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

#126
Metroid
Dave65 said:

Think id rather hear that from AMD, not MSI!
you will hear loud and clear if amd prices the 3950x for $999 hehe
Posted on Reply
#127
moproblems99
TheLostSwede said:

That we know so far...
X570 also gives you more peripheral connectivity and a faster chipset/CPU interface.
Well we can't know what we don't know can we? If ifs and buts were candy and nuts....

More connectivity: great!
Faster chipset interface: how much does it matter?
PCIE4: doesn't exactly matter right now.

Unless something massive changes, I don't see any reason that 400 series boards aren't still a really good option.
Posted on Reply
#128
Valantar
Turmania said:

Normally, competition is good for consumers. In this case with AMD/Intel and Nvdia they bring the prices up.strange industry this is.
It still is. If AMD is moving to matching prices compared to Intel's Z390 boards - or even exceeding them somewhat - they're doing so while providing a dramatically better and more future-proof featureset (unless, that is, what you need is just a lot of PCIe regardless of speed, in which case Intel's chipsets are better).
Vya Domus said:

The problem is the mob mentality of needing to own the absolute highest end motherboard and being fear mongered into doing the same by clueless "enthusiasts". How many times have you seen on tech forums people writing things along the lines of : "oh don't touch that board because it will go up in flames with those VRMs, here buy this top of the line board instead".

Everything up until now points to X570 being an unnecessary addition for the most part. Intel for example understands very well the fact that high end boards are redundant so they've done the only thing left to ensure that their newest chipsets remain relevant no matter what : locking important features such as over clocking and restricting new CPUs being used on other chipsets.
You're right about the mob mentality part - the DIY PC community definitely tends towards rabid consumerism and near-deification of high-end parts regardless of perceptible or even measurable real-world differences (just look at how gung-ho people can be about needing ultra quality in their games), and we all stand to gain from a more sensible approach to what hardware is actually useful and necessary for our use cases. I don't quite see that as making X570 unnecessary, though - it's a flagship platform with never before seen features. Those are rarely immediately useful, but platforms like this are necessary to bring production costs for new tech down and ensure its adoption so that lower-end products can start prioritizing said new tech in the future. I'd say AMD's "exclusive" high-end features of additional PCIe 4.0 and CF/SLI beats out Intel's similar designation of OC'ing and CF/SLI. OCing doesn't make much sense on the high end unless you're a competitive overclocker, and has much more of an impact lower down the CPU product stack. PCIe 4.0 on the other hand is currently not very useful, but will be for people waiting for new SSDs, and for people wanting to make a somewhat future-proof purchase.
dicktracy said:

Fits well with the narrative of AMD abandoning their budget fanbase. I just hope we'll get a 64 cores TR under $3k lol
A $700 high-clocked 16-core CPU is cheap even by 2019 standards. I don't get why people are clamoring for 64-core TR, though. What non-enterprise workloads will that be useful for?
Posted on Reply
#129
kapone32
moproblems99 said:

That's true, but you still have the option of X470 and B450. That is likely they direction I will be headed while the 5 series mobos figure themselves out. It seems the only thing you lose is PCIE4 while XFR and PBO are the same among series. 5 and 4
The issue I have with that is that in today Canada the B450 and X470 boards are so expensive. I bought a As rock B450 Pro 4 for $89.99 after $30 rebate about 5 months ago and now the price is $144.99 that is exactly what I paid for the XX470 Master SLI/AC around the same time. Based on that price my thought process is that the cheapest X570 boards will be at least $300 CAD e.g. the Asrock X570 top baord at $1000 Us would be $1324 CAD. I expect that we will see most X570 boards north of $300 here in Canada.

https://www.newegg.ca/p/pl?d=AMD+X470&N=-1&isNodeId=1&Submit=ENE&DEPA=0&Order=BESTMATCH

As you can see on this link that the cheap X470 boards are under $200 Canadian but anything half decent is at least $250 if not north of $300. Even the Crosshair has one listing for $650 CAD.
Posted on Reply
#130
moproblems99
kapone32 said:

The issue I have with that is that in today Canada the B450 and X470 boards are so expensive. I bought a As rock B450 Pro 4 for $89.99 after $30 rebate about 5 months ago and now the price is $144.99 that is exactly what I paid for the XX470 Master SLI/AC around the same time. Based on that price my thought process is that the cheapest X570 boards will be at least $300 CAD e.g. the Asrock X570 top baord at $1000 Us would be $1324 CAD. I expect that we will see most X570 boards north of $300 here in Canada.

https://www.newegg.ca/p/pl?d=AMD+X470&N=-1&isNodeId=1&Submit=ENE&DEPA=0&Order=BESTMATCH

As you can see on this link that the cheap X470 boards are under $200 Canadian but anything half decent is at least $250 if not north of $300. Even the Crosshair has one listing for $650 CAD.
That is a Canadian problem and not systemic of board makers or AMD. The price of the ASRock B450 Pro south of your border is $79.99 with no rebate.

https://www.newegg.com/p/pl?Submit=ENE&IsNodeId=1&N=100007625%20601311650%20601318817
Posted on Reply
#131
kapone32
TheLostSwede said:

Not the case, at least not from what I know. The 12 core part is apparently so far the best overclocker, but that is based on a small sample size, since there are only so many chips in circulation right now.
Well according to AMD the boost clock on the 3900X is 4.6, while the 16 core according to the image provided is 4.7 GHZ

moproblems99 said:

That is a Canadian problem and not systemic of board makers or AMD. The price of the ASRock B450 Pro south of your border is $79.99 with no rebate.

https://www.newegg.com/p/pl?Submit=ENE&IsNodeId=1&N=100007625 601311650 601318817
I know and there is envy on this side of this border, that you guys get gear for such a decent price. I was only talking about Canada in terms of the cost of X570 boards.
Posted on Reply
#132
Shatun_Bear
TheLostSwede said:

Not the case, at least not from what I know. The 12 core part is apparently so far the best overclocker, but that is based on a small sample size, since there are only so many chips in circulation right now.
So where is this '5ghz' 16-core CPU you were claiming was being shown behind closed doors? This leak from an actual reputable source which I believe has the 16-core as 3.6Ghz base clock, 4.7Ghz boost.
Posted on Reply
#133
bug
Shatun_Bear said:

So where is this '5ghz' 16-core CPU you were claiming was being shown behind closed doors? This leak from an actual reputable source which I believe has the 16-core as 3.6Ghz base clock, 4.7Ghz boost.
If the retail part does 4.7GHz, a good overclocker should be able to break the 5GHz barrier. Nothing unbelievable here.
Posted on Reply
#134
kapone32
bug said:

If the retail part does 4.7GHz, a good overclocked should be able to break the 5GHz barrier. Nothing unbelievable here.
Agreed especially with water cooling
Posted on Reply
#135
Shatun_Bear
bug said:

If the retail part does 4.7GHz, a good overclocker should be able to break the 5GHz barrier. Nothing unbelievable here.
The claim was 5Ghz boost clock CPU not overclocking. And when people talk overclocking, they mean all-core. This CPU is 16-core, so that will rule out 5Ghz all-core, so that doesn't explain the rumours either.
Posted on Reply
#136
B-Real
You can still buy the cheap B450 and not too espensive X470 mobos for the very well priced Zen2 CPUs, so I don't get the meaning of this.
Posted on Reply
#137
moproblems99
Shatun_Bear said:

The claim was 5Ghz boost clock CPU not overclocking. And when people talk overclocking, they mean all-core. This CPU is 16-core, so that will rule out 5Ghz all-core, so that doesn't explain the rumours either.
If Intel pulls out some competition for it you may just see it.
Posted on Reply
#139
TheLostSwede
Shatun_Bear said:

So where is this '5ghz' 16-core CPU you were claiming was being shown behind closed doors? This leak from an actual reputable source which I believe has the 16-core as 3.6Ghz base clock, 4.7Ghz boost.
Ah, back putting words in my "mouth" again? I said the was a 5GHz part, I never mentioned core count.

Shatun_Bear said:

The claim was 5Ghz boost clock CPU not overclocking. And when people talk overclocking, they mean all-core. This CPU is 16-core, so that will rule out 5Ghz all-core, so that doesn't explain the rumours either.
FYI, the 16 core has been clocked to 5.5GHz (all cores), but unfortunately using LN2. This was a while ago, but it was not something I've mentioned before, as it's not a useful metric.
Posted on Reply
#140
nemesis.ie
@La Menthe Actually, it's not massively off 40% single core gain- ~15% IPC uplift and then put ~12% clock speed improvement on top: That's about 30%. Plus they may purposely be keeping the clocks at "sane" levels. Add another 5% for OC (assuming it will do it) and you have 37%.

I'm not saying it is 40%, but it may be a lot closer than you might think.

It's also quite possible that the lower silicon quality chiplets have been used in desktop, maybe they found that the lower bins were actually still very good so put them in the high-end desktop parts instead of keeping them for Epyc/TR. Maybe the TR parts will be even better or there are also even better ones being slowly binned to release another tier of parts.

How about R10 (RFX?) with 5+GHz boost at a later date?

