MSI X570 Prices out in EU

[Koxicain]

3 minutes ago, porina said:

Mobo pricing is going up everywhere, Gen 4 or not. I'm really hoping Intel go beyond 4 channel ram on next HEDT platform, but that's another story. I think Z170 was about the last "cheap" top consumer chipset mobo generation, less than say 150 euro equivalent. My 1st Ryzen board (X370) was above that, and entry level z_70 boards are in the 150+ ball park. I kinda skipped on X470 for that reason. Now Anandtech had described "mid range" X570 boards as around $250... I know manufacturers want to showcase their best, but what about low end X570? If there are no lower models, the mid range is the new low end.

 

Basically I don't want a nerfed chipset for any new generation system I build. So when Ryzen 2000 came out, 300 chipset was not an option as it missed the extra turbo clock thing, but 450 and 470 were not that different otherwise (for single GPU use). Outside of competitive benching, I run stock as I do need 24/7 stability. Do we have a definitive feature list for 570 vs 470 and Zen 2? Apart from PCIe 4.0, are there any features that will be missing if not using 570? And so far no mention of 550 chipset? For 300 series the 50/70 came out at same time. I think it did for 400 too, but not this time?

As far as i know X570 is the new Highend and X470 is supposed to be the mid tier. 
im using 2700x with a b350 board 4.2ghz OC on all cores 24/7 stable at 1.3875v Never had any issues. 
And i bet x470 price is going to drop a lot when x570 comes out. I dont do LN2 but i really like the MEG lineup boards. 
Im more into Aesthetics, which higher end boards do have. 

[porina]

43 minutes ago, Koxicain said:

im using 2700x with a b350 board 4.2ghz OC on all cores 24/7 stable at 1.3875v Never had any issues. 

I'm not into high voltage OCs for 24/7 running as that just burns power. My 1700 was never stable enough when I had it at 3.6 GHz, I can't remember, 1.20 or 1.25v. It would run any stability test as long as you like, but if left running for a few days unattended it'll crash, so I reverted it back to stock. More voltage might have fixed it, but again it is burning power. I didn't even bother looking for a 24/7 OC with either 1600 or 2600 systems, and I wont with 3700X that I intend to get.

 

With 2600, because I run stock, I had to have a 400 chipset to have the new boost feature work as intended.

[ApolloFury]

7 hours ago, ManosMax13 said:

Post this in tech news too. I dont understand tho amd got all its fame for being a better value for money option than intel and having cheaper mobos. Why are they trying to change that?

Lisa Su has said many times in the past that they will stop becoming the budget/value option and be the market leader.

[ManosMax13]

2 minutes ago, ApolloFury said:

Lisa Su has said many times in the past that they will stop becoming the budget/value option and be the market leader.

Becoming the market leader is achievable through low prices.

[melete]

7 hours ago, ManosMax13 said:

Post this in tech news too. I dont understand tho amd got all its fame for being a better value for money option than intel and having cheaper mobos. Why are they trying to change that?

Board man gets paid.

 

Real tho, AMD is moving upmarket as they have the market performance leader and they're interested in making a profit off of that. No need to be the budget competitor to Intel when they're just straight up better than Intel. So AMD has doubled the chipset cost, which sets costs the board manufacturers another $20 USD or so. The rest of the cost increase is down to expenses related to engineering PCIe 4.0 (PCB material, there were some signal integrity issues, etc.), the board manufacturers redesigning the VRMs across almost the entire board, improved build quality, and maybe just better margins for board manufacturers now that AMD isn't the "value" platform.

[ManosMax13]

1 minute ago, melete said:

Board man gets paid.

 

Real tho, AMD is moving upmarket as they have the market performance leader and they're interested in making a profit off of that. No need to be the budget competitor to Intel when they're just straight up better than Intel. So AMD has doubled the chipset cost, which sets costs the board manufacturers another $20 USD or so. The rest of the cost increase is down to expenses related to engineering PCIe 4.0 (PCB material, there were some signal integrity issues, etc.), the board manufacturers redesigning the VRMs across almost the entire board, improved build quality, and maybe just better margins for board manufacturers now that AMD isn't the "value" platform.

But that such a dumb move,Intel will release a good processor a little bit cheaper than usual and everyone will buy it because 99% of the people would prefer a 5% worse Cinebench score and saving 50 dollars than buying Amd. Especially now that Intel might release the 10nm processors in a year or so. As such happened with Intel and Amd got promoted.

[melete]

1 minute ago, ManosMax13 said:

But that such a dumb move,Intel will release a good processor a little bit cheaper than usual and everyone will buy it because 99% of the people would prefer a 5% worse Cinebench score and saving 50 dollars than buying Amd. Especially now that Intel might release the 10nm processors in a year or so. As such happened with Intel and Amd got promoted.

AMD didn't actually change prices much on their CPUs. 3600 launches at the same price as 2600, 3600X is $30 USD more than 2600X, 3700X at the same price as 2700X (although there's no 3700). More CPUs on the high end is the big difference this time around.The big difference, imo, is that board manufacturers are no longer treating AMD Ryzen as a budget platform - it's not like AMD's chipset price hike is all that expensive either.