Friday, June 7th 2019

MSI CEO: AMD Plans to Stop Being the Value Alternative, X570 Motherboards to be Expensive

MSI's CEO Charles Chiang, quoted by Tom's Hardware at COMPUTEX 2019, laid out what we were already seeing with motherboard designs from all vendors of AMD's X570-based motherboards: pricing is likely increasing across the board, and AMD's market positioning won't be of the alternative, lower-value brand.

As quoted, Chiang said that ""Lots of people ask me, what do you think about today's AMD? I say today's AMD is completely different company compared to two, three, five years ago. They have nice technology and they are there to put the higher spec with the reasonable pricing. But right now they say, "Hey Charles, let's push to marketing to the higher [end]. So let's sell higher-pricing motherboards, higher-spec motherboards, and let's see what will happen in the market. So I don't think that AMD is the company that wants to sell low cost here, low cost there." Which does make sense: AMD isn't in the position of the underdog anymore -at least technology and product-portfolio wise when it comes to consumer CPUs. With better products, comes a desire for higher margins, and a change in direction for a company that was basically forced to almost cut itself out of the market in terms of profits with its previous, non-competitive CPU designs.
Efforts to survive on AMD's part have been immense, with the company severely tightening its belt in all fields, including R&D, in the times leading to the launch of their previous-gen architecture, Bulldozer. And with the way that one architecture panned out in the market, AMD didn't really find a way to dig itself out of the trenches. No like it has with Zen: a lithe, small, highly efficient design that allowed the company to not only make up lost ground on technology and CPU performance but also on profits. That the company wants to price its products in higher segments, alongside their performance improvements and competitiveness against Intel's slow-moving lineup, makes all sorts of sense from a business perspective.
Charles Chiang said that there a multitude of factors contributing to the higher pricing of X570 motherboards: that AMD is planning to charge more for each chipset (compared to the ASMedia-designed X470), but also because of the integration of PCIe 4.0. PCIe 4.0 support has meant a higher-TDp chipset (which has required a throwback to the days of old with active cooling over AMD's chipset, which has increased its TDp up to 10 W compared to the previous gen's X470's 3 W); and because PCIe switches are another best entirely in terms of complexity and power delivery capabilities. All of these add cost, and this cost will end up being passed on to end users (at least partially): as it always is. Source: Tom's Hardware
Add your own comment

151 Comments on MSI CEO: AMD Plans to Stop Being the Value Alternative, X570 Motherboards to be Expensive

#76
Chloe Price
Now that when I started to think, I remember that the last time I had an active cooled chipset, that was a NForce 3 Ultra S939 board. Yeah, with an AGP slot.. Of course I changed that to a Zalman passive heatsink, those were the thing back then.

But, at least I'm pretty sure that these X570 motherboard fans aren't as noisy as ~15 years ago.

Pumper said:

As if X470 are cheap.
Paid 119eur from my MSI X470 board, though this was from Christmas sale. But my point is, you can grab a cheap good board with some luck and good timing.


Metroid said:

So true, my old asus p6t was heatsink only. it cost an arm and a leg but it was high end.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_5_Series

X581TylersburgSLGBT (B2),
SLGMX (B3),
SLH3M (C2)
AC82X58 (IOH)November 2008LGA 1366QPI36× PCIe 2.0 (IOH);
6× PCIe 1.1 (ICH)
YesYesNone6 portsNone12 portsNo28.6 W2

1366 tdp = 28.6 watts and the x570 is only 11 watts.

https://www.asus.com/us/Motherboards/P6T_Deluxe/
Exactly. I had a P6T SE (flashed to P6T) which doesn't have even that much of a beefy cooling like the Deluxe seems to have, and I didn't have any problems running i7-920 @ 4.2GHz without any extra chipset/VRM cooling.
Posted on Reply
#77
Shatun_Bear
ZoneDymo said:

Can you imagine Intel being the value option...
They have to be when they're trying to push old process, inefficient 14nm+++ CPUs whilst their rival has 7nm CPUs on a platform with more advanced features (like PCIE4). Crazy situation tbf.
Posted on Reply
#78
GoldenX
Shatun_Bear said:

They have to be when they're trying to push old process, inefficient 14nm+++ CPUs whilst their rival has 7nm CPUs on a platform with more advanced features (like PCIE4). Crazy situation tbf.
The tortoise and the hare.
Posted on Reply
#79
Metroid
Chloe Price said:

Exactly. I had a P6T SE (flashed to P6T) which doesn't have even that much of a beefy cooling like the Deluxe seems to have, and I didn't have any problems running i7-920 @ 4.2GHz without any extra chipset/VRM cooling.
Those were good times. The value was there, i7 920, the best value x performance cpu of all time to date in cpu history. Hopefully we will have a "good time' like that again.
Posted on Reply
#80
cucker tarlson
Metroid said:

Those were good times. The value was there, i7 920, the best value x performance cpu of all time to date in cpu history. Hopefully we will have a "good time' like that again.
2500K imo
it's not just about longevity,2500k wasn't especially outstandings as far as longevity goes.
it's more about what performance it offered at the price point it was released.
but when it lanuched it could handle high end gpus flawlessly,to the point there was just no real need for i7.
now you want to max out a 2080Ti on a 165hz display you need a friggin 9900K.
Posted on Reply
#81
TheLostSwede
kapone32 said:

Um Intel will have PCI-E 5.0 on their 2020 release.
In what products though? Desktop PCs? Laptops? As those are mainstream products...
I think not. It will be in a few Xeon SKUs to start with and that's it.
Posted on Reply
#82
nemesis.ie
And nothing stopping AMD releasing AM5/DDR5/PCIe 5.0 boards when the time is right either.

As an aside, I see a few posts asking "how good is the X570 chipset for overclocking?" - I don't think the chipset has ANY bearing on this, it's the quality of the board and UEFI that determines that, the chipset is just a fancy peripheral hub with integrated PCIe switch, it's no different than plugging a card in a slot, it just takes 4 lanes from the CPU and connects "a bunch of stuff" to it. It doesn't actually do anything to the CPU settings/clocks etc.
Posted on Reply
#83
kapone32
I am only going to reference WIFI 6. You can buy routers that are 802.11AX but they start at $300 as a minimum and just under $700 here in Canada. The problem is that a Wifi 6 card is a brand new adapteranf cards are usuaslly 1/2 of their compliant router in terms of cost. Wifi 6 should add at least a $50 premium to boards that don't have it.
Posted on Reply
#84
nemesis.ie
What's interesting is that these components integrated on motherboards seem to work out much cheaper, e.g. the 10G Aquantia on an ASRock M/B (price premium) is much cheaper than buying a separate card.
Posted on Reply
#85
kapone32
TheLostSwede said:

In what products though? Desktop PCs? Laptops? As those are mainstream products...
I think not. It will be in a few Xeon SKUs to start with and that's it.
The made an announcement that I understood to mean when they release the 10nm data center products. With the current state, I would not be surprised in the least for them to respond to the all out assault from AMD with a variant of that on the desktop in 2021 or 2022 as they refine the 10nm process. Even if they put it onto the chipset of next Gen desktop boards.

nemesis.ie said:

What's interesting is that these components integrated on motherboards seem to work out much cheaper, e.g. the 10G Aquantia on an ASRock M/B (price premium) is much cheaper than buying a separate card.
[/QUOTE

https://www.newegg.ca/p/N82E16813157835
https://www.newegg.ca/p/N82E16813157834.

Agreed however, as far as I understand, the only difference between the As Rock X470 Taichi vs the Ultimate is the inclusion of a 10 GB Aquantia basically 50% more for that particular component.
Posted on Reply
#86
Metroid
cucker tarlson said:

2500K imo
it's not just about longevity,2500k wasn't especially outstandings as far as longevity goes.
it's more about what performance it offered at the price point it was released.
but when it lanuched it could handle high end gpus flawlessly,to the point there was just no real need for i7.
now you want to max out a 2080Ti on a 165hz display you need a friggin 9900K.
Core i5-2500K
  • SR008 (D2)
43.3 GHz1/2/3/44 × 256 KiB6 MiBHD Graphics 3000850–1100 MHz95 WLGA 1155DMI 2.0January 2011
  • CM8062300833803
  • BX80623I52500K
  • BXC80623I52500K
$216

Core i7-920
  • SLBCH (C0)
  • SLBEJ (D0)
2.67 GHz1/1/1/2[Note 1]44 × 256 KiB8 MiB1 × 4.8 GT/s QPI20×3 × DDR3-10660.8–1.375 V130 WLGA 1366November 2008
  • BX80601920
  • AT80601000741AA
$284

I think is pretty clear the winner here, 4 cores 8 threads in 2008 and at $284.
Posted on Reply
#87
nienorgt
I'm perfectly fine with X570 being costly because it have the specs that back it up.
But I hope that AMD will keep it's value alternatives with the B550 (or whatever they call the B450 replacement) with cheap price and keeping the overclocking feature available for the mass unlike Intel.
Posted on Reply
#89
nemesis.ie
@kapone32

NewEgg are taking the piss I think?

https://www.overclockers.co.uk/asrock-x470-taichi-amd-x470-socket-am4-ddr4-atx-motherboard-mb-167-ak.html

https://www.overclockers.co.uk/asrock-x470-taichi-ultimate-amd-x470-socket-am4-ddr4-atx-motherboard-mb-168-ak.html

£40 difference.

Also notice the price drops? Making room for X570 stock?

They also posted "Ideal for gen 3 Ryzen" for their 4500MHz RAM kit ....

https://www.overclockers.co.uk/team-group-xtreem-8pack-edition-16gb-2x8gb-ddr4-pc4-36000c18-4500mhz-dual-channel-kit-black-my-09a-tg.html

Interesting times. :)
Posted on Reply
#90
yakk
Don't want x570? Then stay with/get x470 with niw CPU. Choice is great when upgrading, something still needing some getting used to again after the CPU dark ages.
Posted on Reply
#91
mstenholm
@kapone32
Did you read down to the CPU compatibility ? No AMD mentioned there ;) We can always hope.
Posted on Reply
#92
Valantar
MAXLD said:

Y. B550's are basically what will dictate if X570's are even worth considering. If they do the same as B450, with boards having good enough VRM/phases, good looks, and whatnot, then most of the 3600X/3700X people will just get a B550 and be happy with it. (I think even if they shipped with current PCI-E 3.0)

Then again, if those nice mid-X570 boards like the Gigabyte X570 Aorus Pro arrive at around $170~$180, then I think people might make the effort. The VRM/phases on those look really solid, according to Buildzoid.
The Aorus Pro is $250.

This really shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. PCIe 4.0 requires higher PCB quality (likely through more layers) than 3.0 to ensure signal integrity, as well as redrivers driving up the BOM. Same goes for RAM traces if motherboard makers want to compete in the >4000MT/s RAM space. Then there's the cost of a large-die chipset that includes a PCIe 4.0 switch. X570 will be more expensive than previous AM4 X*70 series across the board - and that's fine, as it brings a lot to the table.

Hopefully when B550 launches it's a selectively stripped-down option that allows for cheaper boards - ideally maintaining rough feature parity but moving down to a PCIe 3.0 switch - even with less lanes that would still be useful, and a lot cheaper to produce. You'd still get PCIe 4.0 through the PCIe_x16_0 slot and the first m.2 slot (unless motherboard makers screw up the traces entirely), but cut pretty much every other element driving up prices of X570 boards.

GoldenX said:

Meh, I don't care about PCIe 4 anyway. Nothing that has the power to justify being on it is going to be cheap anyway.
Show some more performance numbers, AMD.
bug said:

I'm thinking with lane splitting and everything, you could connect several NVMe drives directly to the CPU. But we'd need NVMe PCIe 4.0 x2 drives instead of the current 3.0 x4 drives first.
I see forward compatibility as the main reason to go X570. Even if I am - despite my best intentions when buying my 1600X - planning to upgrade to an X570 setup a scant two years after my last go around, most people buying a motherboard+CPU combo today ought to plan to keep it for 4 years at the very least (heck, I kept my last setup for 8!). (Also, part of the reason I'm upgrading again is that last time around had me quite budget-limited, and this time around I can go balls-to-the-wall, which will be great for longevity.) AMD has given CPU performance a surprise jolt these past few years, but performance increases are going to flatten out very soon. In 3-4 years, PCIe 4.0 SSDs will be ubiquitous, as will GPUs, and a 3700X (or even a 3600!) is still going to be a good CPU. The main gain of X570 isn't necessarily per-device bandwidth, but total bandwidth and thus the total amount of connectable high-speed devices. It's rather obvious that we'll start seeing PCIe 4.0 x2 SSDs in the coming years, likely at prices somewhere in between current x2 and x4 drives (if not lower as flash prices keep dropping). That makes them a no-brainer for adding storage over time - no real performance sacrifice, but cheaper than x4 drives, and hopefully you'll be able to connect more.

kapone32 said:

Some X570 boards have Wifi 6, 6 to 8 layer PCBs, 10 Gigabit Ethernet and 16 Phase VRM controllers. They will be more costly than X470 simply because of those and other factors.
There, fixed it for you. Only the increase in PCB layers is universal. 10GbE is definitely staying a premium option given that controller chips alone are $50 or more. Those VRM layouts are flagship boards only. And there have been quite a few boards shown off without WiFi.

silentbogo said:

Where did you get 11W estimate? AFAIK the only number I've heard was no less than 15W, and given the thermal density of x570 you'll probably need an active cooling system even at the most optimistic TDP.
11W was the number consistently given by both AMD and partner reps at the AMD event - though sources like that are rarely specifically named and sure don't leave a paper trail. It seems somewhat unclear whether this is average power or max TDP - some have stated one, some the other (with 15W being named the max in the cases where 11W is said to be average). In any case, the TDP is supposed to be slightly lower than the EPYC version of the chipset, but not much, and reportedly it won't throttle down significantly when not in use.
kapone32 said:

Um Intel will have PCI-E 5.0 on their 2020 release.
Server and datacenter only. Likely only the >3000-pin socket designs to begin with too (Xeon Scalable, if I understand their naming correctly), with it possibly trickling down to lower-end Xeon (>2000-pin sockets), HEDT and consumers over the coming years - but there's little reason to expect that to be a quick process. If PCIe 4.0 is driving up motherboard costs, 5.0 will be an utter nightmare.
kapone32 said:

I am only going to reference WIFI 6. You can buy routers that are 802.11AX but they start at $300 as a minimum and just under $700 here in Canada. The problem is that a Wifi 6 card is a brand new adapteranf cards are usuaslly 1/2 of their compliant router in terms of cost. Wifi 6 should add at least a $50 premium to boards that don't have it.
m.2 WiFi cards are usually in the $20 range, pretty much regardless of the standard and performance. PCIe AICs are much more expensive, simply because that's seen as a retail part and is thus sold at "consumer-facing" prices, while the m.2 cards do the same job (arguably more, as PCIe AICs usually don't have bluetooth) but at off-brand/replacement part prices.

What I find interesting is that they're all calling it Intel AX200, when the AX200 is a CNVi part that only works on Intel's newest chipsets - AFAIK, the regular m.2 PCIe version is called the AX201 (at least according to various regulatory agencies) but has yet to be officially launched. I suppose they might have stealth launched it and ditched the differentiated naming - it's pretty much the same product, after all.
Posted on Reply
#93
IceShroom
Valantar said:

In any case, the TDP is supposed to be slightly lower than the EPYC version of the chipset, but not much, and reportedly it won't throttle down significantly when not in use.
EPYC processors and its platform don't have chipset. EPYC processors are full SoC.
And I dont like to pay to Dollar for board in 2019 which dont have Type-C front header.
Posted on Reply
#94
Valantar
IceShroom said:

EPYC processors and its platform don't have chipset. EPYC processors are full SoC.
And I dont like to pay to Dollar for board in 2019 which dont have Type-C front header.
Regular desktop Ryzen is also a full SoC - the chipset is an optional add-on for additional I/O beyond what's integrated into the die. The A300 and X300 "chipsets" are really BIOS settings for not having an external chipset, more or less. I'm also reasonably sure EPYC has all SATA and other non-PCIe I/O disabled for current designs (unlike Ryzen) - at least their datasheets don't mention it at all, making a "chipset" (a secondary southbridge, really) a useful and "cheap" (in terms of I/O) solution to adding SATA and other controllers. AMD themselves have stated that the X570 chipset is based off an enterprise design.
Posted on Reply
#95
medi01
Did MSI CEO start working on how to get Intel marketshare back, or it's an unrelated comment?

AMD's gross margins are at 40%.
Intel/Nvidia's at 60%, on top of having times bigger market shares.

AMD must earn more, to be viable long term. R&D isn't free.
Posted on Reply
#96
Assimilator
TheGuruStud said:

The super shill days of shrimpi and toms. I still have a bad taste in my mouth. Quite a few of the big sites LOVED those synthetics, b/c it made netburst look good. Of course, they were as accurate as a Flat Earthers calling NASA fake.

Core2 systems were too pricey. I OCed the cheapo athlons in many gaming PCs and they performed flawlessly for many years. (Rinse and repeat with phenom II and C2D).
Wow, you're still butthurt about the performance of Conroe? That's a long time to be carrying resentment around, even for a fanboy.

nemesis.ie said:

What's interesting is that these components integrated on motherboards seem to work out much cheaper, e.g. the 10G Aquantia on an ASRock M/B (price premium) is much cheaper than buying a separate card.
Uh, yeah, because the mobo manufacturers buy in bulk and negotiate discounts.
Posted on Reply
#97
EarthDog
Eskimonster said:

If the support is premium for the quality stuffs sold is there no arguments from me, i dont mind paying a bit more for my merchandise with a service included.
Support is no different than before.... price is just higher.

NdMk2o1o said:

I expect there to be a large selection of x570 motherboards starting at quite low prices, say at the top end of b550 boards (if they actually come into fruition) with incremental incrseases from your lower end, mid range high end and enthusiast, then you have the ridiculous watercooled all singing all dancing premium £1.5k boards that about 10 people will buy :p
What is quite low? IIRC, asrocks cheapest x570 is $199.
Posted on Reply
#98
nemesis.ie
@Assimilator I didn't mean interesting in the sense of "why is that" I meant it's interesting in the sense that you can save some money. ;)
Posted on Reply
#99
lexluthermiester
RichF said:

(Note, the board below isn't ideal but it's still better than some of the recent designs.)

[IMG alt="124497"]https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/attachments/gigabyte-board-jpg.124497/[/IMG]
That was an excellent board, what you talking about?
Posted on Reply
#100
nemesis.ie
I assumed @RichF meant there is room for improvement, not that's it's not excellent.

It could have the slots moved around a bit and the colour scheme is definitely "not ideal".

I think you are reading too much into the way people phrase things.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment