I mean it is cool and nice features, but $700 for a mobo when its the core component of a system..and also the one that is easiest to get outdated faster is kinda silly. I suppose the argument is that if buying it not really going to care about costs anyways. hehe
Yeah, especially when there are alot of motherboards that are very nearly as good for a lot less. These $700 models probably overclock like crazy, but it's just not as needed as it was 10+ years ago. CPU is almost never the bottleneck anymore so overclocking it is kinda moot.
I remember that article and was actually thinking the same thing. What honor is there in stabbing someone in the back then patting them on the back 8 months later?
Yes, and funny thing is....look what they're doing to retrofit their cheap x370/x470 motherboards to Zen 2...;) Sort of puts him in the "I don't know what I'm saying sometimes" category, eh? Too funny!
I just read the article and can't find a single stab. He said only that AMD did not have good support a few years ago. Such a statement is either fact or fiction, and if fact, then totally benign. Point out to me the correct position in the article if I'm wrong.
MSI and **Chuckles** abandoned AMD -- not the other way around. Fair-Weather Chuck took his payola from Chipzillah and scooted, leaving AM2/AM3/AM4 in the wind (until he saw the $$$).
It's been downhill for MSI since the 790FX K9A2 Platinum ...
"overclock like crazy" I know right! Going from 4.0 to 4.2 GHz is pretty crazy. Totally worth the extra $450 you're paying.
Seriously for this price you're better off getting a 9900k and a high end z390 board if you're fine with 8c/16t. Overclock to 4.8GHz on all cores and call it a day for same price as just the x570 motherboard. A 9900k at 4.8GHz is better than any 8c/16t AMD CPU in literally every single scenario.
So you'd settle for a more power hungry CPU, with a motherboard with less future proofing, less expansion, and less features, just for the few percent difference in performance ?
Depends what you're doing. The 9900K is already, at stock, anywhere from 5-10% better single core perf than AMD, and also overclocks much higher. So if you're willing to accept the additional power draw and thermal output and your goal is raw single core performance, then absolutely.
If you're working in highly multithreaded scenarios then the new 3900 and 3950 chips are clearly a much superior choice.
Most people who are willing to spend this much money and OC their parts are also generally not too concerned with future proofing their systems. If you can afford (and are willing to spend) $700 on a motherboard, it stands to reason that money is not much of a concern and they probably don't care about having to buy a new motherboard for a new socket in a couple years.
but why buy a 9900k when you can get the 3900X for the same price, use less power over all, pretty much the same IPC, and get 4 more cores on top of that ?? who cares if the 9900K can hit 5gz?? clock speed isnt everything, the Athlon 64 proved that way back when vs the P4. besides.. what if ryzen 3000 series did hit the same clocks as intel does, that would make intel's cpus look even worse
Because the 9900K still edges out the 3900 (and presumably the 3950) in single threaded performance. Some people care about that more than having more cores.
"wow 5-10%, now tell me where that actually matters over the disadvantages of owning the 9900K vs Ryzen 3000. "
Compiling software for one. By it's very nature it's single threaded.
Likewise DAWs also prefer high frequency high IPC cores rather than multiple lower specced lower frequencey cores.
When you route your channels through an effects bus, that effects bus is allocated a core. It CANNOT be spread over multiple threads.
Asking silly questions like that only demonstrate your own ignorance, where you highlight you don't actually know what it is you're talking about.
It's okay though, we were all young once. I'd recommend in future putting aside your brand loyality though. It's not worth your effort, they aren't loyal to you in any shape or form.
Maybe if you are writing single module programs in your mom's basement a singel core is fine.
Most devleopment projects of even relatively small projects have hundreds with larger projects running into thousands of modules. It is not only common practise to compile modules in parallel butit woudl be ridiculous not to.
The reality is there are very few applications that cannot take advantage of multi-core.
You critise others for their ignorance while demonstrating your ignorance, remarkable.
I actually prefer more cores to faster cores in my DAW. Each effect bus, or track, cannot be split into multiple cores, true, but you usually quite a few buses going.
In a professional setting, where you are doing thread intensive workloads, and IT is not cool with you overclocking...then yes, I totally agree 3900x makes way more sense.
"use less power overall" ? 9900k has a TDP of 95W, while the 3900x has a TDP of 105W, Additionally the Z390 chipset has a TDP of 6W while the X570 has a TDP of 11W. Now I know there is a discrepancy between how AMD and Intel measure TDP, so the numbers at face value may not be telling the whole story. That said, I would be very interested to see overall system power draw for both to test the veracity of your statement.
Oh boy, you actually think the 9900K uses 95W? Joke's on you pal, that's at 3.6 GHz. At full turbo clocks the 9900K uses 150-200W. Ryzen 3000 is almost twice the performance per watt in some scenarios.
"trounce it with it's higher core-count parts in multi-threaded scenarios." Aside from some synthetic benchmarks, I suggest looking at the puget systems website for professional benchmarks, if you're looking for more real world professional performance scenarios.
The 12 core part is better in some(in some the 9900k is better) scenarios, but rarely(if ever) by more than 10%. Perhaps your definition of "trounce" is different from mine thought.
If you're gaming much more often than you are working/creating the increased core count really wont improve your overall computing experience, if at all.
This is true. But the argument remains, just how many people actually use highly mutli-threaded scenarios.
I'd wager if you got a venn diagram of gamers and content creators, the content creators would simply be a small spot on the very large gaming circle.
I know a lot of gamers, yet I struggle to meet 3D cad designers or Film Editors.
So yes, you're right, AMD will trounce Intel in that respect. But until we get games using more than 8 cores, the majority of people will not be better off because they simply don't need those extra cores as they don't run any software that can make use of them.
And that goes for AMD folks wanting to get the AMD chips as well.
$150 more, for 10% higher single core performance when both CPUs already have extremely good single core performance, and you can place a 4700X in the same motherboard next year that will have even higher single core than the 9900K? Seriously people, consumer stupidity is why Intel is still selling CPUs.
Not to mention an old architecture Intel's been milking for years that is full of security holes and software & bios patches, etc. Nah, the longevity argument and bang-for-the-buck argument is won by AMD this time, decisively.
"Not to mention an old architecture Intel's been milking for years that is full of security holes and software & bios patches, etc. Nah, the longevity argument and bang-for-the-buck argument is won by AMD this time, decisively."
Be careful of comments like this. They may come back to haunt you. Just because there seems to be no security issues in AMD does not mean they don't exist.
After all, it's not like you were screaming about spectre a couple of years ago, was you.
"get an all core of 4.2" according to silicon lottery's statistics, only the top 21% of their 3700x cpu's tested could get to 4.15GHz (all core). So to get a guaranteed 4.2 you need to get a 3800x.
I agree that the difference with pricier boards is negligible, really your silicon is more determinate of your max OC than your motherboard.
The reason I'm bashing (this $700 motherboard specifically) is because if you're willing to dump $700 on a motherboard in the pursuit of performance you can literally pay that $700 for a cpu and motherboard combo(the 9900k and a Z390 board) that destroys the performance of the 3700x (the one tested in the article) and any motherboard.
If you compare product level to product level you will find that the X570 price vs Z390 version of say the Gigabyte AORUS XTREME or the MSI MEG Godlike, is ~ $150 and $100 respectively more expensive for the X570 version.
If you need an 8c/16t cpu and you're after the highest performance overclocked option, why pay more for a 3700x/X570 for less performance than a 9900k/Z390?
Dude where are you getting that 3700X/X570 costs more than 9900K/Z390? The CPU alone is like 150 bucks cheaper, and decent X570s are around 150-200 bucks, the same as decent Z390s. You also have to buy the cooler for the Blast Furnace 9900K to get it anywhere near those "4.8GHz" clocks you're going to need another 50 bucks on a cooler, whereas the 3700X can use its included Prism easily. By your own admission "5-10%" performance isn't worth it, so why pay 150-200 bucks more for a less efficient, dead-end, security vulnerability ridden product based on tech from 2015, when you can have 90% its performance with the latest features including PCIE4.0, for less money?
