feel less entusiasted... 🙁 Put blue in place of red and it might look as an Intel's chipset preview, and not only because of the name scheme. I was expecting more from AMD (from the X mainly) with all the hype around the company right now. On other hand it's only about chipset... Company will unlock OC and add more feature with extra chip for sure.

Hmmmm, no RAID 5...

I was really hoping to see a Quad Channel option. I know the difference between 2 and 4 channel is not an issue in Most real world applications, not even a difference at all in most cases. I believe it would make a big difference to some things I personally sometimes do relating to cryptography and was planning on building my next system with a leaning towards this. I've not actually tested the effect of memory bandwidth on such large data sets held in memory, just always pushed for the most bandwidth I could squeeze out of my system. The option would have been nice to play with though 🙂

I was really hoping to see a Quad Channel option. I know the difference between 2 and 4 channel is not an issue in Most real world applications, not even a difference at all in most cases. I believe it would make a big difference to some things I personally sometimes do relating to cryptography and was planning on building my next system with a leaning towards this. I've not actually tested the effect of memory bandwidth on such large data sets held in memory, just always pushed for the most bandwidth I could squeeze out of my system. The option would have been nice to play with though 🙂

It would have made a difference with their APU lineup, but at the same time we're talking costs here and like you said, not much of a difference between the two. I'm excited for this though. I just got a new laptop since my mobo is kaput right now, but now I'm thinking I'm building a Zen machine when the time comes!

I am just glad that this is looking to be better zen bulldozer.

It would have made a difference with their APU lineup, but at the same time we're talking costs here and like you said, not much of a difference between the two. I'm excited for this though. I just got a new laptop since my mobo is kaput right now, but now I'm thinking I'm building a Zen machine when the time comes!

AMD are playing a smart game at the moment and doing very well for it, I hope they keep this momentum 🙂 Me too, I am waiting on Zen to hit laptops and choosing a good one for one of my family ...and perhaps one for myself too ^^

:3eyes: looks weird.... then... 16 PCIe 3.0 lanes from Zen and 16 from x370 chipset? in that case the CPU must provide 24 lanes to the chipset (avoid bottlenecks)

It's looking more and more like if you want full featured mITX gonna have to stick with Intel. SMH!

It's looking more and more like if you want full featured mITX gonna have to stick with Intel. SMH!

There will be some, AMD made the Nano and that really cool looking compact water cooled PC, they will for sure want to produce a fully AMD version of that thing this time out 😉

The B350 seems to have all that I really care about. I just hope to see it in mini ITX.

There will be some, AMD made the Nano and that really cool looking compact water cooled PC, they will for sure want to produce a fully AMD version of that thing this time out 😉

http://www.guru3d.com/index.php?ct=news&action=file&id=18298 X300 is clearly stated to be for SFF. X300 is not full featured.

Good point, I overlooked those while assuming board partners would tweak the main chipsets onto a mini ITX board. Though not full featured as you mention, it looks like it could still get a decent feature set, looks unconfirmed atm. We will see I guess

I don't get where the 32 PCIe lanes number is coming from. According to the slides, the CPU provides 16 PCIe 3.0 lanes and the X370 chipset provides 8 PCIe 2.0 lanes. So if you pair a Ryzen processor with a X370 mobo you will have 24 total PCIe lanes, 16 of which are Gen 3 and 8 are Gen 2. Where is the 32 number coming from?

PCI-E Disapointment Wow I'm pretty disapointed in the number of PCI-E lanes here. So you get PCI-E 3.0 x16 from the CPU - that's your video card. From the Chipset you get PCI-E 2.0 x8 lanes, which is essentially the equivalent of x4 lanes of 3.0, except obviously it's slower max speed. That means with a GPU and an NVME drive you're limited to PCI-E 2.0 speeds and an absolute maximum of two drives, with no other add in cards. This is their top of the line enthusiast product?!? Also I'm confused by the CPU slide - It shows 16 lanes of 3.0, but under I/O it also shows 2 SATA + 1 x2 NVME, 2 SATA + x2 PCIe or simply 1 x4 NVME. So are we really getting 20 PCI-E lanes from the CPU - x16 plus the I/O? If that's the case, then at best you'd get: GPU at full x16 via processor x4 3.0 NVME via processor x8 2.0 via chipset Either way, that looks pretty underwhelming. 8 core/16 thread CPUs that are completely starved of PCIe 3.0 lanes. Do we know what speed the link is between the chipset and CPU (as in Intel's DMI)?

@ChicagoDave I get the impression this isn't actually their intended enthusiast chipset, but for the time being that's what it is. Their chipsets from 5 years ago were relatively more capable than this. But supposing you're right about the best case scenario, I don't see the problem. Remember, even if this will be the best chipset AMD will release for a while, it is still plenty sufficient for the target audience, which I'm guessing is enthusiasts on a budget. There are almost no products out there (including high-end GPUs) that will saturate PCIe 2.0 @ 16x. Most motherboards will evenly divide their PCIe lanes among devices. That being said, in the unlikely event you have two NVME drives (that must halve their bandwidth) and are bottlenecked by synthetic benchmarks, in real-world scenarios you will not see any difference at all. All that being said, let's use a full-size ATX motherboard as an example. Let's say it has: * 2x PCIe 3.0 @ 16x (that run at 8x when using two GPUs) * 4x PCIe 2.0 @ 1x * 2x M.2 slots @ 4x * Maybe 1 empty bay above the 1st 16x slot (seems to be common these days) If you had a dual GPU setup, you would likely have two of your 1x slots covered up (since most GPUs are dual-slot). You use two M.2 SSDs which operate at 2x (again, should have no impact on real-world performance). You use one accessible 1x slot for a discrete sound card, and the other one for wifi. You should have no problems whatsoever running a system without any noticeable bottlenecking, and there are still some PCIe 2.0 lanes to spare.

I believe the full CPUs give 2 x 16 lanes.

Hmmmm, no RAID 5...

Also only 4 SATA ports I need a minimum of 6 and 8 would be more helpful 2x 120GB SSD's in raid0 4x 2TB HDD's can't use my BR Drive 🙁 If I had unlimited monetary resources I'd replace the HDD's with 1 or 2 big HDD's but I don't have that sorta cash laying round

Don't the CPUs themselves have nvme/sata/usb etc? The rest goes to the chipset. This is Bristol Ridge, but it's using the same B350 chipset: http://images.anandtech.com/doci/10705/7th%20Gen%20Block%20Diagram%20Logo.png Zen probably has even more lanes and io on the CPU itself, if anything, io latencies should be significantly reduced.

Wow I'm pretty disapointed in the number of PCI-E lanes here. So you get PCI-E 3.0 x16 from the CPU - that's your video card. From the Chipset you get PCI-E 2.0 x8 lanes, which is essentially the equivalent of x4 lanes of 3.0, except obviously it's slower max speed. That means with a GPU and an NVME drive you're limited to PCI-E 2.0 speeds and an absolute maximum of two drives, with no other add in cards. This is their top of the line enthusiast product?!? Also I'm confused by the CPU slide - It shows 16 lanes of 3.0, but under I/O it also shows 2 SATA + 1 x2 NVME, 2 SATA + x2 PCIe or simply 1 x4 NVME. So are we really getting 20 PCI-E lanes from the CPU - x16 plus the I/O? If that's the case, then at best you'd get: GPU at full x16 via processor x4 3.0 NVME via processor x8 2.0 via chipset Either way, that looks pretty underwhelming. 8 core/16 thread CPUs that are completely starved of PCIe 3.0 lanes. Do we know what speed the link is between the chipset and CPU (as in Intel's DMI)?

I'm not sure someone understands the difference between PCI-Express 2.0 and 3.0, at least the significance of it. Most graphics cards don't even saturate 2.0, wtf else do you need that would be more intensive then a graphics card? Now, for SLI and crossfire, sure i get that, but i find it funny that most of the people complaining, aren't even currently doing SLI or crossfire.... And even then, you're not likely to saturate it...

@ChicagoDave I get the impression this isn't actually their intended enthusiast chipset, but for the time being that's what it is. Their chipsets from 5 years ago were relatively more capable than this. But supposing you're right about the best case scenario, I don't see the problem. Remember, even if this will be the best chipset AMD will release for a while, it is still plenty sufficient for the target audience, which I'm guessing is enthusiasts on a budget. There are almost no products out there (including high-end GPUs) that will saturate PCIe 2.0 @ 16x. Most motherboards will evenly divide their PCIe lanes among devices. That being said, in the unlikely event you have two NVME drives (that must halve their bandwidth) and are bottlenecked by synthetic benchmarks, in real-world scenarios you will not see any difference at all. All that being said, let's use a full-size ATX motherboard as an example. Let's say it has: * 2x PCIe 3.0 @ 16x (that run at 8x when using two GPUs) * 4x PCIe 2.0 @ 1x * 2x M.2 slots @ 4x * Maybe 1 empty bay above the 1st 16x slot (seems to be common these days) If you had a dual GPU setup, you would likely have two of your 1x slots covered up (since most GPUs are dual-slot). You use two M.2 SSDs which operate at 2x (again, should have no impact on real-world performance). You use one accessible 1x slot for a discrete sound card, and the other one for wifi. You should have no problems whatsoever running a system without any noticeable bottlenecking, and there are still some PCIe 2.0 lanes to spare.

Exactly, 100% agree in all fronts. I think people have this idea that "more is better, even if i can't fully use it" ... But realistically people are forgetting that if a motherboard manufacturer wants to put more SATA ports and etc. on a motherboard then the chipset allows, they can, and will. Take 990FX, it's 5, almost 6 years old. Only, technically, supports: PCI-Express 2.0 USB 2.0 No support for m.2 among other things Yet, there are motherboards out there such as the GIGABYTE GA-990FX-Gaming AM3+ AMD 990FX, which has: PCI-Express 3.0 Not only USB 3.0, but also 3.1 m.2 support absolutely among other things So to look at these chipset features and completely disregard what the motherboard manufacturers will do is a bit ridiculous. But i'll admit, i am confused. People are looking at this chipset and thinking it is so much worse then intels, yet i'm looking up intels chipsets and not seeing a whole lot of difference...

Also only 4 SATA ports I need a minimum of 6 and 8 would be more helpful 2x 120GB SSD's in raid0 4x 2TB HDD's can't use my BR Drive 🙁 If I had unlimited monetary resources I'd replace the HDD's with 1 or 2 big HDD's but I don't have that sorta cash laying round

you can connect SATA on SATAe, so 6 port