Recently I found testing Intel B560 boards so frustrating that I had to stop to warn readers of the possible pitfalls when buying one such board. Our findings are alarming and something all potential buyers should know.
Recently I found testing Intel B560 boards so frustrating that I had to stop to warn readers of the possible pitfalls when buying one such board. Our findings are alarming and something all potential buyers should know.
Steve, the only honest advice to give is "If you own a working PC, put your wallet back in your pocket and wait until DDR5". The ridiculously short 6-month lifecycle vs 12th Gen Alder Lake, plus the ongoing power issues, plus fake upgrade lock-out of "No Comet -> Rocket Lake on B460" = the entire 11th Generation "Rocket Lake" has been a complete dud from the start."This is the situation we’re faced with when recommending locked Intel CPUs on budget B560 motherboards"
Shouldn’t the title be changed to “Budget” Intel B560 boards are a disaster?
The title suggests that the whole platform itself is bad, but according to you, this isn’t so for all of B560. Instead, from a sample size of only 3, it appears that the sub $140 market might be problematic in terms of the dramatic difference in performance.
Well cosnidering the 5600x runs about $370 right now on newegg it's STILL cheaper to go intel.Such a shame too since the 11400F really is one of the more solid alternatives for budget builds, however if you take into account that you need a 200+ dollar motherboard to really get the benefits then you might just as well spend that extra towards a budged AM4 A520 or B550 motherboard and a 5600x
If the final price ends up being about the same there's no reason *not* to go with 5600x instead.
Shouldnt the blame rest on intel for making this so damn confusing in the first place? Why are 2.9 and 4.4 sustained clocks both considered "in spec" in the first place?I think a big part of the problem have been reviewers. On one hand, you test CPU on power unlocked high end boards turning a 65W or 125W CPU into one that consumes twice as much. Still in the specs, it will show (65W) or (125W) next to the CPU in the specifications or comparison charts - I‘d say pick one or the other but not both. It‘s either a 65W CPU that (surprise, surprise) performs like one unless you spend $$$ on expensive mainboards and ‚plumbing‘ or if you do the latter, it‘s a 125W+ CPU that performs as reviewers advertise but considering the necessary (expensive) components it may no longer be the budget choice reviewers are so highly recommending.
So if you want to bash someone like you mention in your video, bash all reviewers that put up with the mixing of official spec advertising vs. out of spec performance.
After all, many poor users followed the advice, got the budget gaming CPU pick, coupled that with budget parts and got nowhere near the expected performance.
The „out of the box“ experience is only one if it‘s consistent across all boards and price tiers.
AMD royally FUBARd the 5600x's price. If you REALLY want the best budget option, grab a 3500x for $134 from aliexpress and combine it with a A520-B550 motherboard.
Of course Intel should be bashed, but they can only do this if reviewers keep supporting it.Shouldnt the blame rest on intel for making this so damn confusing in the first place? Why are 2.9 and 4.4 sustained clocks both considered "in spec" in the first place?
Intel should be bashed for being utterly incapable fo setting their own standard. AMD would get raked over the coals for this, look what a big deal people made over the ryzen 3000 boost debacle, and that was 50-100 mhz, imagine if there was a 1ghz+ boost difference.
Probably worse, given it doesnt support memory overclocking and has a restricted DMI link compared to the other chipsets.I wonder how H510 fares performance wise.
AMD's X series has been awful for awhile now. The 3600x and 3600xt only existed as "fanboy editions" for people to shove moe money at AMD. They apparently learned that only that version should exist. The 3500x was the only good price point X series, but wasnt available until recently.Its actually worst if you realise that 5600x is really a 5600 but AMD just put "x" there to make the price look bit more reasonable. Why do I say that? If you look at all previous 600x series CPUs (1600x, 2600x & 3600x) they are all 95w but 5600x is 65w.
At one stage you could buy 10th gen Intel 10-core for only $A20 more than 5600x here in Australia, but it seems prices are falling for 5000 series, don't know if its due to better supply vs. demand or competition from Intel?
Well, should reviewers use the base specs from intel, the specs that ship out of box, or the maximum specs for performance when reviewing? Comments sections cant make their mind up on the issue either.Of course Intel should be bashed, but they can only do this if reviewers keep supporting it.
And they do - boards following Intel‘s official specs are not recommended, so why use / quote them ?
They can use either but in either case I would appreciate consistency.Well, should reviewers use the base specs from intel, the specs that ship out of box, or the maximum specs for performance when reviewing? Comments sections cant make their mind up on the issue either.
If an official spec has that much leeway in it it has failed at being a proper spec. "in spec" doesnt mean anything now, and that is a serious issue for non techies looking at possibly buildign their own PCs. It makes the process more confusing for both them and us.
EDIT: grammar
Just opened Newegg and it's $299 new, with a USED one for $372, which is kind of funny.Theinsanegamer said:Well cosnidering the 5600x runs about $370 right now on newegg it's STILL cheaper to go intel.
+1Great article, keep up the good work.
Just opened Newegg and it's $299 new, with a USED one for $372, which is kind of funny.
Well cosnidering the 5600x runs about $370 right now on newegg it's STILL cheaper to go intel.
But if you look at MSRP, the 5600x is a $300 part. The 11400F is $175. With a $180 gigabyte board shown here to perform OOB perfectly you're looking at $355. Even if there are decent $55 motherboards out ther for the 5600x (big doubt here) you're not going to get the equivelant feature set and ports out of a $55 motherboard. And those cheaper boards will still run a 11400 or 11700, you just need to adjust the TDP limits up.
AMD royally FUBARd the 5600x's price. If you REALLY want the best budget option, grab a 3500x for $134 from aliexpress and combine it with a A520-B550 motherboard.