the irony of that statement, is IF supply was better for zen 3, it very well could of meant lower sales for intel, but of course you will say something that is negative for amd, but positive for intel, thats what you do here, as a rebuttal.
will rocket lake help intel, seems MLID, isnt so sure :
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8z9TztoqSZs
seems Z590, will be at a disadvantage compared to X570.
So much misinformation in this video. So let’s discuss that platform “issue” and that claim that AMD boards are supposedly superior.
(a)Features. Feature-wise the Z590 boards are richer than X570 ones. Pick any equivalent tier board e.g ASUS Maximus Hero Z590 Vs ASUS Crosshair Hero X570. It is no contest. Intel Z590 boards from midrange and above come all with Wifi6e, 2.5GBE, USB3.2gen2x2 ports and some even with thunderbolt 4, dual NICs, etc. These are all simpler to add on the Intel platform as they are being supported natively by the chipset and it is easy to include them. Also, on Intel boards you can generally use the video output if ever needed as Intel cpus do offer integrated graphics (unless you buy an F sku). And memory support for high-speed RAM on Intel in 1:1 mode is unparalleled.
(b) Price. In general motherboard prices are not that much affected by the cost of the chipset. The cost of a Z590 chipset is only 50dollars. Even if AMD’s chipset cost zero dollars it would only make AMD boards 50 dollars cheaper. Obviously AMD's chipset doesn't cost zero dollars. There is no price difference really. If you buy an equivalently equipped board the price is roughly the same. In general, what dictates the cost of the board are the features/capabilities it has. And these are in turn dictated by what the platform can offer natively. Power delivery is not different as they both have to cater to OCing the most power hungry SKU in the lineup. Sure you might say that performance per watt on AMD is better but you are still OCing a 16-core (3950X and 5950X) Versus overclocking an 8core or 10 core (11900K, 10900K). At maximum ambient/water overclocking and running the same heavy workload the top skus from both sides will draw about the same power hence the need for similar VRMs.
(c) PCIe lanes. It is very misleading to say that you have 20 Vs 24 and that therefore AMD has 4 more for another PCIe4 M.2 drive. When Intel says 20 lanes they mean 20 direct lanes from the CPU for PCIE expansion slots (16 general, for e.g. a GPU, and another 4 for an M.2). Intel does not include in that number the lanes which the CPU uses to communicate with the chipset. AMD however does. So, the 4 PCIe4 lanes that are used by a Ryzen cpu to communicate with the chipset, are misleadingly included in the lane count to appear that AMD has more that Intel. The truth is that the bandwidth that Intel and AMD are using to interface the cpu with the chipset is equal. AMD is using 4 lanes of PCIe4 while Intel is using 8 lanes of PCIe 3. That PCIe4x4 bandwidth of AMD’s link to the chipset is shared between a bunch of USB 2, 3.2 Gen 1 &Gen 2 ports, SATA ports, Ethernet ports, WiFi, etc. So sure, you can connect one PCIe4 M.2 drive to the chipset lanes but don't expect it to run at PCIe4x4 speeds like the one connected directly to the cpu. More like PCIe4x2 or PCIe4x3 speeds at best. It is no different to what Intel is doing. Intel’s chipset takes the 8 PCIe3 lanes that connect the cpu to the chipset and multiplex them into 24 PCIe3 lanes plus a bunch of natively supported usb and other ports. At the end of the day you can make arguments for ether approach. It is a tie. Personally I prefer the fanless Intel chipset and its features more that of AMD’s. And buying a second PCIe4 drive to use as a secondary drive for double the cost of PCIe3 is pointless. Even more so if you put it in a slot that will cripple its performance.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram