AMD B650(E) motherboards are now available starting at $170

[Tudor Cibean]

The big picture: One of the main complaints with AMD's latest Ryzen 7000 processors is the high platform cost. AM5 only supports pricier DDR5 memory, unlike Team Blue's LGA 1700 platform. AMD has also had only premium X670 and X670E motherboards on the market, although that changes today with the release of B650(E).

Motherboards based on AMD's midrange B650 and B650E chipsets are now finally available, offering users a (slightly) lower cost of entry to the AM5 platform. Newegg currently lists over 25 models from the four major manufacturers, with prices ranging from $170 to $450.

So what exactly is the difference between all the AM5 chipsets? X670(E) motherboards make use of two Promontory 21 chips with four PCIe 4.0 lanes reserved for inter-chipset communication. Meanwhile, the B650 series uses just one chip, meaning it essentially offers half the connectivity of its premium counterpart.

Ryzen 7000 processors also offer up to 24 PCIe 5.0 lanes and due to the difficulty of routing such a high bandwidth, the two B650 variants handle them differently. B650E offers 16 PCIe 5.0 lanes (1 x 16 or 2 x 8) for graphics cards and at least one PCIe 5.0 M.2 slot for storage. In contrast, B650 has to deliver just PCIe 4.0 across the board, with PCIe 5.0 support for storage being optional, according to AMD. Also worth noting is that all AM5 motherboards revealed thus far support overclocking for both the CPU and memory.

The cheapest B650-series motherboard currently listed on Newegg is ASRock's B650M PG Riptide at $170 ($75 less than the cheapest X670(E) motherboard). At that price, you get a Micro ATX board with 12+2+1 power phases rated for 50A. The rear I/O is pretty basic, with a 2.5 Gbps LAN port and no Wi-Fi card, while the fastest USB ports top out at just 10 Gbps. However, the motherboard does offer a PCIe 5.0 M.2 slot (plus another limited to PCIe 4.0 speeds).

When AMD announced its Ryzen 7000 series processors, the company claimed AM5 motherboards would start at $125. However, it didn't mention if that price point would apply to B650 boards or a yet-to-be-announced A620 chipset.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/96263-amd-b650e-motherboards-now-available-starting-170.html

 

[Ludak021]

Who knew AMD will "pull Intel" as soon as they return their share of the market and became more popular than Intel?!

And the cycle continues...

 

[punctualturn]

Who knew AMD will "pull Intel" as soon as they return their share of the market and became more popular than Intel?!

And the cycle continues...

Are we entirely sure that it is AMD forcing the mobo makers to charge this much?

Or is AMD charging that much for their chipsets, hence forcing mobo makers to rise the prices so high to recoup?


Because all I see is people blaming AMD but I dont see any of these mobos being made and sold by AMD.



I am genuinely curious which one is the one driving these prices so high.

 

[bexwhitt]

Are we entirely sure that it is AMD forcing the mobo makers to charge this much?

Or is AMD charging that much for their chipsets, hence forcing mobo makers to rise the prices so high to recoup?


Because all I see is people blaming AMD but I dont see any of these mobos being made and sold by AMD.



I am genuinely curious which one is the one driving these prices so high.

It depends how much the board makers are paying for the chip set, the cheapest board described sounds sub $100 maybe its new tech tax

 

[Draconian]

Not even offering one 20 Gbps USB port is pretty weak. Meanwhile, there are X670E boards with two 40 Gbps ports.

 

[Mr Majestyk]

Are we entirely sure that it is AMD forcing the mobo makers to charge this much?

Or is AMD charging that much for their chipsets, hence forcing mobo makers to rise the prices so high to recoup?


Because all I see is people blaming AMD but I dont see any of these mobos being made and sold by AMD.



I am genuinely curious which one is the one driving these prices so high.

Are we entirely sure that it is AMD forcing the mobo makers to charge this much?

Or is AMD charging that much for their chipsets, hence forcing mobo makers to rise the prices so high to recoup?


Because all I see is people blaming AMD but I dont see any of these mobos being made and sold by AMD.

I am genuinely curious which one is the one driving these prices so high.

You can be sure AMD isn't forcing this pricing. And it's not the cost of the chipset either, it's cheaper to make than for X570/B550.

It's the normal new tech price gouging and the fact Intel hasn't released Raptor Lake yet, so their is no competition yet. Once that ships AMD will IMO be forced to quickly drop cpu prices and MB prices will drop as sales for Zen 4 are already poor. 13600K will stomp 7600X for only $20 more, 13700X will trade blows with 7900X for $140 less.

 

[punctualturn]

You can be sure AMD isn't forcing this pricing. And it's not the cost of the chipset either, it's cheaper to make than for X570/B550.

So my point stands, media and fanbois are making sh!t up just to trash AMD.

It's the normal new tech price gouging and the fact Intel hasn't released Raptor Lake yet, so their is no competition yet. Once that ships AMD will IMO be forced to quickly drop cpu prices and MB prices will drop as sales for Zen 4 are already poor. 13600K will stomp 7600X for only $20 more, 13700X will trade blows with 7900X for $140 less.

Please define stomp, because to me, that means that a 13600K is at least 50% faster than a 7600x and we simply dont know that and I will be really surprised thats case.

And if mobo makers do drop prices just because, then they are the ones to blame for killing their own products but we end up blaming AMD.

By the way, you did noticed that AMD top cpus are actually cheaper than previous gen?

I swear, people for some reason that I cant grasp, are so eager in seeing AMD fail and for Intel to get back on top, so they can r@pe us again without lube that falls in Stockholm syndrome victims.

 

[flee2020]

I know there are a lot of AMD fanboys but we really need to view this objectively before putting on that fanboy cap again.

I suspect the motherboard manufacturers are trying to make a killing here. They have seen how the video cards can give them mega margins and they are just applying the same formula. Many video card makers are also motherboard makers - so they definitely have the business model to emulate.

Having said that, AMD Zen 4 has made some very big demands on the motherboard. High power consumption means more beefy power supplies - just look at the VRMs on the boards! PCIe 5.0 4.0 and 3.0 means that there are a lot of different traces on the board. And DDR5 memory and AM5 socket too. So this generation of motherboards cost more. Add to that, manufacturers expect lower sales volumes - so they put bigger margins on them.

I did not like the high prices of Intel's LGA1700 Alder Lake boards compared to their LGA1200. However, it is a bit of a shock to see how much more AMD motherboards cost compared to the Intel ones.

With the world economy in a great deal of uncertainty, I am glad I upgraded to Alder Lake earlier this year. I don't think I can afford to build a new AMD Zen 4 PC now.

 

[Avro Arrow]

I look at it this way... I could spend a bit more on an AMD motherboard and only have to do UEFI updates for drop-in CPU replacements for the next six years or I could buy three Intel motherboards have have to go through the hassle of swapping them out every two years. The cheapest Z690 board is $130USD on Newegg (ASRock 1690M Phantom Gaming) and it only supports DDR4! So what's $130 x 3? Enough to make the $260 ASRock X670E PG Lightning seem downright cheap and it uses DDR5! The prices may seem high but only at first-glance. AMD set one helluva precedent with AM4 and in hindsight, I'd GLADLY pay prices like this for a motherboard that was going to last for 6+ years (2017-2023+).

Besides, since when have introductory prices on motherboards NOT dropped like a stone after six months? Never since I started building PCs (which was back in 1988) so I'm not worried about it.

 

[punctualturn]

I look at it this way... I could spend a bit more on an AMD motherboard and only have to do UEFI updates for drop-in CPU replacements for the next six years or I could buy three Intel motherboards have have to go through the hassle of swapping them out every two years. The cheapest Z690 board is $130USD on Newegg so what's $130 x 3? Enough to make even the $330 Asus TUF Gaming X670E-PLUS seem reasonable.

Besides, since when have introductory prices on motherboards NOT dropped like a stone after six months? Never since I started building PCs (which was back in 1988) so I'm not worried about it.
The prices may be high but AMD set a significant precedent with AM4 and in hindsight, I'd GLADLY pay prices like this for a motherboard that was going to last for 6+ years (2016-2023+).

Stop talking logically, we are all here to make up negative stuff to then blame AMD for it.

 

[Avro Arrow]

I know there are a lot of AMD fanboys but we really need to view this objectively before putting on that fanboy cap again.

I can't think of a worse way to start a post than a dumb remark like that. I say this as someone who only buys AMD because I hate Intel and nVidia, not because I'm a fanboy for AMD. Intel and nVidia have earned my hate. They should have earned yours as well but I guess some people don't mind it when corporations are bad actors. I am not one of those people because I DO mind!

So...let's be objective, shall we? Objectively, AMD has demonstrated that their platform lasts 2-3x as long as Intel's without requiring a motherboard change. That ends up being less expensive and producing FAR less e-waste over time. The ASRock Z690 Phantom Gaming 4/D5 costs $156. If I pay an extra $74, I get a Gigabyte B650 Aorus Elite AX which is futureproofed by Gigabyte's 3-year warranty and the PCI-Express v5.0 x16 slot. That B650 board's specifications actually make it a long-term bargain considering the price.

Also, motherboards all drop in price after six months or less post-launch anyway so prices right now aren't indicative of anything. Right now, the big thing driving the price up is that the supply is probably low. When most people (myself included) still have an upgrade possible on the AM4 platform, who is going to sink their money into AM5? I think that both AMD and the AIBs realise this and thus are inflating the price to justify producing these items this early.

After all, even though I just upgraded to an R7-5700X, I know that for gaming, the R7-5800X3D is the best upgrade for me as far as gaming is concerned and that doesn't require a new motherboard OR new RAM. Objectively, I'd say that AMD set a precedent and it's safe to assume that AM5 will have similar longevity.

 

[flee2020]

I can't think of a worse way to start a post than a dumb remark like that. I say this as someone who only buys AMD because I hate Intel and nVidia, not because I'm a fanboy for AMD. Intel and nVidia have earned my hate. They should have earned yours as well but I guess some people don't mind it when corporations are bad actors. I am not one of those people because I DO mind!

So...let's be objective, shall we? Objectively, AMD has demonstrated that their platform lasts 2-3x as long as Intel's without requiring a motherboard change. That ends up being less expensive and producing FAR less e-waste over time. The ASRock Z690 Phantom Gaming 4/D5 costs $156. If I pay an extra $74, I get a Gigabyte B650 Aorus Elite AX which is futureproofed by Gigabyte's 3-year warranty and the PCI-Express v5.0 x16 slot. That B650 board's specifications actually make it a long-term bargain considering the price.

Also motherboards all drop in price after six months or less post-launch anyway so prices right now aren't indicative of anything. Right now, the big thing driving the price up is that the supply is probably low. When most people (myself included) still have an upgrade possible on the AM4 platform, who is going to sink their money into AM5? I think that both AMD and the AIBs realise this and thus are inflating the price to justify producing these items this early.

After all, even though I just upgraded to an R7-5700X, I know that for gaming, the R7-5800X3D is the best upgrade for me as far as gaming is concerned and that doesn't require a new motherboard OR new RAM. Objectively, I'd say that AMD set a precedent and it's safe to assume that AM5 will have similar longevity.

Hate is a very strong word and life is too short to have so much hate around.

I have a PC and a laptop - as I have said, I just upgraded to Alder Lake this year. My old PC was built in 2014, so I need a new platform anyway to take advantage of the new technologies like PCIe 5.0/4.0, multiple M.2 slots, USB 3.2 Gen 2 etc. So I am happy again and won't be upgrading anymore until I have a need for a new PC.

My laptop is a Zen 1+ Ryzen 5 machine from 3 years ago and it is still good for what I am doing. When I upgrade in future, I will look at what is in the market and buy what is best to suit my needs then. Needless to say, value for money is more important to me than the brand of the hardware.

If it works for you being a loyal AMD customer, that is great. Everyone should be happy with their purchases! I know I am with mine.

 

[punctualturn]

Some people, like Avro and myself, also place value in how a company behaves besides their products and like him, I truly hate Intel and Nvidia for all the anti consumer and anti-competitive cr@p that they have pulled over the years.

My moral compass simply doesn't allow me to give them a penny unless I absolutely dont have any other choice.
Luckily, my needs are met by AMD current and future offerings, plus their pro-consumer approach and already established support for open technologies, open source and other positive traits.
Example, besides Nintendo (which time will definitely come) tell me which company worked with Nvidia and didnt end with a knife in their backs and never returned to them?

Or how they sold directly to miners?

And dont get me started on the sh!t that Intel has done and is still doing.

Yes, all corporations are bad, but in this case, I prefer to support the least evil one.

 

[Avro Arrow]

Hate is a very strong word and life is too short to have so much hate around.

Well, since I flatly refuse to buy their products and support their bad actions, I think that hate isn't too harsh.

I have a PC and a laptop - as I have said, I just upgraded to Alder Lake this year. My old PC was built in 2014, so I need a new platform anyway to take advantage of the new technologies like PCIe 5.0/4.0, multiple M.2 slots, USB 3.2 Gen 2 etc. So I am happy again and won't be upgrading anymore until I have a need for a new PC.

That right there is the biggest advantage that AM4 offered. An upgrade only required a UEFI update and a CPU or GPU drop-in for six years. I expect the same or similar from AM5.

My laptop is a Zen 1+ Ryzen 5 machine from 3 years ago and it is still good for what I am doing. When I upgrade in future, I will look at what is in the market and buy what is best to suit my needs then. Needless to say, value for money is more important to me than the brand of the hardware.

Yeah, that's what I have too, an R5-3500U and it's perfectly fine for my mobile uses. I don't use my craptop for anything serious (I have my desktop for that) so it gets more or less the use that a baby-boomer would give it.

If it works for you being a loyal AMD customer, that is great. Everyone should be happy with their purchases! I know I am with mine.

You've got that wrong because I'm not loyal to AMD at all. I buy AMD by default because I want nothing to do with the only other two companies in the market. If VIA had a competitive CPU (or S3 GPU for that matter), I would give it objective consideration and buy it if the value was there. Intel and nVidia however, they've made it perfectly clear what they think of tech consumers and I won't support their shenanigans.

To be fair, I haven't suffered at all by avoiding them because regardless of what people scream, the Phenom II and FX-x3xx series CPUs, along with Radeon GPUs worked just fine for me. I was never unable to play any game that I wanted to play. Thus, I was never even the least bit tempted to buy Intel and/or nVidia products.

 

[flee2020]

Yes, all corporations are bad, but in this case, I prefer to support the least evil one.

Correct, I think most corporations (at least in the capitalist world) only think about profits for its shareholders. They screw their staff and customers. The directors are overpaid because they deliver great returns for the shareholders.

I have been buying (and selling) PC hardware since 1981 and I learnt not to be sentimental or emotional. Like you said, all these corporations are bad at one point in time or another. So it is best to look at things objectively - I.e. what you are getting for your money. Get the best deal from whoever is offering.

One way I sort of protect myself is not to follow the upgrade rat race. I tend to buy something and use it until it can no longer serve my purpose or until the hardware breaks down. In the long run, I spend less. Some people love upgrading and trade in their old hardware. If it works for them, that is good!

For me, reducing the number of times I buy something new helps me to spend more time using whatever I have and less time thinking about the bastard corporations!

 

[flee2020]

That right there is the biggest advantage that AM4 offered. An upgrade only required a UEFI update and a CPU or GPU drop-in for six years. I expect the same or similar from AM5.

Not all AM4 motherboards are made equal. There is a great deal of new technology on X570 boards compared to the older chipsets. So if you bought a motherboard for your Zen 1 CPU, you are most likely to have upgraded it too when you buy a Zen 3 product. Otherwise, you won't get the full performance or features of the Zen 3 CPU. That is, unless you do not have a need for them! But who would upgrade to a new CPU if you can't access the new features and better performance?

 

[Avro Arrow]

Not all AM4 motherboards are made equal. There is a great deal of new technology on X570 boards compared to the older chipsets. So if you bought a motherboard for your Zen 1 CPU, you are most likely to have upgraded it too when you buy a Zen 3 product. Otherwise, you won't get the full performance or features of the Zen 3 CPU. That is, unless you do not have a need for them! But who would upgrade to a new CPU if you can't access the new features and better performance?

I really don't think that the new features like PCI-Express v4.0 and Smart Access Memory were things that anyone cared about. And sure, not all AM4 motherboards are equal but if they're the top-level chipset (X-series), then they should be good. It's not like my ASRock X370 Killer SLI is an elite-level board. It's a moderately-priced board (just like my X570 Pro4) and it does the job. Most people would never notice the difference between PCI-Express v3.0 and PCI-Express v4.0 when it comes to most video cards (except maybe the badly-named RX 6500 XT) let alone the use of SAM. For them, it wouldn't be worth the extra $150-$200 when all they need to do to get the faster CPU is drop it in.

At the very least, they're offered a choice. If they want to spend extra on a new board, that's all good (I just like having spares) but if they'd rather use that money to upgrade to an R9 from an R7 or R7 from an R5, that makes a much bigger difference in performance than a new board.

 

[Avro Arrow]

Stop talking logically, we are all here to make up negative stuff to then blame AMD for it.

Oh yeah, I forgot. These days, intelligence is not to be aspired to, it is to be belittled and facts are less important than irrational emotions.

Sorry, I'll do better next time!

 

[Rockfella]

AM5 is AMD's first LGA Socket which are usually more expensive than AMD's older type. That may also be contributing to high cost of AM5.

 

[Avro Arrow]

AM5 is AMD's first LGA Socket which are usually more expensive than AMD's older type. That may also be contributing to high cost of AM5.

It could be, but the problem is that Intel is also LGA and their motherboards aren't even remotely as expensive. I think it's because AMD platforms last longer and personally, I'd be much happier paying an extra $50 or so if it means that I don't have to buy a new motherboard in a few years (which could cost triple that by then).

There's no question in my mind that AM4 was the best platform that I've ever seen because upgrades were cheap and easy. Not only did AM4 bring AMD back from the brink, it seriously hurt Intel because nobody who already had an AM4 motherboard was going to switch to Intel when all they needed to do for an upgrade was update the BIOS and drop in new CPU/APU.

To reach parity for an AM4 owner, an Intel CPU would have to be over $100 cheaper than the AM4 equivalent to include the motherboard cost AND would have to have comparable performance. Since that's impossible, people were essentially "locked-in" to AMD and, like me, were perfectly happy that way because it was a much better deal.

However, now AMD has lost sight of that fact. All they had to do was treat AM5 the same way that they treated AM4. Get as many people on board as possible because that will guarantee that their next CPU purchase will be AMD. This is why I absolutely hate what they've done with the 3D cache, slapping it onto productivity CPUs (and only half of it) while charging way more for it. While they're doing this, the CPU that would make the most sense, the R5-7600X3D, doesn't exist. A 3D version of the R5-7600X for $350 would result in AMD being the undisputed gaming king and would've increased the rate of AM5 adoption dramatically, locking people in to using only AMD for the next five years.

AMD has become stupid and they're not the same AMD from just five years ago. The change occurred all at the same time with the release of AM5 and RX 7000. They've now bought into the same anti-consumer practices that Intel and nVidia are famous for. Coreteks talks here about exactly what pissed me off so much about anti-consumer products like the R9-7950X3D:

I guess it had to happen sooner or later because consumers weren't exactly rewarding them for behaving otherwise. Dumb consumers were instead rewarding Intel and nVidia despite their constant anti-consumer behaviour. Just look at everyone who only games and has an nVidia GPU below the RTX 3070 (the threshold for useful RT). They're the reason that this is happening. Coreteks did a fantastic video outlining what's happening at nVidia and why.

After all, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em, eh?