up from sudden death syndrome.
     
  9. Aluminum

    Aluminum Gawd

    Messages:
    513
    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2015
    Yeah TR temp offset is just plain annoying and I still don't quite get why they did this, is the "normal" 100C cutoff baked hard into too many BMC/fan controllers or something? 2990WX offset is even more nuts.

    I'm ok with the bios controls working well enough in practice though, because at 43C or below quite frankly the fans can sit a minimum or even totally off for all I care.
     
  10. Hakaba

    Hakaba I Think I am Funny, but I'm Not

    Messages:
    405
    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2013
    Thanks for the info, looks like Asrock will be the way to go.
     
  11. M76

    M76 [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    7,725
    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    I'm still on the fence I can get a x299 for almost half of that asrock, spend the leftover cash on a faster intel cpu, and don't even have to pay for a new cooler. Tell me why I shouldn't do that?
     
  12. faugusztin

    faugusztin 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,584
    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2008
  13. cdoublejj

    cdoublejj Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    147
    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2013
    also while Ryzen has Spectre like all other CPUs, Ryzen does not have Meltdown. I've also heard the AMDs this gen may run a little cooler i'd have to go back and look youtube comparisons.
     
  14. Dan_D

    Dan_D [H]ardOCP Motherboard Editor

    Messages:
    54,216
    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    There are some misconceptions here about the motherboard prices so let me clarify. First off, the X299 motherboards you can get for $200 or so aren't on par with the $400+ X399 motherboards. Motherboard manufacturers have not sunk the huge amount of money into R&D that they have on Intel motherboards. Intel processors sell in far greater quantities than AMD processors do and companies like MSI, GIGABYTE and ASUS only created one or two models initially and one or two refresh offerings. ASUS didn't even bother with a refreshed version of its Zenith Extreme.

    The ultra high end versions of X299 motherboards are just as expensive as high end X399 motherboards. Integrated features, better VRM cooling etc. all contribute to higher costs.
     
    jeffj7 likes this.
  15. M76

    M76 [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    7,725
    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    I don't care for, need, or want to pay for the features of high end motherboards. Because even the cheapest ones have the features that I need. I don't want fancy integrated sound, I don't want fancy lan chips, I don't want fancy RGB lights, I don't want additional integrated storage controllers, I don't want WLAN, USB charger, USB 3.1, and I could list all of the features that "ultra-high end" boards offer. I don't need any of it. What I want is for it to work out of the box. And my question was aimed at the quality of VRMs. How much overclocking potential is sacrificed.
     
    Last edited: Sep 28, 2018
  16. cyberguyz

    cyberguyz Gawd

    Messages:
    580
    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2014
    x399 has a LOT more motherboard resources than the X299 platform - which is more CPU-limited. Also AMD tends to stick with a single platform for multiple CPU releases. Intel sucks monkey turds as far as using the same platform for more than one or two CPU releases. Many of us like having a full complement of PCIe resource and USB ports. I run 3x PCIe 3.0 x4 M.2 drives. That is 12 PCIe lanes just for my SSD storage. I don't have to trade off any of my sata ports for that either. And being able to pop 128GB of memory in (good luck finding/affording 120GB 4-channel memory kits tho). Add to all that the coolness of having 16 cores and I have no problem at all with running 3-4 virtual machines. And those VMs are just as responsive as they are if there is only one active. Intel's X299 platform can't touch that.
     
    jeffj7 likes this.
  17. Dan_D

    Dan_D [H]ardOCP Motherboard Editor

    Messages:
    54,216
    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    No it doesn't. As platforms the two are virtually identical. AMD only has more I/O for legacy SATA ports. It does have a few more USB ports but they tend to perform slightly worse than Intel's and this can be easily mitigated with additional controllers such as Intel's Alpine Ridge, which adds Thunderbolt support. Popular add-ons are ASMedia's 3142, etc.

    X399
    • Quad-Channel DDR4
    • Multi-GPU Support
    • 66 PCIe Gen 3.0 lanes (2x lanes reserved & Unusable)
    • 8x PCIe Gen 2.0 lanes
    • Up to 2 USB 3.1 Gen 2 ports
    • Up to 14 USB 3.1 Gen 1 ports
    • Up to 6x USB 2.0 ports
    • 12x SATA ports
    • SATA RAID 0, 1, 10
    • NVMe RAID support

    X299
    • Quad-Channel DDR4
    • Multi-GPU Support
    • 68 PCIe Gen 3.0 lanes
    • Up to 14 USB 2.0 ports
    • Up to 10 USB 3.0 ports
    • 8x SATA ports
    • SATA RAID 0, 1, 5, 10
    • NVMe RAID support (w/vROC horseshit)

    You can argue that Intel's got some of its PCIe lanes behind DMI 3.0, which is true. Theoretically this is a problem but in reality this is rarely the case outside of drive benchmarks. I've done the testing on NVMe RAID arrays between the two and Intel is just as fast if not faster (even through DMI 3.0) in a two drive configuration. You can still use the CPU PCIe lanes for RAID, but it requires a vROC license key to do so. For one or two drives this isn't a big deal. For three or more, it certainly is. However, AMD gimps you with PCIe 2.0 vs. 3.0 lanes and its chipset only has 8x lanes which effectively has the same limitations going to the CPU as DMI 3.0. If anything, the raw PCIe lanes used for that have more overhead on the AMD side than DMI 3.0 does. AMD does have more SATA ports than Intel does, so I'll have to give you that one. I think this is less of an issue as people transition to M.2 devices and even if you don't, you can work around this on either platform with additional PCIe storage controllers if you want to get serious about your SATA / SAS stuff for some reason.

    This is a double edged sword. As I've said, Intel probably changes too quickly while AMD doesn't usually change enough. AM3 stuck around way too long and Bulldozer's variants were worse off for it. Socket A is another example of this as well.

    You can have a "full compliment" of PCIe and USB ports on Intel's platform. You just have to spend more on the CPU to do it. I agree that's fucking horseshit, but its definitely possible. SATA ports on Intel's side are faster and more flexible than AMD's are as I've stated many times. You can also have more than 16 cores on the Intel side and do everything you can with AMD's Threadripper. So Intel's platform can touch that. It just can't do it for the same price. My next processor will be a Threadripper 2950X, so I'm all for going AMD right now but don't pretend that AMD has some sort of technological superiority over Intel because it simply doesn't. AMD simply offers more for the money than Intel does right now.
     
    cyberguyz likes this.
  18. cyberguyz

    cyberguyz Gawd

    Messages:
    580
    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2014
    Yeah you have to shell out the big bucks if you want to match the TR (Any TR even the 8-core ones) + X399. That 68 PCI lanes is on ly available with the I9 "X" series. That is where I see AMD eating Intel's lunch.
     
  19. Dan_D

    Dan_D [H]ardOCP Motherboard Editor

    Messages:
    54,216
    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    I couldn't agree more about the cost. I've said as much earlier. I have gone on entire rants about how fucked up it is that Intel forces you into buying a $1,000+ processor just to access all the features of its HEDT platform. Its one of the many reasons I'm going with X399 and Threadripper myself.
     
    jeffj7, Maddness and cyberguyz like this.
  20. Aluminum

    Aluminum Gawd

    Messages:
    513
    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2015
    Respectfully I completely disagree and this is a false way of representing lanes. Just because some build cases don't care doesn't mean it is true.

    You need to step out of the handful of NVMe drives benchmark world and take a look at the server hardware world. AMDs real CPU-driven lanes can keep things like dedicated storage controllers (SAS to an expander, not just 1:1 spinning rust that will never fill a link) 25/40GbE, infiniband etc x8 and x16 adapters fully fed at line rate. Intels "20+ extra" DMI lanes (x4) cannot, period.

    TR is just half an epyc anyways, which has far more I/O than a dual xeon.
     
  21. Dan_D

    Dan_D [H]ardOCP Motherboard Editor

    Messages:
    54,216
    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    I've worked in the IT industry for over 20 years so I get where you are coming from. I understand the thinking behind the statement but it doesn't apply here. This isn't the server hardware world. We are talking about X399 and Threadripper here, not Epyc. On the desktop (which is what we are talking about here) Intel's DMI 3.0's limitations aren't a huge issue. If we were talking about Epyc vs. Xeon, I'd be in full agreement with you, but we aren't. For practical issues of NVMe RAID (which still can be done on the CPU's PCIe lanes in both cases) and networking, etc. the differences between X399 and X299 are minimal beyond what I've already covered.

    AMD's Threadripper CPU may be a derivative of Epyc but it isn't server hardware.
     
    jeffj7 and cyberguyz like this.