Tuesday, December 21st 2021

AMD's Upcoming X670 Chipset Could be A Dual B650 Package, Very Difficult for ITX Board Integration

As we approach the next generation of AMD's Ryzen processors, accompanying chipsets will follow the launch of their main co-host device. Enabling different levels of features across the new processor generation, chipset versions are limiting the number of options a platform offers to the end-user. AMD is designing its motherboard chipsets in collaboration with a Taiwanese design firm ASMedia. They usually develop a few chipset types covering low-end, middle-end, and high-end motherboards segments. However, it seems like the high-end motherboard segment could be populated with the same silicon as the middle-end section of the chipset stack; note a few Chinese forum members on BiliBili.

As they note, the high-end AMD X670 chipset could be a multi-chip module (MCM) design incorporating two middle-end B650 chipsets. A combination of two B650 dies is allegedly forming an X670 chipset, and that is what AMD could force motherboard makers to use. By doing so, the Mini-ITX motherboard form factor could be challenging to design and manufacture, meaning that the package of the X670 chipset could be rather extensive. This rumor should, of course, be taken with a massive grain of salt as we don't know how this would function. However, it financially makes sense as AMD wouldn't need to design and request manufacturing for an additional chipset variant.
Source: via 9550pro (Twitter)
Add your own comment

35 Comments on AMD's Upcoming X670 Chipset Could be A Dual B650 Package, Very Difficult for ITX Board Integration

#1
lexluthermiester
Is this theory, rumor or something else? And do we know how that would work? Would it be two dies on the same package or would it be separate chips? So many questions..
Posted on Reply
#2
AleksandarK
lexluthermiesterIs this theory, rumor or something else? And do we know how that would work? Would it be two dies on the same package or would it be separate chips? So many questions..
This is a rumor.

MCM package means multiple dies together as one. To make one big chip.
Posted on Reply
#3
TheinsanegamerN
So......why do you need X670 on ITX, other then e-peen?

The first M.2 and the first x16 PCIe connector are directly wired to the CPU, and last time I checked the most you can offer is a second M.2 on the back of the ITX board. There are no other expansion slots, limited connector space for the MOBO, ece.

There is 0 need for x670 on mini itx in the first place. Both the X and B series allow CPU and memory overclocking.

EDIT: I want to add that the same applies to micro ATX. Dual GPU is dead and buried at this point, and most expansion cards have no need for the extra PCIe 4.0 bandwidth that the X series provides. Even things like 10G cards are still using 3.0x4 connectors, sata III backplanes are using 2.0x4. Noboody wants to make these with a 4.0x1, and anyone with a serious number of SSDs on backplanes is going to threadripper anyway.

Maybe I'm missing something,b ut there is no reason we cant have nice VRM designs on B series boards, like the old days when the P, Z, and H series all coexisted and all had nice options.
Posted on Reply
#4
lexluthermiester
AleksandarKThis is a rumor.
Ah, fair enough. Still, very interesting!
AleksandarKMCM package means multiple dies together as one. To make one big chip.
That's what is directly implied but there have been instances in the past were a multi-die, mutli-chip design was used, thus the question..
Posted on Reply
#5
simlariver
ITX boards don't need the "premium" chipset in the first place. The only reason the there were X570 ITX boards is that B550 were too late to the market.
Unlike Intel, AMD does not restrict features like overclocking to the higher end chipset, the only difference were bandwith and features.
Posted on Reply
#6
TheinsanegamerN
simlariverITX boards don't need the "premium" chipset in the first place. The only reason the there were X570 ITX boards is that B550 were too late to the market.
Unlike Intel, AMD does not restrict features like overclocking to the higher end chipset, the only difference were bandwith and features.
I doubt that is the only reason. The other reason is $$$$$$$.

The gaming market has proven to be full of consoomers that will overspend needlessly on gaming PCs, see also people buying $600 i9s to play Cod when an i5 is just fine, or those that used to buy HDET CPUs for "moar corars" for their gaming machines. Or the endless RGB disasters.

There are poeple out there that will demand a X series chipset for their mini ITX board for reasons.
Posted on Reply
#7
Shtb
As they note, the high-end AMD X670 chipset could be a multi-chip module (MCM) design incorporating two middle-end B650 chipsets.
Who's noted? The author (热心市民描边怪) didn't write anything about MCM, in case you haven't noticed.

And as he pointed out in his reply - "This is the first riddle".

As far as I have seen, no one has guessed yet.
Posted on Reply
#8
bonehead123
So MCM = SLI for your mobo chipset.... oh yea, just what we need, somethin else to use up even moar electronic parts & pieces that are already in short supply hehehe :)
Posted on Reply
#9
noel_fs
why would an itx need an x670 in the first place
Posted on Reply
#10
Totally
bonehead123So MCM = Crossfire for your mobo chipset.... oh yea, just what we need, somethin else to use up even moar electronic parts & pieces that are already in short supply hehehe :)
Ftfy
Posted on Reply
#11
Caring1
noel_fswhy would an itx need an x670 in the first place
Why do they need to be limited to ATX?
Posted on Reply
#12
Crackong
X299 had iTX
EPYC had iTX ( not real iTX size but close )

I don't see the point why X670 can't have iTX
If ppl want to invest on unreasonable platform, let them and charge them hard.
Posted on Reply
#13
MentalAcetylide
CrackongX299 had iTX
EPYC had iTX ( not real iTX size but close )

I don't see the point why X670 can't have iTX
If ppl want to invest on unreasonable platform, let them and charge them hard.
If you don't mind me asking, what makes it an unreasonable platform? Iirc iTX is a smaller form factor vs ATX, but what are the issues with this? Would this be like shrinking a TRX40 board down to a smaller board that only has 1-2 PCIe slots and enough room for 2 sticks of RAM? If that's the case, then I would have to agree that it wouldn't make much sense, but I could be wrong.
Posted on Reply
#14
stimpy88
ASMedia :cry: - Sorry, no throwup emoji

It's a shame AMD do not bite the bullet and design their own chipset, then maybe we would have decent USB without throughput and connectivity issues.
Posted on Reply
#15
Crackong
MentalAcetylideIf you don't mind me asking, what makes it an unreasonable platform? Iirc iTX is a smaller form factor vs ATX, but what are the issues with this? Would this be like shrinking a TRX40 board down to a smaller board that only has 1-2 PCIe slots and enough room for 2 sticks of RAM? If that's the case, then I would have to agree that it wouldn't make much sense, but I could be wrong.
For example the EPYC itx board, it cuts the 8 memory channels to 4 ,and despite fully packed with SAS connectors providing PCI-E x8 each, only 64 out of 128 lanes are utilized, there is just no more space for connectors.

As for this topic
If the X670 = 2*B650 is true, it means 2X more connections
It would face the same situation
There is physically no more space on the ITX board to fit the connectors.
Boardmakers would have to either waste all the potential they could have, or make unconventional designs (like the separated SATA connector board of X299 ITX).
Posted on Reply
#16
walker15130
The annoying thing and the problem stemming from ITX or any other board not having the top chipset is when there is glaring quality or feature loss made deliberately by the manufacturer. It's made worse if such product receives subpar firmware updates or loses out on third party support (aftermarket watercooling or other custom accessories) solely because it's not perceived as the premium top tier choice.

We've seen some shift of that paradigm with amd's B-series chipsets. B550 ITX boards specifically outcompeted the X570 equivalents by being designed and released at a later time. Some vrms got tweaked, some features upgraded and on top of that there was less heat, less noise and less ...price. The foremost downside in form of second m2 slot being gen3 wasn't really much of an issue for majority of people.
Posted on Reply
#17
kbt
TheinsanegamerNSo......why do you need X670 on ITX, other then e-peen?

The first M.2 and the first x16 PCIe connector are directly wired to the CPU, and last time I checked the most you can offer is a second M.2 on the back of the ITX board. There are no other expansion slots, limited connector space for the MOBO, ece.

There is 0 need for x670 on mini itx in the first place. Both the X and B series allow CPU and memory overclocking.

EDIT: I want to add that the same applies to micro ATX. Dual GPU is dead and buried at this point, and most expansion cards have no need for the extra PCIe 4.0 bandwidth that the X series provides. Even things like 10G cards are still using 3.0x4 connectors, sata III backplanes are using 2.0x4. Noboody wants to make these with a 4.0x1, and anyone with a serious number of SSDs on backplanes is going to threadripper anyway.

Maybe I'm missing something,b ut there is no reason we cant have nice VRM designs on B series boards, like the old days when the P, Z, and H series all coexisted and all had nice options.
I completely concur, and the same applies to the X570 as well. I have an Asrock X570 Phantom gaming-ITX/TB3 with a 5950X, and there's nothing on that m/b that couldn't have been made with B550.

It came out before the B550, and noone bothered to make another ITX board with Thunderbolt, so it's still the only game in that town. They didn't even add a second m.2 or tb3 to try and justify X570.
Posted on Reply
#18
abqnm666
stimpy88ASMedia :cry: - Sorry, no throwup emoji

It's a shame AMD do not bite the bullet and design their own chipset, then maybe we would have decent USB without throughput and connectivity issues.
That's what x570 was. AMD designed and built, without Asmedia. And despite having fewer USB issues than Asmedia built b550 chipsets, they were still there as well.

But I really hope this rumor turns out to be false, because the last thing I need is more ITX board complications.
Posted on Reply
#19
stimpy88
abqnm666That's what x570 was. AMD designed and built, without Asmedia. And despite having fewer USB issues than Asmedia built b550 chipsets, they were still there as well.

But I really hope this rumor turns out to be false, because the last thing I need is more ITX board complications.
I'm sure x570 was a joint project, and used ASMedia's IP.
Posted on Reply
#20
PaqMan
If the X670 is indeed 2X the B650, is there a possibility of seeing DUAL AM4 Socket motherboards? I'd love to run two 5950x and 256GB DDR4 ram stock on a EATX board. Be a lot cheaper option than trying to get DDR5, and if the chipset would support 3000 and 5000 for one more year, they'd get a lot of happy customers.
Posted on Reply
#21
Mussels
Freshwater Moderator
If this is true, they'd basically just be using the chipset to add more PCI-E lanes and devices
Posted on Reply
#22
trsttte
I think this is complete bullshit, why spend extra money on a more complex packaging and solving all the problems associated with it just for the chipset!? Doesn't really make sense, at least not with the limited info we currently have.
simlariverITX boards don't need the "premium" chipset in the first place. The only reason the there were X570 ITX boards is that B550 were too late to the market.
Unlike Intel, AMD does not restrict features like overclocking to the higher end chipset, the only difference were bandwith and features.
You're looking at it just like a "premium" chipset but it's more than that. There's more to the chipset than just having an extra m.2 or an extra pcie. Like more usbs with better specs, sata, better lattencies, more and better iommu groupings, multi gb ethernet, etc etc etc.

Saying ITX boards don't need the "premium" chipset is like saying ITX boards don't need to exist, maybe not for you but someone will make use of it.
bonehead123So MCM = SLI for your mobo chipset.... oh yea, just what we need, somethin else to use up even moar electronic parts & pieces that are already in short supply hehehe :)
Not really, MCM's purpose is more about being able to get bigger chips without having to pay to fab the big dies the top end products are using. SLI/Crossfire was more about parallel processing.
Posted on Reply
#23
Mussels
Freshwater Moderator
trsttteI think this is complete bullshit, why spend extra money on a more complex packaging and solving all the problems associated with it just for the chipset!? Doesn't really make sense, at least not with the limited info we currently have.



You're looking at it just like a "premium" chipset but it's more than that. There's more to the chipset than just having an extra m.2 or an extra pcie. Like more usbs with better specs, sata, better lattencies, more and better iommu groupings, multi gb ethernet, etc etc etc.

Saying ITX boards don't need the "premium" chipset is like saying ITX boards don't need to exist, maybe not for you but someone will make use of it.



Not really, MCM's purpose is more about being able to get bigger chips without having to pay to fab the big dies the top end products are using. SLI/Crossfire was more about parallel processing.
As an ITX user myself for many years (B450) - the B450 and X470 variant of my board were literally identical. The extra PCI-E lanes added and available couldnt be used since the board had nowhere to put them.
Posted on Reply
#24
JUST WHO LOVE COMPUTER
I don't know much information about AMD's next generation professors.But I am wondering that why a chipset need MCM?
Posted on Reply
#25
Crackong
JUST WHO LOVE COMPUTERI don't know much information about AMD's next generation professors.But I am wondering that why a chipset need MCM?
To maximize production efficiency.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment