Be careful when recommending B560 motherboards to novice builders (HWUB)

[Keullo-e]

Wonder how many prebuilt-owners are wondering that why their systems are performing way worse than others' systems with the same CPU..

 

[GorbazTheDragon]

Before or after removing the bloatware

 

[AusWolf]

It's not only about performance. I love small form factor PCs where cooling is an issue, so going all-in for performance isn't always my way to go.

One of my last builds was based on a Core i7-7700 non-K. It was a mini-ITX system in a Coolermaster Elite 130 case. The locked CPU was the right choice, as it offered about 10% lower performance than the K variant, but with a much lower TDP.

My HTPC (details below) is based on a flea market motherboard that I used with a Core i3-2120T. I recently upgraded it for an i7-3770T. It has slightly lower clocks than the K version, but nearly half the TDP (which it doesn't even fully utilise anyway). It doesn't heat up the small case, but hopefully has the raw power to decode the film's that the 750 Ti's hardware decoder can't.

An example from the other side of things is my main PC. It has a Ryzen 3 3100 inside a slim (low profile) case. I tried upgrading to a Ryzen 5 3600, but the layout of the case didn't allow enough airflow to cool it down. It's not an issue with the roughly 50 W the 3100 uses under full load, but the 85-88 W peak the 3600 asked for was too much. One could say that airflow in the case is too restricted, and I should swap it for a bigger one, but that would defeat the purpose. Now I'm using the 3100 again, while a fiend of mine is happy with the 3600. All this could have been avoided if AMD didn't take their TDP values out of thin air. At least my friend is happy with the 3600 I couldn't use.

I'm actually thinking about Intel's 11th gen as my upgrade path especially because of the locked SKUs. Pure performance is nice, but I have no use of the extra 10-20% if it means that I can't keep my PC within operating temperatures in my SFF case. I'm also thinking about waiting for AMD's 5000G series (the monolithic die layout may be easier to cool?), but I'm afraid that it would be just another 3600 disaster for me.

All in all, locked performance with locked TDP has its uses, even in desktop DIY. The part I agree with is that one should make educated decisions before buying, and never skimp on the motherboard (and power supply).

 

[Post Nut Clairvoyance]

Is it even statistically likely that an arbitrary H570 board will have better power delivery than an arbitrary B560? HU's been doing quite a bit on the VRM side lately, and one takeaway seems to be that robust power and board price are not directly correlated.

H570 boards is on average, more expensive. Most H570 stops catering to the absolute lowest end (<100w) CPU PL.
Perfect example would be (ASRock) B560m-itx v H570m-itx, former has 4 phase 50A Vishay Sic for Vcore, latter 6. Former cannot handle with 11400f full turbo avx(even with high airflow directly onto heatsink, it follows base Intel spec of 56 second PL2). latter can handle 11600K, avx512 full turbo (provided, I don't know the PL limit on this board, should be higher than its B560 counterpart)

Price and VRM is correlated, the problem is, IMO, RKL really really draws power like a motherfucker. AIDA64 FPU frying a 11400F with AVX512 ON will pull 170W, that is strictly "decent enough B550 AM4" or "good B560" territory, AMD side just doesn't demand as strong a VRM. There is also a small gap, most B560 I've seen is in 3 categories: [<100w, 4 powerstage or 6 phase with upto 3 fet per phase], [>200w 8 powerstage or 6 doubled phased 2 fets each] or [12 phase powerstage, why is this even on a B560].

11400F being the most cost efficient CPU is left without a capable budget board here, as category 2 ASRock B560m steel legends is often sold out.

It's not only about performance. I love small form factor PCs where cooling is an issue, so going all-in for performance isn't always my way to go.

One of my last builds was based on a Core i7-7700 non-K. It was a mini-ITX system in a Coolermaster Elite 130 case. The locked CPU was the right choice, as it offered about 10% lower performance than the K variant, but with a much lower TDP.

My HTPC (details below) is based on a flea market motherboard that I used with a Core i3-2120T. I recently upgraded it for an i7-3770T. It has slightly lower clocks than the K version, but nearly half the TDP (which it doesn't even fully utilise anyway). It doesn't heat up the small case, but hopefully has the raw power to decode the film's that the 750 Ti's hardware decoder can't.

An example from the other side of things is my main PC. It has a Ryzen 3 3100 inside a slim (low profile) case. I tried upgrading to a Ryzen 5 3600, but the layout of the case didn't allow enough airflow to cool it down. It's not an issue with the roughly 50 W the 3100 uses under full load, but the 85-88 W peak the 3600 asked for was too much. One could say that airflow in the case is too restricted, and I should swap it for a bigger one, but that would defeat the purpose. Now I'm using the 3100 again, while a fiend of mine is happy with the 3600. All this could have been avoided if AMD didn't take their TDP values out of thin air. At least my friend is happy with the 3600 I couldn't use.

I'm actually thinking about Intel's 11th gen as my upgrade path especially because of the locked SKUs. Pure performance is nice, but I have no use of the extra 10-20% if it means that I can't keep my PC within operating temperatures in my SFF case. I'm also thinking about waiting for AMD's 5000G series (the monolithic die layout may be easier to cool?), but I'm afraid that it would be just another 3600 disaster for me.

All in all, locked performance with locked TDP has its uses, even in desktop DIY. The part I agree with is that one should make educated decisions before buying, and never skimp on the motherboard (and power supply).

I think RKL has larger die area making it relatively easier to cool vs. its power draw. It will only help so much and in a SFF case, especially if you already have your own cooler, is hard to manage.
If not oc'ing or needing extra 500mhz, locked CPU's pricing makes it suitable for sure. You could also run RKL w/ PL limit. Even the already locked 11400F.
It is dependent on board price for RKL, AM4 CPUs are all overpriced atm, but AM4 boards are decently cheaper. I bought 11400F + B560M Aorus Pro as latter is on sale RN (229-> 149) on pccasegear, I see you're also in AUS, but are looking for SFF which is basically exclusively m-itx.
If you intend to run 11400F with 95w PL, ASRock b560m-itx is an option. HOWEVER, ASRock is the only manufacturer AFAIK to HARD ENFORCE Intel base spec, as in, no option in BIOS to indefinitely extend PL2 on their cheaper board, where other brand at least give you the option, even if on stock cannot deliver high PL2.
and actually, with your case cooler option you might not be able to upgrade til later on. RKL is a power hog, 11th gen doesn't have i3, 3100 or 3300x could be the current upper limit.

 

[RJARRRPCGP]

It isn't like this is only an Intel problem. There are some B550 motherboards out there that can't handle a fully loaded 5800X either.

I think every major manufacturer is guilty of putting out an absolute garbage VRM budget B550/B560 motherboard. We've moved into the era where even if you are just going to run the system "at stock" spending, even a little bit, more on the motherboard can make a difference.

That's like the AM3/AM3+ era again! (especially motherboards with no MOSFET heatsink and/or VRM heatsink)

 

[Keullo-e]

That's like the AM3/AM3+ era again! (especially motherboards with no MOSFET heatsink and/or VRM heatsink)

Exactly. I remember people getting a 8000-series FX and pairing it with a cheap motherboard, then suffering from recuded performance because of the VRM throttling.

 

[RJARRRPCGP]

Exactly. I remember people getting a 8000-series FX and pairing it with a cheap motherboard, then suffering from recuded performance because of the VRM throttling.

I don't know if those motherboards can even handle a 2-module FX! FFS!

 

[Zach_01]

It does seem like even the cheap H570 boards have decent enough VRMs compared to the cheap B560 boards.



The whole system for the 5950X is 195w, it's going over 150w. And even if you normalize for the rest of the system, it's going more out of spec than the Intel chips are. Same for the 2700X. PPT/TDC/EDC are all adjustable, it's what PBO, AMD's own feature built into the processor, changes. So with PBO enabled 142w PPT limit is raised.



PBO is an AMD technology. It's where they get their advertised performance numbers from. It isn't a shady overclock put in place by the board manufacturers. That's like saying enabling Thermal Velocity Boost on Intel's side is an auto overclock that takes the processors out of stock. It just isn't true, AMD built PBO into the processors and reported performance numbers with in enabled. Hell they thoughted it as a major feature during the 3000 series launch. It also does NOT overclock the processor. It does not push the clock speeds beyond the advertised speeds, what it does is allow the processor to boost more cores for longer, putting more load on the VRMs. It does this specifically by raising those PPT limits(along with a few other power related limits). This whole thread is basically complaining that motherboard manufacturers on the Intel side are shipping boards with essentially Intel's PBO enabled by default and some don't(and I have to wonder if AMD motherboard manufacturers do this sometimes too).

If you want the proof, just go look at the TPU reviews. You'll see 105w rated processors consuming way more than 105w, as I pointed out. But back to the motherboards and VRM throttling, when you buy a B550 motherboard, and it only has a 4-pin CPU power connector that is rated for 75w, you really have to scratch your head and ask "is this board going to really be able to reliably deliver double that for long periods of time?" And I can already answer that, No.



It still applies, like I said, the "cheap" boards aren't really that much cheaper anyway. It's like $20 difference.

The advertised numbers of AMD is with PB enabled and PBO disabled.

It’s really hard to find a 500series board that can’t handle a stock (105W TDP) 142W PPT/140A EDC CPU, except those dirt cheap with out a VRM heatsink. Some others just need a little more airflow around VRMs.
PBO or static OC is a different story.
And AMD TDP is not defining max power consumption. This should be well known by now. It’s a rough guide for the minimum thermal solution.

 

[AusWolf]

I think RKL has larger die area making it relatively easier to cool vs. its power draw. It will only help so much and in a SFF case, especially if you already have your own cooler, is hard to manage.
If not oc'ing or needing extra 500mhz, locked CPU's pricing makes it suitable for sure. You could also run RKL w/ PL limit. Even the already locked 11400F.

That's what I'm thinking too. AMD's 7 nm chiplets are very efficient (under load at least), but are a nightmare to cool in a SFF case. I'm currently using AMD's stock Wraith cooler with the 3100, but I also have a be quiet! Shadow Rock LP on the shelf for a potential upgrade. I ordered it for the 3600, but it wasn't enough to cool it down in my PC case for some reason. Currently I'm happy with the 3100, but that won't always be the case, and my options are limited due to the cooling difficulties I'm facing. I could just dust off the Aerocool Aero One Mini case that I have and call it a day, but nah. Where's the challenge in that?

It is dependent on board price for RKL, AM4 CPUs are all overpriced atm, but AM4 boards are decently cheaper. I bought 11400F + B560M Aorus Pro as latter is on sale RN (229-> 149) on pccasegear, I see you're also in AUS, but are looking for SFF which is basically exclusively m-itx.
If you intend to run 11400F with 95w PL, ASRock b560m-itx is an option. HOWEVER, ASRock is the only manufacturer AFAIK to HARD ENFORCE Intel base spec, as in, no option in BIOS to indefinitely extend PL2 on their cheaper board, where other brand at least give you the option, even if on stock cannot deliver high PL2.
and actually, with your case cooler option you might not be able to upgrade til later on. RKL is a power hog, 11th gen doesn't have i3, 3100 or 3300x could be the current upper limit.

I'm actually in the UK. But as you said, RKL CPUs are quite cheap, it's just the motherboard that costs a bit more than with AMD.

The funny thing about my PC case is that even though it's a slim one that only accepts low profile graphics cards and CPU coolers, micro-ATX motherboards aren't an issue. I'm using an Asus B550M TUF Wifi at the moment, and I would be a bit sad to swap it for something else (unless it's of the same quality as this one).

If I go Intel again, I want to be looking at something similar - the Asus B560M TUF Wifi, or the Asus Z590M Prime are the ones with similar-looking quality and affordability available in my area. As for CPU, I was thinking about a Core i7-11700 non-K and locking its PL1 to 65 W, and PL2 to whatever I can cool. Hopefully, the Asus boards I looked at (or something else) would let me do that, even if it's not their default setting.

If I stay with AMD, I'm very curious about the Ryzen 5000G series, especially the GE models. A monolithic die could potentially be easier to cool than chiplets, not to mention the low TDP they have. The backlash here is that AMD's TDP values have very little (if any) connection to reality, so even the GE chips might end up being difficult to cool because of their high turbo speeds. Not to mention that they're not available (yet).

I don't know. I'm torn between two worlds. Neither Intel, nor AMD seem to offer exactly what I need in their current generations.

Exactly. I remember people getting a 8000-series FX and pairing it with a cheap motherboard, then suffering from recuded performance because of the VRM throttling.

Those were good times. Seeing 20% CPU usage because games didn't utilise 8 cores / 4 modules, and the same 20% usage on my HD 7970 because 1-2 cores just weren't enough to feed it with data... priceless!

 

[Selaya]

The way I see it, the best use for those bottom-of-the-barrel B560s is to pair them with either 10400F or 10600K. Skylake is a lot more power-efficient than Rocket Lake, and in general the 2666 memory is what hamstrung the i5s in the past. Now that you can actually OC your memory with a B560, that is of no concern anymore, and neither of these draw much power (not compared to Rocket Lake, in any case).

 

[Keullo-e]

The way I see it, the best use for those bottom-of-the-barrel B560s is to pair them with either 10400F or 10600K.

10600K with a B series board? I suppose you meant 10600F?

 

[Selaya]

No, I meant the 10600K(F). It is barely more expensive than the 10600, and even if you're not OCing it it is a great 6-core part, as long as it's not stuck with 2666 memory.

 

[80-watt Hamster]

10600K with a B series board? I suppose you meant 10600F?

No, I meant the 10600K(F). It is barely more expensive than the 10600, and even if you're not OCing it it is a great 6-core part, as long as it's not stuck with 2666 memory.

Seconded. I've cooled on the "why would you pair a K chip with a locked board?" sentiment over the past couple years, at least if the price is fairly close. Stock clocks are higher, and you're (hypothetically) getting a better-binned chip that may run cooler clock-for-clock. Fringe benefit: K chips historically sell for more once obsoleted. The delta may not be as large as when new, but it's something.

 

[newtekie1]

The advertised numbers of AMD is with PB enabled and PBO disabled.

It’s really hard to find a 500series board that can’t handle a stock (105W TDP) 142W PPT/140A EDC CPU, except those dirt cheap with out a VRM heatsink. Some others just need a little more airflow around VRMs.
PBO or static OC is a different story.
And AMD TDP is not defining max power consumption. This should be well known by now. It’s a rough guide for the minimum thermal solution.

No, when the 3000 series was coming out, they advertised PBO and gave performance number showing what it was capable of.

The way I see it, the best use for those bottom-of-the-barrel B560s is to pair them with either 10400F or 10600K.

I wouldn't put anything more than an i3 in any motherboard that costs less than $120. And if it is a computer that I expect any kind of upgrades to happen on, a budget sub-$120 board makes absolutely no sense.

 

[Zach_01]

No, when the 3000 series was coming out, they advertised PBO and gave performance number showing what it was capable of.

I beg to differ...
To advertise performance under under just PB and then PBO is 2 different things. When I bought my R5 3600 45 days after 3000 launch I didn't expect PBO performance but just PB one. And I did get that.
There was not any misconception there.

Intel on the other hand calling things very differently with the PL1 and PL2, and apparently a lot of boards cant handle the higher level of performance/consumption. Where on 95+% of AMD 500 series boards you can run a 16core with the advertised numbers. Just not with PBO. Its different.

 

[Post Nut Clairvoyance]

No, when the 3000 series was coming out, they advertised PBO and gave performance number showing what it was capable of.


I wouldn't put anything more than an i3 in any motherboard that costs less than $120. And if it is a computer that I expect any kind of upgrades to happen on, a budget sub-$120 board makes absolutely no sense.

The lowest end B560 boards in the market is at least capable of running 10400f without limits, once you do some bios setting change. I just think 6 cores has already surpassed 4 cores in value when the 2600(or 1600) came out, and looking at the price of comet lake (there is no RKL) i3's I don't think it makes too much sense overall, as the extra money put towards 6 cores is very justified by the amount of use you'll get out of them. if it wasn't for the fact that a very capable board is on sale i would not have picked it up over the sub 120$ crapshoots that will not hold a full boosting 11400f.
Speaking of upgrades, we don't need to worry about upgrading a 1200 socket cpu generation anytime soon!

I do agree though on my first PC build I cheaped out on the motherboard (a320m board) because I had no intention of going beyond a am4 6 core. where as now hopefully I'll get the B560M aorus pro soon, that thing should handle a 11900k if I were held at gun point to buy one...

 

[newtekie1]

I beg to differ...
To advertise performance under under just PB and then PBO is 2 different things. When I bought my R5 3600 45 days after 3000 launch I didn't expect PBO performance but just PB one. And I did get that.
There was not any misconception there.

Intel on the other hand calling things very differently with the PL1 and PL2, and apparently a lot of boards cant handle the higher level of performance/consumption. Where on 95+% of AMD 500 series boards you can run a 16core with the advertised numbers. Just not with PBO. Its different.

Well we can agree to disagree then, because I very much remember them advertising PBO and showing the performance difference it makes. It wasn't the only performance numbers they gave, but they did give PBO performance data in their advertising for PBO.

 

[Zach_01]

Well we can agree to disagree then, because I very much remember them advertising PBO and showing the performance difference it makes. It wasn't the only performance numbers they gave, but they did give PBO performance data in their advertising for PBO.

Ok then!
How is that the same with whats going on now with Intel's 11th gen and 560 boards that can only run base clock and not boost, beats me...

 

[GorbazTheDragon]

The better case for zen2 PB2 is something like 10% performance loss due to a 65w PPT rather than 88w on the lower power parts. Though, you stick a 16c into one of the cheaper B450 boards (check hardware numb3rs on YouTube as an example) and they will throttle (not boost less, they will overheat the VRM, drop to <1GHz and go back to normal when the temps go down) if you don't play with the PBO numbers.

That said, those AM4 boards in question are half the price of these B560 boards and the CPUs in question are way lower end (11400f can be limited for example) than the 12 and 16 core ryzens.

 

[newtekie1]

Ok then!
How is that the same with whats going on now with Intel's 11th gen and 560 boards that can only run base clock and not boost, beats me...

Because with PBO enabled, a feature AMD built into their processors and advertises as a feature of their processors, there are B550 boards that do the same thing.

Plus, none of the B560 boards limited the processors to their base clocks and weren't able to boost when the processors were run at stock configurations within Intel's specs.

 

[AusWolf]

The better case for zen2 PB2 is something like 10% performance loss due to a 65w PPT rather than 88w on the lower power parts. Though, you stick a 16c into one of the cheaper B450 boards (check hardware numb3rs on YouTube as an example) and they will throttle (not boost less, they will overheat the VRM, drop to <1GHz and go back to normal when the temps go down) if you don't play with the PBO numbers.

That said, those AM4 boards in question are half the price of these B560 boards and the CPUs in question are way lower end (11400f can be limited for example) than the 12 and 16 core ryzens.

I can't say much about B560, but when the B550 platform came out, many people got upset about how expensive the motherboards were compared to B450. Not many people talked about the fact that the newer B550 boards are generally better built, hence the price increase. I bet most of the ones with VRM heatsinks can run any Ryzen 9 with PBO. I'm not sure if the same can be said about B450.

Cheap motherboards being cheap in quality isn't a new thing.

 

[Zach_01]

Because with PBO enabled, a feature AMD built into their processors and advertises as a feature of their processors, there are B550 boards that do the same thing.

Plus, none of the B560 boards limited the processors to their base clocks and weren't able to boost when the processors were run at stock configurations within Intel's specs.

My mistake... I thought that 11400F's base clock was something better than the crappy 2.6GHz, like 3.3~3.6GHz... like most modern/advanced CPUs do.

Yes, that is a win!
kudos to Intel



You can compare it all you want but the fiasco of 30~50% performance difference on a low/midrange CPU does not exist in-between any B550.
And what an obsession with PBO...

 

[tabascosauz]

That's what I'm thinking too. AMD's 7 nm chiplets are very efficient (under load at least), but are a nightmare to cool in a SFF case. I'm currently using AMD's stock Wraith cooler with the 3100, but I also have a be quiet! Shadow Rock LP on the shelf for a potential upgrade. I ordered it for the 3600, but it wasn't enough to cool it down in my PC case for some reason. Currently I'm happy with the 3100, but that won't always be the case, and my options are limited due to the cooling difficulties I'm facing. I could just dust off the Aerocool Aero One Mini case that I have and call it a day, but nah. Where's the challenge in that?



I'm actually in the UK. But as you said, RKL CPUs are quite cheap, it's just the motherboard that costs a bit more than with AMD.

The funny thing about my PC case is that even though it's a slim one that only accepts low profile graphics cards and CPU coolers, micro-ATX motherboards aren't an issue. I'm using an Asus B550M TUF Wifi at the moment, and I would be a bit sad to swap it for something else (unless it's of the same quality as this one).

If I go Intel again, I want to be looking at something similar - the Asus B560M TUF Wifi, or the Asus Z590M Prime are the ones with similar-looking quality and affordability available in my area. As for CPU, I was thinking about a Core i7-11700 non-K and locking its PL1 to 65 W, and PL2 to whatever I can cool. Hopefully, the Asus boards I looked at (or something else) would let me do that, even if it's not their default setting.

If I stay with AMD, I'm very curious about the Ryzen 5000G series, especially the GE models. A monolithic die could potentially be easier to cool than chiplets, not to mention the low TDP they have. The backlash here is that AMD's TDP values have very little (if any) connection to reality, so even the GE chips might end up being difficult to cool because of their high turbo speeds. Not to mention that they're not available (yet).

There's nothing hard to cool about the 6-core Renoir or Cezanne APUs, they will run cooler than the comparable chiplet SKUs, guaranteed. Max boost of 4.3 and 4.4 (4650G/4600G give you +100MHz for free past AMD spec) respectively won't give you thermal challenges unless you literally cool them with a raw potato. You'd have to really try, using something like a NH-L9a and really choking the airflow in the case, to hit 80C under any stock load. Try using a L9a on a 3600 or 5600X, lol.

The APUs are 156mm^2 and 175mm^2, compared to 74mm^2 for a single chiplet.
They have to draw significantly less power, because there must be enough power budget left in 88W for Vega 7. On the 4650G you'll see the CPU max out at about 60W-ish under all-core, I'm guessing Cezanne is the same or slightly more given the focus on aggressively power-gating the GPU.

If it's easy thermals you're after, 8-core Rocket Lake is the wrong product. Comet Lake was the unicorn because it had the thinner die/thinner substrate/thicker IHS. Rocket Lake ditched that for 9900K-style packaging, so the increase in die size doesn't really offset the temps. Basically, add +2 cores to whatever RKL chip you're thinking of when considering cooling. Thus the 11400/11500/11600 are still okay, but once you get up to the 11700, treat it like you would a 10900F.

Yes, you can lock it to the stock 65W PL1, but that doesn't change the fact that it still will be drawing up to 200-260W during that Tau period, and temps will rise accordingly in that 30-second window.

 

[GorbazTheDragon]

I can't say much about B560, but when the B550 platform came out, many people got upset about how expensive the motherboards were compared to B450. Not many people talked about the fact that the newer B550 boards are generally better built, hence the price increase. I bet most of the ones with VRM heatsinks can run any Ryzen 9 with PBO. I'm not sure if the same can be said about B450.

Cheap motherboards being cheap in quality isn't a new thing.

Don't disagree, the problem I have with these cheap LGA1200 boards is they are limiting boost performance of even lower midrange chips. It's bad for uninformed consumers too who will look at reviews of a 11400F in a high end z590 board where it is likely running power unlocked at 200w, then they will go and buy the cheapest B560 or H510 board and find the performance is 2/3 of that in the review because these boards have PL2 limits below 100w...

I think this is a much more realistic scenario than running a 5900x/5950x (or the zen2 parts) in a B450M-A Pro Max or similar $50 AM4 board...

3900x: $400, 5900x: $600+. Bottom of the barrel AM4 board: $50-60.
11400F: $170. Bottom of the barrel H510/B560 board: $70-90

 

[Keullo-e]

Seconded. I've cooled on the "why would you pair a K chip with a locked board?" sentiment over the past couple years, at least if the price is fairly close. Stock clocks are higher, and you're (hypothetically) getting a better-binned chip that may run cooler clock-for-clock. Fringe benefit: K chips historically sell for more once obsoleted. The delta may not be as large as when new, but it's something.

I know, it's the exactly same thing in Finland, K CPUs have way more resell value, especially when some people want to upgrade from their HT-less i5 CPUs without upgrading the whole system.

But isn't the point of a locked board to save money when building a system, that's why I'm always wondering that why a locked board and more expensive K CPU.