ASRock Z690 Taichi review
Radeon RX 6500 XT review
MSI Vigor GK71 Sonic keyboard review
MSI GeForce RTX 3080 Suprim X 12GB review
TeamGroup A440 PRO Special 5eries 4TB NVMe review
Core i5 12400 processor review
MSI MAG B660M Mortar WIFI review
Biostar Z690 Valkyrie review
TeamGroup A440 PRO PCIe 4.0 M.2 NVMe review
DDR5 scaling with G.Skill TridentZ5 6000 CL36 review
AMD X370 B350 A320 X300 and B300 / A300 Compared - Only SLI for X370
AMD announced six chipsets for Ryzen based on AM4: X370, B350, A320 and the mini ITX X300, B300 and A300 with the X370 and B350 already in pre-order and availability next week.
The lads over at ComputerBase compiled an overview chart to demo the chipsets differences in a better to understand manner features wise. First off, it looks like only the X370 chipset is going to support SLI. That means the B350 would not support SLI (but does support Crossfire). THis information has been confirmed. We are not sure why but Nvidia might still be licensing SLI functionality and thus SLI supports adds a charge per sold motherboard. The B350 series is a more budget aimed one so the choice makes sense.
You'll notice there are 20 PCIe 3.0 lanes pulled from the Ryzen processor. Ryzen has 24 of them yet 4 are being used to interface with the chipset. Then depending on the chipset used it adds gen 2.0 PCIe lanes through the chipset. The X370 will add 8 lanes, B350 6 lanes and onwards. Have a peek at the chart for more details.
X370 B350 A320 X300 / B300 / A300 Ryzen (CPU) Bristol Ridge (APU)
PCIe 3.0
0
0
0
4
20 *
10
PCIe 2.0
8
6
4
0
0
0
USB 3.1 Gen 2 (10 Gbit/s)
2
2
1
1
0
0
USB 3.0
6
2
2
2
4
4
USB 2.0
6
6
6
6
0
0
SATA 6 Gbit / s
4
2
2
2
2
2
SATA-Raid
0/1/10
0/1/10
0/1/10
0/1
-
-
Overclocking
Yes
Yes
-
Yes **
-
-
CrossFire / SLI
Yes / Yes
Yes / -
-
-
-
-
* 18 when 2 x SATA is running
** Only X300
Each chipset will add USB ports, but the Ryzen processor also offers four native USB 3.0 ports. There is support for RAID 0/1/10 configurations as well as Overclocking support on the X370, B350 and X300 chipset. Obviously the motherboard partners can add 3rd party chips to increase USB 3.0 and so on. The four PCIe 3.0 links for X300 / B300 / A300 seem to be a bit odd, we'll try and confirm that soon.
HeavyHemi
Senior Member
Posts: 6954
Joined: 2008-10-27
Senior Member
Posts: 6954
Joined: 2008-10-27
#5398168 Posted on: 02/26/2017 03:59 AM
No, it definitely wasn't. That picture clearly shows that z270 platform will perform in that way if you have an i7, which does not show the z270 platform at all, because you must include the all the possiblities, hence a "range" of PCI-Express lanes, rather then "You will get "this" many PCI-Express lanes with z270" as that is a lie, it's "You will get between "this" and "this" many PCI-Express lanes with z270, depending on your CPU"
The only reason to not show the range of capability is to trick people into believing they will get it even with a different arrangement of parts
You sound as if i kicked a puppy, yet i gotta ask, why do a comparison which specifically hinders AMDs platform because of what you left out, if not to make Intels setup seem "more" then it is?
If you want me to be sorry that you left out crucial information when comparing chipset capabilities, either on purpose or on accident, i'm not going to be.
There's already enough people here complaining about how "little" USB ports the AMD platforms have because of all of this misinformation. Don't think we need more.
Please just stop. The comparison is CHIPSET capability. Your complaint is the same as pointing out the 6800K is only capable of 28 PCIe 3.0 lanes and THAT is a limit of the X99 CHIPSET. Which is silly. If I had made the comparison to the X99 platform, maybe you'd have an argument.
Edit...let me phrase it this way, AMD is comparing the Ryzen to both the i7 6900k and the i7 7700 in their media materials. So...
No, it definitely wasn't. That picture clearly shows that z270 platform will perform in that way if you have an i7, which does not show the z270 platform at all, because you must include the all the possiblities, hence a "range" of PCI-Express lanes, rather then "You will get "this" many PCI-Express lanes with z270" as that is a lie, it's "You will get between "this" and "this" many PCI-Express lanes with z270, depending on your CPU"
The only reason to not show the range of capability is to trick people into believing they will get it even with a different arrangement of parts
You sound as if i kicked a puppy, yet i gotta ask, why do a comparison which specifically hinders AMDs platform because of what you left out, if not to make Intels setup seem "more" then it is?
If you want me to be sorry that you left out crucial information when comparing chipset capabilities, either on purpose or on accident, i'm not going to be.
There's already enough people here complaining about how "little" USB ports the AMD platforms have because of all of this misinformation. Don't think we need more.
Please just stop. The comparison is CHIPSET capability. Your complaint is the same as pointing out the 6800K is only capable of 28 PCIe 3.0 lanes and THAT is a limit of the X99 CHIPSET. Which is silly. If I had made the comparison to the X99 platform, maybe you'd have an argument.
Edit...let me phrase it this way, AMD is comparing the Ryzen to both the i7 6900k and the i7 7700 in their media materials. So...
Fox2232
Senior Member
Posts: 11809
Joined: 2012-07-20
Senior Member
Posts: 11809
Joined: 2012-07-20
#5398196 Posted on: 02/26/2017 08:17 AM
Please just stop. The comparison is CHIPSET capability. Your complaint is the same as pointing out the 6800K is only capable of 28 PCIe 3.0 lanes and THAT is a limit of the X99 CHIPSET. Which is silly. If I had made the comparison to the X99 platform, maybe you'd have an argument.
Edit...let me phrase it this way, AMD is comparing the Ryzen to both the i7 6900k and the i7 7700 in their media materials. So...
Well, chipset can connect any number of devices. It is not that different from USB hub.
Only thing which matters to me is bandwidth between chipset and CPU as all those things connected to chipset have to share it.
In case of X370 it is ~4GB/s. And that's probably reason why M.2 connected via chipset is limited to 4*PCIe 2.0. (Situation where one device can eat entire chipset<->CPU bandwidth would be pretty bad.)
Before Z68a intel boards either had SATA3 or USB 3.0. Some boards switched to USB 2.0 mode if you wanted SATA3 and other plainly disabled it.
Even X99 does similar trade offs. does X370 behave in similar way? Yes.
Is X370 OK chipset? Yes. But if there were 6*PCIe 3.0 lanes to CPU, it would be great chipset.
Edit:
3x PCIe 2.0 = 6Gbps
2x USB 3.1 g2 = 20Gbps
1x USB 3.1 g2 = 10Gbps
1x 1G LAN = 1Gbps
4x USB 3.1 g1 = 20Gbps
7x USB 2.0 = 3.4Gbps
6x SATA3 = 24Gbps (switching with M.2/PCIe x4 slot)
Fully saturated X370 would need around 6 + 20 + 10 + 1 + 20 + 3.4 + 24 = 84.4Gbps. But available bandwidth to CPU is only 32Gbps.
What can choke CPU<->X370 connection? Using all 6 SATA3 ports with SSDs and copying data from all them at once to main M.2(which is connected through CPU) and then using at least one USB 3.1 g2.
It is very unlikely scenario for desktop computer. If we instead used X370 connected M.2 + 2* PCIe 2.0 x1 + 1x USB 3.1 g2 we would get to same slight bandwidth limitation (if all used to maximum at same time).
If I take usual use of ports provided by X370, only big concern is actual switching between M.2 and SATA3. As in most cases bandwidth will be sufficient.
Please just stop. The comparison is CHIPSET capability. Your complaint is the same as pointing out the 6800K is only capable of 28 PCIe 3.0 lanes and THAT is a limit of the X99 CHIPSET. Which is silly. If I had made the comparison to the X99 platform, maybe you'd have an argument.
Edit...let me phrase it this way, AMD is comparing the Ryzen to both the i7 6900k and the i7 7700 in their media materials. So...
Well, chipset can connect any number of devices. It is not that different from USB hub.
Only thing which matters to me is bandwidth between chipset and CPU as all those things connected to chipset have to share it.
In case of X370 it is ~4GB/s. And that's probably reason why M.2 connected via chipset is limited to 4*PCIe 2.0. (Situation where one device can eat entire chipset<->CPU bandwidth would be pretty bad.)
Before Z68a intel boards either had SATA3 or USB 3.0. Some boards switched to USB 2.0 mode if you wanted SATA3 and other plainly disabled it.
Even X99 does similar trade offs. does X370 behave in similar way? Yes.
Is X370 OK chipset? Yes. But if there were 6*PCIe 3.0 lanes to CPU, it would be great chipset.
Edit:
3x PCIe 2.0 = 6Gbps
2x USB 3.1 g2 = 20Gbps
1x USB 3.1 g2 = 10Gbps
1x 1G LAN = 1Gbps
4x USB 3.1 g1 = 20Gbps
7x USB 2.0 = 3.4Gbps
6x SATA3 = 24Gbps (switching with M.2/PCIe x4 slot)
Fully saturated X370 would need around 6 + 20 + 10 + 1 + 20 + 3.4 + 24 = 84.4Gbps. But available bandwidth to CPU is only 32Gbps.
What can choke CPU<->X370 connection? Using all 6 SATA3 ports with SSDs and copying data from all them at once to main M.2(which is connected through CPU) and then using at least one USB 3.1 g2.
It is very unlikely scenario for desktop computer. If we instead used X370 connected M.2 + 2* PCIe 2.0 x1 + 1x USB 3.1 g2 we would get to same slight bandwidth limitation (if all used to maximum at same time).
If I take usual use of ports provided by X370, only big concern is actual switching between M.2 and SATA3. As in most cases bandwidth will be sufficient.
thatguy91
Senior Member
Posts: 6643
Joined: 2010-08-27
Senior Member
Posts: 6643
Joined: 2010-08-27
#5398197 Posted on: 02/26/2017 08:28 AM
I believe the only drop from PCI-E 3.0 16x occurs when you are using an APU. If you are using a Zen APU, you are specifically buying it for the fact that it has onboard graphics so a fast discrete card like the GTX 1080 Ti or Vega (for example) is pointless. This is especially true since essentially the same CPU could be had without the graphics in a Zen variant, meaning you are specifically going out of your way to purchase the APU variant over the non-APU one.
That said, you can guarantee that there will be reviews and benchmarks done with AMD Zen APU's with discrete cards like the GTX 1080 or whatever, which I will say now is pointless. The only valid benchmark/review regarding a Zen APU and a discrete card would be if the discrete card could be crossfired (this could be non-traditional crossfiring in terms of process distribution) with the APU, and the test is done as a dual GPU.
I believe the only drop from PCI-E 3.0 16x occurs when you are using an APU. If you are using a Zen APU, you are specifically buying it for the fact that it has onboard graphics so a fast discrete card like the GTX 1080 Ti or Vega (for example) is pointless. This is especially true since essentially the same CPU could be had without the graphics in a Zen variant, meaning you are specifically going out of your way to purchase the APU variant over the non-APU one.
That said, you can guarantee that there will be reviews and benchmarks done with AMD Zen APU's with discrete cards like the GTX 1080 or whatever, which I will say now is pointless. The only valid benchmark/review regarding a Zen APU and a discrete card would be if the discrete card could be crossfired (this could be non-traditional crossfiring in terms of process distribution) with the APU, and the test is done as a dual GPU.
vbetts
Moderator
Posts: 15135
Joined: 2006-07-04
Moderator
Posts: 15135
Joined: 2006-07-04
#5398708 Posted on: 02/27/2017 02:35 PM
The PCIE controller is not on the chipset, it is directly on the CPU die itself.
More or less this was probably to lessen the cost of the chipset, so AMD and their partners can put them out at a bargain price.
This could bottleneck the system if there's too much being used at once on the PCIE lanes...But that would probably take usb3.0 ports, m2 ports, pcie ports, and sata ports all being used at once.
Huh? This looks a bit odd thought. How can their top chip not even support PCIe 3.0?? My Z68 from intel even supported this and that is waaay back. I honestly will take this info with a grain of salt.
The PCIE controller is not on the chipset, it is directly on the CPU die itself.
More or less this was probably to lessen the cost of the chipset, so AMD and their partners can put them out at a bargain price.
This could bottleneck the system if there's too much being used at once on the PCIE lanes...But that would probably take usb3.0 ports, m2 ports, pcie ports, and sata ports all being used at once.
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 8207
Joined: 2008-07-31
What? That's the chart for the Z270 capabilities. I don't get your argument. I'd be surprised if nobody was aware it's i5/i7 compatible. I mean the 'up to' and optional blocks should be a hint. How about a link to a Z270 block diagram from intel that only shows the i5? The point was comparing essentially the 'maximum' capabilities regarding each. Sheesh....
No, it definitely wasn't. That picture clearly shows that z270 platform will perform in that way if you have an i7, which does not show the z270 platform at all, because you must include the all the possiblities, hence a "range" of PCI-Express lanes, rather then "You will get "this" many PCI-Express lanes with z270" as that is a lie, it's "You will get between "this" and "this" many PCI-Express lanes with z270, depending on your CPU"
The only reason to not show the range of capability is to trick people into believing they will get it even with a different arrangement of parts
Next time someone asks for a comparison between two architectures I'll leave it up to you to do. Sorry, "comparison"
You sound as if i kicked a puppy, yet i gotta ask, why do a comparison which specifically hinders AMDs platform because of what you left out, if not to make Intels setup seem "more" then it is?
If you want me to be sorry that you left out crucial information when comparing chipset capabilities, either on purpose or on accident, i'm not going to be.
There's already enough people here complaining about how "little" USB ports the AMD platforms have because of all of this misinformation. Don't think we need more.