Well, I see a lot of port types and numbers around. Why compare them in way so hard to read? Just translate it into bandwidth and that into PCIe 3.0 lanes. CPU has: - 16*PCIe 3.0 for GPUs - 4x USB 3.1 g1 = 20Gbps = 2.5*PCIe 3.0 - 2x SATA3 = 12Gbps = 1.5*PCIe 3.0 - 1x M.2/U.2 full speed = 4*PCIe 3.0 - 4x PCIe 3.0 to chipset (because x370 provides 8*PCIe 2.0 lanes and all that is connected to chipset is shared) So it is: 16 + 2.5 + 1.5 + 4 + 4 = 28 * PCIe 3.0 right on CPU. And that's all that matters as it is question of sharing bandwidth or dedicating it.

This only compares the i7, so it's not that useful unless you are specifically looking at an i7, and seeing how a lot of people have i5s in this forums, if they do not notice this is only for i7, they will be mislead But either way it does not compare the full range of the Z270 since the Z270 does support i5's and lower And it's not clear on the USB ports again either, as it's up to a total of 14 USB ports, all of them can be USB 2.0, but then there would be no 3.0, it's not 10+14

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....

B350 is good enough for me.

Not exactly correct one, if you have an X370 motherboard, you'll have to have a CPU which will increase the USB 3.0 to 10, so effectively, the x370 has 10 USB 3.0 as it is literally impossible to have any configuration be less then 10 For two, the Z270 has a max number of USB of 14, and you can have a selection of up to 10 3.0 and up to 14 2.0. Now, does this mean you could have 10 3.0 and 4 2.0? i'm not sure, using the 10 3.0 might take up all of the what the chipset has set aside bandwidth wise for all i know, but lets just say at most if you had 10 3.0 you could only have 4 2.0. Lets be clear though X370 chipset total USB (between 3.1, 3.0 and 2.0) = 18 Z27- chipset total USB (between 3.1, 3.0 and 2.0) = 14, not 24 which is what your post implies

Intel's ARK is pretty clear - 14 USB ports total, of which 10 can be 3.0. So if you were willing to drop basically all other I/O, you could have 10 USB 3.0 and 4 USB 2.0. That'd be a pretty dumb way to allocate your I/O resources though, so doubt anyone really cares about being able to plug in 10 or 14 USB devices (and if they do, buy a hub). In any event, I was simply trying to make a quick comparison per the OP's request. https://ark.intel.com/products/98089/Intel-Z270-Chipset

Honestly, looking at your "comparison", it's not a useful comparison as it does not include anything that the processors give and you can't run a motherboard without a processor, except you included the PCI-Express aspect of the processors, but didn't include the intel processors that do not provide PCI-Express A correct version of x370 comparison would be: PCIe 3.0 Lanes - X370 = 10-20 (APU vs Ryzen) | Z270 = 24-40 PCIe 2.0 Lanes - X370 = 8 | Z270 = 0 PCIe express lanes max - x370 = 18-28 (APU vs Ryzen) | Z270 = 24-40(i3/i5 vs i7) USB 3.1 Gen 2 - X370 = 2 | Z270 = 0 USB 3.0 - X370 = 10 | Z270 = Up to 10 USB 2.0 - X370 = 6 | Z270 = Up to 14 Total USB - x370 = 18 | Z270 = 14 SATA 6GBit - X370 = 4 | Z270 = 6 SATAe 12GBit - X370 = 2 | Z270 = 0(?) RAID Configuration - X370 = 0/1/10 | Z270 = 0/1/5/10

Sorry my "comparison" isn't up to your standards. I was doing a favor for someone else, and they asked specifically for a comparison to z270, not a z270 plus CPU combination. Adding in the CPU brings in a ton of new variables that would make the comparison difficult to parse. Also I did not include super low end CPUs, nor did I include the "E" class chips and chipsets. Even the lowly i3-7350k has 16 lanes of PCIe 3.0 on the CPU. I'm not going to bother looking at all i3's and Pentiums...but again the "K" series i3, i5 and i7 all have 16 lanes on the CPU (used for dGPU to avoid flooding the DMI. Ryzen is better in this aspect with 20 lanes of PCIe 3.0 from the CPU - you get x16 for your GPU plus 3.0 x4 for an NVME drive. On all current non enthusiast Intel systems, your NVME drives will have to pass through the chipset if you have a discrete graphics card. Next time someone asks for a comparison between two architectures I'll leave it up to you to do. Sorry, "comparison"

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.

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...

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.

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.