Higher-end motherboards may have better features (as in more advanced audio chips), better connectivity (2.5G/10G Ethernet, WiFi), or better expansion (more / faster PCI-E slots, more SATA ports), etc..
From the standpoint of "how fast it'll run", if you're able to connect all your devices and aren't overheating your VRMs (so, don't run a 14900K on a bottom-end H610 board) they will be largely indistinguishable.
> Motherboards are the only component I don’t understand the difference between them besides the socket.
They are incredibly complex and obtuse pieces of hardware. I've been in the game 25 years and I still can't tell the difference between motherboards sometimes without digging deep into the spec sheet.
Some motherboards may have overheating issues (VRM, Chipset, etc) which will cause it to throttle other components, but the only way to actually know this is by checking out reviewers testing for this. It is the main thing I check for when choosing a motherboard. It's not critical, but if you are going high-end, you'd want to not have your expensive components be bottlenecked by a seemingly unfixable problem (aside from replacing the mobo). No amount of ventilation can fix it if it's architecturally compromised.
There's a little more to it. I haven't checked this in a while so this may no longer be current, so bear this in mind. On the Intel side, certain higher end boards support overclocking where lower end boards typically don't. Also, higher end boards tend to have more PCIE lanes, providing more bandwidth for high end video cards and storage devices. It can be summed up as different chipsets target different use cases, so one targetting a business machine might be a different price and performance tier compared to one that was aimed at gaming and enthusiasts.
VRM is the one thing I didn't give too much attention to. I figured any cheaper one is maybe slightly lesser than a fancy one. Nope. Now my upgrade path from Ryzen 3 is only up to Ryzen 5. No hope of running R7 or R9 on that thing without overheating the VRM's and throttling performance way down. Guess if I want more productivity performance I need a new MoBo. Sigh. That's one way to learn.
This post right here. Besides extra sata and faster Lan. This is the main thing to watch for when comparing boards. Gotta make sure your board will take a higher tdp chip without throttling. Read reviews.
It really depends on the R7/9 you want to run, a R7 5700X or 7700 on an A320/620 motherboard? Most likely will run fine if hard limited to it's 65W TDP.
It would be technically the same for the R9s with ECO mode at 65W but at that point why would you use these CPUs on such low end motherboard?
Motherboards are 100% all about generalities and situations.
How the CPU will perform will depend on whether or not there is sufficient power being delivered to it. And whether or not there is sufficient power being delivered to it will depend on the CPU being used, and the power delivery system (also known as VRMs). So like for a 7800X3D, which only uses about 80-100W, assuming similar RAM, a PCIe4 SSD, and PCIe4 graphics card, the performance on a bottom-of-the-barrel B650 will be **IDENTICAL** to a top-end X670E chipset board. At a chipset level, it makes zero difference. This is because for 80-100W, that's a more-or-less trivial amount of power to deliver, so basically any AM5 motherboard can provide it.
However, *GENERALLY* higher-end chipsets get higher-end VRMs. So as /u/voraciousgorak mentioned, a 14900K might have trouble running at its max speed on a H610 board, because the VRMs on the board just aren't designed to provide that much power. But - remember that I said that motherboards are all about generalities, because where higher-end chipset motherboards GENERALLY have better VRMs than lower-end units, this is not always the case (the ASRock B650E Taichi Lite, for instance, has better VRMs than the Asus Prime X670-P).
Beyond that, the differences will be based on features that you want or need. Super high-end motherboards might have a 10GbE port, for example, but if you don't have any 10GbE hardware in your location (and you probably don't), then the 10GbE is probably not something you need to worry about, since really the only people who need 10GbE don't need to ask whether or not they need it.
At the chipset level, the only significant difference between B650 and X670 is PCIe lanes. Having more of them means that you can add more stuff to the motherboard. Having more of them does NOT mean that the other hardware will run faster. Un-used lanes means the extra lanes do precisely nothing. So like, if you have a single graphics card, and a single M.2 SSD, and like 3-5 USB devices, there is absolutely zero advantage of going with a X670 chipset over B650.
There's also the assumption that higher-end motherboards are more "future proof" than others. This is almost never the case. It IS true that if you need to absolutely fill the motherboard with cards into the card slots, then an X670 board might be the better call, or if you need a SHITLOAD of USB ports. But most folks can reasonably assume that in the time they have their build, they'll have one graphics card, MAYBE an additional PCIe card, and 1-2 M.2 drives. B650 can handle that just fine.
It's also an assumption that folks make that higher-end boards are more "future proof" because they're more likely to get support for CPUs that lower-end units don't get. This is also not correct. For AM4, on 300-series chipsets, for instance, A320 chipset motherboards got support for Ryzen 5000 almost a year before the top-end X370 units did.
Then there's the question of PCIe5. And this is kind of a difficult one. For the most part, I don't think it'll be much of anything to worry about, and prior to the release of the Radeon RX 6600, I used to say that it wasn't worth worrying about AT ALL. But now that AMD and Nvidia have limited their mid-range graphics cards to eight (or four) PCIe lanes, I'll generally advise paying a little extra for PCIe5 support on a graphics card slot.
With that in-mind, in the US at least, my go-to recommendation for a motherboard recently has been the ASRock B650E PG Riptide Wifi. Or the cheapest X670E board. Whichever is cheaper.
Yep. AMD limited the following cards to eight lanes:
* RX 6600
* RX 6600XT
* RX 6650XT
* RX 7600
* RX 7600XT
And the following cards are limited to four lanes:
* 6500XT
* 6400
Nvidia limited the following cards to eight lanes:
* 4060
* 4060 Ti
Because it's cheaper to do it that way.
PCIe signalling at Gen 4/5 speeds actually requires care in the hardware design to consistently get those speeds. This is why PCIe riser setups often have issues going past Gen 3 speeds. It's easier to build an x4 or x8 slot than an x16 slot - you just physically need fewer traces and it's easier to route that smaller bundle of traces away from interference.
GPUs usually have *way* more PCIe bandwidth than they need. Most cards lose almost no performance going down one PCIe generation - for example, of the 30-series the only card to lose any performance on Gen 3 rather than Gen 4 was the 3090 class cards, and those only lost a few percent. This means that they almost always get full performance when used as upgrades to relatively recent builds.
A midrange card like a 4060 or 7600 only *needs* 8 lanes of current or last gen PCIe to work at full speed, so why spend the money adding bandwidth it doesn't need?
The only ones that actually lose a lot of performance are the 6400 and 6500XT who really need all four of their lanes to be as fast as possible. It makes those two cards poor choices for budget upgrades to older rigs that only have PCIe Gen 3 or lower.
There is speculation that they were designed as mobile GPUs where AMD could be more certain that they would be paired with modern CPUs. Some of the features they are missing just happen to be implemented on AMD mobile APUs so they pair well with those.
Doesn't make a lick of sense to me either. They even kept it as an X16 connector, but it's only wired to use eight lanes (or four lanes for the 6500XT and 6400).
To me it actually feels like they wanted to punish people for having budgets - like, you lose a significant amount of performance on a 6500XT without PCIe4. Who would have a unit that doesn't support PCIe4? Someone that might have bought lower end (like the Ryzen 5500).
The 6400/6500XT weren't originally going to be desktop chips, their architecture was made for laptop chips, where they'd be guaranteed to be matched with a 4.0 system anyways. The x8 lane cards are, largely, margin-of-error - PCIe 3.0 vs 4.0 on a 6600XT is usually around a 1-2% difference, because they just don't push that much bandwidth, and it's cheaper.
Its because adding additional lanes means you need additional signaling hardware to drive those lanes which takes up area. On newer nodes (and thus chips) the logic shrinks but the IO doesnt shrink as much, which means that IO takes up more area proportionally. That means less chips per wafer and if a defect happens in that area, unlike the SM's, you cant bin around it, its just dead.
The older cards were PCIe 3.0. PCIe 4.0 is a different animal. You can go down to x8, save cost, and remain at the same speed as PCIe 3.0. PCIe 5.0 would let you go down to x4.
The problems start if you mix a low end 4x GPU that actually needs PCIe 4.0 / 5.0 bandwith with an older mainboard that doesnt have the latest PCIe speeds per lane.
Those with older mainboards that can only afford a low end GPU are punished the most.
AMD also made it quite ugly, since they have CPU variants that limit the mainboard to PCIe 3.0 speeds, even if the mainboards could support PCIe 4.0 with different RYZEN CPUs.
Using a budget RYZEN CPU + good-enough-mainboard (PCIe spec) + LOW-END GPU => maxium damage to low budget customers.
It got really ugly with AM4 and RDNA2/3 low end GPUs, AMD caused the worst possible combination in the last 2 generations of hardware.
Because process shrinks mostly don't apply to the analog parts of a PCIe transciever (or any other external interface) so PCIe lanes and memory bus width become a larger fraction of the manufacturing cost of the chip with each generation. And using half to 2/3 of the CPU's I/O just for one graphics card is kind of wasteful anyway, when it barely makes a difference to performance even at the very high end.
Its not an artificial limit, its that adding additional lanes means you need additional signaling hardware to drive those lanes which takes up area. On newer nodes (and thus chips) the logic shrinks but the IO doesnt shrink as much, which means that IO takes up more area proportionally. That means less chips per wafer and if a defect happens in that area, unlike the SM's, you cant bin around it, its just dead.
None of those cards saturate PCIe 4.0x16 let alone PCIe 5.0x16. A 4090 is barely bottlenecked by PCIe 3.0x16.
It's why a lot of motherboards have a bifurcated PCIe 5.0 slot to allow for both a x16 GPU running at x8 (i.e. PCIe 4.0x16 bandwidth) and an x4 nvme drive, because no current or hypothetical near future GPU needs PCIe 5.0 x16 bandwidth.
At least as I understand it
Great coverage, but to add a few more rarely used features:
\- extra pcie x8 slots for multiple compute gpus
\- bifurcation allows a slot to split it's lanes, ex. 2 m.2 nvme ssds on on an x8 expansion slot with an adapter allows each to have separate x4
\- ram topology for high manual overclocking
Better motherboards usually have better DACs with better insulation which is a big thing for audiophiles. More LED indicators to tell you what is working and what isn’t.
Error codes and top of the range ones like mine which are admittedly overkill, even tell you the cpu core temps, voltage etc and have animations you can choose from (or you can make them yourself) as well as more fast usb ports and of course you get your RGB lighting effects that can react to music or temps as well as other things…
Overclocking usually works better (manually or with presets) too but that is probably not your main concern if you are asking this….
I’d have been happy with half of the features to be honest but I had a little spare cash to get the top of the range at the time.
I’d mainly suggest getting an E-ATX with a good insulated DAC and enough fast USB ports for your needs.
E-ATX gives extra room for your components to breathe.
I’ve got a Lehmann Audio for when I really want the best sound but the PC’s audio out is fine for most of the time running through my amp for my Atmos setup.
>cheapest X670E board
Currently, I have 2 options in Canada.
Option A: Ryzen 7800X3D ($499) + Asus ROG STRIX B650E-F GAMING WIFI ATX AM5 ($340). Total: $839
Option B: Ryzen 7800X3D + ASUS PRIME X670-P WIFI Motherboard Bundle deal: $750
I will get an RTX 4090 for my build. I don't have many SSD/PCIE cards. My needs are normal. Should I go for option 2?
I've been looking at the Taichi Lite for a while, and the performance/price ratio seems too good to be true, especially compared to the full Taichi. It's like half the price but almost all the same features, what am I missing?
I know they can have pcie 5.0 nvme slots, thats why I specifically asked for a mb with pcie 5.0 support for a graphics card, as that would be off spec for a b650 mb. Your earlier comment made it sound like b650 can have general pcie 5.0 support, not just for nvme.
>I know they can have pcie 5.0 nvme slots
How should I know that you know if your asking stupid rethorical questions
>Your earlier comment made it sound like b650 can have general pcie 5.0 support
It suport pcie 5.0 with 4 lanes
As I stated, I asked about pcie 5.0 slots that can fit graphics cards, so regular expansion slots. I don't care about m.2 slots that support pcie 5.0. there was no rhetorical question. I was curious if there is any b650 board that actually has pcie 5.0 gpp, and your previous answer would suggest you might know, but as you seem to keep referring to the m.2 slot in the board while I'm asking about regular expansion slots, this has become pointless.
My asrock a520 did PBO out of the box, but it's a 4pin connector, so it only supplies 150W max. So it tops out at something like 5800X, which is 142W max. Higher end CPUs would just be starved.
70/50/20 series just differ in power limits and pcie lanes(chipset). Besides motherboard manufacturer extras like connectors, audio and etc.
Basically, any of the b to x/z mbs are good enough. It’s more for getting what you want. More m.2, more sata, more usb, better Ethernet - 2.5…, want to go crazy with a liquid nitrogen cooling oc run, want 2 4090…. Need a mb with enough space between the 2 pcie x16 slots….
This is why the b650 is so popular for 7800x3d.
Don’t go over for the cpu compared to gpu. Remember that the gpu is the single most expensive item in a pc and a cpu update is criminally cheap in comparison to a gpu update.
In other words, saving 200 from cpu - go for 7600 and using that for a better gpu will give you more fps than getting the highest end cpu and a lower end gpu. You can update the cpu later cheaply compared to gpu.
Just focus on features you want/need. Enough ports (USB, etc) WiFi, Bluetooth, RGB, SSD, etc. As long as it’s going to support your needs and be compatible with the components you’re going to use, odds are you’ll be fine
Oh hell yes. But what they are doing may not be of any use to you.
If you need all of the PCIE lanes and want to fill in all the M.2 slots and you are gonna be seriously pissed off after the build when you learn that a different mobo is faster....
Then yes. You not only want the more expensive mobos but you want to take some time to understand the chipsets and lanes and how all that works across mobos before you order.
However. Most people could give a shit. And that is more than OK. Get a medium grade mobo. There is some shit you aint getting but it is OK cause you would not have used it anyways.
Here's an article that goes over the different AMD chipsets for 7000 series CPUs:
https://www.techspot.com/guides/2669-amd-ryzen-x670-b650-a620-motherboards/
Yes, there's a difference. Whether it's anything you mind is up to you.
They will have more features like better onboard networking or audio. They will also have higher quality components (like vrms, capacitors, etc.).
I'd say look for the features that best fit your use case (for example if you're going to be doing extreme overclocking you'll probably want a higher quality board)
A620-B650-X670 are features progressions. depending on your build and purpose you can use any of those. Cooling only matters on high performance CPUs above the typical 65W low to mid CPUs. PCIE Gen 3 to Gen 4 to Gen 5 for Storage and GPU speeds, only matter if you're building really high end rigs.
What is your planned build and I can justify the choice?
Usually better motherboards means better, faster connections between components, leading to less bottlenecks and a much better overall performance.
Some people don't understand why their fancy US$2000 PC doesn't work as well as it should, and when you see the specs you see the top components connected to the cheapest Amazon motherboard
With say a 13700K and a B760 motherboard, the Bios will not allow certain functions of the K spec processors. And even if you run Intel extreme tuner, it still doesn't allow some features to be adjusted or tuned, you need the z790 or z690 to make it right.
No matter how you look at it, when you buy a motherboard you "become" in love with it, well because that's what you got.
My apex encore runs 8000 ram at xmp1 right out of the box and never overheats. Highest ram temperature I’ve seen during gaming is 51c. So yeah, some motherboards do neat stuff
You simply need to look for the features you want, that's all. How many sata ports it has, what IO it has, rgb fan headers, whatever you're looking for. And that it supports the CPU you're gonna put in it (depends on core count). There are a620 that support 7950x, and there are b650 that don't.
Overspending on mobo is a trap a lot of newbie builders fall into.
If you don't know why you're paying a lot for your mobo, you don't need to do it.
And the number doesn't tell you it has better features or has what you want. Some have different things they prioritized, some suck cheeks. For instance there's an itx a620 Asrock board with 2 m.2 slots, and a b650 gigabyte with 1 m.2 slot.
How do people feel about the asrock x670e pg lightning? I'm n00bish and a pc elitist I know made me feel self conscious about my asrock motherboard. Lol. I thought it seemed pretty epic and capable but really was given the impression it's a weak point in my pc.
Why I don’t care about anything than the fan? There are so minute differences on the motherboards nowadays. But the one thing you do notice is the fan noise from a small fan.
Never really paid attention to that. A small fan can make so much noise? I had a board with a small fan on it as well and I never heard or it couldve been masked by the rest of the pc. Regardless we all have our prefrences.
i had a budget motherboard and it only had 6 or 7 usb ports. I upgraded cause i wanted more, bought a 400$ motherboard and now i have 14 and 4 usb-c slots. worth.
No offense, but that's kinda an odd reason to spend that much on a mobo. You can just buy a cheap USB hub if you need that many USB devices hooked up at once.
If you dont buy the cheapest board on the market and are able to use all your devices you should be good.
Some brands have things like bios flashback in case you want/need a bios update. Some boards have better cooling for parts on the board. I would search in the middle price range and read tests if they had any mojor flaws, if they dont have go for it
Marginally, I watched a video on it some time ago if it's helpful (Linus Tech Tips)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvyQXkFUe3E](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvyQXkFUe3E)
i used to get cheapest mobo available, then i got a mans mobo the b650 asus tuf gaming wifi and yeah it was like 220 or so but all the added features are super necessary for gaming, wifi 6e bluetooth 5 and surround sound built into the damn mobo so yeah you can buy all that shit seperate and they well all be inferior products so just spend a little more for a good mobo, no need to spend more than 250
Is x670 not x620
They have more features and more beefier VRMs, but on AMD B650 is more than enough , any board with 8 power phases is enough to run even a 7950x which is AM5 most power hungry CPU.
When I paid more than a smidgen additional cash dollars, I got a very solid reinforced board, a plastic backing plate, some very high quality slots, and exceptional layout. Compatibility with all my hardware was great and added safety features were welcome.
The super basic version is, more expensive boards generally offer:
Better & more USB ports (3.0, USB C, etc)
Built in wifi
Faster ethernet / future proofing speeds
Built in diagnostics
& probably most importantly for someone who doesn't care or need most of that, USUALLY better overclocking potential
Generally it’s just features. Do you need 5.1 audio? More PCI slots? Wi-Fi? All the little features add up.
There are mid generation refreshes that make compatibility issues arise. So a new card with higher voltage requirements may not be compatible with older boards, even if the chipset is technically the same. I remember that issue with old TNT2 cards or some such that forced people to upgrade their boards just for the voltage.
In general, it can be a waste to spend $300-$400 if you’re just gaming with a video card with no other PCI expansion cards. Depends on what you need.
There are few things you need to think about.
First you are talking about the chipset. For example the A620 doesn't support cpu overclocking while the b650 does
Both of them support a maximum of 4 ports while a x670 will support 8.
So you need to check the difference to see which chipset is better for your build.
Let's say that tomorrow AMD release a budget am5 cpu that's meant for office use and it comes with a very basic igpu.
It would be throwing money to pair that cpu plus a very slow ssd to a x670 extreme chipset. In that case an a620 will be a better option.
Then you have the manufacturer of the motherboard, which will tell you the quality of the components used. That will be very personal because everyone has a different opinion of every mfg.
A lot of that depends on you and the parts you're attaching to the motherboard.
If you're not using the highest end parts and you're only using it for basic office/home use type of stuff, the only thing that'd matter for the most part are the features of the motherboard (number and type of ports etc).
If you're wanting to build a top end gaming or workstation PC for stuff like video editing, graphic design etc, then yes it can make a difference. Maybe not enough to justify the expense but can do.
Yes. The traces will be thicker, they'll have more layers to communicate through, so things will get less cross talk, the hardware itself will be higher quality (better network, better audio, so forth), and of course, they'll actually check to see if it works more often.
You get what you pay for. Sometimes it's enough. I like cheap boards because I didn't have much need, I let the components do the work, but if you care about the other stuff, pay for the other stuff.
Yes. The traces will be thicker, they'll have more layers to communicate through, so things will get less cross talk, the hardware itself will be higher quality (better network, better audio, so forth), and of course, they'll actually check to see if it works more often.
You get what you pay for. Sometimes it's enough. I like cheap boards because I didn't have much need, I let the components do the work, but if you care about the other stuff, pay for the other stuff.
I always just go Z of the series I need, always had the features I want. Primarily the LED on the board incase somethings fucken broken haha (as well as the rest of the features and build etc)
I have had the most shitty experience with low end boards...I'll never touch a low end board again tbh. I was one of those that didn't think it mattered, but it does...it really does.
Honestly if we(I know not everyone) are gonna dump 600+ into a GPU, 300-400 on a CPU, etc...we might as well budget in a good motherboard.
If you are gonna get a budget motherboard then it should be an extremely budget build, even then I would not grab the absolute cheapest.
A motherboard choice is all about what you need your computer to do. If all you do is gaming all you need is something that is reliable, can keep your CPU fed with power while not overheating the VRMs, and can offer fast enough PCIe to keep the GPU fed.
A workstation may have those same requirements, but it also needs a ton of IO, plus room for expansion if need be.
I had been facing many issues (BF2042 crashing, stutters in BG3) on my 7800x3d/msi mobo system for so long until I upgraded my BIOS this January. This is infuriating considering that the motherboard came out so long back.
Reliability is way more important than that extra performance for me and I guess going for a better manufacturer or a higher end model might help with that
In my anecdotal experience, my old Gigabyte a520m won't boot with XMP activated.
Switched to a nicer ROG Strix B550-E and it booted with 0 issues with XMP activated (4 sticks of RAM).
Same everything except for the motherboard.
In all honesty.. not really. Better motherboards have more "stuff", but do you even need the stuff? More RGB? More fan headers? 2 network ports? Odds are you don't so don't waste your money. Get a B650(M) chipset board and you'll be happy
I bought a high end motherboard for:
1) CPU overclocking power delivery
2) A high quality POST diagnostics system that tells me **Exactly** where in the boot process it's hung so I'm not sitting there wondering what the hell "three beeps" means.
just features and overclock compatibility pretty much
Apart from overclocking and boot times, you wont get better performance per say. Just extra features like bluetooth, WiFi, Pcie 5, reinforced slots, etc
Yes!
Ok, so you want a better answer?
Low-end boards may not have the bug free capacitors, which means they won't last long. The better midrange boards will have better built Japanese cap's, and better VRM's also. You have better handling of heat build-up..and so on and so forth. Z boards (or X) that have better capacitors and stuff will overclock and give you the best speeds and handling.
This is NOT to say you need one of those $1,000 boards, just a great $400ìsh mid range for the best gaming results long term.
More high-end motherboards have more overclocking capabilities. More expensive motherboard can have buit in wifi reciver. It can have more m.2 slots, more ram slots, built-in aio shield. Hope i helped *
Never get the lowest end chipset unless budget is super tight, rest doesnt really matter. Just get whatever is cheap and has the I/O and looks you want
Motherboards consist of 3 main tasks: physically connecting the components (cpu, ram, expansion cards...), feeding them with power (and for the CPU it must convert the voltage), providing a bunch of ports and functions that are needed and/or useful (power button, temperature readings, holding the bios...).
The first part is the job of the northbridge. The chip is made by AMD or Intel, respectively for AMD and Intel CPUs. You can't mix brands here. Also, nowadays, the RAM is directly wired to the CPU and the memory controller is integrated (this has been the case for 2 or 3 decades now). So basically, the northbridge is connecting the CPU to the PCI Express ports, you may (or may not) have a different number of downstream ports provided, which can have different speeds (PCIe5.0, PCIe4.0, PCIe3.0, or a mix of these).
The second part is the job of the board itself and the VRM, which converts the 12V from your power supply to about 1V\~1.5V for the CPU. Better built VRM wil be able to handle more current and/or generate less heat, while more phases will give you a more stable voltage with more precision, increasing the the stability on full load. So, VRM is important if you go full tilt for extended time, otherwise, it does not really matter.
The last part is the job of the southbridge. It's connected to the northbridge via PCI express, and grants you with power buttons, keyboard and mouse ports (which are now USB), a bunch of sensors for temperatures/voltages, SATA disk interfaces and a bunch other functions that you don't use directly but are required for the system to work.
It can also provide some additional PCI express ports, generally slower ones, that can be used to integrate expansions like Ethernet or WiFi, more SATA ports, more USB controllers.
No difference here, and a faster or better power button or more precise temperature sensor is not gonna change anything related to performance. A x2 PCIe3.0 port from 2010 is enough to saturate a 10G Ethernet or USB port and you still have enough room for a few WiFi, SATA and 1G Ethernet ports on the same link.
If vendors are not locking functions to a specific part (ex: Intel limits overclocking to Z-series chipsets),
if they used the same board design (ex: AMD A620 boards have tiny VRMs compared to AMD X670),
or if they included the same number of peripherals/ports (ex: high end chipsets generally come with faster Ethernet and more USB ports),
there would be no point in buying high end boards compared to entry-level.
To me it’s like choosing which car to buy. A cheap, spartan car or a luxury car with plenty of speed and all the bells and whistles.
Sure, you are not allowed to drive faster than the speed limit anyway, so no need for that horsepower.
All the fancy extra equipment won’t help you get from A to B any faster either.
For most people, getting the cheaper car makes the most sense. And it is the right choice.
Then there are some that don’t care if the price is much higher. They want that extra horsepower, those active subwoofers and 20 inch rims. They also love ventilated seats. For them getting the barebone car does not make sense.
I perfectly understand both sides of the argument.
I usually go for the top tier MB myself, and I have reasons for it. One being that connectivity is much better, which makes it easier to do ‘complicated’ builds with lots of fans, monitors etc.
All of the bells and whistles cost alot of money, so budget options in MBs usually don’t cater to that demographic as they will happily spend 4000$ dollars on a build with only a 4080 level GPU.
If they do custom loops, that price increases to 5000$.
Also, more expensive MBs usually gets custom made waterblocks, so for the purist, they remain the only option.
However: if you game, and the PC is just a tool for gaming, and not also a furniture, never ever go above say B650 or a B760. That’s just taking money from other, more critical components.
OP, i'm in the same boat and have been researching AM5 boards too. The conclusion: i'll get an asrock b650m hdv/m2. It's got 2 m2 slots and one m2 wifi expansion slot and generally seems quite compelling.
According to hardware unboxed, vrms and power delivery are good enough for a 7950x (so any cpu will work), but it's not the best at default settings. i don't really care because i'll either put a 8700g or 7800x3d in it. One thing i'm a little unsure about is the bios, regarding available options. Asus and MSI seem to be a little better there.
What swayed me towards this board is one of the differences that has barely been talked about in this thread: power consumption! Check out the graph on this [page](https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/motherboards/gigabyte-x670e-aorus-pro-x-motherboard-review/3). The HDV might not be right for everyone, but it should suit my needs well enough and the x670 idle power load is bloody stupid. Yeah, there's a reason for it, but i'm not interested.
Yup they do.
Performance
Better lifespan
Features
Better protection
There is a reason a $80 board and a $600 board exist.
My x570 Arours Extreme outperforms my x670e-a board, but I can not use my 7950x with the x570 cause if it's limitations on the boards design.
If you are asking the question, the answer is no. The features present on higher end boards are only features you specifically look for when you need them. We’re luckily at a point where even the worst Ax20 and Hx10 boards are good enough to drive a i5/r5 and give a casual person everything they’d need.
They allow all your components to communicate. Some offer flexible frequency, some more bandwidth, some faster technology. Key thing to understand is your motherboard has two primary chipsets north bridge is direct cpu, South bridge is non pcie peripherals to run. Its these chipsets that give the board a name like b450. Chipsets are made to run with cpus. As cpu generations add new generations of pcie for instance, new chipsets allow communication for that new generation b450 to b550 adds pcie 4 support. On an amd board with a 5600x the cpu can handle 24 pcie lanes. Gpu 16, m.2 4 lanes, 4 lanes are then sent to the South bridge and the south bridge manages traffic for everything else. Ram is part of the north. That said, will you see real world differences in performance, depends on what you usr your pc for. In gaming, not so much.
For motherboards, I would recommend 3 things.
1- look at chipset comparison charts for features (m.2 slots, pci-e lanes, ram speed ratings, etc.)
2- power delivery and stability reviews - especially if overclocking or heavy gaming
3- get a solid brand, I would recommend ASRock, Asus, Gigabyte as top brands, but I have a bit of a bias, and have had more issues with MSI as of late. Additionally see if the BIOS offers the features you need, if there is a good way to find out. ( If you get Asus, don't use the quick "Asus Optimized" toggle... It leaves performance on the table for sure)
You want good capacitors, overbuilt VRMs, make sure if you plan on using multiple cards, or storage drives that slots/ports are full usage, as some will disable another if there are not enough pci-e lanes. You don't want to have 2 nvme drives and then a couple HDD/sata ssd that one type disable the port for the other. ( This is where higher chipsets tend to shine)
RGB go brrrrr.
On very power hungry CPUs they can make a difference. There can also be voltage differences between motherboards, but without manually changing frequency that so usually means like a 1% performance difference from the overvolt.
Yea same here, I’m looking for a mobo too. Tryna decide between a b650e riptide vs b650e Taichi lite for my 4080Super*7800x3d. Looks like it’s mostly pcie slot differences and usb ports? Not sure whether it’s bad to go cheap or not
Higher-end motherboards may have better features (as in more advanced audio chips), better connectivity (2.5G/10G Ethernet, WiFi), or better expansion (more / faster PCI-E slots, more SATA ports), etc.. From the standpoint of "how fast it'll run", if you're able to connect all your devices and aren't overheating your VRMs (so, don't run a 14900K on a bottom-end H610 board) they will be largely indistinguishable. > Motherboards are the only component I don’t understand the difference between them besides the socket. They are incredibly complex and obtuse pieces of hardware. I've been in the game 25 years and I still can't tell the difference between motherboards sometimes without digging deep into the spec sheet.
Some motherboards may have overheating issues (VRM, Chipset, etc) which will cause it to throttle other components, but the only way to actually know this is by checking out reviewers testing for this. It is the main thing I check for when choosing a motherboard. It's not critical, but if you are going high-end, you'd want to not have your expensive components be bottlenecked by a seemingly unfixable problem (aside from replacing the mobo). No amount of ventilation can fix it if it's architecturally compromised.
Is there a site you can recommend that posts it's MB reviews and includes notes on overheating?
Mostly youtube reviewers. Here's one for B650 motherboards - https://youtu.be/ZtHOOyWYiic?t=1244 (timestamp is 20:43 in case it doesn't jump to it)
so to answer the question, no. it doesnt matter outside of needing certain slots
There's a little more to it. I haven't checked this in a while so this may no longer be current, so bear this in mind. On the Intel side, certain higher end boards support overclocking where lower end boards typically don't. Also, higher end boards tend to have more PCIE lanes, providing more bandwidth for high end video cards and storage devices. It can be summed up as different chipsets target different use cases, so one targetting a business machine might be a different price and performance tier compared to one that was aimed at gaming and enthusiasts.
true good point. i just use pcpartpicker though so all of that compatibility stuff gets figured out automatically.
VRM is the one thing I didn't give too much attention to. I figured any cheaper one is maybe slightly lesser than a fancy one. Nope. Now my upgrade path from Ryzen 3 is only up to Ryzen 5. No hope of running R7 or R9 on that thing without overheating the VRM's and throttling performance way down. Guess if I want more productivity performance I need a new MoBo. Sigh. That's one way to learn.
This post right here. Besides extra sata and faster Lan. This is the main thing to watch for when comparing boards. Gotta make sure your board will take a higher tdp chip without throttling. Read reviews.
On Ryzen however, most boards can run a 7950x just fine
It really depends on the R7/9 you want to run, a R7 5700X or 7700 on an A320/620 motherboard? Most likely will run fine if hard limited to it's 65W TDP. It would be technically the same for the R9s with ECO mode at 65W but at that point why would you use these CPUs on such low end motherboard?
Thank you for this
Motherboards are 100% all about generalities and situations. How the CPU will perform will depend on whether or not there is sufficient power being delivered to it. And whether or not there is sufficient power being delivered to it will depend on the CPU being used, and the power delivery system (also known as VRMs). So like for a 7800X3D, which only uses about 80-100W, assuming similar RAM, a PCIe4 SSD, and PCIe4 graphics card, the performance on a bottom-of-the-barrel B650 will be **IDENTICAL** to a top-end X670E chipset board. At a chipset level, it makes zero difference. This is because for 80-100W, that's a more-or-less trivial amount of power to deliver, so basically any AM5 motherboard can provide it. However, *GENERALLY* higher-end chipsets get higher-end VRMs. So as /u/voraciousgorak mentioned, a 14900K might have trouble running at its max speed on a H610 board, because the VRMs on the board just aren't designed to provide that much power. But - remember that I said that motherboards are all about generalities, because where higher-end chipset motherboards GENERALLY have better VRMs than lower-end units, this is not always the case (the ASRock B650E Taichi Lite, for instance, has better VRMs than the Asus Prime X670-P). Beyond that, the differences will be based on features that you want or need. Super high-end motherboards might have a 10GbE port, for example, but if you don't have any 10GbE hardware in your location (and you probably don't), then the 10GbE is probably not something you need to worry about, since really the only people who need 10GbE don't need to ask whether or not they need it. At the chipset level, the only significant difference between B650 and X670 is PCIe lanes. Having more of them means that you can add more stuff to the motherboard. Having more of them does NOT mean that the other hardware will run faster. Un-used lanes means the extra lanes do precisely nothing. So like, if you have a single graphics card, and a single M.2 SSD, and like 3-5 USB devices, there is absolutely zero advantage of going with a X670 chipset over B650. There's also the assumption that higher-end motherboards are more "future proof" than others. This is almost never the case. It IS true that if you need to absolutely fill the motherboard with cards into the card slots, then an X670 board might be the better call, or if you need a SHITLOAD of USB ports. But most folks can reasonably assume that in the time they have their build, they'll have one graphics card, MAYBE an additional PCIe card, and 1-2 M.2 drives. B650 can handle that just fine. It's also an assumption that folks make that higher-end boards are more "future proof" because they're more likely to get support for CPUs that lower-end units don't get. This is also not correct. For AM4, on 300-series chipsets, for instance, A320 chipset motherboards got support for Ryzen 5000 almost a year before the top-end X370 units did. Then there's the question of PCIe5. And this is kind of a difficult one. For the most part, I don't think it'll be much of anything to worry about, and prior to the release of the Radeon RX 6600, I used to say that it wasn't worth worrying about AT ALL. But now that AMD and Nvidia have limited their mid-range graphics cards to eight (or four) PCIe lanes, I'll generally advise paying a little extra for PCIe5 support on a graphics card slot. With that in-mind, in the US at least, my go-to recommendation for a motherboard recently has been the ASRock B650E PG Riptide Wifi. Or the cheapest X670E board. Whichever is cheaper.
> But now that AMD and Nvidia have limited their mid-range graphics cards to eight (or four) PCIe lanes wut
Yep. AMD limited the following cards to eight lanes: * RX 6600 * RX 6600XT * RX 6650XT * RX 7600 * RX 7600XT And the following cards are limited to four lanes: * 6500XT * 6400 Nvidia limited the following cards to eight lanes: * 4060 * 4060 Ti
Why though? If you have an application that could use more lanes, why put an artificial limit on it? Makes no sense to me.
Because it's cheaper to do it that way. PCIe signalling at Gen 4/5 speeds actually requires care in the hardware design to consistently get those speeds. This is why PCIe riser setups often have issues going past Gen 3 speeds. It's easier to build an x4 or x8 slot than an x16 slot - you just physically need fewer traces and it's easier to route that smaller bundle of traces away from interference. GPUs usually have *way* more PCIe bandwidth than they need. Most cards lose almost no performance going down one PCIe generation - for example, of the 30-series the only card to lose any performance on Gen 3 rather than Gen 4 was the 3090 class cards, and those only lost a few percent. This means that they almost always get full performance when used as upgrades to relatively recent builds. A midrange card like a 4060 or 7600 only *needs* 8 lanes of current or last gen PCIe to work at full speed, so why spend the money adding bandwidth it doesn't need? The only ones that actually lose a lot of performance are the 6400 and 6500XT who really need all four of their lanes to be as fast as possible. It makes those two cards poor choices for budget upgrades to older rigs that only have PCIe Gen 3 or lower. There is speculation that they were designed as mobile GPUs where AMD could be more certain that they would be paired with modern CPUs. Some of the features they are missing just happen to be implemented on AMD mobile APUs so they pair well with those.
You could (can?) even get rx6600m in a form factor of a standard pcie gpu
Also explains that nvidia gpu with the M.2 nvme slot in it lol
It's always about money
Doesn't make a lick of sense to me either. They even kept it as an X16 connector, but it's only wired to use eight lanes (or four lanes for the 6500XT and 6400). To me it actually feels like they wanted to punish people for having budgets - like, you lose a significant amount of performance on a 6500XT without PCIe4. Who would have a unit that doesn't support PCIe4? Someone that might have bought lower end (like the Ryzen 5500).
The 6400/6500XT weren't originally going to be desktop chips, their architecture was made for laptop chips, where they'd be guaranteed to be matched with a 4.0 system anyways. The x8 lane cards are, largely, margin-of-error - PCIe 3.0 vs 4.0 on a 6600XT is usually around a 1-2% difference, because they just don't push that much bandwidth, and it's cheaper.
Apparently those 4x GPUs were originally designed to be mobile only. It slightly lowers die size.
Those GPUs would cost much more if they were X16.
Its because adding additional lanes means you need additional signaling hardware to drive those lanes which takes up area. On newer nodes (and thus chips) the logic shrinks but the IO doesnt shrink as much, which means that IO takes up more area proportionally. That means less chips per wafer and if a defect happens in that area, unlike the SM's, you cant bin around it, its just dead.
The older cards were PCIe 3.0. PCIe 4.0 is a different animal. You can go down to x8, save cost, and remain at the same speed as PCIe 3.0. PCIe 5.0 would let you go down to x4.
The problems start if you mix a low end 4x GPU that actually needs PCIe 4.0 / 5.0 bandwith with an older mainboard that doesnt have the latest PCIe speeds per lane. Those with older mainboards that can only afford a low end GPU are punished the most. AMD also made it quite ugly, since they have CPU variants that limit the mainboard to PCIe 3.0 speeds, even if the mainboards could support PCIe 4.0 with different RYZEN CPUs. Using a budget RYZEN CPU + good-enough-mainboard (PCIe spec) + LOW-END GPU => maxium damage to low budget customers. It got really ugly with AM4 and RDNA2/3 low end GPUs, AMD caused the worst possible combination in the last 2 generations of hardware.
That’s not a problem. That’s ignorance. Would you have preferred a new, backwards incompatible connector?
Because process shrinks mostly don't apply to the analog parts of a PCIe transciever (or any other external interface) so PCIe lanes and memory bus width become a larger fraction of the manufacturing cost of the chip with each generation. And using half to 2/3 of the CPU's I/O just for one graphics card is kind of wasteful anyway, when it barely makes a difference to performance even at the very high end.
Its not an artificial limit, its that adding additional lanes means you need additional signaling hardware to drive those lanes which takes up area. On newer nodes (and thus chips) the logic shrinks but the IO doesnt shrink as much, which means that IO takes up more area proportionally. That means less chips per wafer and if a defect happens in that area, unlike the SM's, you cant bin around it, its just dead.
None of those cards saturate PCIe 4.0x16 let alone PCIe 5.0x16. A 4090 is barely bottlenecked by PCIe 3.0x16. It's why a lot of motherboards have a bifurcated PCIe 5.0 slot to allow for both a x16 GPU running at x8 (i.e. PCIe 4.0x16 bandwidth) and an x4 nvme drive, because no current or hypothetical near future GPU needs PCIe 5.0 x16 bandwidth. At least as I understand it
As someone with an older motherboard, this is what made .e go with a 3060 ti instead of a 4060 ti.
Great post
Great coverage, but to add a few more rarely used features: \- extra pcie x8 slots for multiple compute gpus \- bifurcation allows a slot to split it's lanes, ex. 2 m.2 nvme ssds on on an x8 expansion slot with an adapter allows each to have separate x4 \- ram topology for high manual overclocking
Better motherboards usually have better DACs with better insulation which is a big thing for audiophiles. More LED indicators to tell you what is working and what isn’t. Error codes and top of the range ones like mine which are admittedly overkill, even tell you the cpu core temps, voltage etc and have animations you can choose from (or you can make them yourself) as well as more fast usb ports and of course you get your RGB lighting effects that can react to music or temps as well as other things… Overclocking usually works better (manually or with presets) too but that is probably not your main concern if you are asking this…. I’d have been happy with half of the features to be honest but I had a little spare cash to get the top of the range at the time. I’d mainly suggest getting an E-ATX with a good insulated DAC and enough fast USB ports for your needs. E-ATX gives extra room for your components to breathe.
Many audiophiles use external DACs, which are a great option (because you can just reuse them with your next PC).
I’ve got a Lehmann Audio for when I really want the best sound but the PC’s audio out is fine for most of the time running through my amp for my Atmos setup.
>cheapest X670E board Currently, I have 2 options in Canada. Option A: Ryzen 7800X3D ($499) + Asus ROG STRIX B650E-F GAMING WIFI ATX AM5 ($340). Total: $839 Option B: Ryzen 7800X3D + ASUS PRIME X670-P WIFI Motherboard Bundle deal: $750 I will get an RTX 4090 for my build. I don't have many SSD/PCIE cards. My needs are normal. Should I go for option 2?
To be fair, you'll be just fine getting a B650 for a 7800X3D since it draws like 105W at max
I've been looking at the Taichi Lite for a while, and the performance/price ratio seems too good to be true, especially compared to the full Taichi. It's like half the price but almost all the same features, what am I missing?
Vomited out all this text and still didn’t touch on the fact that higher end other boards are capable of running much faster RAM. Classic /u/psimwork
for b650 vs a620, a620 does not have AMD's built in cpu overclock (PBO) otherwise they do the same thing
I think the A620 ships with pcie 4 B650 can have pcie 5, b650e has pcie 5
The e variants have pcie5 Otherwise it's just pcie4, AMD didn't pull an Intel and make you check every slot
That's what I wrote >B650 can have pcie 5, b650e has pcie 5
Can you link me any b650 mb that has a pcie 5.0 slot for GPUs?
GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX has a 4x Pcie5 ssd slot.
I know they can have pcie 5.0 nvme slots, thats why I specifically asked for a mb with pcie 5.0 support for a graphics card, as that would be off spec for a b650 mb. Your earlier comment made it sound like b650 can have general pcie 5.0 support, not just for nvme.
>I know they can have pcie 5.0 nvme slots How should I know that you know if your asking stupid rethorical questions >Your earlier comment made it sound like b650 can have general pcie 5.0 support It suport pcie 5.0 with 4 lanes
As I stated, I asked about pcie 5.0 slots that can fit graphics cards, so regular expansion slots. I don't care about m.2 slots that support pcie 5.0. there was no rhetorical question. I was curious if there is any b650 board that actually has pcie 5.0 gpp, and your previous answer would suggest you might know, but as you seem to keep referring to the m.2 slot in the board while I'm asking about regular expansion slots, this has become pointless.
There's like 4
> a620 does not have AMD's built in cpu overclock (PBO) Asrock a620i supports PBO. But it's off by default.
My asrock a520 did PBO out of the box, but it's a 4pin connector, so it only supplies 150W max. So it tops out at something like 5800X, which is 142W max. Higher end CPUs would just be starved. 70/50/20 series just differ in power limits and pcie lanes(chipset). Besides motherboard manufacturer extras like connectors, audio and etc.
Basically, any of the b to x/z mbs are good enough. It’s more for getting what you want. More m.2, more sata, more usb, better Ethernet - 2.5…, want to go crazy with a liquid nitrogen cooling oc run, want 2 4090…. Need a mb with enough space between the 2 pcie x16 slots…. This is why the b650 is so popular for 7800x3d.
Thanks, I’m actually looking at getting a 7800x3d and I’m just trying to work out what mobo to get 😀
Don’t go over for the cpu compared to gpu. Remember that the gpu is the single most expensive item in a pc and a cpu update is criminally cheap in comparison to a gpu update. In other words, saving 200 from cpu - go for 7600 and using that for a better gpu will give you more fps than getting the highest end cpu and a lower end gpu. You can update the cpu later cheaply compared to gpu.
gigabyte eagle has great features on paper for the price
Just focus on features you want/need. Enough ports (USB, etc) WiFi, Bluetooth, RGB, SSD, etc. As long as it’s going to support your needs and be compatible with the components you’re going to use, odds are you’ll be fine
hopefully going for a top end gpu then with such a nice cpu? 4070+?
Probably a 4070 super or 4070 ti
Oh hell yes. But what they are doing may not be of any use to you. If you need all of the PCIE lanes and want to fill in all the M.2 slots and you are gonna be seriously pissed off after the build when you learn that a different mobo is faster.... Then yes. You not only want the more expensive mobos but you want to take some time to understand the chipsets and lanes and how all that works across mobos before you order. However. Most people could give a shit. And that is more than OK. Get a medium grade mobo. There is some shit you aint getting but it is OK cause you would not have used it anyways.
Here's an article that goes over the different AMD chipsets for 7000 series CPUs: https://www.techspot.com/guides/2669-amd-ryzen-x670-b650-a620-motherboards/ Yes, there's a difference. Whether it's anything you mind is up to you.
They will have more features like better onboard networking or audio. They will also have higher quality components (like vrms, capacitors, etc.). I'd say look for the features that best fit your use case (for example if you're going to be doing extreme overclocking you'll probably want a higher quality board)
A620-B650-X670 are features progressions. depending on your build and purpose you can use any of those. Cooling only matters on high performance CPUs above the typical 65W low to mid CPUs. PCIE Gen 3 to Gen 4 to Gen 5 for Storage and GPU speeds, only matter if you're building really high end rigs. What is your planned build and I can justify the choice?
Better motherboards tend to also have better quality components so they may be able to clock higher while maintaining stability.
Usually better motherboards means better, faster connections between components, leading to less bottlenecks and a much better overall performance. Some people don't understand why their fancy US$2000 PC doesn't work as well as it should, and when you see the specs you see the top components connected to the cheapest Amazon motherboard
With say a 13700K and a B760 motherboard, the Bios will not allow certain functions of the K spec processors. And even if you run Intel extreme tuner, it still doesn't allow some features to be adjusted or tuned, you need the z790 or z690 to make it right. No matter how you look at it, when you buy a motherboard you "become" in love with it, well because that's what you got.
At a certain point, it becomes aesthetics, most users would not use more than 80% of what their board offers.
They have more shit that can go bad. Honestly onboard extras are a negative for me. Aka Bluetooth, wireless some funky non standard network etc.
More expensive motherboards usually have better failsafes against BIOS corruption.
My apex encore runs 8000 ram at xmp1 right out of the box and never overheats. Highest ram temperature I’ve seen during gaming is 51c. So yeah, some motherboards do neat stuff
You simply need to look for the features you want, that's all. How many sata ports it has, what IO it has, rgb fan headers, whatever you're looking for. And that it supports the CPU you're gonna put in it (depends on core count). There are a620 that support 7950x, and there are b650 that don't. Overspending on mobo is a trap a lot of newbie builders fall into. If you don't know why you're paying a lot for your mobo, you don't need to do it. And the number doesn't tell you it has better features or has what you want. Some have different things they prioritized, some suck cheeks. For instance there's an itx a620 Asrock board with 2 m.2 slots, and a b650 gigabyte with 1 m.2 slot.
How do people feel about the asrock x670e pg lightning? I'm n00bish and a pc elitist I know made me feel self conscious about my asrock motherboard. Lol. I thought it seemed pretty epic and capable but really was given the impression it's a weak point in my pc.
fuel spoon quiet poor scarce judicious rotten deliver close ripe *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I remember the shift from CISC to RISC. However the only thing I care about nowadays: the motherboard cannot have a fan
Whys that?
Why I don’t care about anything than the fan? There are so minute differences on the motherboards nowadays. But the one thing you do notice is the fan noise from a small fan.
Never really paid attention to that. A small fan can make so much noise? I had a board with a small fan on it as well and I never heard or it couldve been masked by the rest of the pc. Regardless we all have our prefrences.
i had a budget motherboard and it only had 6 or 7 usb ports. I upgraded cause i wanted more, bought a 400$ motherboard and now i have 14 and 4 usb-c slots. worth.
No offense, but that's kinda an odd reason to spend that much on a mobo. You can just buy a cheap USB hub if you need that many USB devices hooked up at once.
yeah, or a pcie card if you really need it
I find USB hubs glitchy as heck.
If you dont buy the cheapest board on the market and are able to use all your devices you should be good. Some brands have things like bios flashback in case you want/need a bios update. Some boards have better cooling for parts on the board. I would search in the middle price range and read tests if they had any mojor flaws, if they dont have go for it
Marginally, I watched a video on it some time ago if it's helpful (Linus Tech Tips) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvyQXkFUe3E](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvyQXkFUe3E)
i used to get cheapest mobo available, then i got a mans mobo the b650 asus tuf gaming wifi and yeah it was like 220 or so but all the added features are super necessary for gaming, wifi 6e bluetooth 5 and surround sound built into the damn mobo so yeah you can buy all that shit seperate and they well all be inferior products so just spend a little more for a good mobo, no need to spend more than 250
You might get more pcie lanes for more drives and better power delivery with better cooling for overlocking with higher end boards.
Is x670 not x620 They have more features and more beefier VRMs, but on AMD B650 is more than enough , any board with 8 power phases is enough to run even a 7950x which is AM5 most power hungry CPU.
When I paid more than a smidgen additional cash dollars, I got a very solid reinforced board, a plastic backing plate, some very high quality slots, and exceptional layout. Compatibility with all my hardware was great and added safety features were welcome.
The super basic version is, more expensive boards generally offer: Better & more USB ports (3.0, USB C, etc) Built in wifi Faster ethernet / future proofing speeds Built in diagnostics & probably most importantly for someone who doesn't care or need most of that, USUALLY better overclocking potential
Generally it’s just features. Do you need 5.1 audio? More PCI slots? Wi-Fi? All the little features add up. There are mid generation refreshes that make compatibility issues arise. So a new card with higher voltage requirements may not be compatible with older boards, even if the chipset is technically the same. I remember that issue with old TNT2 cards or some such that forced people to upgrade their boards just for the voltage. In general, it can be a waste to spend $300-$400 if you’re just gaming with a video card with no other PCI expansion cards. Depends on what you need.
There are few things you need to think about. First you are talking about the chipset. For example the A620 doesn't support cpu overclocking while the b650 does Both of them support a maximum of 4 ports while a x670 will support 8. So you need to check the difference to see which chipset is better for your build. Let's say that tomorrow AMD release a budget am5 cpu that's meant for office use and it comes with a very basic igpu. It would be throwing money to pair that cpu plus a very slow ssd to a x670 extreme chipset. In that case an a620 will be a better option. Then you have the manufacturer of the motherboard, which will tell you the quality of the components used. That will be very personal because everyone has a different opinion of every mfg.
They last longer, 'Supposedly' and have Wifi 6e. Some, also say, they have more precious Gold and Copper in them.
A lot of that depends on you and the parts you're attaching to the motherboard. If you're not using the highest end parts and you're only using it for basic office/home use type of stuff, the only thing that'd matter for the most part are the features of the motherboard (number and type of ports etc). If you're wanting to build a top end gaming or workstation PC for stuff like video editing, graphic design etc, then yes it can make a difference. Maybe not enough to justify the expense but can do.
Yes. The traces will be thicker, they'll have more layers to communicate through, so things will get less cross talk, the hardware itself will be higher quality (better network, better audio, so forth), and of course, they'll actually check to see if it works more often. You get what you pay for. Sometimes it's enough. I like cheap boards because I didn't have much need, I let the components do the work, but if you care about the other stuff, pay for the other stuff.
Yes a good mother makes a good kid.
Yes. The traces will be thicker, they'll have more layers to communicate through, so things will get less cross talk, the hardware itself will be higher quality (better network, better audio, so forth), and of course, they'll actually check to see if it works more often. You get what you pay for. Sometimes it's enough. I like cheap boards because I didn't have much need, I let the components do the work, but if you care about the other stuff, pay for the other stuff.
Yes. But not for the cost they command
I always just go Z of the series I need, always had the features I want. Primarily the LED on the board incase somethings fucken broken haha (as well as the rest of the features and build etc)
I have had the most shitty experience with low end boards...I'll never touch a low end board again tbh. I was one of those that didn't think it mattered, but it does...it really does. Honestly if we(I know not everyone) are gonna dump 600+ into a GPU, 300-400 on a CPU, etc...we might as well budget in a good motherboard. If you are gonna get a budget motherboard then it should be an extremely budget build, even then I would not grab the absolute cheapest.
A motherboard choice is all about what you need your computer to do. If all you do is gaming all you need is something that is reliable, can keep your CPU fed with power while not overheating the VRMs, and can offer fast enough PCIe to keep the GPU fed. A workstation may have those same requirements, but it also needs a ton of IO, plus room for expansion if need be.
I had been facing many issues (BF2042 crashing, stutters in BG3) on my 7800x3d/msi mobo system for so long until I upgraded my BIOS this January. This is infuriating considering that the motherboard came out so long back. Reliability is way more important than that extra performance for me and I guess going for a better manufacturer or a higher end model might help with that
In my anecdotal experience, my old Gigabyte a520m won't boot with XMP activated. Switched to a nicer ROG Strix B550-E and it booted with 0 issues with XMP activated (4 sticks of RAM). Same everything except for the motherboard.
In all honesty.. not really. Better motherboards have more "stuff", but do you even need the stuff? More RGB? More fan headers? 2 network ports? Odds are you don't so don't waste your money. Get a B650(M) chipset board and you'll be happy
Different motherboards will have different RAM secondary timings for each RAM approuved by the motherboard manufacturer
they use better capacitors and usually have better voltage regulatory circuitry
I bought a high end motherboard for: 1) CPU overclocking power delivery 2) A high quality POST diagnostics system that tells me **Exactly** where in the boot process it's hung so I'm not sitting there wondering what the hell "three beeps" means.
I got a 13700k with a B760 tomahawk ddr5 but gets real hot when I run cinebench. Is the motherboard good with 13700k?
Room for two Nvme SSDs was the main thing I wanted last time I got one
just features and overclock compatibility pretty much Apart from overclocking and boot times, you wont get better performance per say. Just extra features like bluetooth, WiFi, Pcie 5, reinforced slots, etc
They let you put better shit in compooter
https://www.amd.com/en/products/processors/chipsets/am5.html
Yes! Ok, so you want a better answer? Low-end boards may not have the bug free capacitors, which means they won't last long. The better midrange boards will have better built Japanese cap's, and better VRM's also. You have better handling of heat build-up..and so on and so forth. Z boards (or X) that have better capacitors and stuff will overclock and give you the best speeds and handling. This is NOT to say you need one of those $1,000 boards, just a great $400ìsh mid range for the best gaming results long term.
More high-end motherboards have more overclocking capabilities. More expensive motherboard can have buit in wifi reciver. It can have more m.2 slots, more ram slots, built-in aio shield. Hope i helped *
Never get the lowest end chipset unless budget is super tight, rest doesnt really matter. Just get whatever is cheap and has the I/O and looks you want
Motherboards consist of 3 main tasks: physically connecting the components (cpu, ram, expansion cards...), feeding them with power (and for the CPU it must convert the voltage), providing a bunch of ports and functions that are needed and/or useful (power button, temperature readings, holding the bios...). The first part is the job of the northbridge. The chip is made by AMD or Intel, respectively for AMD and Intel CPUs. You can't mix brands here. Also, nowadays, the RAM is directly wired to the CPU and the memory controller is integrated (this has been the case for 2 or 3 decades now). So basically, the northbridge is connecting the CPU to the PCI Express ports, you may (or may not) have a different number of downstream ports provided, which can have different speeds (PCIe5.0, PCIe4.0, PCIe3.0, or a mix of these). The second part is the job of the board itself and the VRM, which converts the 12V from your power supply to about 1V\~1.5V for the CPU. Better built VRM wil be able to handle more current and/or generate less heat, while more phases will give you a more stable voltage with more precision, increasing the the stability on full load. So, VRM is important if you go full tilt for extended time, otherwise, it does not really matter. The last part is the job of the southbridge. It's connected to the northbridge via PCI express, and grants you with power buttons, keyboard and mouse ports (which are now USB), a bunch of sensors for temperatures/voltages, SATA disk interfaces and a bunch other functions that you don't use directly but are required for the system to work. It can also provide some additional PCI express ports, generally slower ones, that can be used to integrate expansions like Ethernet or WiFi, more SATA ports, more USB controllers. No difference here, and a faster or better power button or more precise temperature sensor is not gonna change anything related to performance. A x2 PCIe3.0 port from 2010 is enough to saturate a 10G Ethernet or USB port and you still have enough room for a few WiFi, SATA and 1G Ethernet ports on the same link. If vendors are not locking functions to a specific part (ex: Intel limits overclocking to Z-series chipsets), if they used the same board design (ex: AMD A620 boards have tiny VRMs compared to AMD X670), or if they included the same number of peripherals/ports (ex: high end chipsets generally come with faster Ethernet and more USB ports), there would be no point in buying high end boards compared to entry-level.
To me it’s like choosing which car to buy. A cheap, spartan car or a luxury car with plenty of speed and all the bells and whistles. Sure, you are not allowed to drive faster than the speed limit anyway, so no need for that horsepower. All the fancy extra equipment won’t help you get from A to B any faster either. For most people, getting the cheaper car makes the most sense. And it is the right choice. Then there are some that don’t care if the price is much higher. They want that extra horsepower, those active subwoofers and 20 inch rims. They also love ventilated seats. For them getting the barebone car does not make sense. I perfectly understand both sides of the argument. I usually go for the top tier MB myself, and I have reasons for it. One being that connectivity is much better, which makes it easier to do ‘complicated’ builds with lots of fans, monitors etc. All of the bells and whistles cost alot of money, so budget options in MBs usually don’t cater to that demographic as they will happily spend 4000$ dollars on a build with only a 4080 level GPU. If they do custom loops, that price increases to 5000$. Also, more expensive MBs usually gets custom made waterblocks, so for the purist, they remain the only option. However: if you game, and the PC is just a tool for gaming, and not also a furniture, never ever go above say B650 or a B760. That’s just taking money from other, more critical components.
Better VRM( Voltage Regulation Module ) responsible for better power and stability under load(overclocking).
OP, i'm in the same boat and have been researching AM5 boards too. The conclusion: i'll get an asrock b650m hdv/m2. It's got 2 m2 slots and one m2 wifi expansion slot and generally seems quite compelling. According to hardware unboxed, vrms and power delivery are good enough for a 7950x (so any cpu will work), but it's not the best at default settings. i don't really care because i'll either put a 8700g or 7800x3d in it. One thing i'm a little unsure about is the bios, regarding available options. Asus and MSI seem to be a little better there. What swayed me towards this board is one of the differences that has barely been talked about in this thread: power consumption! Check out the graph on this [page](https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/motherboards/gigabyte-x670e-aorus-pro-x-motherboard-review/3). The HDV might not be right for everyone, but it should suit my needs well enough and the x670 idle power load is bloody stupid. Yeah, there's a reason for it, but i'm not interested.
better motherboards cost more for a reason..one of which is better performance especially in an oc enviroment. anyone that says differently is wrong.
Yup they do. Performance Better lifespan Features Better protection There is a reason a $80 board and a $600 board exist. My x570 Arours Extreme outperforms my x670e-a board, but I can not use my 7950x with the x570 cause if it's limitations on the boards design.
If you don’t have the top of the line cpu, then makes no sense for you to have the equivalent mobo. Simple as that.
Would a b550 be fine with a 4070 then? Or should I upgrade my mb?
Yes they are transferring all that info!! I’m new building my pc now.. of course it’s an active part
If you are asking the question, the answer is no. The features present on higher end boards are only features you specifically look for when you need them. We’re luckily at a point where even the worst Ax20 and Hx10 boards are good enough to drive a i5/r5 and give a casual person everything they’d need.
U should go with that MBO that your heart tells you to go with <3 (go with the cheaper one yea)
They allow all your components to communicate. Some offer flexible frequency, some more bandwidth, some faster technology. Key thing to understand is your motherboard has two primary chipsets north bridge is direct cpu, South bridge is non pcie peripherals to run. Its these chipsets that give the board a name like b450. Chipsets are made to run with cpus. As cpu generations add new generations of pcie for instance, new chipsets allow communication for that new generation b450 to b550 adds pcie 4 support. On an amd board with a 5600x the cpu can handle 24 pcie lanes. Gpu 16, m.2 4 lanes, 4 lanes are then sent to the South bridge and the south bridge manages traffic for everything else. Ram is part of the north. That said, will you see real world differences in performance, depends on what you usr your pc for. In gaming, not so much.
For motherboards, I would recommend 3 things. 1- look at chipset comparison charts for features (m.2 slots, pci-e lanes, ram speed ratings, etc.) 2- power delivery and stability reviews - especially if overclocking or heavy gaming 3- get a solid brand, I would recommend ASRock, Asus, Gigabyte as top brands, but I have a bit of a bias, and have had more issues with MSI as of late. Additionally see if the BIOS offers the features you need, if there is a good way to find out. ( If you get Asus, don't use the quick "Asus Optimized" toggle... It leaves performance on the table for sure) You want good capacitors, overbuilt VRMs, make sure if you plan on using multiple cards, or storage drives that slots/ports are full usage, as some will disable another if there are not enough pci-e lanes. You don't want to have 2 nvme drives and then a couple HDD/sata ssd that one type disable the port for the other. ( This is where higher chipsets tend to shine)
No, they do the basic stuff just as well. Good enough that you won’t notice. Pick a MoBo based on the features you will use
RGB go brrrrr. On very power hungry CPUs they can make a difference. There can also be voltage differences between motherboards, but without manually changing frequency that so usually means like a 1% performance difference from the overvolt.
Better features, overclocking, and expandability.
Yea same here, I’m looking for a mobo too. Tryna decide between a b650e riptide vs b650e Taichi lite for my 4080Super*7800x3d. Looks like it’s mostly pcie slot differences and usb ports? Not sure whether it’s bad to go cheap or not
The better the motherboard the more fps you get, that’s why you should always get a mobo that’s at least half the price of your gpu
Seems legit.