I'm sorry mate but you're not making sense or you're delusional. Please don't spread misinformation, and I suggest people go to their favourite retailer/store and check prices if they want to confirm it themselves.
The first section of my comment is referring to how pointless this $700 board is when you can spend that $700 and get a Z390 and 9900k that will beat the cpu tested in the article (3700x) on this monstrosity of a board.
Then I commented how X570 in general has an inflated cost that really hurts the value proposition of the Ryzen CPUs when you compare model tier to model tier.
As per PC Partpicker:(my source wasn't mentioned, so sorry for not saying that)
To get the 9900k to 4.8 is really very little effort at all and most can go there with 1.25V which again is pretty tame and hardly creates the "furnace" you're talking about. Yes at 5.1 GHz and say 1.4V the 9900k is probably excellent for tempering swords and casting iron. The 3700x can use it's stock cooler easily, at stock speeds, I totally agree, but once you get that overclock going, you are going to need a better cooler, note the temps above are with 240mm AIO on the 3700x.
I'm not going to argue with the efficiency, because AMD did quite well in that regard with their 7nm process, it clearly is more power efficient.
As far as security issues they have both had their own issues over the years, although Intel has had a fair amount more.
I think though you really hammer the point i am making home with your statement "...product based on tech from 2015, when you can have 90% its performance..."
Intel tech from 2015 is still 10% better performing than AMD's best and newest tech in 2019.
Then you say in another comment "they've won the performance and value games both at once." i never knew 10% less performance is better.
As for PCIE 4.0 if AMD has big Navi coming that can actually outperform a PCIE 3.0 x16 slot's bandwidth then I will be the first in line to get a 3900x and x570. But until there is a single card that is limited by PCIE x16 I personally don't see any reason for it. Sure ridiculously fast nvme drives are nice, but again, they don't do a whole lot to improve gaming or most workflows.
Sweetbabyjays the savings you are referring to for the MSI and Gigabyte boards, guess where it goes, the the HSF to cool that CPU, and remember, a 50 or 60 buck cooler, isnt going to cut it. you will need to get a mid high, to a high end cooler to keep that 9900k running at 4.8 ghz. and BTW... so what if the 9900k can hit 4.8 or 5 ghz.. big deal.. the Ryzen cpus are performing with in a few % of the intel equivent cpus while being 600+ MHz slower, all because the IPC is better then intels right now, once the ryzen cpus get their clocks higher, the gap, could flip flop... clock speed isnt the end all be all in performance, IPC is.. and AMD, for the time being, has the better IPC. " Then you say in another comment "they've won the performance and value games both at once." i never knew 10% less performance is better." it is when, again, the 10% deficit, is also at lower clocks compared it intel, as again.. IPC is better
First of all, there are many lower price options for X570.
And to add to this, a high end Z390 motherboard is not cheaper - you can actually even spend more and if high Ghz is your aim, that is what you will need. Plus a high end ($$$) cooling solution.
True there are many X570 boards for cheaper, which in my opinion makes this board in particular, pointless. Spending $700 on an AM4 motherboard is in my opinion pure stupidity.
The Z390 Godlike motherboard is available for $100 US cheaper. So a product for product comparison. Additionally, there are many other Silicon Lottery QVL Z390's that you can purchase for literally 1/3 of the price of this board. Furthermore, you can overclock a 9900k to 4.8 on pretty much any Z390/370 board.
If you're planning on getting your 3700x to 4.2GHz, you're not going to get there with a stock cooler, so you still need an expensive cooler.
AMD's main game is to be the value for money competitor, what i'm saying is a $700 motherboard at AM4 level literally takes that advantage and scrubs it. The only time that Zen 2 CPUs become the value option is when you need more than 8c/16t, or if you're going to go with an older AM4 chipset.
Then we both agree that this motherboard is pointless. It is, 700 bucks on this is a stupid thing, but when a decent X570 is 150-200 bucks, no problem. 3700X+X570 is hands down the better solution (read: also for gaming builds) than the 9900K+Z390 when all is considered.
AMD doesn't have to be the "Value for money competitor" anymore, hon, they've won the performance and value games both at once. Ryzen is a premium brand now, and just happens to offer better value also. 3950X will render Intel's entire HEDT completely pointless, and 3900X already does half of it.
Or you could be a Smart consumer and get a B450 + Ryzen 9 3700X, for the same price as the 9900K alone, and have 90% the performance in every single scenario and having saved over a hundred dollars, considering you didn't have to buy the cooler, also? Oh, and the socket isn't dead-end and actually has an upgrade path.
That's just not true. Go play a game at 720p on lowest settings and you'll very quickly see that even high end CPUs produce a noticeable bottleneck for achieving high framerates.
The numbers are available to you as well. You can very easily go to Anandtech's bench numbers and compare any two high end CPUs and still see a difference in framerate across many games using the same GPU, even on medium to high settings. It's typically also quite apparent in the 95th percentile metrics.
Sure if the game is poorly optimized and doesn't offer enough control over graphics settings to reduce the GPU load enough, you won't see much of a difference because of course the GPU will remain the bottleneck in those cases. However if you're shooting for high framerates like 240hz, the CPU is almost always the bottleneck.
inighthawki um, who would pay $800 for a vid card, and play games at 720P on the lowest settings, regardless what cpu you are running ? that could be done with a $400 vid card depending on the game
Because not all games are well optimized and can require a strong GPU to hit very high framerates even on low settings. Even with top of the line hardware (both CPU+GPU) on lowest settings, many games cant even hit a stable 144hz.
i never understood the reason for needing high frame rates with games.. i have played a few of the games i have over the years with new hardware, and been able to get better FPS, and maybe its just me, but i dont notice the difference. inighthawki " many games cant even hit a stable 144hz. " and what does a refresh rate have to do with frames per second ?? my lowly 75hz monitor works just fine when the games i play are above 75 fps or hz
29a, then i guess you cant play many console games :-) the games i play, even with the eye candy on max, less AA and AF, rarely go below 75 fps on the current hardware i have :-)
>> and what does a refresh rate have to do with frames per second ??
Just my poor phrasing because I'm typing quickly. I mean that they cannot maintain 144fps on my 144hz display.
Perhaps you dont play any games where it makes a significant difference, but for a lot of games once you play at 144hz, playing on a 60hz display is like watching a slideshow. Playing over 75fps on your 75hz display may improve input latency for your game but it wont be any smoother.
inighthawki on the contrary, it is noticeably smoother, enough where i notice, and turn a few of the eye candy options down a little if it does look choppy. but i have tried playing a few games on monitors like that, and while it is nice.. not something i am after right now.. but as you mentioned.. could be cause of the games i play, dont need it.. i assume, then, you play a lot of 1st person shooters ?
If your monitor cannot display more than 75hz, then having a framerate about 75hz cannot make it any smoother. The display will scan out one image every 13.3ms, no more, no less. However, rendering above 75hz can make it feel more *responsive* because the image being scanned out can be more recent. This is due to the reduced latency. Perhaps you are confusing the two concepts? Otherwise if it appears smoother it could just be the game itself causing enough single frame stuttering (while maintaining and average greater than 75) that makes things less noticeable at higher framerates.
>> but as you mentioned.. could be cause of the games i play, dont need it.. i assume, then, you play a lot of 1st person shooters ?
Yes I do. Other games are not as noticeable - many I can play perfectly fine at 60fps without an issue. However fast paced games like Overwatch are very difficult for me at anything under 144. My goal is to also switch to the 240hz panels once the 1440p panels are available.
My point wasn't that his scenario was realistic. He's suggesting that the only time this would be an issue (i.e when the CPU would be a bottleneck) is if you bought a mediocre CPU and spent a ton on the GPU, to which I said, is not true. Many games benefit heavily from single threaded performance on even the highest end CPUs when you're trying to hit very high framerates.
It's great if the people here like to play at 4K ultra settings and get 60fps but there are a lot of people who prefer framerate over quality. Hitting 144hz or 240hz on the lowest settings in many titles is quite taxing on the CPU.
" Many games benefit heavily from single threaded performance on even the highest end CPUs " and that performance, is tied to the cpu's IPC, so the frequency a cpu can get.. isnt the be all tell all of performance. " but there are a lot of people who prefer framerate over quality " and there are also a lot of people that prefer quality over frame rate, point is ?
Performance is based on IPC and frequency, not just IPC. A CPU that already has a higher base IPC *and* can overclocking the frequency much more has a huge advantage in single threaded performance scenarios.
>> and there are also a lot of people that prefer quality over frame rate, point is ?
I never said those people are wrong. I've been being told throughout this discussion that my decisions are stupid or wrong because it's what I care about. If people prefer the quality then more power to them, I'm happy they're getting what they want.
" A CPU that already has a higher base IPC *and* can overclocking the frequency much more has a huge advantage in single threaded performance scenarios. " then explain why Zen 2, while clocked 600 mhz slower is with in a few % of the intel equivalent. which is because Zen does more instructions per clock, then intel does at the moment. again.. the frequency a cpu can get, isnt the tell all, be all when it comes to performance.. look at the P4 and A64 days. if Zen 2 were to clock higher, then its quite possible, the performance would be in amds favor across the board.
thats how it sounds, cause thats how you seem to have worded it.. to get higher IPC, the freq the cpu runs at, also has to go up.. but thats not necessarily the case, and with Zen2, it does more work per clock, compared to intel, which is is while clocked slower, the performance is close enough, its not worth the extra cash that intel charges, in the case of the 9900K vs 3800X the price difference is a $150 difference, personally, id rather save that 150, and put it towards a better vid card, or something else, or get the 3900X for the same price as the 9900k. its also probably a safe bet, that if Zen 2 could reach the same clocks as the intel equivalent, then the question is, based on performance and price, why buy an intel cpu
>> the performance is close enough, its not worth the extra cash that intel charges
And that's where we seem to disagree. The performance is not close enough. If we were talking a completely negligible give and take scenarios of 1-2fps that would be one thing. But many gaming benchmarks show the 9900K still having a 5 if not 10% upper hand in gaming scenarios. When my goal is hitting 144 or even 240fps in games, that is definitely not performance I'm willing to let go.
I'm not calling Zen2 a bad CPU lineup. The 3900X is a fantastic chip and meets the requirements of many people. Just not me. I don't need core count, I need maximum single threaded performance. I don't care about the dollar per clock per watt or anything like that.
yep, then thats where we disagree... but that 5 or 10%. IMO.. isnt worth the price of the 9900K cause just the cpu alone is 150 bucks.. AND you NEED a mid high to high end cooler for that 9900K to reach those clocks, and sustain them add another $75 + to that, if the $200 premium is important to you, then by all means.. for me.. no thanks..
Yes when benchmarking a high end VC at 720p or 1080p you can isolate the CPU performance but who on Earth would run that way? You dont buy a high end VC to run at low res. As I said "that isnt realistically what anyone would have bought." - meaning in real word scenarios.
Some games are poorly optimized in the graphics department, so you spend a lot of money on the GPU (in *addition* to a high end CPU) to minimize the chances of either being the bottleneck. It's a very real world scenario, it's just not what you do.
On Intel, even a budget friendly, but solid board clocks as high, or nearly, as a top of the line board
For AMD the difference in clocks is closer to 50Mhz, and in the recent test from hardware unboxed, not every high end board actually boosted faster then a cheaper one
Right now on Newegg you can get an X399 MB plus a 12-core TR 1920X for $500 combined! And when 3950X is out, the 16 core TR 1 and 2 will probably also get heavily discounted. Paying $700 for an AM4 board is crazy.
While I absolutely agree on that price of 700 bucks seems outrageous, better putting 500 bucks more into a GPU, one has to say that if you would put a 3950x into that board it would take a while for the CPU to be a bottleneck again
Also, aside from the looks, there are very little features, maybe none, compared to a 200$ board that make it stand out to me for asking 500 bucks more
I can add a second network card easy enough, same for other features
I like the Aorous for its clean look, but then again, I could upgrade to a 2080 super or even 2080ti for all that mark up
It is a designer drug for game addicts. And the price is not for children either. Adults spending all their free time gaming is so sad. Playing once in a while is one thing, buying $700 MBs for extra 1% fps is terminal stage.
The Ryzen parts should run at higher clocks than the low core count Epyc chips so there is a bit of a performance trade off. If that is acceptable and/or you need lots of fast IO, a low core count Epyc system would indeed be the better choice in this price range. The big catch is that Epyc server boards don't have things like on board audio which is pretty much expected for consumer parts.
The real varible will be where the next Thread Ripper parts land in cores, clocks and dollars.
Finally a x570 board that does not have HDMI/DP ports which are completely ridiculous for 80%+ of people buying rizen CPUs. However, they replace that by nothing. Dual Realtek ALC1220 HD? No one will use that. And five (5!!!!) usb ports? How much is that board again?
lol holy crap, check the difference between game boost 2 and 11. Povray 4613, 172w. For an extra 5% performance you need 36c, 0.25v, and 100w, or about 60% more, power!
They really did squeeze all they could out of this. I wish people would get past the clock speeds, or voltages, or power usage, etc. differences and just focus on the performance PER clock PER watt. This is just an exciting time for CPUs, and doubly exciting as a consumer!
have you even heard the fan on the board ?? unless you have.. complaining about the fan, is moot, as the noise it makes, may be drowned out, buy the other fans in your system.
There are no tiny, 1998 fans anywhere on my Aorus Master x570, I'll have you know....;) Who is still selling them? (No one I know!) My PCH fan is so quiet I had to check to make sure it was still running.
I have had too many tiny fans die, get loud over time, or get clogged up in their own dust collection. I understand that this chipset uses far more power than those from Intel, but I don't care -- fanless or no purchase.
Noticing the trend? Slap 'Game' or Gamer' or 'Gaming' on a product and mark it up by 80%. The 'market' must think we self-builders are either very dumb or very rich... (And I guess they must be right because this crap DOES sell...)
To be honest, I own a "gaming" mobo. I wanted something with better VRM's than the cheaper, standard boards, but didn't want to pay too much for a more professional board like a Taichi. That basically meant an "REG Gamer Brahh" board. At least the RGB can be turned off.
This board is $700, uses voltage doublers, has a creaky and slow UEFI bios, provides you with a add-in 10Gb Networking card which, if your home network runs at 1Gb, will operate at 1Gb...;) Nope, I'd buy something like that separately if I should ever need one! Did anyone check to see if it makes Pizza?
Their B450 Tomahawk with the useless DVI port wasting so much I/O real estate instead of putting in more USB or HDMI/DP ports was bad enough, but this $700 board really takes the cake in turning up the rear I/O dumbness.
It works very well. Adding RGB lighting, sticking the word "gamer" on it someplace, and claiming it has magically better voltage regulation for that extra 2.1% more overclock you're going to get (which has a lot more to do with the CPU you end up purchasing) works to hock garbage hardware to stupid people that mindlessly chase that extra one frame they get every second. I say if it works and it drives the economy, then companies should go for it so I can collect dividends when I buy shares with my cash instead of mindlessly trying to impress random people I meet by dribbling out meaningless specs and posting "battlestation" pictures on Reddit.
Totally agreed, especially in this age where Youtubers have pushed the hardware e-peen waving and elitism all the way up to the high heavens.
I'm using a 8700K. but I happily game on a Ryzen 1600 that's $80 used from Aliexpress with a new $65 B450 mobo if I had to; it's bizarre to see people buying into the overpriced marketing kool-aid while simultaneously whining about how expensive the hobby is.
I wanted to add my experience with my last MSI mboard that used the ALC1220 & the Nahimic 3.x software--when I got into this x570 Aorus Master and cranked up the ALC1220 & the ESS Sabre DAC, with headphone amp, all hardware, I couldn't believe how much the sound quality improved! Gawd, it was like night and day--same headphones! It was difficult to believe that @ $700 MSI went with the exact same sound hardware and software processing they put in their $190 Ryzen1 mboards--like the Gaming Pro Carbon! Remarkable! So glad I went with Aorus this time. This x570 Master is a keeper. Believe me--I have nothing against MSI--and if the Master was a poor board I'd say so....! No problem. Right now it is shaping up to be one of the best boards I've ever owned--if not the best. And for $700 I could buy two of them. Remarkable.
This one is definitely representative of the "Walmart kid's toy for 7-year-olds" styling that seems to have taken over the motherboard market in recent years.
Not only does it have lots of non-functional, flimsy-looking plastic, it even has a cheap mirror on it - why?
The gaming set consists largely of tweens and man children so dinky plastic covers and a vanity mirror would very much appeal to those juvenile-minded sorts. Alternatively, MSI might be trolling them by giving them a mirror in which to look with shame upon themselves as they use a $700 motherboard to play video games from their parents' house as opposed to getting a job as something other than a part time Uber driver so they can live on their own.
Maybe if MSI covered the chipset in something other than stupid, angular, RGB-festooned plastic like maybe a decent sized heat sink, there would be no need for a half shrouded, dead-in-11-months little fan. But if they did that, where would they plaster the cartoon dragon?
One spelling mistake: "MSI usually provide one of the better-looking firmware designs on the market,..." Missing "s": "MSI usually provides one of the better-looking firmware designs on the market,..."
$700 for a board and it has this crap copper 10G-Base addon... no thanks I'll install a dual 10GBe SFP+ card thanks + microtik 10GBe switch for under $300 including cables... for the price of Cat6A and a 10Gbaset router/switch I could up to an even faster SFP+ switch with more ports.... the microtik switch is even very quiet unlike most other solutions.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
116 Comments
Back to Article
imaheadcase - Wednesday, August 28, 2019 - link
I mean it is cool and nice features, but $700 for a mobo when its the core component of a system..and also the one that is easiest to get outdated faster is kinda silly. I suppose the argument is that if buying it not really going to care about costs anyways. hehegoatfajitas - Wednesday, August 28, 2019 - link
Yeah, especially when there are alot of motherboards that are very nearly as good for a lot less. These $700 models probably overclock like crazy, but it's just not as needed as it was 10+ years ago. CPU is almost never the bottleneck anymore so overclocking it is kinda moot.Smell This - Wednesday, August 28, 2019 - link
Odd in that MSI CEO Charles Chiang dumped-on AMD 8 months ago --- then proceeds to market $700+ SP3 motherboards ...
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/msi-ceo-intervie...
Samus - Wednesday, August 28, 2019 - link
I remember that article and was actually thinking the same thing. What honor is there in stabbing someone in the back then patting them on the back 8 months later?Peter2k - Thursday, August 29, 2019 - link
Because Gigabyte and Asus have 700$ boards with they're gaming brands?WaltC - Thursday, August 29, 2019 - link
Yes, and funny thing is....look what they're doing to retrofit their cheap x370/x470 motherboards to Zen 2...;) Sort of puts him in the "I don't know what I'm saying sometimes" category, eh? Too funny!ballsystemlord - Thursday, August 29, 2019 - link
I just read the article and can't find a single stab. He said only that AMD did not have good support a few years ago. Such a statement is either fact or fiction, and if fact, then totally benign.Point out to me the correct position in the article if I'm wrong.
Smell This - Tuesday, September 3, 2019 - link
MSI and **Chuckles** abandoned AMD -- not the other way around. Fair-Weather Chuck took his payola from Chipzillah and scooted, leaving AM2/AM3/AM4 in the wind (until he saw the $$$).It's been downhill for MSI since the 790FX K9A2 Platinum ...
Sweetbabyjays - Wednesday, August 28, 2019 - link
"overclock like crazy" I know right! Going from 4.0 to 4.2 GHz is pretty crazy. Totally worth the extra $450 you're paying.Seriously for this price you're better off getting a 9900k and a high end z390 board if you're fine with 8c/16t. Overclock to 4.8GHz on all cores and call it a day for same price as just the x570 motherboard. A 9900k at 4.8GHz is better than any 8c/16t AMD CPU in literally every single scenario.
Tunnah - Wednesday, August 28, 2019 - link
So you'd settle for a more power hungry CPU, with a motherboard with less future proofing, less expansion, and less features, just for the few percent difference in performance ?inighthawki - Wednesday, August 28, 2019 - link
Depends what you're doing. The 9900K is already, at stock, anywhere from 5-10% better single core perf than AMD, and also overclocks much higher. So if you're willing to accept the additional power draw and thermal output and your goal is raw single core performance, then absolutely.If you're working in highly multithreaded scenarios then the new 3900 and 3950 chips are clearly a much superior choice.
Most people who are willing to spend this much money and OC their parts are also generally not too concerned with future proofing their systems. If you can afford (and are willing to spend) $700 on a motherboard, it stands to reason that money is not much of a concern and they probably don't care about having to buy a new motherboard for a new socket in a couple years.
StevoLincolnite - Wednesday, August 28, 2019 - link
The 9900K is only an 8-core CPU though........ AMD can trounce it with it's higher core-count parts in multi-threaded scenarios.yetanotherhuman - Thursday, August 29, 2019 - link
He does say that, and you know he hasn't edited his post, because it's not possible :DQasar - Thursday, August 29, 2019 - link
but why buy a 9900k when you can get the 3900X for the same price, use less power over all, pretty much the same IPC, and get 4 more cores on top of that ?? who cares if the 9900K can hit 5gz?? clock speed isnt everything, the Athlon 64 proved that way back when vs the P4. besides.. what if ryzen 3000 series did hit the same clocks as intel does, that would make intel's cpus look even worseinighthawki - Thursday, August 29, 2019 - link
Because the 9900K still edges out the 3900 (and presumably the 3950) in single threaded performance. Some people care about that more than having more cores.AshlayW - Thursday, August 29, 2019 - link
wow 5-10%, now tell me where that actually matters over the disadvantages of owning the 9900K vs Ryzen 3000.Oliseo - Thursday, August 29, 2019 - link
"wow 5-10%, now tell me where that actually matters over the disadvantages of owning the 9900K vs Ryzen 3000. "Compiling software for one. By it's very nature it's single threaded.
Likewise DAWs also prefer high frequency high IPC cores rather than multiple lower specced lower frequencey cores.
When you route your channels through an effects bus, that effects bus is allocated a core. It CANNOT be spread over multiple threads.
Asking silly questions like that only demonstrate your own ignorance, where you highlight you don't actually know what it is you're talking about.
It's okay though, we were all young once. I'd recommend in future putting aside your brand loyality though. It's not worth your effort, they aren't loyal to you in any shape or form.
peevee - Friday, August 30, 2019 - link
"Compiling software for one. By it's very nature it's single threaded."Seriously? You obviously missed an option or two.
29a - Friday, August 30, 2019 - link
I'm not disagreeing with you but those last two paragraphs were unnecessary. You'll catch more flies with honey than vinegar.Bus3rr0r - Friday, August 30, 2019 - link
Maybe if you are writing single module programs in your mom's basement a singel core is fine.Most devleopment projects of even relatively small projects have hundreds with larger projects running into thousands of modules. It is not only common practise to compile modules in parallel butit woudl be ridiculous not to.
The reality is there are very few applications that cannot take advantage of multi-core.
You critise others for their ignorance while demonstrating your ignorance, remarkable.
oynaz - Saturday, August 31, 2019 - link
I actually prefer more cores to faster cores in my DAW. Each effect bus, or track, cannot be split into multiple cores, true, but you usually quite a few buses going.inighthawki - Friday, August 30, 2019 - link
GamingSweetbabyjays - Thursday, August 29, 2019 - link
In a professional setting, where you are doing thread intensive workloads, and IT is not cool with you overclocking...then yes, I totally agree 3900x makes way more sense."use less power overall" ? 9900k has a TDP of 95W, while the 3900x has a TDP of 105W, Additionally the Z390 chipset has a TDP of 6W while the X570 has a TDP of 11W. Now I know there is a discrepancy between how AMD and Intel measure TDP, so the numbers at face value may not be telling the whole story. That said, I would be very interested to see overall system power draw for both to test the veracity of your statement.
AshlayW - Thursday, August 29, 2019 - link
Oh boy, you actually think the 9900K uses 95W? Joke's on you pal, that's at 3.6 GHz. At full turbo clocks the 9900K uses 150-200W. Ryzen 3000 is almost twice the performance per watt in some scenarios.Trikkiedikkie - Saturday, August 31, 2019 - link
With the 3900 having many things inside the processor, whereas the 9900 has extra chips needed. And Intel's numbers only count for baseclockSweetbabyjays - Thursday, August 29, 2019 - link
"trounce it with it's higher core-count parts in multi-threaded scenarios." Aside from some synthetic benchmarks, I suggest looking at the puget systems website for professional benchmarks, if you're looking for more real world professional performance scenarios.The 12 core part is better in some(in some the 9900k is better) scenarios, but rarely(if ever) by more than 10%. Perhaps your definition of "trounce" is different from mine thought.
If you're gaming much more often than you are working/creating the increased core count really wont improve your overall computing experience, if at all.
Oliseo - Thursday, August 29, 2019 - link
This is true. But the argument remains, just how many people actually use highly mutli-threaded scenarios.I'd wager if you got a venn diagram of gamers and content creators, the content creators would simply be a small spot on the very large gaming circle.
I know a lot of gamers, yet I struggle to meet 3D cad designers or Film Editors.
So yes, you're right, AMD will trounce Intel in that respect. But until we get games using more than 8 cores, the majority of people will not be better off because they simply don't need those extra cores as they don't run any software that can make use of them.
And that goes for AMD folks wanting to get the AMD chips as well.
Trikkiedikkie - Saturday, August 31, 2019 - link
Gaming is soo small compared to people doing actual work.AshlayW - Thursday, August 29, 2019 - link
$150 more, for 10% higher single core performance when both CPUs already have extremely good single core performance, and you can place a 4700X in the same motherboard next year that will have even higher single core than the 9900K? Seriously people, consumer stupidity is why Intel is still selling CPUs.Trikkiedikkie - Saturday, August 31, 2019 - link
Single core is soooo last century.Only people that have very little serious work apart from Adobe want that.
WaltC - Thursday, August 29, 2019 - link
Not to mention an old architecture Intel's been milking for years that is full of security holes and software & bios patches, etc. Nah, the longevity argument and bang-for-the-buck argument is won by AMD this time, decisively.Oliseo - Thursday, August 29, 2019 - link
"Not to mention an old architecture Intel's been milking for years that is full of security holes and software & bios patches, etc. Nah, the longevity argument and bang-for-the-buck argument is won by AMD this time, decisively."Be careful of comments like this. They may come back to haunt you. Just because there seems to be no security issues in AMD does not mean they don't exist.
After all, it's not like you were screaming about spectre a couple of years ago, was you.
Oxford Guy - Thursday, August 29, 2019 - link
Reality is that people buy what's available today. Today, there are more security problems with Intel than with AMD.Today, Intel has a worse track record for security robustness.
However, I will say that both companies embed black boxes into their chips. AMD stripped PSP for China, presumably to add a different black box.
29a - Friday, August 30, 2019 - link
Is the next Ryzen using the same socket?Qasar - Friday, August 30, 2019 - link
given AMD's track record for upgrade ability, its quite possible, it could.Threska - Saturday, August 31, 2019 - link
Future Proofing? So that means we've finally gotten something definite about 2020 forward on socket AM4, and PCI 5.Peter2k - Thursday, August 29, 2019 - link
Or buy a solid X570 for way less and still get an all core of 4.2The difference you achieve with pricier boards is negliable really, AMD or Intel
Also I have no idea why you're bashing and then referring to Intel in this regard, you can easily buy a 700$, or even 1000$ Z390
Sweetbabyjays - Thursday, August 29, 2019 - link
"get an all core of 4.2" according to silicon lottery's statistics, only the top 21% of their 3700x cpu's tested could get to 4.15GHz (all core). So to get a guaranteed 4.2 you need to get a 3800x.I agree that the difference with pricier boards is negligible, really your silicon is more determinate of your max OC than your motherboard.
The reason I'm bashing (this $700 motherboard specifically) is because if you're willing to dump $700 on a motherboard in the pursuit of performance you can literally pay that $700 for a cpu and motherboard combo(the 9900k and a Z390 board) that destroys the performance of the 3700x (the one tested in the article) and any motherboard.
If you compare product level to product level you will find that the X570 price vs Z390 version of say the Gigabyte AORUS XTREME or the MSI MEG Godlike, is ~ $150 and $100 respectively more expensive for the X570 version.
If you need an 8c/16t cpu and you're after the highest performance overclocked option, why pay more for a 3700x/X570 for less performance than a 9900k/Z390?
AshlayW - Thursday, August 29, 2019 - link
Dude where are you getting that 3700X/X570 costs more than 9900K/Z390? The CPU alone is like 150 bucks cheaper, and decent X570s are around 150-200 bucks, the same as decent Z390s. You also have to buy the cooler for the Blast Furnace 9900K to get it anywhere near those "4.8GHz" clocks you're going to need another 50 bucks on a cooler, whereas the 3700X can use its included Prism easily. By your own admission "5-10%" performance isn't worth it, so why pay 150-200 bucks more for a less efficient, dead-end, security vulnerability ridden product based on tech from 2015, when you can have 90% its performance with the latest features including PCIE4.0, for less money?I'm sorry mate but you're not making sense or you're delusional. Please don't spread misinformation, and I suggest people go to their favourite retailer/store and check prices if they want to confirm it themselves.
Sweetbabyjays - Thursday, August 29, 2019 - link
Ashlay you need to cool your jets broseph.The first section of my comment is referring to how pointless this $700 board is when you can spend that $700 and get a Z390 and 9900k that will beat the cpu tested in the article (3700x) on this monstrosity of a board.
Then I commented how X570 in general has an inflated cost that really hurts the value proposition of the Ryzen CPUs when you compare model tier to model tier.
As per PC Partpicker:(my source wasn't mentioned, so sorry for not saying that)
MSI X570 Godlike $689.99
MSI Z390 Godlike $578.86
Difference: ~$111
Gigabyte X570 AORUS XTREME $706.98
Gigabyte Z390 AORUS XTREME $549.99
Difference: ~$150
To get the 9900k to 4.8 is really very little effort at all and most can go there with 1.25V which again is pretty tame and hardly creates the "furnace" you're talking about. Yes at 5.1 GHz and say 1.4V the 9900k is probably excellent for tempering swords and casting iron. The 3700x can use it's stock cooler easily, at stock speeds, I totally agree, but once you get that overclock going, you are going to need a better cooler, note the temps above are with 240mm AIO on the 3700x.
I'm not going to argue with the efficiency, because AMD did quite well in that regard with their 7nm process, it clearly is more power efficient.
As far as security issues they have both had their own issues over the years, although Intel has had a fair amount more.
I think though you really hammer the point i am making home with your statement "...product based on tech from 2015, when you can have 90% its performance..."
Intel tech from 2015 is still 10% better performing than AMD's best and newest tech in 2019.
Then you say in another comment "they've won the performance and value games both at once." i never knew 10% less performance is better.
As for PCIE 4.0 if AMD has big Navi coming that can actually outperform a PCIE 3.0 x16 slot's bandwidth then I will be the first in line to get a 3900x and x570. But until there is a single card that is limited by PCIE x16 I personally don't see any reason for it. Sure ridiculously fast nvme drives are nice, but again, they don't do a whole lot to improve gaming or most workflows.
Oxford Guy - Thursday, August 29, 2019 - link
"As far as security issues they have both had their own issues over the years, although Intel has had a fair amount more."I don't think so. Intel's recent security track record is abysmal when compared with AMD's.
Qasar - Friday, August 30, 2019 - link
Sweetbabyjays the savings you are referring to for the MSI and Gigabyte boards, guess where it goes, the the HSF to cool that CPU, and remember, a 50 or 60 buck cooler, isnt going to cut it. you will need to get a mid high, to a high end cooler to keep that 9900k running at 4.8 ghz. and BTW... so what if the 9900k can hit 4.8 or 5 ghz.. big deal.. the Ryzen cpus are performing with in a few % of the intel equivent cpus while being 600+ MHz slower, all because the IPC is better then intels right now, once the ryzen cpus get their clocks higher, the gap, could flip flop... clock speed isnt the end all be all in performance, IPC is.. and AMD, for the time being, has the better IPC."
Then you say in another comment "they've won the performance and value games both at once." i never knew 10% less performance is better." it is when, again, the 10% deficit, is also at lower clocks compared it intel, as again.. IPC is better
Irata - Thursday, August 29, 2019 - link
First of all, there are many lower price options for X570.And to add to this, a high end Z390 motherboard is not cheaper - you can actually even spend more and if high Ghz is your aim, that is what you will need. Plus a high end ($$$) cooling solution.
Sweetbabyjays - Thursday, August 29, 2019 - link
True there are many X570 boards for cheaper, which in my opinion makes this board in particular, pointless. Spending $700 on an AM4 motherboard is in my opinion pure stupidity.The Z390 Godlike motherboard is available for $100 US cheaper. So a product for product comparison. Additionally, there are many other Silicon Lottery QVL Z390's that you can purchase for literally 1/3 of the price of this board. Furthermore, you can overclock a 9900k to 4.8 on pretty much any Z390/370 board.
If you're planning on getting your 3700x to 4.2GHz, you're not going to get there with a stock cooler, so you still need an expensive cooler.
AMD's main game is to be the value for money competitor, what i'm saying is a $700 motherboard at AM4 level literally takes that advantage and scrubs it. The only time that Zen 2 CPUs become the value option is when you need more than 8c/16t, or if you're going to go with an older AM4 chipset.
AshlayW - Thursday, August 29, 2019 - link
Then we both agree that this motherboard is pointless. It is, 700 bucks on this is a stupid thing, but when a decent X570 is 150-200 bucks, no problem. 3700X+X570 is hands down the better solution (read: also for gaming builds) than the 9900K+Z390 when all is considered.AMD doesn't have to be the "Value for money competitor" anymore, hon, they've won the performance and value games both at once. Ryzen is a premium brand now, and just happens to offer better value also. 3950X will render Intel's entire HEDT completely pointless, and 3900X already does half of it.
Sweetbabyjays - Thursday, August 29, 2019 - link
I totally agree that 3900x and 3950x really are the final nails in the X299 coffin.AshlayW - Thursday, August 29, 2019 - link
Or you could be a Smart consumer and get a B450 + Ryzen 9 3700X, for the same price as the 9900K alone, and have 90% the performance in every single scenario and having saved over a hundred dollars, considering you didn't have to buy the cooler, also? Oh, and the socket isn't dead-end and actually has an upgrade path.AshlayW - Thursday, August 29, 2019 - link
Ryzen 7*Sweetbabyjays - Thursday, August 29, 2019 - link
"B450 + Ryzen 7 3700X" I agree, this is a much more logical approach for most gamers and content creators on a budget.Oxford Guy - Thursday, August 29, 2019 - link
I'm also wondering why people ALWAYS push the 9900K instead of the 9700K to gamers, when 8 threads is enough for games and will be for long enough.inighthawki - Wednesday, August 28, 2019 - link
The CPU is still quite often the bottleneck for games when running at high framerates.goatfajitas - Wednesday, August 28, 2019 - link
Possibly if you bought an $800 VC and have a mediocre $200 CPU, but that isnt realistically what anyone would have bought.inighthawki - Wednesday, August 28, 2019 - link
That's just not true. Go play a game at 720p on lowest settings and you'll very quickly see that even high end CPUs produce a noticeable bottleneck for achieving high framerates.The numbers are available to you as well. You can very easily go to Anandtech's bench numbers and compare any two high end CPUs and still see a difference in framerate across many games using the same GPU, even on medium to high settings. It's typically also quite apparent in the 95th percentile metrics.
Sure if the game is poorly optimized and doesn't offer enough control over graphics settings to reduce the GPU load enough, you won't see much of a difference because of course the GPU will remain the bottleneck in those cases. However if you're shooting for high framerates like 240hz, the CPU is almost always the bottleneck.
Qasar - Thursday, August 29, 2019 - link
inighthawki um, who would pay $800 for a vid card, and play games at 720P on the lowest settings, regardless what cpu you are running ? that could be done with a $400 vid card depending on the gameinighthawki - Thursday, August 29, 2019 - link
Because not all games are well optimized and can require a strong GPU to hit very high framerates even on low settings. Even with top of the line hardware (both CPU+GPU) on lowest settings, many games cant even hit a stable 144hz.Qasar - Friday, August 30, 2019 - link
i never understood the reason for needing high frame rates with games.. i have played a few of the games i have over the years with new hardware, and been able to get better FPS, and maybe its just me, but i dont notice the difference. inighthawki " many games cant even hit a stable 144hz. " and what does a refresh rate have to do with frames per second ?? my lowly 75hz monitor works just fine when the games i play are above 75 fps or hz29a - Friday, August 30, 2019 - link
Low (<60 fps) framerates give me nausea.Qasar - Friday, August 30, 2019 - link
29a, then i guess you cant play many console games :-) the games i play, even with the eye candy on max, less AA and AF, rarely go below 75 fps on the current hardware i have :-)inighthawki - Friday, August 30, 2019 - link
>> and what does a refresh rate have to do with frames per second ??Just my poor phrasing because I'm typing quickly. I mean that they cannot maintain 144fps on my 144hz display.
Perhaps you dont play any games where it makes a significant difference, but for a lot of games once you play at 144hz, playing on a 60hz display is like watching a slideshow. Playing over 75fps on your 75hz display may improve input latency for your game but it wont be any smoother.
Qasar - Friday, August 30, 2019 - link
inighthawki on the contrary, it is noticeably smoother, enough where i notice, and turn a few of the eye candy options down a little if it does look choppy. but i have tried playing a few games on monitors like that, and while it is nice.. not something i am after right now.. but as you mentioned.. could be cause of the games i play, dont need it.. i assume, then, you play a lot of 1st person shooters ?inighthawki - Saturday, August 31, 2019 - link
If your monitor cannot display more than 75hz, then having a framerate about 75hz cannot make it any smoother. The display will scan out one image every 13.3ms, no more, no less. However, rendering above 75hz can make it feel more *responsive* because the image being scanned out can be more recent. This is due to the reduced latency. Perhaps you are confusing the two concepts? Otherwise if it appears smoother it could just be the game itself causing enough single frame stuttering (while maintaining and average greater than 75) that makes things less noticeable at higher framerates.>> but as you mentioned.. could be cause of the games i play, dont need it.. i assume, then, you play a lot of 1st person shooters ?
Yes I do. Other games are not as noticeable - many I can play perfectly fine at 60fps without an issue. However fast paced games like Overwatch are very difficult for me at anything under 144. My goal is to also switch to the 240hz panels once the 1440p panels are available.
Peter2k - Thursday, August 29, 2019 - link
Just because 1 in a million gamers would play at 720p at all, especially after forking over major cash, does not mean its a realistic scenarioinighthawki - Thursday, August 29, 2019 - link
My point wasn't that his scenario was realistic. He's suggesting that the only time this would be an issue (i.e when the CPU would be a bottleneck) is if you bought a mediocre CPU and spent a ton on the GPU, to which I said, is not true. Many games benefit heavily from single threaded performance on even the highest end CPUs when you're trying to hit very high framerates.It's great if the people here like to play at 4K ultra settings and get 60fps but there are a lot of people who prefer framerate over quality. Hitting 144hz or 240hz on the lowest settings in many titles is quite taxing on the CPU.
Qasar - Friday, August 30, 2019 - link
" Many games benefit heavily from single threaded performance on even the highest end CPUs " and that performance, is tied to the cpu's IPC, so the frequency a cpu can get.. isnt the be all tell all of performance. " but there are a lot of people who prefer framerate over quality " and there are also a lot of people that prefer quality over frame rate, point is ?inighthawki - Friday, August 30, 2019 - link
Performance is based on IPC and frequency, not just IPC. A CPU that already has a higher base IPC *and* can overclocking the frequency much more has a huge advantage in single threaded performance scenarios.>> and there are also a lot of people that prefer quality over frame rate, point is ?
I never said those people are wrong. I've been being told throughout this discussion that my decisions are stupid or wrong because it's what I care about. If people prefer the quality then more power to them, I'm happy they're getting what they want.
Qasar - Friday, August 30, 2019 - link
" A CPU that already has a higher base IPC *and* can overclocking the frequency much more has a huge advantage in single threaded performance scenarios. " then explain why Zen 2, while clocked 600 mhz slower is with in a few % of the intel equivalent. which is because Zen does more instructions per clock, then intel does at the moment. again.. the frequency a cpu can get, isnt the tell all, be all when it comes to performance.. look at the P4 and A64 days.if Zen 2 were to clock higher, then its quite possible, the performance would be in amds favor across the board.
inighthawki - Saturday, August 31, 2019 - link
Youre misunderstanding what I'm saying. I didn't say "greater frequency == greater performance". You should go back and re-read my posts.Qasar - Saturday, August 31, 2019 - link
thats how it sounds, cause thats how you seem to have worded it.. to get higher IPC, the freq the cpu runs at, also has to go up.. but thats not necessarily the case, and with Zen2, it does more work per clock, compared to intel, which is is while clocked slower, the performance is close enough, its not worth the extra cash that intel charges, in the case of the 9900K vs 3800X the price difference is a $150 difference, personally, id rather save that 150, and put it towards a better vid card, or something else, or get the 3900X for the same price as the 9900k. its also probably a safe bet, that if Zen 2 could reach the same clocks as the intel equivalent, then the question is, based on performance and price, why buy an intel cpuinighthawki - Saturday, August 31, 2019 - link
>> the performance is close enough, its not worth the extra cash that intel chargesAnd that's where we seem to disagree. The performance is not close enough. If we were talking a completely negligible give and take scenarios of 1-2fps that would be one thing. But many gaming benchmarks show the 9900K still having a 5 if not 10% upper hand in gaming scenarios. When my goal is hitting 144 or even 240fps in games, that is definitely not performance I'm willing to let go.
I'm not calling Zen2 a bad CPU lineup. The 3900X is a fantastic chip and meets the requirements of many people. Just not me. I don't need core count, I need maximum single threaded performance. I don't care about the dollar per clock per watt or anything like that.
Qasar - Saturday, August 31, 2019 - link
yep, then thats where we disagree... but that 5 or 10%. IMO.. isnt worth the price of the 9900K cause just the cpu alone is 150 bucks.. AND you NEED a mid high to high end cooler for that 9900K to reach those clocks, and sustain them add another $75 + to that, if the $200 premium is important to you, then by all means.. for me.. no thanks..goatfajitas - Thursday, August 29, 2019 - link
Yes when benchmarking a high end VC at 720p or 1080p you can isolate the CPU performance but who on Earth would run that way? You dont buy a high end VC to run at low res. As I said "that isnt realistically what anyone would have bought." - meaning in real word scenarios.inighthawki - Thursday, August 29, 2019 - link
Some games are poorly optimized in the graphics department, so you spend a lot of money on the GPU (in *addition* to a high end CPU) to minimize the chances of either being the bottleneck. It's a very real world scenario, it's just not what you do.WaltC - Thursday, August 29, 2019 - link
Nobody wants to play games at 640x480 with overscan....;) Ugh...!Peter2k - Thursday, August 29, 2019 - link
On Intel, even a budget friendly, but solid board clocks as high, or nearly, as a top of the line boardFor AMD the difference in clocks is closer to 50Mhz, and in the recent test from hardware unboxed, not every high end board actually boosted faster then a cheaper one
urmom - Friday, August 30, 2019 - link
Actually, the $700 boards won't overclock chips any better than the $250 boards. The limit is now in the CPU.29a - Friday, August 30, 2019 - link
Power delivery makes a difference too.kobblestown - Wednesday, August 28, 2019 - link
Right now on Newegg you can get an X399 MB plus a 12-core TR 1920X for $500 combined! And when 3950X is out, the 16 core TR 1 and 2 will probably also get heavily discounted. Paying $700 for an AM4 board is crazy.Sweetbabyjays - Thursday, August 29, 2019 - link
100% agree, if you need cores, and pcie bandwidth, TR4 is a much better platform at this pricepoint.Peter2k - Thursday, August 29, 2019 - link
While I absolutely agree on that price of 700 bucks seems outrageous, better putting 500 bucks more into a GPU, one has to say that if you would put a 3950x into that board it would take a while for the CPU to be a bottleneck againAlso, aside from the looks, there are very little features, maybe none, compared to a 200$ board that make it stand out to me for asking 500 bucks more
I can add a second network card easy enough, same for other features
I like the Aorous for its clean look, but then again, I could upgrade to a 2080 super or even 2080ti for all that mark up
peevee - Friday, August 30, 2019 - link
It is a designer drug for game addicts.And the price is not for children either. Adults spending all their free time gaming is so sad. Playing once in a while is one thing, buying $700 MBs for extra 1% fps is terminal stage.
web2dot0 - Wednesday, August 28, 2019 - link
At this price. Get an Epyc 7302P and an MB that goes with it. 128Lanes of PCIE4.0.DigitalFreak - Wednesday, August 28, 2019 - link
But then you are missing out on the wonderful RGBeees!Kevin G - Wednesday, August 28, 2019 - link
The Ryzen parts should run at higher clocks than the low core count Epyc chips so there is a bit of a performance trade off. If that is acceptable and/or you need lots of fast IO, a low core count Epyc system would indeed be the better choice in this price range. The big catch is that Epyc server boards don't have things like on board audio which is pretty much expected for consumer parts.The real varible will be where the next Thread Ripper parts land in cores, clocks and dollars.
austinsguitar - Wednesday, August 28, 2019 - link
that rear io is NOT ACCEPTABLE!Orange_Swan - Wednesday, August 28, 2019 - link
yeah, that's what i was thinkingAndy Chow - Wednesday, August 28, 2019 - link
Finally a x570 board that does not have HDMI/DP ports which are completely ridiculous for 80%+ of people buying rizen CPUs. However, they replace that by nothing. Dual Realtek ALC1220 HD? No one will use that. And five (5!!!!) usb ports? How much is that board again?Tunnah - Wednesday, August 28, 2019 - link
lol holy crap, check the difference between game boost 2 and 11. Povray 4613, 172w. For an extra 5% performance you need 36c, 0.25v, and 100w, or about 60% more, power!They really did squeeze all they could out of this. I wish people would get past the clock speeds, or voltages, or power usage, etc. differences and just focus on the performance PER clock PER watt. This is just an exciting time for CPUs, and doubly exciting as a consumer!
hansmuff - Wednesday, August 28, 2019 - link
If I'm gonna spend that amount, I want to fan-free Gigabyte board.yetanotherhuman - Thursday, August 29, 2019 - link
Right?Qasar - Thursday, August 29, 2019 - link
have you even heard the fan on the board ?? unless you have.. complaining about the fan, is moot, as the noise it makes, may be drowned out, buy the other fans in your system.TheinsanegamerN - Thursday, August 29, 2019 - link
Have yo even heard the fans in my system? They are near silent, not high pitched whiny tenny tiny fans from 1998.Screw tiny fans, passive heatsink all the way.
WaltC - Thursday, August 29, 2019 - link
There are no tiny, 1998 fans anywhere on my Aorus Master x570, I'll have you know....;) Who is still selling them? (No one I know!) My PCH fan is so quiet I had to check to make sure it was still running.ballsystemlord - Thursday, August 29, 2019 - link
Oh, I have such a fan. I bought it just in case I needed to cool something really tiny. Not that I've used it yet though...Sivar - Friday, August 30, 2019 - link
I have had too many tiny fans die, get loud over time, or get clogged up in their own dust collection.I understand that this chipset uses far more power than those from Intel, but I don't care -- fanless or no purchase.
Thunder 57 - Wednesday, August 28, 2019 - link
Ugh, another board with "gaming" plastered all over it.croc - Wednesday, August 28, 2019 - link
Noticing the trend? Slap 'Game' or Gamer' or 'Gaming' on a product and mark it up by 80%. The 'market' must think we self-builders are either very dumb or very rich... (And I guess they must be right because this crap DOES sell...)Thunder 57 - Thursday, August 29, 2019 - link
To be honest, I own a "gaming" mobo. I wanted something with better VRM's than the cheaper, standard boards, but didn't want to pay too much for a more professional board like a Taichi. That basically meant an "REG Gamer Brahh" board. At least the RGB can be turned off.WaltC - Thursday, August 29, 2019 - link
This board is $700, uses voltage doublers, has a creaky and slow UEFI bios, provides you with a add-in 10Gb Networking card which, if your home network runs at 1Gb, will operate at 1Gb...;) Nope, I'd buy something like that separately if I should ever need one! Did anyone check to see if it makes Pizza?StrangerGuy - Friday, August 30, 2019 - link
Their B450 Tomahawk with the useless DVI port wasting so much I/O real estate instead of putting in more USB or HDMI/DP ports was bad enough, but this $700 board really takes the cake in turning up the rear I/O dumbness.PeachNCream - Thursday, August 29, 2019 - link
It works very well. Adding RGB lighting, sticking the word "gamer" on it someplace, and claiming it has magically better voltage regulation for that extra 2.1% more overclock you're going to get (which has a lot more to do with the CPU you end up purchasing) works to hock garbage hardware to stupid people that mindlessly chase that extra one frame they get every second. I say if it works and it drives the economy, then companies should go for it so I can collect dividends when I buy shares with my cash instead of mindlessly trying to impress random people I meet by dribbling out meaningless specs and posting "battlestation" pictures on Reddit.StrangerGuy - Friday, August 30, 2019 - link
Totally agreed, especially in this age where Youtubers have pushed the hardware e-peen waving and elitism all the way up to the high heavens.I'm using a 8700K. but I happily game on a Ryzen 1600 that's $80 used from Aliexpress with a new $65 B450 mobo if I had to; it's bizarre to see people buying into the overpriced marketing kool-aid while simultaneously whining about how expensive the hobby is.
RamarC - Thursday, August 29, 2019 - link
all i can say is "JeeBuz!"WaltC - Thursday, August 29, 2019 - link
I wanted to add my experience with my last MSI mboard that used the ALC1220 & the Nahimic 3.x software--when I got into this x570 Aorus Master and cranked up the ALC1220 & the ESS Sabre DAC, with headphone amp, all hardware, I couldn't believe how much the sound quality improved! Gawd, it was like night and day--same headphones! It was difficult to believe that @ $700 MSI went with the exact same sound hardware and software processing they put in their $190 Ryzen1 mboards--like the Gaming Pro Carbon! Remarkable! So glad I went with Aorus this time. This x570 Master is a keeper. Believe me--I have nothing against MSI--and if the Master was a poor board I'd say so....! No problem. Right now it is shaping up to be one of the best boards I've ever owned--if not the best. And for $700 I could buy two of them. Remarkable.Techie2 - Thursday, August 29, 2019 - link
What a stupid name for a mobo and an absurd price tag. Only a fool would buy this mobo.twtech - Thursday, August 29, 2019 - link
This one is definitely representative of the "Walmart kid's toy for 7-year-olds" styling that seems to have taken over the motherboard market in recent years.Not only does it have lots of non-functional, flimsy-looking plastic, it even has a cheap mirror on it - why?
PeachNCream - Friday, August 30, 2019 - link
The gaming set consists largely of tweens and man children so dinky plastic covers and a vanity mirror would very much appeal to those juvenile-minded sorts. Alternatively, MSI might be trolling them by giving them a mirror in which to look with shame upon themselves as they use a $700 motherboard to play video games from their parents' house as opposed to getting a job as something other than a part time Uber driver so they can live on their own.Korguz - Friday, August 30, 2019 - link
too bad it isnt a mirror.. but an lcd screen of sorts ?PeachNCream - Saturday, August 31, 2019 - link
You're not really into that whole reading the article thing are you?Oxford Guy - Thursday, August 29, 2019 - link
A god-like 40mm fan!PeachNCream - Friday, August 30, 2019 - link
Maybe if MSI covered the chipset in something other than stupid, angular, RGB-festooned plastic like maybe a decent sized heat sink, there would be no need for a half shrouded, dead-in-11-months little fan. But if they did that, where would they plaster the cartoon dragon?ballsystemlord - Thursday, August 29, 2019 - link
One spelling mistake:"MSI usually provide one of the better-looking firmware designs on the market,..."
Missing "s":
"MSI usually provides one of the better-looking firmware designs on the market,..."
zer0hour - Saturday, August 31, 2019 - link
700 for a motherboard? Gotta get me some of that kool-aid.Maxiking - Sunday, September 1, 2019 - link
AMD scam confirmedhttps://youtu.be/DgSoZAdk_E8
https://www.reddit.com/r/pcgaming/comments/cusn2t/...
nt300 - Sunday, September 1, 2019 - link
Great Motherboard but not a great price tag.cb88 - Tuesday, September 3, 2019 - link
$700 for a board and it has this crap copper 10G-Base addon... no thanks I'll install a dual 10GBe SFP+ card thanks + microtik 10GBe switch for under $300 including cables... for the price of Cat6A and a 10Gbaset router/switch I could up to an even faster SFP+ switch with more ports.... the microtik switch is even very quiet unlike most other solutions.