Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

AMD Announces X300 and X370 AM4 Motherboards For Ryzen, All CPUs Unlocked (hothardware.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the fresh-new-hardware dept.

MojoKid writes: AMD has a lot riding on Ryzen, its new generation CPU architecture that is supposed to return the chip designer to a competitive position versus Intel in the high-end desktop X86 processor market. Late last week, at CES 2017, AMD has lined up over a dozen high-performance AM4 motherboards from five hardware partners, including ASRock, ASUS, Biostar, Gigabyte, and MSI. All AM4 motherboards are built around one of two desktop chipsets for Ryzen, the AMD X370 or X300. Motherboards based on the X370 chipset are intended for power users and gamers. These boards bring more robust overclocking controls and support for dual graphics cards, along with more I/O connectivity and dual-channel DDR4 memory support. The X300 is AMD's chipset for mini-ITX motherboards for small form factor (SFF) system platforms. The X300 also supports dual-channel DDR4 memory, PCIe 3.0, M.2 SATA devices, NVMe, and USB 3.1 Gen 1 and Gen 1. Finally, AMD representatives on hand at CES also reported that all Ryzen processors will be multiplier unlocked, hopefully for some rather flexible overclocking options. There will also be several processors in the family, with varying core counts depending on SKU, at launch.

71 comments

  1. No surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Nothing surprising here. Its not about the motherboard for ryzen, its all about the new CPU architecture and until we see benchmarks, there's Nothing To See Here.

    1. Re:No surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Move along please....

    2. Re:No surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Yeah, I can totally see why you'd need a "benchmark", idiots love meaningless numbers produced by other idiots, neither of which really have a clue anyway about what said "benchmarks" really do.

      "Benchmarks" are a scam, only idiots care about them.

    3. Re:No surprise by Rockoon · · Score: 2

      Screw benchmarks. How cool can they run when underclocked. Will these be viable for passive cooling gaming rigs?

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    4. Re:No surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gaming with AMD drivers?

      Ouch.

    5. Re:No surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And will they support ECC-RAM? My current System with a Phenom II does, and I really don't want to go back to RAM without ECC.

    6. Re:No surprise by beelsebob · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That depends entirely on what benchmark you're looking at.

      If you're goal is to play GooSplatter 2017 at 3840x2160@144Hz, then staring at a benchmark that reports the frame rate of GooSplatter 2017's rendering engine, with representative scenes from the game is an entirely reasonable thing to do.

      Don't assume that all people staring at benchmarks don't understand what each test is actually measuring.

    7. Re:No surprise by Z80a · · Score: 1

      You can stick a nvidia card on it, and relive the early, early days of 3D, where it was optimal to either use an AMD CPU + Nvidia card or intel + 3Dfx card, because the nvidia drivers were optimized with the 3Dnow, while the 3Dfx drivers relied on the FPU.

    8. Re:No surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "Benchmarks" are a marketing device written in no small part by Intel or people directly depending on them, no more and no less. Drooling fanboys love them because they give simple numbers which usually confirms all their biases - which is their entire purpose - while sane people avoid them like the plague or write their own which tests for their own specific needs. OP does not appear to belong to the latter category.

    9. Re:No surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      WTF? How do you decide which graphics card to buy? Let me guess, you just look at the tech specs and your massive brain can work out how well a particular game will run taking the bus size/frequency/no. of texture units etc. etc. into account?

    10. Re:No surprise by WorBlux · · Score: 1

      A little better metric is frame time and standard deviation, and # of outliers in the data

    11. Re:No surprise by WorBlux · · Score: 1

      Not sure, it's exactly the same sort of sore as their upcoming Naples chip, but a slightly different socket. My guess though would be yes.

  2. There are other chipsets for AM4 boards by Lorphos · · Score: 3, Informative

    The post states:

    "All AM4 motherboards are built around one of two desktop chipsets for Ryzen, the AMD X370 or X300."

    That's wrong. If you look at the article the most common chipset will probably be the B350. The X370 is for "enthusiasts" who want to use multiple graphics cards.

    1. Re:There are other chipsets for AM4 boards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you think the B350 will support Ryzen?

    2. Re:There are other chipsets for AM4 boards by cloud.pt · · Score: 3, Informative

      But the same original article stated it verbatim: "All 16 AM4 motherboards that are on tap are built around two desktop chipsts for Ryzen, X370 and X300." so OP has an excuse for being mislead (he did omit the "on tap" part though).

      My interpretation is that what they meant by "on tap" is what was being displayed at CES. OP failed to quote an important part, but at the same time, what they display at CES is likely what's coming to market first (it's what they prototyped easier), so if the market starts with those 2 chipsets, you will likely see them first on retail.

      I also believe that, unlike Intel's chips and chipsets, you will see more of the enthusiast stuff from AMD's CPU in the wild simply because the target market is gonna be the cost-saving enthusiast, so you will either have the "cheap-o gaming rig" type enthusiasts going for the x350 or the the "small gaming rig " type enthusiasts for the x300. You will rarely see the IT admin type going for the stable, "unoverclockable" B350 - those guys will still favor Intel for some years, they favor stability that goes beyond the first batch of reviews. I'm guessing the B350 is more for pre-built, run-off-the-mill, low-cost machines from OEMs like Dell, HP, Asus and whatnot. These sell a lot but they also make pay less to individual parts makers (margins go mostly to the assembler OEM). A good example is AMD having the golden share of the latest gen console CPU/GPU (both xbox one and ps4 sport AMD chips all around), yet Intel AND Nvidia both are miles ahead of profit from single part sales (notebook hegemony also helps).

    3. Re:There are other chipsets for AM4 boards by leathered · · Score: 1

      The X370 is for "enthusiasts" who want to use multiple graphics cards.

      Altcoin miners.

      --
      For all intensive porpoises your a bunch of rediculous loosers
    4. Re:There are other chipsets for AM4 boards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      your wrong, and clearly have no understanding of this topic. please go back to sleep, you're boring.

    5. Re:There are other chipsets for AM4 boards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. Many B350 boards may sport VRM configs unsuitable for Ryzen beyond base clockspeeds though.

    6. Re:There are other chipsets for AM4 boards by epine · · Score: 1

      My interpretation is that what they meant by "on tap" is what was being displayed at CES.

      If you continued reading after stepping into the murky phrase "on tap", you've become so fixated on tracking prey that you've loss all sense of chivalry.

      These are not the tea leaves you're looking for.

      The correct response is to step back, throw your cape over the sticky filth to protect the innocence, thence to spend a calm half hour working your power squats, while chewing a grass stem and scraping the crud out of your boot treads with a small pen knife.

    7. Re:There are other chipsets for AM4 boards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As you can see, this AMD Zen/Ryzen will be pointless without support for ECC memory.

      http://ark.intel.com/Search/Advanced?s=t&RetailSkuAvailable=true&FilterCurrentProducts=true&ECCMemory=true&VTD=true&AESTech=true

      There is a reason why ECC is becoming more prevalent across processor lines.

    8. Re:There are other chipsets for AM4 boards by cloud.pt · · Score: 1

      wait what? Nobody in the consumer business needs ECC RAM for any reason other than bragging rights or outright need to burn money...

    9. Re:There are other chipsets for AM4 boards by cloud.pt · · Score: 1

      As a non-native english speaker, I have trouble understanding stuff like "on tap" so I might sound stupid over-analyzing it. SORRY

      About the tracking prey argument, tea leave, and the innocent filth-proof cape, I honestly have no fucking idea what you're talking about. If it's some sort of fallacy, I should mention that the last time I studied "hard" philosophy was some good 12 years ago. If it's not the case, its also good to note that, since Real Life (tm) caught up to me, my depths-of-the-web dictionary pretty much stopped expanding at or around stuff like SJW or troll, maybe pundit? I have no idea what kappa is but it really sounds post-millenial.

      The only thing I wanted with my post was to state that the OP might have been mislead (keyword might), but even then he actually made sense, and so did the products AMD brought to the CES booth (if they were, in effect, only those 2 chipset variants).

      AMD wants, like any other CPU manufacturer these days (which aren't that many other than Intel and the [unrelated] ARM bandwagon), to "tap" hard into the PC market (like they once did). AMD just knows full well it isn't going to compete in the premium corporate, small-biz or even semi-pro segments (read: workstations) anytime soon, so it targeted the segment where, pun incoming, it's game is at (verbose: the super-cheap gaming rig), and took a baby steps consumer-level approach into a segment they are closely-related with lately (the small, efficient and cost-effective machine that might even game like a big boy). I think I already mentioned consoles right? I can see these mini-itx chips powering the next gen steam machines or similarly flavored AIO PCs, or even cool new stuff like dedicated VR-headset drivers (think PSVR Processing units) for "people that will never pay >300 bucks for such a thing - if anyone can do it, it's likely AMD.

    10. Re:There are other chipsets for AM4 boards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everything on that list is a Xeon. The only Ryzens... Ryzenses? that need it are the plenty-o-core Xeon competitors. But hey, maybe all of them will have it.

    11. Re:There are other chipsets for AM4 boards by Agripa · · Score: 1

      As you can see, this AMD Zen/Ryzen will be pointless without support for ECC memory.

      http://ark.intel.com/Search/Advanced?s=t&RetailSkuAvailable=true&FilterCurrentProducts=true&ECCMemory=true&VTD=true&AESTech=true

      There is a reason why ECC is becoming more prevalent across processor lines.

      What that list does not show is the chipset requirements. Intel is very careful to implement market segmentation by allowing ECC only on low performance processors or Xeon processors and in all cases, they require a "server" chipset like the C series for ECC to be enabled.

      So the only Intel processors and motherboards an AMD ECC system would need to compete with are Xeon E3 with socket LGA1150 and Core i3 with LGA1151 and the Intel systems will be more expensive.

  3. Just unlocked CPU multipliers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Or unlocked/unsigned management processors as well?

    I don't know about you, but the latter is reason enough for me to pass on new AMD processors in the post AM3+ generation.

    Does anyone else feel the same way?

    Given that a probable method for disable is available for Intel ME hardware today (although not for GPU and other cores in the newest chips), newer Intel chips make slightly more sense than AMD's versions without full audits of both.

    For the non-sheeple, none of the current-gen desktop-competitive processors that cost less than a used car are available without some form of potential DRM or system compromise. Is that really what you want in a central and overly relied upon part of your life?

    1. Re:Just unlocked CPU multipliers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For the non-sheeple

      I didn't buy "new" computer for ... 8 years. I have added couple refurbs from data centers but as desktop my old computer with Core2Quad and DDR2 is enough for my needs. XenServers and hadoop nodes in the rack ... that is different situation. But my "standard platform" is around X5520 :-)

      I will wait, I will read, and perhaps in next 2-3 years I will buy that newest and greatest child of AMD.

    2. Re:Just unlocked CPU multipliers... by NotAPK · · Score: 5, Informative

      I applaud your criticism of management co-processors (Intel vPro, Intel ME, Intel AMT, AMD PSP) as while they may have a place in the enterprise world (assuming those IT techs can secure them properly) they are an anathema to home users. I don't support the idea that we all have to be lumped with these back-doors to our systems and believe we should all be able to either choose CPUs that lack them, or disable them entirely (motherboard jumper anyone?) as we wish. Of course I'm voting with my wallet, but the options are shrinking year by year...

      Can you expand on why you think Intel is the lesser of two evils here?

      For those unsure of what this is about, there is a discussion here and some really good info here. But look out for Leah Rowe at that last link: that bitch be crazy!! [Citation]

    3. Re:Just unlocked CPU multipliers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Does anyone else feel the same way?

      Count me in. I'm postponing my urge to buy indefinitely (and will buy an used system before a new, because of this).

      Besides the utterly expensive PowerPC options (who knows, if there is some demand...) there's some hope on the horizon coming from RiscV.

      I'll prefer to throw my money at some of those crowfunding initiatives. Not at you, AMD. Not at you, Intel.

    4. Re:Just unlocked CPU multipliers... by DRJlaw · · Score: 0

      "the handful of us (who are too time-poor to maintain libreboot) a.k.a the *actual* libreboot community"

      If you can't and won't maintain the package, you are not the *actual* libreboot community. That last link is merely the flip side of the problem that the linked material is complaining about -- a person, at best formerly involved in the project, pretending that they speak for a larger community, but unwilling to *actually* do anything about the problem.

    5. Re:Just unlocked CPU multipliers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      On intel's side, at least, In order to use AMT/vPro you need both an enabled processor *AND* an enabled chipset. Most intel chipsets (as in everything but the high end and maybe one level below) don't support vPro. Most "K" i7/i5 also don't. Many i3 don't. Most (all?) pentiums/celerons don't. So if you're not confortable with vPro all you have to do is play around with intel ARK and select a CPU+chipset combination that doesn't support it.

      Or if you MUST have that shiny new processor and motherboard and don't trust the OFF setting from the MEBX (Ctrl + P) just put the damn thing behind a packet filter built from hardware known not to support vPro. Or cut of its internet access entirely. My W10 gaming rig is not allowed outside. I browse the web by RDP/VNC via virtual machine hosted on an old opteron that runs some bsd from years ago. Bonus, this also fixes the telemetry/update issues with w10.

    6. Re:Just unlocked CPU multipliers... by Kjella · · Score: 3, Insightful

      and believe we should all be able to either choose CPUs that lack them, or disable them entirely (motherboard jumper anyone?) as we wish.

      If anyone can enable it via malware, they've already totally rooted your PC. If there is a secret NSA knock from the outside, it'll just ignore the jumper. Even if you buy one of the CPUs that lack this feature, you don't really know if Intel has fused it off. If they reuse design blocks it's quite possible entire product lines that don't offer that functionality have it anyway. If you're that paranoid maybe the easiest is a to use a third party NIC? Install a hardware firewall to monitor your connection? Personally I think a hack like that would be way too valuable a secret to risk exposing by going after consumers. There's probably a ton of military, big industry and infrastructure servers that run Intel and full, virtually undiscoverable backdoor access to that would be an espionage gold mine.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    7. Re:Just unlocked CPU multipliers... by jwhyche · · Score: 0

      For the non-sheeple, none of the current-gen desktop-competitive processors that cost less than a used car are available without some form of potential DRM or system compromise. Is that really what you want in a central and overly relied upon part of your life?

      Please document what you mean by this.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    8. Re:Just unlocked CPU multipliers... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Given that a probable method for disable is available for Intel ME hardware today

      Probable? So you're just spreading FUD here, huh? Since you have no substantive difference to offer?

      For the non-sheeple, none of the current-gen desktop-competitive processors that cost less than a used car are available without some form of potential DRM or system compromise. Is that really what you want in a central and overly relied upon part of your life?

      I don't see how you get to call sheeple when there's no real choice. When was the last time any of us were offered any system without substantial security compromises, for any money?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    9. Re:Just unlocked CPU multipliers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Some of it's true, some of it's crazy rumors.

      With a compatible motherboard/chipset and the correct secret key and access to your network, someone can manage your computer remotely over any built-in networking option supported by the chipset, and by manage, we mean turn it on and off, read/write to the drives, install drivers or operating systems, wipe the system and so on. This is the documented feature set for vPro and is the selling point for it for enterprise networks. I believe AMD's Secure Management Engine offers similar features for the enterprise.

      Rumors include things like an embedded 3G modem in every intel CPU so that this can be done remotely without any access to your network (this is known to exist in 3G tablet processors and rumored to be in every processor) and that the US government has a master key that can manage any system. Also, that the CPU manufacturers are providing access to the secure subprocessor to DRM developers to create software that can run 24/7 and monitor everything happening on the computer.

    10. Re:Just unlocked CPU multipliers... by jwhyche · · Score: 0

      Someone posted some links after I posted my request. Some of these read like the ramblings of some loon in a basement some where. They remind me of the early days when they started embedding serial numbers in CPU's.

      But serouasly with any technology this complex there is plenty of room for abuse. But that being said if it was being abused it would be done by now. With as many crackers and other low life's on the internet I'm sure it would have been exploited by now if it was true.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    11. Re:Just unlocked CPU multipliers... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      He already has. IME has a flaw that can allow an enterprising hacker to completely disable it. No work around for AMD has been found.

    12. Re:Just unlocked CPU multipliers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Install a hardware firewall to monitor your connection?

      lol n00b.

  4. Not clear enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Not clear to me whether it supports USB 3.1 Gen 1 or USB 3.1 Gen 1

    1. Re:Not clear enough by Zanadou · · Score: 1

      Not clear enough...

      Me, too!

    2. Re:Not clear enough by fbobraga · · Score: 1

      The "I don't read the summary" disease appears to be spreading: affects up to the editors of this site...

    3. Re:Not clear enough by tietokone-olmi · · Score: 1

      Yes, yes it does.

    4. Re:Not clear enough by RavenLrD20k · · Score: 1

      It's actually a direct quote from the article that way. As a direct cut and paste:

      The X300 is no exception—like the X370, the X300 supports dual-channel DDR4 memory, PCIe 3.0, M.2 SATA devices, NVMe, and USB 3.1 Gen 1 and Gen 1.

      Read more at http://hothardware.com/news/am...

      What's funny is the link wasn't even part in the selection that I cut; which means that the article page has javascript that inserts additional text to the clipboard. It actually requires looking at AMD's page to realize for certain that they mean to say USB 3.1 Gen 1 and Gen 2. Perhaps what should have been added is an [sic] tag after the line to indicate that this piece of quality writing is on Paul Lilly's and HotHardware's heads; not MojoKid's or Slashdot's.

    5. Re:Not clear enough by fbobraga · · Score: 1

      copying and pasting non-correct text don't make it right...

    6. Re:Not clear enough by RavenLrD20k · · Score: 1

      Which is why I mentioned they should have put in an [sic] tag.

  5. X300 - got one of those already! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Somewhere in my closet one of these must be lying around:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radeon_X300-X600_Series

  6. USB 3.1 Gen 1 and Gen 1? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Seems redundant, much like this comment.

  7. no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your puss is redundant

  8. Power! by ArchieBunker · · Score: 1

    Will they still be power hogs like that 220 watt behemoth currently in production?

    --
    Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    1. Re:Power! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Will the next Intel CPU cost less than $400?

    2. Re:Power! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      According to http://wccftech.com/amd-am4-opga-socket-1331 the use of the OPGA 1331 pin socket supports processors with a TDP of up to 140 watts.

      However, it is claimed http://wccftech.com/amd-zen-8-core-4-core-cpus-leaked/ that the 8 core Ryzen processor will have a TDP of 95 watts while the 4 core variant will have a TDP of 65 watts.

      There are reports http://wccftech.com/ryzen-ces-2017-3-6-ghz-base-clock-f4-stepping-4-0-ghz/ that an Ryzen 8 core processor shown at CES was clocked at 3.6 GHz with the ability to turbo to 3.9 GHz.

      It appears that AMD may have done well, but we won't know for sure until systems are available.

    3. Re:Power! by l20502 · · Score: 1

      Slashdot discarded a mu in the first link

    4. Re:Power! by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      Will they still be power hogs like that 220 watt behemoth currently in production?

      According to AMD it will be 90 watts :-) FYI the i7 from Intel is 120 watts. Looks like AMD might be quite competitive if rumors are true for the first time since 2002

      --
      http://saveie6.com/
    5. Re:Power! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My last 3.3ghz 22nm Intel CPU cost $200. My wife's 3.5ghz 14nm costed $190. Every Intel CPU generation has been cheaper, for the most part. Even without adjusting for inflation, from 32nm and smaller, each has been slightly cheaper and 10nm is supposed to continue that.

    6. Re:Power! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My current AMD CPU, A10 7850K theoretically tops out at 95W, I've never had one which topped out at 100W+. Do such exist? Sure. Never heard of one which topped at 200W+ though. (I'm sure I could find some extreme variant if I looked carefully but the point is that if it's not pure hyperbole it's at least an outlier. )

      On the other hand, finding an Intel CPU which cost more than $400 isn't hard, if you claim you don't know of any you either haven't looked very hard, or are quite deliberately not looking. If you start looking it's not exactly hard to start finding 150W Intel CPU's too.

      The point is that throwing around big numbers cuts both ways, and making general statements from extremes isn't very honest.

    7. Re:Power! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Intel is well known to price gouge enthusiast for minor improvements in performance. I didn't say Intel doesn't have a $400 CPU, but that their normal CPUs are in the $200 range and are getting cheaper every generation. If you want to drop $6k on a high end CPU, fine, but don't use that CPU as an example of "Intel CPUs are expensive". They're only expensive if you want them to be.

    8. Re:Power! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You clearly do not understand the point. I suggest re-reading the post you're replying to. Feel free to start from your own premise, "they are only expensive if you want them to be", and apply it to the OP, and its 220W claim as some sort of general expectancy for power usage for AMD CPU's.

      Bottom line: don't be dishonest if you don't want others to treat you the same way.

    9. Re:Power! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AMD and Intel have long used different definitions of TDP. You generally can't compare the two values between the two manufacturers.

  9. Hooray! New stuff for people like me by sabbede · · Score: 2, Funny

    who can't afford Intel prices!

  10. Any one have an block map / pci-e lane layout? by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    Any one have an block map / pci-e lane layout?

  11. I know I'm not alone... by Jethro · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...but when I hear of new technology in this arena, I don't really think "Ooh Dual Channel DDR400!" or "Finally USB 3.1!" or whatever.

    I just want to get my hands on some of this stuff and build a new system with it. Or several.

    I don't even need to replace any of my current computers. I just love building them, and getting to build stuff with new components (be they AMD- or Intel-based) is just fun.

    The last system I built was my gaming rig, and it's the most powerful machine I've ever made. As soon as it was up and running I wanted to sell it so I could use the money to build another one.

    Kinda wish I could do that for a living, really, but the market for Artisanal Hand-Crafted Desktops is kind of rough ):

    --


    In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.
    1. Re:I know I'm not alone... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know exactly what you mean. I actually don't build a completely new system so that I can do some smaller upgrades every year. It helps with the itch to build a new box. My wife on the other hand tends to build a system and sit on it for 3-4 years. It bugs me.

      Our latest project was going to water cooling and thermaltake p5 core cases. I just got a new AMD fury nitro card and put on a waterblock. Don't even try to use one of those with air cooling. 73C with overwatch, now it runs around 40C. System went from 8 fans in the old case to 3 on a radiator. Much quieter. They're only set to 75% too. I mostly just hear the pump. It's quieter than a 2012 mac mini.

      If you haven't tried a water cooling build, i suggest you give it a go next time.

    2. Re:I know I'm not alone... by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

      I actually don't build a completely new system so that I can do some smaller upgrades every year.

      That's been my strategy. The problem with it is that motherboards change every 3 CPU generations or so, and generally memory tech every 2nd motherboard generation or so as well. What that means is that by the time CPU's have advanced far enough that I'll get notable improvement from upgrading mine, I also have to replace the motherboard, and likely all the RAM.

      Sure, there are important parts to a PC aside from those 3. But really they are the heart of it. And that's about $300 (assuming you cheap out, and also assuming you don't need to buy a new OS to go with your massively-changed hardware.). The only other part of the system that it really makes sense to replace on a schedule is the video card. Of the other parts, the power supply, hard-drives, and monitor(s) only get replaced when they die (or in the case of the hard-drive, when it fills up) and the case *never* really needs replacing. (My cases still have floppy bays).

      So effectively there are no small upgrades. Its either: MB-CPU-RAM ($300ish), Video Card ($200ish), or its "something broke".

    3. Re:I know I'm not alone... by riscycdj · · Score: 1

      I've always want to be in the bespoke PC building game. The closest I have got is building a video editing PC for my Dad which I overclocked just right so it was stable but powerful. Most fun I've ever had building a PC. Unfortunately if I was going to make it a "job" the PCs I build would cost $5000 each and I'd need to sell 100 a year......not likely where lowest price is king.

    4. Re:I know I'm not alone... by Jethro · · Score: 1

      I've designed some machines that would run well over $10K... I'd loooove someone to pay me to build them...

      --


      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.
  12. Re:Hooray! New stuff for people like me by ckatko · · Score: 3, Informative

    My favorite part is how Intel CPU prices "magically" drop in price whenever AMD releases a new CPU.

  13. Actually there's 5 chipsets by slashmydots · · Score: 2

    The summary is basically a lie. There's the X370, B350, A320, X300, and A300 chipsets. By the way, is anyone else concerned about the 8 lanes of PCI-E? Intel Z170 has 16-20 if I remember correctly.

    1. Re:Actually there's 5 chipsets by sirber · · Score: 2

      The summary is basically a lie. There's the X370, B350, A320, X300, and A300 chipsets. By the way, is anyone else concerned about the 8 lanes of PCI-E? Intel Z170 has 16-20 if I remember correctly.

      Most probably the CPU will host the main GPU at x16, and the mobo chipset the second one at x8

      --
      Be or ben't
    2. Re:Actually there's 5 chipsets by WorBlux · · Score: 1

      Not really, considering the processor give you 24 3.0 lanes. That lets you do graphics (or a bridge for crossfire/sli enabled boards) and NVMe at full speed, and leaves 4 lanes (4000MBps each way) to communicate with the chip-set (which can talk to other peripherals via 8 pci-e gen 2.0 lanes. It really should be plenty for most use cases. The i5-6700 only has 16 lanes coming off the chip directly, and and the DMI equivalent fo 8 lanes talking to the chipset. The z270 chipset adds another 4 lanes, but the DMI is the same speed. Amd having lanes dedicated to the nvme drive could help in some benchmarks. All in all you can hook more things onto the Intel chip-set, but raw communication speed isn't much better, if you assume that 1/2 of the transfer is going to be to/from an nvme drive. I think it's a good strategy as even though the x370 is the premium chip-set, it should be quite a bit cheaper than the Intel z or x series, while still delivering the features that enthusiasts like.

  14. Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I mean this literally... other than CPU salespeople, who cares? Every decade or two, when it's time to get a new CPU, I go to the CPU store, and I buy something that they have in stock, within my budget. I couldn't care if it was AMD, Intel, or FairyDust-powered. A CPU is a CPU is a CPU.

  15. How about MVS ? by golodh · · Score: 1

    So AMD brings out a system 370 ? Do they offer MVS with that?