We just don't know and whinging about a 10% deficit versus RUMOURS when we are seeing such amazing value versus what was available 2 years ago (and even current pricing from the competition) seems a little bit unfair.

We also don't know yet if (maybe only on X570) if XFR/the latest iteration of PBO will add something, maybe it kicks in over these boost figures? Given the difference in advertised clocks of 3800 vs 3800X I have to kind of think there must be something more to the X variant - it could well be something that will not be revealed/unlocked until the final AGESA which maybe board partners don't even have yet (speculation).
Posted on Reply
#141
DeathtoGnomes
Geez, the same arguments over and over. No one sees this as a PR stunt to hype the 570 chipset from MSI. :rolleyes:
Posted on Reply
#142
La Menthe
nemesis.ie said:

@La Menthe Actually, it's not massively off 40% single core gain- ~15% IPC uplift and then put ~12% clock speed improvement on top: That's about 30%. Plus they may purposely be keeping the clocks at "sane" levels. Add another 5% for OC (assuming it will do it) and you have 37%.

I'm not saying it is 40%, but it may be a lot closer than you might think.
Except you're taking several senseless liberties with your arithmetic here, exaggerating the numbers at every turn in a desperate attempt to prove him right. You add up 12% and 15%, deciding it's 30% (when it's really 27%) already before your final number. Then you take that 30% to add 5% on top of it, which somehow becomes 37%. So 32%, the real final number, became 37% through some quick manipulation...

And all that's assuming the numbers you calculated were correct, which they even aren't -- yes, they too are purposefully exaggarted by you. IPC is 13% from the most accurate numbers we've seen. Clock speed certainly isn't 12%, as 4.7GHz is only 9% higher than 4.3 GHz (12% implies a 4.9 GHz turbo). OC isn't worth speculating about, as it can be 0 or as little as it was with 2700X (at which point we convert it to 0 anyway, to account for both chips' similiar OC potential) for all we know.

That gives us a total of 21% (or 23%, assuming IPC actually is a straight 15%) better singlethreaded performance, half of the numbers @Captain_Tom claimed.

And now he's off rambling about an additional 15% higher performance uplift + 2x reduction in power (7nm EUV wil supposedly magically cut power usage in half from current 7nm processes -- equal to, or arguably even more than, what we just saw from GloFo 12nm+ to TSMC 7nm with Zen 2) for Zen 3.

nemesis.ie said:


We just don't know and whinging about a 10% deficit versus RUMOURS when we are seeing such amazing value versus what was available 2 years ago (and even current pricing from the competition) seems a little bit unfair.
20%, not 10%. And I agree, which is why I told him several times to stop making ridiculous speculation, as the conservative predictions and numbers, for which people like me were presenting, were already a prospect of great improvements. You know, the same kinds he's making about Zen 3 now.
Posted on Reply
#143
yakk
kapone32 said:

The issue I have with that is that in today Canada the B450 and X470 boards are so expensive. I bought a As rock B450 Pro 4 for $89.99 after $30 rebate about 5 months ago and now the price is $144.99 that is exactly what I paid for the XX470 Master SLI/AC around the same time. Based on that price my thought process is that the cheapest X570 boards will be at least $300 CAD e.g. the Asrock X570 top baord at $1000 Us would be $1324 CAD. I expect that we will see most X570 boards north of $300 here in Canada.

https://www.newegg.ca/p/pl?d=AMD+X470&N=-1&isNodeId=1&Submit=ENE&DEPA=0&Order=BESTMATCH

As you can see on this link that the cheap X470 boards are under $200 Canadian but anything half decent is at least $250 if not north of $300. Even the Crosshair has one listing for $650 CAD.
That is more a Canadian currency problem, not tech industry related. While Canada has great unemployment figures, this goes hand&hand with cheap currency. Sub-contracting to Canada can be viable in some markets, which is something I'm also looking at. Unfortunately for Canadians their cost of living may only get more expensive from here on out for quite some time.

Back to motherboards, component & R&D wise they look like they justify their cost.
Posted on Reply
#144
nemesis.ie
@La Menthe

A couple of % here and there. You are exaggerating too. ;)
Posted on Reply
#145
kapone32
yakk said:

That is more a Canadian currency problem, not tech industry related. While Canada has great unemployment figures, this goes hand&hand with cheap currency. Sub-contracting to Canada can be viable in some markets, which is something I'm also looking at. Unfortunately for Canadians their cost of living may only get more expensive from here on out for quite some time.

Back to motherboards, component & R&D wise they look like they justify their cost.
How can the cost be justified. These are nob sub contracting issues. We have most manufacturers offices here in Canada. I don't know about the US but the cost can be directly attributed to the distributors e.g The X399 Phantom Gaming 6 has an MSRP of $249.99 US but in Canada.

https://www.newegg.ca/p/pl?d=As+rock+X399+PHantom+Gaming+6&N=-1&isNodeId=1&Submit=ENE&DEPA=0&Order=BESTMATCH

The cost of this board on Newegg.com is indeed $249.99 but we have to pay the distributor's tax here in Canada so the extra $83.17 US is applied.
Posted on Reply
#146
La Menthe
nemesis.ie said:

@La Menthe

A couple of % here and there. You are exaggerating too. ;)
Where did I exaggarate? Point it out please. Unlike you who was outright manipulating the numbers at every point, from the start to the very end.
Posted on Reply
#147
yakk
kapone32 said:

How can the cost be justified. These are nob sub contracting issues. We have most manufacturers offices here in Canada. I don't know about the US but the cost can be directly attributed to the distributors e.g The X399 Phantom Gaming 6 has an MSRP of $249.99 US but in Canada.

https://www.newegg.ca/p/pl?d=As+rock+X399+PHantom+Gaming+6&N=-1&isNodeId=1&Submit=ENE&DEPA=0&Order=BESTMATCH

The cost of this board on Newegg.com is indeed $249.99 but we have to pay the distributor's tax here in Canada so the extra $83.17 US is applied.
Let's see...

Exchange rate is roughly $1.33 + bank fees = 1.37 exchange rate, so $249.99 US * 1.37 = $342.49 CAD + 15%(+) import/custom & brokerage fees = $393.86 CAD. I'd add 5% min. for internally handling all the paperwork and/or territory courtesy split commission = $413.55. Maybe a bit of gouging, $425 might be a more fair value. I may also be missing a fee or 2, or the 5% is too low, but that's the general idea.
Posted on Reply
#148
Captain_Tom
La Menthe said:

You did with Zen 2, which you claimed would have 40% better single-threaded performance over Zen+. And now you're going off making predictions about Zen 3 "bring[ing] another 10-15% performance increase while cutting energy usage in half AGAIN". Why do you keep holding your breath through these nonsensical predictions?
Someone didn't watch the Zen 2 reveal. I change none of those predictions - I stand by them. It's also hilarious how you call my Zen 3 prediction wrong when it isn't 2021 yet.

My lord this website has turned into an Intel fanboy party....

Shatun_Bear said:

The claim was 5Ghz boost clock CPU not overclocking. And when people talk overclocking, they mean all-core. This CPU is 16-core, so that will rule out 5Ghz all-core, so that doesn't explain the rumours either.
It is truly perplexing how bad some people's comprehension is. AMD has 5GHz 16-cores waiting, they just haven't released them because Intel is about to be busy struggling to keep up with AMD's R5 series...
Posted on Reply
#149
La Menthe
Captain_Tom said:

Someone didn't watch the Zen 2 reveal. I change none of those predictions - I stand by them.
You stand by 40% single-core performance claims, when we now have Zen 2 out with 20% single-core performance? Thank you for confirming your cognitive dissonance, and how little seriously we ought to take you.
Captain_Tom said:

It's also hilarious how you call my Zen 3 prediction wrong when it isn't 2021 yet.
Don't worry, I'll wait until it comes ut before quoting you on it, just like I did with Zen 2. Until then, I'm merely contesting your predictions on technical grounds, however, as they have no foundation in any realistic expectation there is (just as I did back when you made the ridiculous Zen 2 predictions). Not just the 10-15% better performance (which I assume you mean by increased IPC) for Zen 3, but also in the expectation that 7nm EUV will double the power efficiency.

I would like you to explain to us on what grounds you base that prediction on? According to Anandtech, early reports of 7nm EUV will offer "~8% lower power consumption at the same complexity and frequency (between 6% and 12% to be more precise)". Digitimes echoed something similiar when saying it would be 15%. Which makes sense, since the transistor density increases by only 20%. However, there's a huge discrepancy between 15% and your claim of 100% (2x), which is frankly technically impossible due to the density. So explain to us how you came to that deduction?

Captain_Tom said:

My lord this website has turned into an Intel fanboy party....
Rebuking false statements does not make one a fanboy. Making them, like you constantly do, does.
Posted on Reply
#150
MAXLD
Valantar said:

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.
Thanks for the link/price. Y, the board is really nice, but any motherboard more than 200 is definitely not a thing would jump into (been there, done that 10~15 years ago). I agree that it's justified by the extra engineering behind it, but major PCI-E 4.0's value will not be justified for a bunch of years (particularly considering the "reasonable price" factor of those uber fast SSDs).

If that's the compromise for the B550 ones (1 slot of each), then I'll be more than perfectly fine with it.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment