GIGABYTE Intros X870 AORUS Elite WIFI7 Motherboard

[Assimilator]

I don't understand why Gigabyte are driving the PCIe 4.0 x4 ASM4242 off the CPU's valuable PCIe 5.0 lanes, when it makes far more sense to drive it off the PCIe 4.0 chipset.

I also don't understand why they decided to include an arbitrary PCIE 3.0 x2 slot, instead of two more SATA ports.

But that is what happens when AMD designs a moronically PCIe lane-constrained system solely because they want to screw consumers.

Why does everyone here seem to think that you can power monitors from USB-C? It's 7.5 Watts of power that's the base spec, 15 W for Thunderbolt 3+.
What monitor are you going to power with that?
USB PD is NOT part of the USB4 or Thunderbolt specs.

I don't think it's unreasonable to expect motherboard manufacturers to start offering boards with a single 240W PD port. After all all boards already have at least one unnecessary extra 8-pin EPS12V connector, if that was repurposed for PD it would actually make sense and be useful.

In favour of USB4 support.

That's not how this works. New boards are supposed to gain new features, not gain some and lose others because AMD are greedy assclowns.

 

[Sarajiel]

Why does everyone here seem to think that you can power monitors from USB-C? It's 7.5 Watts of power that's the base spec, 15 W for Thunderbolt 3+.

Not sure what the USB-part of the spec allows, but I'm pretty sure that Thunderbolt (3 and 4) allows up to 100W power delivery, and that works even both ways.
For example:
- GIGABYTE GC-MAPLE RIDGE, PCIe 3.0 x4: requires 2x PCIe 6-pin, delivers 97W
- ASUS ThunderboltEX 4, PCIe 3.0 x4: requires 1x PCIe 6-pin, delivers 100W
- ASRock Thunderbolt 4 AIC, PCIe 3.0 x4: no extra power connector, delivers only 27W
- Razer Core X (enclosure for eGPU): got its own PSU, delivers 100W -> I got one, and I charge/power my laptop with it
There are other Thunderbolt enclosures that require power delivery over 15W, mostly from OWC and Sonnet for the macOS market.

Funnily enough, there is also this:
ASUS USB4 PCIe Gen4 Card, PCIe 4.0 x4: requires 1x PCIe 6-pin, delivers 60W via USB-C

I don't understand why Gigabyte are driving the PCIe 4.0 x4 ASM4242 off the CPU's valuable PCIe 5.0 lanes, when it makes far more sense to drive it off the PCIe 4.0 chipset.

It's probably mandated by AMD, because all Gigabyte and Asus boards that use the ASM4242 do it that way so far.

 

[Assimilator]

Not sure what the USB-part of the spec allows, but I'm pretty sure that Thunderbolt (3 and 4) allows up to 100W power delivery, and that works even both ways.
For example:
- GIGABYTE GC-MAPLE RIDGE, PCIe 3.0 x4: requires 2x PCIe 6-pin, delivers 97W
- ASUS ThunderboltEX 4, PCIe 3.0 x4: requires 1x PCIe 6-pin, delivers 100W
- ASRock Thunderbolt 4 AIC, PCIe 3.0 x4: no extra power connector, delivers only 27W
- Razer Core X (enclosure for eGPU): got its own PSU, delivers 100W -> I got one, and I charge/power my laptop with it
There are other Thunderbolt enclosures that require power delivery over 15W, mostly from OWC and Sonnet for the macOS market.

Funnily enough, there is also this:
ASUS USB4 PCIe Gen4 Card, PCIe 4.0 x4: requires 1x PCIe 6-pin, delivers 60W via USB-C

That's @TheLostSwede's point tho - allows is not the same as requires. USB-PD is unlikely to ever become part of the base USB specification, so all that those of us who want our monitors to be USB-C daisy chained can hope for, is for board manufacturers to pull their collective thumb out and implement PD.

It's probably mandated by AMD, because all Gigabyte and Asus boards that use the ASM4242 do it that way so far.

Yet another braindead engineering decision from AMD...

 

[ensabrenoir]

......its sad to know that you'll pay extra for a beautiful mother board only to never see it again once you build your rig.......but you'll still pay extra anyway..... I find that i don't connect a ton of stuff to my main rig anymore. I use to fill every usb port and pci lane with some weird peripheral or add on card, now less is more.

 

[TumbleGeorge]

More and more junk components with reduced production costs are sold as high end "ultra", "extreme", "godlike", "aorus". Of course, the emphasis is on the large number of mosfets in the power supply and a lot of RGB lighting. I wonder if the marketing costs per board are equal to, or more than, the "iron" itself.

 

[TheLostSwede]

I don't understand why Gigabyte are driving the PCIe 4.0 x4 ASM4242 off the CPU's valuable PCIe 5.0 lanes, when it makes far more sense to drive it off the PCIe 4.0 chipset.

It's not Gigabyte, it's AMD who has decided that's how it's supposed to be done.

I also don't understand why they decided to include an arbitrary PCIE 3.0 x2 slot, instead of two more SATA ports.

Because so many people complain about not enough PCIe slots?

But that is what happens when AMD designs a moronically PCIe lane-constrained system solely because they want to screw consumers.

I don't think that's how it works. It's most likely a cost related thing, where AMD figured that most people don't want to pay another $50 for their CPU to get another four PCIe lanes.

I don't think it's unreasonable to expect motherboard manufacturers to start offering boards with a single 240W PD port. After all all boards already have at least one unnecessary extra 8-pin EPS12V connector, if that was repurposed for PD it would actually make sense and be useful.

Considering that there are zero 240 W USB PD chargers in the market, I think it is. 100 W might be reasonable. Asus did 65 W on the case connector on a handful of boards.

That's not how this works. New boards are supposed to gain new features, not gain some and lose others because AMD are greedy assclowns.

They did, USB4. And again, it's not about greed, it's about platform design and AMD clearly messed up a bit here. That said, Intel aren't exactly a lot better and have very similar constraints. I mean, their Thunderbolt chips are still PCIe 3.0...

Not sure what the USB-part of the spec allows, but I'm pretty sure that Thunderbolt (3 and 4) allows up to 100W power delivery, and that works even both ways.
For example:
- GIGABYTE GC-MAPLE RIDGE, PCIe 3.0 x4: requires 2x PCIe 6-pin, delivers 97W
- ASUS ThunderboltEX 4, PCIe 3.0 x4: requires 1x PCIe 6-pin, delivers 100W
- ASRock Thunderbolt 4 AIC, PCIe 3.0 x4: no extra power connector, delivers only 27W
- Razer Core X (enclosure for eGPU): got its own PSU, delivers 100W -> I got one, and I charge/power my laptop with it
There are other Thunderbolt enclosures that require power delivery over 15W, mostly from OWC and Sonnet for the macOS market.

Up to, yes, but it doesn't mean that is the base spec. I listed the base specs. Everything is is USB PD on top of that base spec.

 

[Chrispy_]

That PCIe release mechanism is one of the best innovations in years. Wonder why it's a recent thing and no manufacturer thought about that years ago (as we've had PCIe 20 years already).

It never used to be necessary with CPU coolers that adhered to the socket KOZ and with GPUs that weren't so huge with massive backplates and bolt-on decoration that get in the way of the retention clip at the back of the slot.

Massive CPU air coolers that practically contact the GPU backplate, and Massive GPUs that completely obscure access to the clip are recent additions to mainstream PCs probably the last 5-ish years or so. Previously such humungous things were the realm of factory-OC'ed flagships that few people really purchased.

 

[Assimilator]

Because so many people complain about not enough PCIe slots?

Yeah because a full-length PCIe slot that is functionally useless is what those people are asking for.

I don't think that's how it works. It's most likely a cost related thing, where AMD figured that most people don't want to pay another $50 for their CPU to get another four PCIe lanes.

There's no world in which an extra 4 lanes of PCIe 5.0 costs an extra $50, given that AMD is able to release Siena CPUs with 96 lanes, or more than triple the number that consumer Zen 4/5 have, for around the same price as equivalently-specified Zen 5 CPUs.

Considering that there are zero 240 W USB PD chargers in the market, I think it is. 100 W might be reasonable. Asus did 65 W on the case connector on a handful of boards.

100W is not enough to power daisy-chained monitors, hence why we need 240W.

They did, USB4. And again, it's not about greed, it's about platform design and AMD clearly messed up a bit here. That said, Intel aren't exactly a lot better and have very similar constraints. I mean, their Thunderbolt chips are still PCIe 3.0...

I expect Intel to be shit. I expect AMD to be better.

 

[TumbleGeorge]

I expect Intel to be shit. I expect AMD to be better.

Optimism vs. real world... result is painful.

 

[TheLostSwede]

Yeah because a full-length PCIe slot that is functionally useless is what those people are asking for.

Well, not really though, I put my 10 Gbps card in one of those slots, it's a x4 card, but only needs x2 PCIe 3.0 lanes to get enough bandwidth. Also, it's not like the x2 slots only happened with the 800-series chipset.

There's no world in which an extra 4 lanes of PCIe 5.0 costs an extra $50, given that AMD is able to release Siena CPUs with 96 lanes, or more than triple the number that consumer Zen 4/5 have, for around the same price as equivalently-specified Zen 5 CPUs.

It was just a random figure, but it would add cost and it would've required a different socket, so it would've made everything more expensive.

100W is not enough to power daisy-chained monitors, hence why we need 240W.

Yeah, good luck with that, it's just not going to happen.

I expect Intel to be shit. I expect AMD to be better.

So double standards?

 

[A Computer Guy]

Well, not really though, I put my 10 Gbps card in one of those slots, it's a x4 card, but only needs x2 PCIe 3.0 lanes to get enough bandwidth. Also, it's not like the x2 slots only happened with the 800-series chipset.

I think the crux of the matter is AMD actually offers great price/performance for productivity CPU's on AM5 compared to the cost of Threadripper or whatever equivalent Intel Xeon offers. However AMD and vendors have managed to significantly gimp the configuration of workstations using these productivity CPU's, that could really use just a bit more functional slots, to make them stunningly effective while being reasonably affordable.

Right now depending on how bad I really want that 9950x I have to decide to put my GPU in the x4 (which could be fine but really problematic if in the bottom slot) and dual Optane in x16 (and waste x8 of premium PCI 5.0 lanes that could have been really useful for other things ). With that config I could go down to a cheaper $150 motherboard and drown in excessive USB2 ports. Alternately I could pay about $400 for a motherboard that does x8/x8 but at that price I might as well consider workstation/server motherboards with the same limitations. Right now it seems no AM5 motherboard outflanks my X570 in terms of expansion slot configuration. I'm really annoyed how limited I am trying to carry my configuration to AM5 so much so I'm deadlocked in my decision to move to AM5.

 

[kidi]

thumbs up for adding an inside HDMI connector for those who want to add mini display with system stats

 

[Darkholm]

AS(S)US, look at Gigabyte. Another MBO vendor (after MSI done it with Tomahawk) to give 7-segment display (post code) on mid-range board.

 

[efikkan]

I think the crux of the matter is AMD actually offers great price/performance for productivity CPU's on AM5 compared to the cost of Threadripper or whatever equivalent Intel Xeon offers. However AMD and vendors have managed to significantly gimp the configuration of workstations using these productivity CPU's, that could really use just a bit more functional slots, to make them stunningly effective while being reasonably affordable.

Right now depending on how bad I really want that 9950x I have to decide to put my GPU in the x4 (which could be fine but really problematic if in the bottom slot) and dual Optane in x16 (and waste x8 of premium PCI 5.0 lanes that could have been really useful for other things ). With that config I could go down to a cheaper $150 motherboard and drown in excessive USB2 ports. Alternately I could pay about $400 for a motherboard that does x8/x8 but at that price I might as well consider workstation/server motherboards with the same limitations. Right now it seems no AM5 motherboard outflanks my X570 in terms of expansion slot configuration. I'm really annoyed how limited I am trying to carry my configuration to AM5 so much so I'm deadlocked in my decision to move to AM5.

Despite not knowing what you use your computer for, based on what you've said earlier in this thread and your profile specs, it seems pretty obvious to me that you "need" a proper workstation platform. If you happen to go with AM5 (or the upcoming Arrow Lake from team blue), you would have to make several compromises to the point where you either loose some performance, loose a storage option or just get an annoyance. If I were you, I would seriously consider Threadripper and Xeon W, whichever fits your workload better. Even if it's just a hobby, using a computer should be enjoyable, and all the indicators here point towards something mainstream platforms can't satisfy. (The only alternative would be to use two desktops (the old + the new side by side), but that might not help with your workflow.) Pick whatever feels right to you, and don't care if all the "noobs" in the forums disapprove.

I don't know which contry you live in, but it seems like both Threadripper and Xeon W motherboards can be found for ~$500 in the US. I think the prices have come down a bit in Europe too (at least it has where I live).

 

[A Computer Guy]

Despite not knowing what you use your computer for, based on what you've said earlier in this thread and your profile specs, it seems pretty obvious to me that you "need" a proper workstation platform. If you happen to go with AM5 (or the upcoming Arrow Lake from team blue), you would have to make several compromises to the point where you either loose some performance, loose a storage option or just get an annoyance. If I were you, I would seriously consider Threadripper and Xeon W, whichever fits your workload better. Even if it's just a hobby, using a computer should be enjoyable, and all the indicators here point towards something mainstream platforms can't satisfy. (The only alternative would be to use two desktops (the old + the new side by side), but that might not help with your workflow.) Pick whatever feels right to you, and don't care if all the "noobs" in the forums disapprove.

I don't know which contry you live in, but it seems like both Threadripper and Xeon W motherboards can be found for ~$500 in the US. I think the prices have come down a bit in Europe too (at least it has where I live).

I suppose I've been agitated about being only x8 lanes away from the perfectly balanced upgrade it's spilling out and I need to chill instead of getting all Thanos like in the comments with muh I need that last infinity stone! My needs aren't so extravagant to justify the total system cost of threadripper (as much as I would like to have one) so I've been trying to thread the needle on price/cost and leave me room to do fun unnecessary stuff too. I suppose I can solve my x8 lane problem by getting a pair of NVMe to U.2 adaptors then it's just a matter of finding the right board with the right NVMe layout. I can ride out my current setup for awhile so it's not like I need this tomorrow and liquidating some of my inventory would reduce cost and well. If I accept some tradeoffs ebay and threadripper zen2 is becoming more affordable around $1200. I nearly jumped at 5955wx CPU/MB combo side-grade for under $1700 until I came to my senses and restrained myself.

 

[Assimilator]

I don't know which contry you live in, but it seems like both Threadripper and Xeon W motherboards can be found for ~$500 in the US. I think the prices have come down a bit in Europe too (at least it has where I live).

Board prices are not the problem, CPU prices are. This is why I am so excited by Siena because those CPUs are actually priced somewhat sanely compared to Threadripper - but of course they have no consumer boards.

 

[efikkan]

My needs aren't so extravagant to justify the total system cost of threadripper (as much as I would like to have one) so I've been trying to thread the needle on price/cost and leave me room to do fun unnecessary stuff too. I suppose I can solve my x8 lane problem by getting a pair of NVMe to U.2 adaptors then it's just a matter of finding the right board with the right NVMe layout. I can ride out my current setup for awhile so it's not like I need this tomorrow and liquidating some of my inventory would reduce cost and well.

If the motivation for upgrading from Zen 3 to Zen 5 are IO constraints, then you might be better off saving that money until you can afford/justify a more meaningful upgrade. Constant desires for replacing your system is a symptom of having the wrong one in the first place, and a more capable system might give more mileage then.
While I haven't owned/used Threadrippers, I suspect they have the same benefits Intel's workstation parts have vs. their mainstream contemporaries; obviously memory bandwidth and IO, but also performance consistency, which is very underappreciated.
Getting something like a Ryzen 9 9950X (like so many enthusiasts do, and upgrade all the time), which is so IO and memory constrained, would be much more wasteful than getting a "proper" system and sticking with it.

If I accept some tradeoffs ebay and threadripper zen2 is becoming more affordable around $1200. I nearly jumped at 5955wx CPU/MB combo side-grade for under $1700 until I came to my senses and restrained myself.

Well, if you're still considering "upgrading" to a Zen 2 og Zen 3 Threadripper, you clearly aren't after cutting-edge CPU performance. Then I'll give you a tip; add price notifications on relevant parts, even high-end workstation parts do on occasion get significant discounts, especially when the new stuff arrives. (E.g., it's not that long ago I saw Ice Lake CPUs and motherboards with a >>30% discount in a store…)

Board prices are not the problem, CPU prices are. This is why I am so excited by Siena because those CPUs are actually priced somewhat sanely compared to Threadripper - but of course they have no consumer boards.

But very low clock speeds though, for a workstation?
If so, you should consider Xeon W, you know they start at $359, right? Sure, the lower four models have limited availability due to being "OEM only". Try to find a store which sells "OEM" parts, if not buy one used. $400-500 for the CPU, and $500 for the motherboard (new), and you're rolling.

 

[A Computer Guy]

If the motivation for upgrading from Zen 3 to Zen 5 are IO constraints, then you might be better off saving that money until you can afford/justify a more meaningful upgrade.

The motivation is approaching 20%-30% uplift in apps that matter to me. I intentionally skipped 7950x to make the next upgrade meaningful but things like ECC support and 128GB weren't ready then either. It has dropped significantly in price but fluctuating a lot. For the right price it could be an option but I'd rather wait for the next choice that has a better impact to my daily experience.

Constant desires for replacing your system is a symptom of having the wrong one in the first place, and a more capable system might give more mileage then.
While I haven't owned/used Threadrippers, I suspect they have the same benefits Intel's workstation parts have vs. their mainstream contemporaries; obviously memory bandwidth and IO, but also performance consistency, which is very underappreciated.
Getting something like a Ryzen 9 9950X (like so many enthusiasts do, and upgrade all the time), which is so IO and memory constrained, would be much more wasteful than getting a "proper" system and sticking with it.

My workload fits fine in the constraints of 3950x/5950x/7950X/9950X so no issue there other than the PCIe slot issue being less plentiful in AM5.

Well, if you're still considering "upgrading" to a Zen 2 og Zen 3 Threadripper, you clearly aren't after cutting-edge CPU performance.

It's about reasonable performance and balanced spending. It's not that I can't get a $5000 threadripper. It's that I can't justify getting a $5000 threadripper.

Then I'll give you a tip; add price notifications on relevant parts, even high-end workstation parts do on occasion get significant discounts, especially when the new stuff arrives. (E.g., it's not that long ago I saw Ice Lake CPUs and motherboards with a >>30% discount in a store…)

I browse ebay a lot looking for deals.

 

[Icon Charlie]

I don't understand why Gigabyte are driving the PCIe 4.0 x4 ASM4242 off the CPU's valuable PCIe 5.0 lanes, when it makes far more sense to drive it off the PCIe 4.0 chipset.

I also don't understand why they decided to include an arbitrary PCIE 3.0 x2 slot, instead of two more SATA ports.

But that is what happens when AMD designs a moronically PCIe lane-constrained system solely because they want to screw consumers.


I don't think it's unreasonable to expect motherboard manufacturers to start offering boards with a single 240W PD port. After all all boards already have at least one unnecessary extra 8-pin EPS12V connector, if that was repurposed for PD it would actually make sense and be useful.


That's not how this works. New boards are supposed to gain new features, not gain some and lose others because AMD are greedy assclowns.

Agreed. But you have to add the Board partners as well for the asshattery.

 

[csendesmark]

Yet another AM5 board w/ less expansion than AM4...

Feature Regression, is a B-

The X670 and X870 boards broadly speaking are lacking a lot...
Only the ASUS ProArt boards are somewhat OK.

 

[Bwaze]

This all really looks like planned obsolescence, and the compromises will be obvious very quickly.

 

[chrcoluk]

Absolutely maddening. Why can't motherboard manufacturers ever get this right? Hang it off the extra 3.0 or 4.0 lanes on the chipset. Why cripple the GPU x16 slot with half of the M.2 slots? This is a huge regression from X670(E)

Feels like innovation is going down in the board market, used to see some really fancy stuff on the chipset lanes with bridge chips and what not to allow them to add lots of i/o connectivity, now it seems to be more and more utilising the CPU lanes and minimal effort on chipset expandability.

