- Aug 26, 2014
- 1,792
- 508
- 136
I know this has been discussed before to a certain extent, but I haven't seen any threads focused purely on this - especially now after the Ryzen reveal. My thought:
Motherboards are just as big of a hindrance to X99 (/X299) adoption as CPUs are. From a quick look at Newegg, Z170 boards start at ~$80, while X99 starts at $150, and by page 2 of the X99 section you're at $250 or more - a price it takes twice the number of motherboards to reach for Z170.
In other words, not only is the base CPU $50 more than the top-end Z170 chip, motherboards are significantly more expensive too.
AMD on the other hand is going all-in on the AM4 platform, from the low to the high end. In other words, you could theoretically run your 8c16t Ryzen chip on a $60-70 (or lower) motherboard. This would give buyers a much bigger selection of CPUs within a tolerable price range, and would bring down total platform cost significantly when compared to X99. As an (off-the-cuff, not claiming feature parity or anything) example, the cheapest Z170 Asus ROG motherboard at Newegg is $170, while the cheapest Asus ROG X99 board is $285. That's another $100+ that could go into increased CPU or GPU performance, a bigger SSD, more RAM, a better (/better looking) case, and so on. It would also leave a clear CPU upgrade path for anyone investing in a lower-end part.
So what am I saying? I think that if AMD prices Zen reasonably (i.e. $5-600 for the 8c16t, top-end model, and several options lower down than that), this would still be an expensive, premium option. The added "savings" of a cheaper motherboard with the same features and quality could tip the scales in their direction, even with the public's tendency towards pro-Intel bias.
Motherboards are just as big of a hindrance to X99 (/X299) adoption as CPUs are. From a quick look at Newegg, Z170 boards start at ~$80, while X99 starts at $150, and by page 2 of the X99 section you're at $250 or more - a price it takes twice the number of motherboards to reach for Z170.
In other words, not only is the base CPU $50 more than the top-end Z170 chip, motherboards are significantly more expensive too.
AMD on the other hand is going all-in on the AM4 platform, from the low to the high end. In other words, you could theoretically run your 8c16t Ryzen chip on a $60-70 (or lower) motherboard. This would give buyers a much bigger selection of CPUs within a tolerable price range, and would bring down total platform cost significantly when compared to X99. As an (off-the-cuff, not claiming feature parity or anything) example, the cheapest Z170 Asus ROG motherboard at Newegg is $170, while the cheapest Asus ROG X99 board is $285. That's another $100+ that could go into increased CPU or GPU performance, a bigger SSD, more RAM, a better (/better looking) case, and so on. It would also leave a clear CPU upgrade path for anyone investing in a lower-end part.
So what am I saying? I think that if AMD prices Zen reasonably (i.e. $5-600 for the 8c16t, top-end model, and several options lower down than that), this would still be an expensive, premium option. The added "savings" of a cheaper motherboard with the same features and quality could tip the scales in their direction, even with the public's tendency towards pro-Intel bias.