- May 2, 2017
- 7,762 (3.70/day)
- Back in Norway
|Processor||AMD Ryzen 7 5800X, 110/95/110, PBO +150Mhz, CO -7,-7,-20(x6),|
|Motherboard||ASRock Phantom Gaming B550 ITX/ax|
|Cooling||LOBO + Laing DDC 1T Plus PWM + Corsair XR5 280mm + 2x Arctic P14|
|Memory||32GB G.Skill FlareX 3200c14 @3800c15|
|Video Card(s)||PowerColor Radeon 6900XT Liquid Devil Ultimate, UC@2250MHz max @~200W|
|Storage||2TB Adata SX8200 Pro|
|Display(s)||Dell U2711 main, AOC 24P2C secondary|
|Audio Device(s)||Optoma Nuforce μDAC 3|
|Power Supply||Corsair SF750 Platinum|
|Keyboard||Keychron K3/Cooler Master MasterKeys Pro M w/DSA profile caps|
|Software||Windows 10 Pro|
Don't forget Wx80.I don't think they to ditch anything, but the Z, H, B, Q. We, on TPU, are supposed to be tech-savvy. When we can't tell otoh what they stand for, they failed in their mission.
I think five (six?) chipsets per generation is excessive though. A high-mid-low range makes sense, and I guess one for business with vPro and one for Xeon workstations also makes some sense - though ideally those would just be kept separate in some way. They could at least give them useful and understandable designations. If B is supposed to stand for business, it's weird that they don't support vPro and are universally seen as the "not Z" consumer option. If H stands for Home, why have they never been used in consumer-oriented motherboards to any extent? Why are Hx70 and Qx70 the same number, yet have very different featuresets? Why is Bx60 severely cut down compared to the x70 ranges, despite just being 10 lower in number?
Possible solutions: Make the business chipsets vPro versions of the other chipsets. I.e. instead of Z490, W480, Q470, H470, B460 and H410, you'd have Z490, Z490 vPro, B460, B460 vPro, and H410. Let the BIOS decide whether to unlock OC functionality and the like based on what CPU is installed, instead of using bespoke chipsets for every single little thing. The vPro versions wouldn't be sold much at retail anyway, and OEMs would have the option to flash vPro BIOSes to their PCs at will, without needing to manage stock for 5-6 different pieces of silicon.
If anything, this just mirrors Intel's CPU naming woes: the segmentation itself makes sense in some way, but the naming is confusing and messy to such a degree that it completely undermines the segmentation and makes it seem arbitrary and weird.