True, that makes sense. I just find it disturbing that 'budget' means they've gone so low as to barely meet stock specs. It would make sense for a more budget board not to be designed to handle overclocking of a particular platform, intel has similar offerings in h97, h81 etc which lack hefty vrm's and other features useful for pushing the envelope. I'd been out of the loop for a little while regarding amd's offerings and the last time I upgraded it involved new motherboard, cpu, ram etc. I even debated going with the fx 8xxx series for graphic content creation on a workstation build but am breathing a sigh of relief I didn't. It would have been severely frustrating being limited to just a small handful of boards to even be able to run the hardware it was intended for. Even more disappointing since the very same companies making amd boards are making plenty capable intel boards.
Not referring to platform differences, but since quality is available on one, similar quality should be available on the amd's boards as well. It's completely understandable that budget boards will lack some features on either platform compared to their more premium counterparts. I just think it's disappointing basic requirements like proper power delivery are considered 'optional'. Additional pcie slots, usb connectivity, m.2 and sata express are options, power delivery is pretty much crucial.