Why don't we see more H110 boards under $50?

[VirtualLarry]

For budget builds, it's still cheaper to go Haswell.

 

[BSim500]

I think there comes a point where quality can get a little too low trying to chase that bottom rung. Kinda like cheap White / Bronze rated PSU's with 85c no-name caps with 1/4 of the lifespan of better made 105c Jap-cap PSU's for the sake of "saving" $20-30 (only to have to replace it in 2-3 years vs 7-10). Some sacrifices just aren't worth it, especially for anything that involves power regulation to another component (PSU / UPS / motherboard), the absolute cheapest isn't always a good idea.

For non-overclocking, B150's are the lowest I'd go personally. That last B150 -> H110 step down loses a lot, not just the chipset limitations itself but often the stuff it typically gets mated with (eg, lowest grade ALC 8xx audio chipsets that may start to "leak" / "squeal" in analogue outputs under load after a year vs shielded 1150 audio chips, or Realtek LAN chipsets that may suck up to 10% of a budget CPU vs Intel LAN that's only 1-3% under the same heavy network transfer, etc).

Same with Haswell's, H81 boards are dirt cheap but limitations like 2x USB 3.0 ports mean you either need cheap 3rd party "Asmedia" controllers to add more (which adds to the cost), or worse those 2 ports are at the back so either you're stuck with USB 2.0 only at the front, or you physically pull the PC out and turn the case around every time you want to plug a USB 3.0 device in, the "novelty" of which wears off pretty quickly vs buying a B85 board for barely $10-$20 more.

 

[whm1974]

For budget builds, it's still cheaper to go Haswell.

If you building a new build why would you use three and a half year old tech instead of something that is more current?

 

[VirtualLarry]

If you building a new build why would you use three and a half year old tech instead of something that is more current?

Because:
1) CPU performance increases between generations are miniscule.
2) You can get CPUs for $42, and boards for around the same, whereas H110 boards are around $50-55, and the cheapest SKL Celeron is often closer to $50 than $40.
3) DDR3 may be cheaper to obtain than DDR4. This may not be true, going forward, however, as most DRAM production has likely shifted away from DDR3 onto DDR4.

I agree, the savings aren't huge. But Haswell is more compatible, currently, with Linux and Windows 7. Not everyone wants Windows 10.

 

[whm1974]

Because:
1) CPU performance increases between generations are miniscule.
2) You can get CPUs for $42, and boards for around the same, whereas H110 boards are around $50-55, and the cheapest SKL Celeron is often closer to $50 than $40.
3) DDR3 may be cheaper to obtain than DDR4. This may not be true, going forward, however, as most DRAM production has likely shifted away from DDR3 onto DDR4.

I agree, the savings aren't huge. But Haswell is more compatible, currently, with Linux and Windows 7. Not everyone wants Windows 10.

I follow you but I would feel very strange buying old hardware instead of current stuff.

 

[severus]

I think with new parts, it's quite difficult to put together a budget build, especially if you're an enthusiast overclocker like me. For someone looking to spend around $150 for CPU/Motherboard/RAM, I think it's better to get an x58 board with 12gb of DDR3 and a Xeon. The Xeons are relatively inexpensive if you look around. Honestly who cares how old the tech is. The majority of users build a new PC every 3-5 years, by that time the socket you're building on now will be dead anyway so what's the difference. If you have $500 to spend on a gaming PC now I heartily suggest going on Craigslist, eBay or a message board an buying a x58 board a X5650, ram $150~ a used 970 for around $140. That's more than enough to play BF1 or similar on Ultra at 1080p. The remaining 210 can go to a HDD, case, operating system and whatever else you might need, save a monitor. This machine should overclock to around 4ghz on air and will perform similar to a 4670k for far less.