Thought/opinion: motherboards might be where Ryzen kicks Intel's rear

[Valantar]

The reason am3 mobos are cheaper is because the costs of development have already been amortized. Considering AMD's current position in the market I predict AM4 motherboards will be more expensive than their similarly spec'd Intel counterparts for a few years. If AMD sticks with the AM4 socket for a decade then yes, in 2026, their boards will be substantially cheaper.

I'm not talking specifically about AM3 mobos being cheaper, but rather AM4 mobos (due to platform design) almost necessarily being cheaper than X99/X299. Fewer socket pins means fewer traces, means fewer PCB layers and lower costs. The same goes for dual channel RAM vs quad channel. Integrated USB 3.1 lowers the BOM. Also, there are already AM4 motherboards cheap enough for OEMs to stick them in affordable desktops. These are based on stripped-down chipsets, but I still see them as a sign that AM4 motherboard design is neither difficult nor expensive.

 

[Valantar]

If Zen is very good isn't it likely Intel will put a low budget 8C/16T in the 1051 socket?

I'd say it's too late for that. In all probability, there's no way of making that work, as the socket and platform was never made with that in mind. Also, CPU development takes years, not months. Not to mention that this would kill X99/X299 sales.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Have you seen any AM4 motherboards yet?
I mean on the sites of Asus, Gigabyte, MSI and others.

It isn't listed on Asus' site, but there's an A320 board out there called the Asus A320M-C that sells in a bundle with the A12-9800 in some European and Asian markets. Asus won't list it on their site, but there is a manual out there for anyone that wants to see it:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/c64y4mrx9yals6p/E12133_A320M-C_V2_UM_web.pdf?dl=0

As to whether or not I expect AM4 boards to be cheaper than X99 . . . maybe. X370 boards will probably be the only ones that can consistently handle Summit Ridge 8c/16t chips, and I expect them to be priced in the same range as Z170 boards were at Skylake launch.

 

[SpaceBeer]

Interesting:

AMD Socket AM4 for AMD A-series/Athlon series processors
Supports CPU up to 4 cores*

*Due to CPU limitation, CPU cores supported vary by processor

Is this limitation for this specific board, or any MB with A320 chipset? Or will Ryzen CPUs be named "Athlon Something" 😀

 

[DrMrLordX]

Interesting:

Is this limitation for this specific board, or any MB with A320 chipset? Or will Ryzen CPUs be named "Athlon Something" 😀

My guess is that the manual was published when only Bristol Ridge was available for OEMs (or anyone for that matter), so they used the upper core limit of Bristol Ridge as the support limit for the board. Plus I'm sure it'll need a UEFI update to support Summit Ridge.

 

[PingSpike]

I've actually considered motherboards to be a bright spot for AMD with the FM2 platform. You can get a fully kitted out board for not much money. They've had 8 SATA3 ports on those things for at least a couple years now while Intel has dolled those out like they were a limited resource. Made it a viable choice for a NAS platform.

Even if AM4 boards aren't cheap, as others have said history suggests AMD changes platforms when forced too so the boards might actually survive more than a single processor installation. Intel wants that chipset money so bad they thing you should fill up all the landfills with their motherboards.

 

[monkeydelmagico]

I'm not talking specifically about AM3 mobos being cheaper, but rather AM4 mobos (due to platform design) almost necessarily being cheaper than X99/X299. Fewer socket pins means fewer traces, means fewer PCB layers and lower costs. The same goes for dual channel RAM vs quad channel. Integrated USB 3.1 lowers the BOM. Also, there are already AM4 motherboards cheap enough for OEMs to stick them in affordable desktops. These are based on stripped-down chipsets, but I still see them as a sign that AM4 motherboard design is neither difficult nor expensive.

Board simplicity is a small fraction of the overall cost of production. They still have to make a functional motherboard. I would argue that even the most complex motherboards have a relatively small production cost difference vs. a "budget" mobo. Demand and volume have a much bigger influence on the prices we pay in the long run.

