News AMD B550 Motherboards Announced: PCIe 4.0 Support for as Little as $100

NightHawkRMX

Illustrious
This is $25 or more over a cheap B450. I think for systems with a CPU like a 3100 or 3300x, PCIe 4.0 is not needed and the buyers would prefer to have a cheaper motherboard. I think MSI -max motherboards (mostly the cheap ones) will still fit the bill for these systems.

Also, the lack of support for 3000 series APUs on this is plain confusing, though I understand why the choice was made. If the box says "Ryzen 3000 Compatible" I could see how someone with a 3200g will be very unhappy when it doesn't work since the 3200g is a "Ryzen 3000" processor by name.

Honestly, AMD's motherboard situation is very confusing and will continue to get more and more confusing in many years on the used markets when you have no clue what generation bios is flashed onto a board.
 
Reactions: JaSoN_cRuZe

HideOut

Distinguished
Dec 24, 2005
375
2
18,795
1
This is $25 or more over a cheap B450. I think for systems with a CPU like a 3100 or 3300x, PCIe 4.0 is not needed and the buyers would prefer to have a cheaper motherboard. I think MSI -max motherboards (mostly the cheap ones) will still fit the bill for these systems.

Also, the lack of support for 3000 series APUs on this is plain confusing, though I understand why the choice was made. If the box says "Ryzen 3000 Compatible" I could see how someone with a 3200g will be very unhappy when it doesn't work since the 3200g is a "Ryzen 3000" processor by name.

Honestly, AMD's motherboard situation is very confusing and will continue to get more and more confusing in many years on the used markets when you have no clue what generation bios is flashed onto a board.
well the 3000 APUs (and same for the laptop chips) is a joke. Their naming schemes are just schemes...
 

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator
This is $25 or more over a cheap B450. I think for systems with a CPU like a 3100 or 3300x, PCIe 4.0 is not needed and the buyers would prefer to have a cheaper motherboard.
The lion's share of that extra $25 is most likely the chipset itself due to upgrading downstream lanes from PCIe 2.0 to 3.0 and probably beefed-up VRMs. Some of the added cost may also be inflation to offset losses from the last couple of months. You'd still be paying most of that $25 extra without PCIe4.
 

NightHawkRMX

Illustrious
well the 3000 APUs (and same for the laptop chips) is a joke. Their naming schemes are just schemes...
Exactly, however it leaves tons of confusion now, and it was confusing back in 2018 when the 2000 series APUs came out. Its a mess.

Intel is not immune to this:
Intel Core i7 10750h - 14nm, 6c/12t, Comet lake
Intel Core i7 1065g7 - 10nm, 4c/8t, Ice lake.
They both are 10th generation core i7 CPUs, but they are based on different architectures and even different nodes. Granted, you don't have any compatable mobo confusion since these are laptops.
 

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator
Intel is not immune to this:
Intel Core i7 10750h - 14nm, 6c/12t, Comet lake
Intel Core i7 1065g7 - 10nm, 4c/8t, Ice lake.
They both are 10th generation core i7 CPUs, but they are based on different architectures and even different nodes.
Ice Lake and Comet Lake actually have two distinct numbering schemes: five digits model number + TDP class letter for Comet Lake vs four digits CPU model + 'g' + one number for the IGP class for Ice Lake. Fairly straightforward IMO.

I wish AMD simply appended 'G' to model numbers to distinguish CPUs from APUs instead of doing its entirely messed up and unnecessary numbering of APUs 1000 model numbers above the CPU they are actually based on and appending the 'G' to that... but it cannot do that without causing even more confusion right now because previous-gen APUs already occupy that naming space, it'd need a secondary differentiator like Inte'ls gX postfix.
 

agello24

Distinguished
Feb 8, 2012
129
1
18,715
14
At those prices in a world recession? no thanks. no way am i going to let any of those companies price gouge me. they can do better with the b550 pricing and drop the prices of the x470's. ill sit back and let the stupid ones buy them at those prices.
 
Reactions: JaSoN_cRuZe

daworstplaya

Distinguished
Oct 30, 2009
52
6
18,535
0
Also, the lack of support for 3000 series APUs on this is plain confusing, though I understand why the choice was made. If the box says "Ryzen 3000 Compatible" I could see how someone with a 3200g will be very unhappy when it doesn't work since the 3200g is a "Ryzen 3000" processor by name.

Honestly, AMD's motherboard situation is very confusing and will continue to get more and more confusing in many years on the used markets when you have no clue what generation bios is flashed onto a board.
well the 3000 APUs (and same for the laptop chips) is a joke. Their naming schemes are just schemes...
The problem is AMD used previous gen CPU designs in their APUs (Zen+ and Zen2) and named them 1 gen above to match their desktop CPUs (non APU). This wouldn't be problem if AMD just called their current 3000G APUs the 2000G series. And the 4000G series should be called 3000G series.

We all know their 4000 series APUs are actually 3000 series CPU + Vega GPU and probably share the same BIOS design. But AMD shot themselves in the foot.

I also wish AMD would call the Ryzen 7 3800x the Ryzen 7 3750x. Then they could've called the Ryzen 9 3900x the Ryzen 9 3800x and the Ryzen 9 3950x could be called the Ryzen 9 3900x. Then they would have 39xx numbers free for their Threadripper parts. But noooooooooo, that is too logical.
 
Reactions: salgado18

JaSoN_cRuZe

Reputable
Mar 5, 2017
417
34
4,890
30
Seriously i can't believe the prices compared to B450, I'm going to get a b450 gaming pro carbon max with all the bling and call it a day. These are way overpriced in my view. B450 high end model is 130 bucks and now b550 high end is 280 bucks. Like dude....
 

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator
These are way overpriced in my view. B450 high end model is 130 bucks and now b550 high end is 280 bucks. Like dude....
Before saying they are overpriced, you need to find out why they cost what they cost and compare that against the launch price of the nearest equivalent B450 board. The B550 chipset itself probably carries a $7-10 initial premium for providing PCIe3 downstream lanes instead of PCIe2. Considering how pathetic the VRMs on nearly all B450 boards are (nothing above four Vcore phases), I'm expecting some of the extra cost to be due to AMD raising the minimum VRM bar a notch, so perhaps anotehr $5 here for hex-phases Vcore and upgraded components.

The expensive B550 boards cost what they cost because they have the same or similar stupid overkill VRM as high-end X570 boards do, a bunch of PCIe4 re-timers and switches to enable flexible use of CPU PCIe lanes and likely more significant-added-cost features like 2.5+GbE LAN.
 

Flayed

Notable
Oct 8, 2019
771
132
840
58
Seriously i can't believe the prices compared to B450, I'm going to get a b450 gaming pro carbon max with all the bling and call it a day. These are way overpriced in my view. B450 high end model is 130 bucks and now b550 high end is 280 bucks. Like dude....
I'm sure the Asus B450 with all the bling was/is more than $130
 
Considering how pathetic the VRMs on nearly all B450 boards are (nothing above four Vcore phases)
Not true. Not all "four Vcore phases" are pathetic [sic]. MSI has some good ones that can run a 3950X fine.

The expensive B550 boards cost what they cost because they have the same or similar stupid overkill VRM as high-end X570 boards do.
I don't know what you precisely meant, but your terminology tickled me. Low-end boards with "stupid overkill VRMs" are not dumb. No VRMs are overkill. I'd be happy running a B450 if the VRMs can run a 3950X OC'd to the moon. There're only over-designed VRMs that looks good on paper, but fails miserably at testing (e.g. MSI X570 Gaming Edge/Pro). You can't judge VRM performance by counting the phases.

With that being said, features alone can't justify ASUS's asking price. The most expensive B450 boards, the Strix B450-E, B450 Aorus Pro, and the B450 Pro Carbon are around $150. They all have WiFi, Intel 1Gbps Ethernet, ALC1220, "Stupid Overkill VRMs", and all the unnecessary bling-bling. PCI-E reworks alone shouldn't cost more than $50 at the worst case scenario.
 

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator
I don't know what you precisely meant, but your terminology tickled me. Low-end boards with "stupid overkill VRMs" are not dumb.
Did you actually read what you quoted? What part of "Expensive B550" spells "low-end" to you? If you look at pictures of announced high-end B550 boards (the expensive ones), they have what appears to be 12-16 phases VRMs. That is stupid overkill for remotely normal use and a substantial cost driver.
 
Did you actually read what you quoted? What part of "Expensive B550" spells "low-end" to you?
Did you even understand what I said? You were indicating that a low-end chipset such as the B550 with high-end VRMs are "stupid overkill". It is not. That low-end B450 part was an explanation that it's not.

That is stupid overkill for remotely normal use and a substantial cost driver.
Assuming "remotely normal use" is a 3600X with VRM temps on 80 degC, a $100 board will do fine. Why even bother with $200+ boards? This narration doesn't fit your "stupid overkill B550" context.
 

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator
You were indicating that a low-end chipset such as the B550 with high-end VRMs are "stupid overkill".
I made no representation whatsoever about B550 being "low end", B550 is mid-range and suitable for the vast majority of people. It is up to motherboard manufacturers to decide what spread from low-end (bare minimum to meet specs) to high-end (gild the lillies to whatever extent they can) they want to cover using it, as is the case with all other chipsets. That's why X570 also has motherboards that cover the spectrum from crap/bare minimum to overkill.
 
I made no representation whatsoever about B550 being "low end", B550 is mid-range and suitable for the vast majority of people.
Then that makes less sense.

Mid-range boards "suitable for the vast majority of people" with 12 vcore phases -> stupid overkill(?)
Low-end boards with 12 vcore phases -> even more stupid overkill(?)

Hence my point, no VRMs are "stupid overkill" when it actually does perform as well as how much it costs.
Great VRMs on a dirt-cheap A320 that outperforms high-end designs? I'll take that over a X570 gaming edge.

It's a terminology issue.
 
Last edited:

NightHawkRMX

Illustrious
The number of phase count really doesn't tell much of a full story.

Many of MSI's B350/B450 boards have the same 4 phase VRM as the MSI B450 tomahawk, and as we have seen from tests, with proper cooling that VRM design can destroy boards like the Asus B450-F or other boards with more than 4 phases.

Many B450s have ok vrms. an AsRock B450M Pro 4 has a pretty decent VRM and dual M.2 slots but yet only costs $75 often. I suspect a similar featured B550 will costs $50 more if not double.
 
Reactions: rigg42

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator
Then that makes less sense.

Mid-range boards "suitable for the vast majority of people" with 12 vcore phases -> stupid overkill(?)
Low-end boards with 12 vcore phases -> even more stupid overkill(?)
Where did you see low-end B550 boards with 12 phases? Low-end boards may very well still be quad-phases. My 12-16 phases only applies to expensive (~$200 and up) B550 boards. I'd be surprised if anything under $150 had more than hex-phases Vcore.
 
Where did you see low-end B550 boards with 12 phases? Low-end boards may very well still be quad-phases. My 12-16 phases only applies to expensive (~$200 and up) B550 boards. I'd be surprised if anything under $150 had more than hex-phases Vcore.
Well, this is getting too far away from the discussion. All I said was there is no "stupid overkill VRMs" and Mobo manufacturers have every right to put 12-16 core VRMs on mid-range chipset boards, or even low-end chipsets.
 

alextheblue

Distinguished
Apr 3, 2001
3,060
95
20,870
2
The lion's share of that extra $25 is most likely the chipset itself due to upgrading downstream lanes from PCIe 2.0 to 3.0 and probably beefed-up VRMs. Some of the added cost may also be inflation to offset losses from the last couple of months. You'd still be paying most of that $25 extra without PCIe4.
It seems to be like that almost across the "board" so to speak. Lots of goods and services seem to be inflated right now from just a few months ago. I knew I should have bought that monitor when I had the chance...
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS