Differences seem to be within 2% margin of error. Way to go charging 200$ more.

At least with AMD you can run this top end CPU on a cheaper motherboard. Intel gives you no choice

OMG... Game changer here!

fantaskarsef:

Differences seem to be within 2% margin of error. Way to go charging 200$ more.

Might be a valid non crying statement if only cpu performance was the only thing one buys a motherboard for. Yes board makers are greedy, and out of touch. Steves Gamer Nexus video about this last week proves this. But saying what you did off one factor is pure ignorance and such a narrow minded take of price of a board.

Agonist:

Might be a valid non crying statement if only cpu performance was the only thing one buys a motherboard for. Yes board makers are greedy, and out of touch. Steves Gamer Nexus video about this last week proves this. But saying what you did off one factor is pure ignorance and such a narrow minded take of price of a board.

I think he meant the performance was a 2% margin of error. Considering it isn't hard to find AM5 boards that are over $200 more expensive than A620, there is nothing ignorant about what he said. Sure, A620 lacks a lot of features, but as discussed in many other threads: most people aren't using all those features. This is particularly true as people move to triple-slot GPUs, a single large M.2 drive, and no external devices needing USB bandwidth beyond 5Gbps. When you consider X3D chips do not have much OC headroom, the lack of overclocking in A620 is practically a non-issue.

schmidtbag:

I think he meant the performance was a 2% margin of error. Considering it isn't hard to find AM5 boards that are over $200 more expensive than A620, there is nothing ignorant about what he said. Sure, A620 lacks a lot of features, but as discussed in many other threads: most people aren't using all those features. This is particularly true as people move to triple-slot GPUs, a single large M.2 drive, and no external devices needing USB bandwidth beyond 5Gbps. When you consider X3D chips do not have much OC headroom, the lack of overclocking in A620 is practically a non-issue.

All of what you said is true but i can`t understand pairing an expensive high end CPU with a cheap entry level MB... Personally, i`m not a fan of budget boards due to several reasons, so i prefer to pay more for a better MB. The problem is that decent MBs start at 200/250€ right now!...

H83:

All of what you said is true but i can`t understand pairing an expensive high end CPU with a cheap entry level MB... Personally, i`m not a fan of budget boards due to several reasons, so i prefer to pay more for a better MB. The problem is that decent MBs start at 200/250€ right now!...

I'm a firm believer of buy what you need. To buy more than you'll ever need is usually just a sign of wanting people to care about you more than they really do. Key word there is "ever" because I think it totally makes sense to buy more with the intention of upgrading later. However, buying with the intention of future-proofing is typically a lost cause. So, if an A620 board does everything you need but costs $200 less, who cares if it is entry level? This of course is assuming you're getting a board that can reliably keep up. Buying a budget board where the VRMs are just going to burn out in a year is a stupid idea. If it doesn't do everything you need, there is no shame at all in paying more for something that can. If you spend more on a board "because it isn't entry level" yet you don't (and may never) use its additional features, that's fiscal irresponsibility and perhaps a sign of caring too much what other people think.

schmidtbag:

I'm a firm believer of buy what you need. To buy more than you'll ever need is usually just a sign of wanting people to care about you more than they really do. Key word there is "ever" because I think it totally makes sense to buy more with the intention of upgrading later. However, buying with the intention of future-proofing is typically a lost cause. So, if an A620 board does everything you need but costs $200 less, who cares if it is entry level? This of course is assuming you're getting a board that can reliably keep up. Buying a budget board where the VRMs are just going to burn out in a year is a stupid idea. If it doesn't do everything you need, there is no shame at all in paying more for something that can. If you spend more on a board "because it isn't entry level" yet you don't (and may never) use its additional features, that's fiscal irresponsibility and perhaps a sign of caring too much what other people think.

How do you know what you need 3 years into the future? When I bought a X370 I did not need a NVME disk, more then 16GB 3200 memory, or more then 120W TDP CPU. Now I am at or past all those limits with my board and glad I did not cheap out when I bought it at launch. How people feel about purchasing hardware is very individual and sometimes it is peace of mind to have the ability in the future, especially on the long time supported AM4 and hopefully AM5 socket. I have used more then 5 hours picking out a new AM5 board with features I do not need today, but want to have the possibility to do it, if needed in 2-3 years time, without having to replace the board.

TLD LARS:

How do you know what you need 3 years into the future? When I bought a X370 I did not need a NVME disk, more then 16GB 3200 memory, or more then 120W TDP CPU. Now I am at or past all those limits with my board and glad I did not cheap out when I bought it at launch. How people feel about purchasing hardware is very individual and sometimes it is peace of mind to have the ability in the future, especially on the long time supported AM4 and hopefully AM5 socket. I have used more then 5 hours picking out a new AM5 board with features I do not need today, but want to have the possibility to do it, if needed in 2-3 years time, without having to replace the board.

If you got an A320 board, the CPU was the only real upgrade limitation. A320 supports NVMe (so no matter what you bought, you could have still upgraded to that) and up to 64GB of RAM. If you wanted faster RAM, well, most A320 boards didn't support 3200MHz in the first place (I think it was supported later on). If you felt it was likely you'd have upgraded your CPU at some point, that goes back to my other point: if you feel likely that you will upgrade, you will want to spend extra. In other words, either an A320 wouldn't have had an option for you, or, you could have deliberately cheaped out and do a more serious upgrade 2-3 years later, still carrying over some of your old hardware.

schmidtbag:

If you got an A320 board, the CPU was the only real upgrade limitation. A320 supports NVMe (so no matter what you bought, you could have still upgraded to that) and up to 64GB of RAM. If you wanted faster RAM, well, most A320 boards didn't support 3200MHz in the first place (I think it was supported later on). If you felt it was likely you'd have upgraded your CPU at some point, that goes back to my other point: if you feel likely that you will upgrade, you will want to spend extra. In other words, either an A320 wouldn't have had an option for you, or, you could have deliberately cheaped out and do a more serious upgrade 2-3 years later, still carrying over some of your old hardware.

If I bought a A320 instead of the X370 at launch, I would not have been able to run my 1700 overclocked, so I would have needed to buy a 1800x to have the same performance as my 1700 had, so already there it was cheaper to buy a X370 and 1700, then to buy a A320 and 1800x.

TLD LARS:

If I bought a A320 instead of the X370 at launch, I would not have been able to run my 1700 overclocked, so I would have needed to buy a 1800x to have the same performance as my 1700 had, so already there it was cheaper to buy a X370 and 1700, then to buy a A320 and 1800x.

Exactly my point - you already had criteria incompatible with the A320, so, it's not even a point of discussion. You would have had to buy a better board, either because of what you wanted to use (either for CPU or RAM frequencies), because of overclocking, or because it seems you would have inevitably wanted to do an incremental upgrade, so an A320 would have never made sense.

the unasked question is how long a person intends to keep a system and/or for what purpose. for a gaming only rig an A 620 mobo makes perfect sense with a 7800X3D if gaming is all it's asked to do. at which point it's a console killer (not by price). this is especially pertinent if the owner is going to keep it at least 5 years for mixed use and forward compatibility the B 650 platform is all the majority of consumers would need with the "E" having enhanced connectivity and potent tweak-ability. the X670 is lovely and all of that but it's unneccessary, with the "E" even more so but if the user plans on upgrading the cpu, these boards may hold the best value over time with feature sets that will become more common (pcie 5.0 for gaming and storage). but for today it's mainly for the bling - even if you OC simply because all AM5 mobos except A 620 have beefy VRMs that are designed to OC even the sub -$200 B 650 has 8 -12 phase power supplies

schmidtbag:

I'm a firm believer of buy what you need. To buy more than you'll ever need is usually just a sign of wanting people to care about you more than they really do. Key word there is "ever" because I think it totally makes sense to buy more with the intention of upgrading later. However, buying with the intention of future-proofing is typically a lost cause. So, if an A620 board does everything you need but costs $200 less, who cares if it is entry level? This of course is assuming you're getting a board that can reliably keep up. Buying a budget board where the VRMs are just going to burn out in a year is a stupid idea. If it doesn't do everything you need, there is no shame at all in paying more for something that can. If you spend more on a board "because it isn't entry level" yet you don't (and may never) use its additional features, that's fiscal irresponsibility and perhaps a sign of caring too much what other people think.

Don`t worry, i don`t buy hardware, or any other stuff, because of what others think, i buy it because i`m a PC gamer who likes good hardware. But talking from personal experience, i`ve learned the hard way that buying cheap hardware is normally more expensive than buying pricier and better one. Normally the cheaper hardware lacks support for some stuff i need or it`s not good enough for certain parts. For example, my first board was a cheap Asus board, a P5Q-E i think, i had to replace it after a few months... Then my next board was a P5Q Deluxe, amazing board that i still have around, lasted me 6 years. Then i bought my current Asus Z270-F ROG Strix gamig, a very nice board but nothing compared to the Deluxe, i`ve been using for 5/6 years. As for features, i don`t use most of them but it`s better to have them than not. And a good onboard solution is mandatory. All this to say that good boards are expensive at first but become cheap in the long run. I apply the same logic to other parts, like GPUs, i prefer to pay more for a GPU with more quality and a better cooling solution than a cheaper. With this i`m not critizing those who buy cheap MBs to go with good CPUs, i just don`t think it makes sense. Just like buying a 7800x3d to pair with a 3070/6800 also doesn`t make sense to me, but this is my opinion of course.

H83:

But talking from personal experience, i`ve learned the hard way that buying cheap hardware is normally more expensive than buying pricier and better one. Normally the cheaper hardware lacks support for some stuff i need or it`s not good enough for certain parts.

Absolutely, but there's a difference between entry level/low-end, affordable, and cheap (as in, cheaply made). An A620 is an entry level board, but that doesn't inherently mean it is affordable or cheap. It's priced similarly to a B550, which is an overall better board, suggesting the A620 isn't really that affordable. A620 boards are the most likely to be cheap, but again: not inherently. You can have boards with high-end chipsets that are cheap; my X370 board is certainly cheap, and I know many AM4 MSI boards early on were pretty cheap. Gigabyte tends to have at least 2 revisions for their boards: a good one for reviewers and early adopters, and another with cheaper components. The unfortunate reality is, it's not always so easy to tell if a board is made cheaply. There are some telltale signs but sometimes it's just luck. A620 boards are more likely to be cheap, but it doesn't mean they all will be. So - if you have an A620 board with a VRM heatsink, good quality capacitors, nice attention to detail, etc, it's probably fine to pair with a 7800X3D.

All this to say that good boards are expensive at first but become cheap in the long run.

So long as you're not pushing the board past its rated limits and it is kept in a comfortable climate, just about any board will last decades. Expensive boards are just going to be far more tolerant, but even then, not always. Back in 2010, I had a $250 890FX motherboard; pretty expensive for its time. It had a lot of great features but it died, twice. The warranty replaced the first one but the second one died a couple years ago after heavy use. For both boards, you could see some discoloration on the PCB where the VRMs sat on the other side, despite the fact this board had a hefty VRM heatsink, even with a heatpipe. I had it actively cooled too, and my OC was nothing extreme. Both boards died the same way. Sure, it probably lived a lot longer than a budget board with a similar OC, but did it last twice as long as a board half the price? I would argue it didn't.

I apply the same logic to other parts, like GPUs, i prefer to pay more for a GPU with more quality and a better cooling solution than a cheaper.

That makes a little more sense, considering GPUs will vary their performance based on temperature. Better cooling solutions also means they ought to run quieter. However, if you're going to swap out the heatsink and the VRMs aren't crap, might as well buy something cheaper.

Just like buying a 7800x3d to pair with a 3070/6800 also doesn`t make sense to me, but this is my opinion of course.

That I completely agree with, because the whole point of getting an X3D is to squeeze in as much performance as you can. Games are already heavily GPU bottlenecked, so it makes no sense to get a GPU that absolutely will be a bottleneck and pair it with a CPU that is wasting cycles. I think the point we can both agree upon is it never makes sense to pair a product with something else that will hold back its potential. So, if a 7800X3D were to lose 10% of its performance on an A620, it wouldn't make sense at all to make that pairing. Since such a chipset does not appear to have any significant impact, I'd say it's fine, so long as the motherboard it is attached to isn't built to fail in 3 years.

Well, it seems we have different opinions regarding this issue, so we`ll have to agree on disagree, even if we both know that you`re wrong and i`m right.:p:D