Actually, only one doesn't subtract from the x16 slot, since the other four PCIe 5.0 lanes from the CPU are used for the ASM4242 on the 800-series boards.
Even the one from the chipset is shared with the x4 PCIe slot, with the second one only being x2.

View attachment 361484


This board has one...


Well, that's AMD's design choice though. Not much the board makers can do when the CPU doesn't have enough PCIe lanes.

How is it so bad? my current board has way better lane allocation than this.

4 PCIe slots fed from chipset, which are 10 lanes between them, no sharing with any of them, 2 M.2 on the chipset, one removes a single SATA port, not the end of the world, and 8 SATA port in total on the board anyway so still 7 if using all the M.2.

Is it that X870 sucks in lane availability or the board manufacturers not doing a good job?

 

[Gigaherz]

Apparently "Elite" is not good enough for Surround Sound...

 

[TheLostSwede]

How is it so bad? my current board has way better lane allocation than this.

Because this is the CPU and chipset lanes (since the 600- and 800-series are the same).
So four of the CPU PCIe 5.0 lanes are now used to connect the ASM4242 USB4 host controller, which leaves only four lanes for an M.2 slot.
Four of the chipset PCIe lanes are shared between the PCIe x4 slot and one M.2 slot.
All the PCIe 3.0 lanes are used up, but that still leaves four unused PCIe 4.0 lanes... I don't understand why Gigabyte made that design choice, as there's no need to share the x4 slot with the fourth M.2 slot...

AMD Zen 4 & Socket AM5 Explained: PCIe Lanes, Chipsets, Connectivity

There has been a fair bit of confusion about AMD's upcoming AM5 platform when it comes to connectivity and we're going to break things down and explain what the difference is between the B650 and X670 boards. We're also going to cover the processor connectivity, since that's an integral part of...

www.techpowerup.com

Is it that X870 sucks in lane availability or the board manufacturers not doing a good job?

It seems like Gigabyte made a really weird design choice with this board as pointed out above, but yes, X870 is also PCIe lane starved as it is.

 

[Assimilator]

It seems like Gigabyte made a really weird design choice with this board as pointed out above, but yes, X870 is also PCIe lane starved as it is.

I'm glad you're coming to agree in this regard. AMD needs to either release new CPUs with new IODs that expose additional lanes, or they need to upgrade crappy Prom21 to do the same.

Really this is a hole they dug themselves, because there was never any reason or need to create a chipset given that everything is just PCIe lanes and their server parts prove this by all being SOCs anyway. What AMD should've done is:

* launch Zen 4 consumer CPUs with an IOD capable of 52 lanes, but with 16 fused off for a total of 36 available
* launch "X670"/"B650" as boards that wire out up to a certain number of the available CPU lanes, not a physical chipset - i.e. boards can only call themselves X670E if they wire out all 36 lanes with a PCIe 5.0 x16 slot and 5.0 M.2 slot; X670 = 32 lanes with PCIe 5.0 x16 + M.2 5.0; B650E = 36 lanes but all PCIe 4.0; B650 = 32 lanes of PCIe 4.0. In other words, the (wired lane count * PCIe 4.0 matrix) becomes the virtual chipset for marketing purposes.
* launch Zen 5 CPUs with the exact same IOD but 8 further lanes enabled, for a total of 44 maximum. That way you can add ASM4242 and still have an extra 4 lanes on "X870" and friends.
* launch Zen 6 CPUs with the exact same IOD but all lanes enabled, and use those 8 extra over the previous generation to make the Zen 6 boards compelling

This way you still get consumer market segmentation and incentive to upgrade both CPU and board, but you haven't shot yourself in the foot regarding future expansion. Plus the boards would be quicker to market because of no need to wait for a chipset that literally does nothing, and they would be cheaper because, again, no chipset.

Another bonus is this would encourage competition via a proliferation of USB (and to a much lesser extent SATA) chipsets from various vendors. Instead of every board manufacturer being forced to use ASMedia's Prom21 and ASMedia's ASM4242, now they can add SATA, USB3 and USB4 from whoever the fuck will sell it to them. If you want to keep BOM down, add something cheep and cheerful from VIA. If you want high-end, add Thunderbolt 4 from Intel. The number of permutations are endless and would give further flexibility to board vendors to come up with innovative approaches, not just MOAR RGB.