All this assumes AMD sticks to the socket for a long time and has the demand to produce in large quantities. Current sales trends of desktop CPU's are in decline with AMD's market share continuing to shrink. Normally this would not bode well for low price AM4 motherboards. Thankfully, advances in design and fab have reduced production costs to such an extent that it helps mitigate the loss of volume sales. There are also a whole host of board partner agreements that will set the tone and strategy for years to come.

Only time will tell if AMD can leverage AM4 socket longevity advantage into an actual price or performance advantage.

 

[monkeydelmagico]

I've actually considered motherboards to be a bright spot for AMD with the FM2 platform. You can get a fully kitted out board for not much money. They've had 8 SATA3 ports on those things for at least a couple years now while Intel has dolled those out like they were a limited resource. Made it a viable choice for a NAS platform.

Even if AM4 boards aren't cheap, as others have said history suggests AMD changes platforms when forced too so the boards might actually survive more than a single processor installation. Intel wants that chipset money so bad they thing you should fill up all the landfills with their motherboards.

Not sure that board manufacturers would share in your sentiment. Say it costs roughly the same to make and sell an FM2 or an lga1151. You have to sell the FM2 at 5% profit margin just to get people to buy it. You still only sell a few a month. Your total sales of FM2's for the year doesn't even come close to one month of lga1151 sales. The lga1151 boards fly off the proverbial shelves even at 50% profit margin. Years later you are still trying to pay off the up front costs for machining and tooling on the FM2 production run while the lga1151 production run was paid off in the first year. Now AMD is back knocking on your door with a new socket and wants you to build it? Sure, but it's going to cost you........

 

[SpaceBeer]

The difference between platforms is not that big. I think you would need around 200.000 units sold, maybe even less, to pay the cost of production/assembly process upgrade/modification. And they are selling milions of units each year.

I mean, this could be any other board (LGA 1151, AM3+ or FM2+) 😀

http://www.eteknix.com/gigabyte-ax370-am4-motherboard/

 

[DrMrLordX]

Eww, 7 phases (4+3)? Pass.

 

[Valantar]

Eww, 7 phases (4+3)? Pass.

For a 95w TDP CPU, that's more than sufficient (given that the components are of decent quality). Heck, it's probably even a decent overclocker. The trend towards MOAR POWAR PHAZES ZOMG in motherboards is as ridiculous as any other e-peen trend for 99.9% of users. Unnecessary, increases cost, and does next to nothing for the system.

 

[DrMrLordX]

For a 95w TDP CPU, that's more than sufficient (given that the components are of decent quality). Heck, it's probably even a decent overclocker. The trend towards MOAR POWAR PHAZES ZOMG in motherboards is as ridiculous as any other e-peen trend for 99.9% of users. Unnecessary, increases cost, and does next to nothing for the system.

I dunno, remember we're talking about a presumably low-voltage design here. As others have stated here, when it comes to VRMs, supplying 95W @ 1.1v is not the same as 95W @ 1.4v .

Plus looking at some of those AM3+ boards with lame 8+2 configs (the oft-beloved 970-UD3P belongs here) and FM2+ boards with some iffy configs (mostly looking at the ASRock FM2A88X Extreme 6+ and some others), I'm hesitant to bag on mega-VRM configurations. The lower the default vcore is for these chips, the more we need robust power delivery.

Even the 12+2 config on the ASRock 990FX Extreme9 was judged to be inferior to the VRMs on Sabretooth and Crosshair V boards. So there's more to it than "moar phases".

 

[DaveSimmons]

"Kicks intel's rear" vs. the intel 8-cores, maybe. But how large a market is that compared to the mainstream i5 - i7 4-core market? And how price-sensitive is it?

When I can get an i7 6700/7700K, motherboard and RAM for around the cost of the bare intel & AMD CPUs, the fact that AMD's 8c system is cheaper than intel's 8c won't matter to me, I'll stick with the 4c/8t.

 

[Valantar]

"Kicks intel's rear" vs. the intel 8-cores, maybe. But how large a market is that compared to the mainstream i5 - i7 4-core market? And how price-sensitive is it?

When I can get an i7 6700/7700K, motherboard and RAM for around the cost of the bare intel & AMD CPUs, the fact that AMD's 8c system is cheaper than intel's 8c won't matter to me, I'll stick with the 4c/8t.

If you can get an AMD 8-core (with comparable per-core performance) for, say, $100-200 or so more than an Intel 4-core , what would your pick be then?

 

[DaveSimmons]

If you can get an AMD 8-core (with comparable per-core performance) for, say, $100-200 or so more than an Intel 4-core , what would your pick be then?

$600 vs. $800 for CPU + motherboard + RAM? I think a lot of people would put the $200 towards a better graphics card or larger SSD.

In my case I have no budget limit for toys, but my penny-pinching nature keeps me from using that budget. I still have a 980ti from last year instead of a 1080, and I haven't bothered to upgrade my i5-2500 yet since I've been waiting for intel to offer a significant speed increase in the under-$400 CPU range. It's taken years to reach +20%, with the 7700K bumping that up to maybe +30% at stock. Compared to GPUs the progress has been glacial.

But if AMD does deliver I will at least consider spending the extra.

 

[Valantar]

$600 vs. $800 for CPU + motherboard + RAM? I think a lot of people would put the $200 towards a better graphics card or larger SSD.

In my case I have no budget limit for toys, but my penny-pinching nature keeps me from using that budget. I still have a 980ti from last year instead of a 1080, and I haven't bothered to upgrade my i5-2500 yet since I've been waiting for intel to offer a significant speed increase in the under-$400 CPU range. It's taken years to reach +20%, with the 7700K bumping that up to maybe +30% at stock. Compared to GPUs the progress has been glacial.

But if AMD does deliver I will at least consider spending the extra.

You're essentially playing into my main point in this thread here. With Intel, you either get the +~30% increase of a 7700K within your "budget", or (even if the next cpu up is only $80 or so extra), end up spending far more ($200+) total for an X99/X299 platform. Of course I'm talking minimum-ish, "entry level" combos here, or "the price of entry".

As I see it, the promise of Zen (given that my hopes/assumptions of pricing are ballpark correct) is 6 unlocked cores at the total platform price of a 7700K (if not less), and 8 at a $100-200 premium (including motherboard price).

$250-300 motherboards are just as big a barrier of entry to Intel HEDT as the crazy expensive cpus are.

 

[Qasar]

intel does that with the PCIe lanes to keep their platforms... separate..... (obviously ) want more lanes and more ways to use them.. have to go up higher in the stack... aka x99... but for me.. the main reason i went with X99.. was not because of lanes or what i wanted to do with it.. was because of how simple it was to choose a motherboard and cpu... something no one here mentioned... take asus as an example.. the x1xx chipsets... 56 mobos... trim that down to just z170 and you still have 24 mobos to choose from... not to mention all the cpus that are for socket 1150/1 2 years ago.. now not so bad at 9.... for socket 2011 v3 and x99.. there is only 24 mobos, same as socket 1151... but how many cpus ? when i bought this.. 2 years ago... there were only 3.. now there is only 6 and 2 of them.. are the same when i bought this.. MUCH less confusing.. i tried to figure it out for 2 or 3 days, which cpu and mobo to get for z170 i think it was... or was it still z97.... either way.. i got a headache trying to decide.. so i said forget it.. original plan.. x99 and mid range cpu.. done... sure i payed A LOT more.. but this comp.. will probably last me for 5 years.. it replaced an X58 based board with a 1st gen i7 930.....

as for ryzen and boards.. IF amd is able to keep the CPU choices down to something reasonable, say 6 to 8 cpus... and the boards to say 15 or less.. per manufacturer... it will make trying to choose a board and cpu easier.. and for price.. i think amds boards were always a little less then the intel counterparts.. when either were released...but if the highend board is still 100 or less then the intel board.. then amd wins there... most expensive z170 board is the asus maximus VIII extreme. at 830 cdn... and thats not even x99!!! the most expensive x99 board is the MSI x99a godlike gaming...$780 cdn.. then there is some savings there.. cpu's.. IF it performs as well as it seems to be so far.,.. i would say 600 for the top end.. would be reasonable.,. cause convert that to CDN funds... and that's an 800 CDN cpu easy... the i7 6850k is currently 860 ( reg price ) the i7 6950x is 2350 cdn... OUCH

i hope.. ryzen.. is pretty close to what intel has for performance.. and if the total cost of the platform is 3-400 cdn less then intel.. i would say... they could sell quite well up here....

 

[William Gaatjes]

I predict like Fury/Nano AMD will overplay their hand their on Zen pricing and forget there's a huge 6 year installed base of i5/i7s and most don't gawk at the likes of Cinebench all day long. 8-core Zen at $300 in 2017 is still nowhere even close to the appeal of the 2500K back in 2011.

I think there are a lot of people with AMD constructor processors and i3 processors.
And for those people an 4c8t(if exists) or 8c/16t would be interesting if the price and performance is decent . When the motherboards are also at a reasonable price, AMD might have something.

 

[fleshconsumed]

I just hope Ryzen and new AMD boards will support ECC. I want ECC capable 6-8 core system for my server. Don't want to go Xeon route just to get that.

 

[zinfamous]

$600 vs. $800 for CPU + motherboard + RAM? I think a lot of people would put the $200 towards a better graphics card or larger SSD.

In my case I have no budget limit for toys, but my penny-pinching nature keeps me from using that budget. I still have a 980ti from last year instead of a 1080, and I haven't bothered to upgrade my i5-2500 yet since I've been waiting for intel to offer a significant speed increase in the under-$400 CPU range. It's taken years to reach +20%, with the 7700K bumping that up to maybe +30% at stock. Compared to GPUs the progress has been glacial.

But if AMD does deliver I will at least consider spending the extra.

What about a 6c/12t Ryzen at higher? base clock than 6700/7700, and ~$50+ less cost?

I think those are the Ryzen chips we should be talking about as the 6700/7700 competitor/gaming chips. Of course, we know nothing about those, but if the 8c/16t is showing that 3.6ghz base...

 

[DaveSimmons]

What about a 6c/12t Ryzen at higher? base clock than 6700/7700, and ~$50+ less cost?

I think those are the Ryzen chips we should be talking about as the 6700/7700 competitor/gaming chips. Of course, we know nothing about those, but if the 8c/16t is showing that 3.6ghz base...

I'd definitely consider it. I'm starting to get that urge to upgrade now that the 7700K is shipping but I keep reminding myself that my i5 works well enough for everything I'm currently playing. Hurry up, AMD!

Homer at the gun shop: "Five days? But I'm mad now!"

 

[SpaceBeer]

I mentioned earlier that Ryzen with same configuration and clocks (e.g. 4c/8t) needs to be at least $50 cheaper than Intel's CPUs, due to lack of IGP. Now when it's confirmed all AM4 CPUs are unlocked and OC is supported even on B350. I'm quite sure AMD will have much better offer in price segment currently covered by i5

 

[Atari2600]

I think that sifting through motherboards deciding what you want is a nightmare. A well filtered website (hint hint shop.amd) would really aid in downselecting suitable motherboards.

Filters should include (n denoting number of):

nSATA ports
nPCIe x16
nPCIe x1
nM2
max supported Mem.
nUSB3.1
nUSB3.0
nUSB2.0

It wouldn't be hard code up and may result in more than a few additional sales.

 

[LTC8K6]

If you can get an AMD 8-core (with comparable per-core performance) for, say, $100-200 or so more than an Intel 4-core , what would your pick be then?

Is the AMD chip $100-200 faster in the end, or not? Don't tell me about "comparable per-core performance". Tell me if it's faster overall or not.

 

[whm1974]

Is the AMD chip $100-200 faster in the end, or not? Don't tell me about "comparable per-core performance". Tell me if it's faster overall or not.

I'm hoping that the Ryzen 8c/16t will be the same price as the quad core i7.