Multiple makers reveal their upcoming AMD B650 motherboards

AlphaX

Posts: 53   +16
Staff
Something to look forward to: As the official launch of B650 motherboards closes in, multiple manufacturers have begun to preview some of their upcoming models. Budget-oriented consumers can celebrate as the B650 boards start at a much more reasonable sub-$200 range.

Last month, AMD officially released its new Zen 4 architecture and Ryzen 7000 series processors. Subsequently, manufacturers began to flood the market with motherboards to accompany the latest CPU. Consumers were taken aback by the high prices of those X670 boards, with the cheapest offerings reaching nearly $300.

Thankfully, buyers no longer need to spend $300+ on a motherboard to get in on the AM5 experience. Four companies revealed their upcoming B650 boards, expected to release later this month.

ASRock's site currently lists eight B650 boards, ranging from the entry-level B650 Pro RS to the next rendition of the ever-popular Taichi motherboard, pictured above.

Asus released a "motherboard guide" showcasing a few of its upcoming products. It's uncertain whether or not the company is refraining from revealing the more budget-friendly Prime and TUF boards, but they are absent from the guide. However, it shows off multiple Strix series motherboards, including the Mini-ITX offering for this chipset.

Gigabyte's site also reveals eight motherboards slated for release shortly. The page shows off four ATX entries into the "Aorus" line from Gigabyte and the surprising but welcomed support for Micro ATX motherboards, with the company listing three of them. For white-themed builds, Gigabyte also offers the B650 Aero. Unfortunately, Gigabyte falls short for those set on a Mini-ITX system, as it does not yet have a Mini-ITX motherboard.

Lastly, MSI revealed its initial B650 lineup, posting seven new motherboards on its website, covering most price budgets and case sizes. The company has entry-level boards like the Pro B650-P and enthusiast offerings like the MPG B650 Carbon Wi-Fi. Consumers can also find ATX, Micro ATX, and Mini-ITX, suiting any case they may want to use.

Additionally, MSI unintentionally leaked the MSRPs for its upcoming mobos, with offerings starting at $189. That's more affordable than MSI's cheapest X670 motherboard, which costs nearly $400.

The reveals are good news for budget-oriented consumers, letting them into the AM5 platform at an attractive price. In time, we will likely see even cheaper motherboards, allowing additional users to jump to the Zen 4 architecture.

Permalink to story.

 

kiwigraeme

Posts: 1,298   +950
Where the hell are the $120 B650 motherboards promised by AMD? Which is already a crazy high price considering we could buy $50 motherboards just a few years ago.

I would expect some cost adjustments - just try and buy a USB C header set for a older motherboard.
The cards today have more features , probably weigh more .
Plus they come in big boxes to ship.
Better consumer rights - more things on boards to fail maybe .

Those $50 boards were for single/dual core basic work machines .
Given that - a $120 board should be a possibility

If you want a $300 CPU , a 500 GPU - DDR5 - I myself would not skimp to save $50 on a MB.

Intel does NUCs - Raspberry PIs , Apple M1/M2 . AMD really needs to make a great little APU box
 

Lew Zealand

Posts: 2,243   +2,795
TechSpot Elite
Where the hell are the $120 B650 motherboards promised by AMD? Which is already a crazy high price considering we could buy $50 motherboards just a few years ago.

Those are all crap with no cooling on the VRMs, The cheapest B450 with a tiny aluminum block over a weak VRM is $80. $90 for a similar B550. Those won't do well with these higher wattage 7000 CPUs, though if you run them in ECO mode, maybe a VRM like these could be adequate?

But with a new socket, there are hardware development costs to recover so those $120 boards will come but not for a while.
 

Dimitriid

Posts: 2,248   +4,361
Those are all crap with no cooling on the VRMs, The cheapest B450 with a tiny aluminum block over a weak VRM is $80. $90 for a similar B550. Those won't do well with these higher wattage 7000 CPUs, though if you run them in ECO mode, maybe a VRM like these could be adequate?

But with a new socket, there are hardware development costs to recover so those $120 boards will come but not for a while.

But again, Beefy VRMs were also not needed a few years ago for most processors. Some of the high end ones benefited from them sure, but nobody pushed AMD to:

1) Compete so aggresively with intel that they've blown out the power requirements just to squeeze a very narrow technical victory over intel even though at 65 watts these new 7600x chips for example are still reasonably competitive

2) Nobody pushed them to just fully abandon the mid range and low end sectors. I understand wanting more attention to the higher end chips at launch but even the last generation it took months for them to even announce anything midrange so at this rate we might go close to a full year without AMD offering anything midrange whatsoever: No 7600 or 7700 let alone anything 4/8 cores.

Is not like I don't get it: this is the best strategy business-wise as is probably more important that AMD is not perceived as the cheap alternative to intel they've been running away for so long to keep their trends going and keep winning marketshare. It makes sense to sacrifice more volume sells on lower margin chips anyway to intel right now.

But we as consumers, both can and should ask why is AMD so willing to just completely abandon any midrange offerings and pursue this: it's not enough to just win market over intel if in the process, they end up basically becoming intel with severely overpriced CPUs, out of control pricing on motherboards and ridiculous power requirements.

If they can't compete with intel and keep their prices and cpu temps reasonable then they should focus on what has made Ryzen popular go begin with instead of just changing it into "We win the performance crown for 1 month and then intel takes it away anway" which is what's looking like will happen.
 

Biostud

Posts: 104   +69
But in the old days you would also have to fill up every slot on the motherboard with network, soundcards, etc. now you get all but the graphics card included in the motherboard.

Personally I'm going for the ASRock PG Riptide B650E. As it has PCIE5 for both graphics card and a single nvme slot, but hasn't gone overboard in features.
 

takaozo

Posts: 396   +616
But in the old days you would also have to fill up every slot on the motherboard with network, soundcards, etc. now you get all but the graphics card included in the motherboard.

I still use a AIB sound card. The current embeded sound chips on MB are trash for headphones.
 

Biostud

Posts: 104   +69
I still use a AIB sound card. The current embeded sound chips on MB are trash for headphones.
So do I, it is the same reason I don't want to pay extra for a highed end motherboard with better sound than the normal motherboard. I use the Soundblaster AE-7.

But you have the option not to invest in a soundcard and still be able to game etc.
 

Biostud

Posts: 104   +69
But again, Beefy VRMs were also not needed a few years ago for most processors. Some of the high end ones benefited from them sure, but nobody pushed AMD to:

1) Compete so aggresively with intel that they've blown out the power requirements just to squeeze a very narrow technical victory over intel even though at 65 watts these new 7600x chips for example are still reasonably competitive

2) Nobody pushed them to just fully abandon the mid range and low end sectors. I understand wanting more attention to the higher end chips at launch but even the last generation it took months for them to even announce anything midrange so at this rate we might go close to a full year without AMD offering anything midrange whatsoever: No 7600 or 7700 let alone anything 4/8 cores.

Is not like I don't get it: this is the best strategy business-wise as is probably more important that AMD is not perceived as the cheap alternative to intel they've been running away for so long to keep their trends going and keep winning marketshare. It makes sense to sacrifice more volume sells on lower margin chips anyway to intel right now.

But we as consumers, both can and should ask why is AMD so willing to just completely abandon any midrange offerings and pursue this: it's not enough to just win market over intel if in the process, they end up basically becoming intel with severely overpriced CPUs, out of control pricing on motherboards and ridiculous power requirements.

If they can't compete with intel and keep their prices and cpu temps reasonable then they should focus on what has made Ryzen popular go begin with instead of just changing it into "We win the performance crown for 1 month and then intel takes it away anway" which is what's looking like will happen.
As long as DDR5 is expensive, and the AM4 platform is thriving they don't really need to push the AM5 platform for budget builds. At some point AMD will launch the A620 chipset as well for true budget AM5 builds. But it always makes most sense to launch the expensive and most profitable products first.

And most important, as long as there is competition between Intel and AMD, we as consumers will benefit.
 
These are "budget" motherboards the same way the 7600x is a "budget" 300USD CPU.

If we so willingly stretch what we mean by budget then it's no wonder we're getting absurd price-hikes these past years.
 

veLa

Posts: 1,175   +850
I remember my X470 motherboard was considered a higher end board and only cost $180. That's still the priciest motherboard I've ever bought.

Those who call these budget options are clearly missing historical perspective.
 

Irata

Posts: 2,221   +3,857
Yep, unfortunately AM5 will require DDR5 on all motherboards. It's a bit disappointing that B650/X670 didn't have a DDR4 option to help ease the transition like what Intel did with 12th and 13th gen.
The reason for this on AM5 is platform longevity and I would assume cost. If you release ‚single shot‘ platforms it‘s a different story altogether.

All "rejoicing" aside, do these boards require the still astronomically expensive DDR-5?

16GB DDR5-5200 modules start at $ 79 (Kingston Fury Beast). More expensive than DDR4 but I wouldn‘t call these prices ‚astronomically expensive‘.
 

Biostud

Posts: 104   +69
Also, while we don't know if it for sure will support zen6, you can possibly save on costs with a drop in upgrade.
 

Lew Zealand

Posts: 2,243   +2,795
TechSpot Elite
I don't ride the front end of the tech wave as it's too expensive, having just recently picked up a discount R5 5600 and only slightly less recently an i7-9700F, both as CPU upgrades, so it's very annoying that AMD hasn't had affordable, or available, and often enough, *any* 4C8T consumer processors since...

what, Zen??

No Zen+, a pair of good Zen2s but good luck finding one, no Zen3, no Zen4 (ok, yet but probably ever).

Yes, the patient can get good 6C12T options (have 2x 1600AFs in the house) at 4C8T prices, but those prices fluctuate wildly so it's not like just picking up a dirt cheap but capable 10100F or pretty damn good 12100F for $100 or much lower is an everyday occurrence on the AMD side.

I assume it has to do with the Zen3 and 4 eight-core CCD. How many are going to have 3 or 4 failed cores to enable a supply of quad-core CPUs? Probably not many so if you get 6 or 7 good cores, you sell another R5 5600 for more.
 

captaincranky

Posts: 19,123   +8,233
The reason for this on AM5 is platform longevity and I would assume cost. If you release ‚single shot‘ platforms it‘s a different story altogether.
Well, your definition of "platform longevity" differs dramatically from mine. I just build humble mainstream machines, then assign them a task. As a result, my house is starting to look like an Intel museum. (Sorry for the foul language, (the "I" word, as it were)).

To the upside, I don't have just one omnipotent computer god that I pray to, or to which have to offer sacrifice of generation after generation of CPU.

Plus, you'll never hear me online pissing and moaning about how, "those damned miners and scalpers took all MY video cards". Nor am I stupid enough to pay double MSRP to feed my computer and gaming addiction. Oh well, nobody's perfect.

FWIW, I just gambled about $70.00 on a copy of Windows 7 64 bit Pro and 8 GB of some unknown Chinese RAM, which I am hoping to install in this ancient G-41 / Pentium E-6300 (2 core) "platform". It's 32 bit Win 7 Home now.

If all goes well, I figure it will enable me to open at least twice as many tabs, and argue with at least twice as many AMD fanboys at once as I can now.
16GB DDR5-5200 modules start at $ 79 (Kingston Fury Beast). More expensive than DDR4 but I wouldn‘t call these prices ‚astronomically expensive‘
Ooo, Kingston, "Fury Beast", sounds mean and nasty. I guess I haven't kept up with the price drop. Why, it seems like just yesterday, when certain segments of the Techspot crowd were whimpering loudly about DDR-5 pricing.
 

NeoMorpheus

Posts: 1,393   +2,958
hen certain segments of the Techspot crowd were whimpering loudly about DDR-5 pricing.
Because the Intel fanbois always latch to anything in their dire need to push their agenda against AMD specially resorting to lie based on old data.
Same as the nvidia ones seems to always repeat "AMD drivers sucks! give master Jensen all your moneis!".
 

Irata

Posts: 2,221   +3,857
Well, your definition of "platform longevity" differs dramatically from mine. I just build humble mainstream machines, then assign them a task. As a result, my house is starting to look like an Intel museum. (Sorry for the foul language, (the "I" word, as it were)).

To the upside, I don't have just one omnipotent computer god that I pray to, or to which have to offer sacrifice of generation after generation of CPU.

Plus, you'll never hear me online pissing and moaning about how, "those damned miners and scalpers took all MY video cards". Nor am I stupid enough to pay double MSRP to feed my computer and gaming addiction. Oh well, nobody's perfect.

FWIW, I just gambled about $70.00 on a copy of Windows 7 64 bit Pro and 8 GB of some unknown Chinese RAM, which I am hoping to install in this ancient G-41 / Pentium E-6300 (2 core) "platform". It's 32 bit Win 7 Home now.

If all goes well, I figure it will enable me to open at least twice as many tabs, and argue with at least twice as many AMD fanboys at once as I can now.

Ooo, Kingston, "Fury Beast", sounds mean and nasty. I guess I haven't kept up with the price drop. Why, it seems like just yesterday, when certain segments of the Techspot crowd were whimpering loudly about DDR-5 pricing.
Well, we all habe different usage models and upgrade methods.

In my case, I purchased a new Ryzen 2700x for €150 after Zen 2 was released, will upgrade it to a 5700x later this year now that Zen 4 has been released. Currently it‘s at €249, would be nice if price went down a little bit. So no, definitely do not overspend or upgrade every gen (you‘d have to be mentally challenged to even suggest such a thing imho).

It‘s a multi-purpose family PC so one machine for all tasks.

I did save two of my older PC that I really liked as they were nice builds - a ULV K6-III+ 450 and the other one with a mobile Barton 2500+ in a desktop board. I also had Intel builds that - except for the Atom POS - I liked very much, particularly the Tualatin Celeron (low voltage version, believe it was a 1.13 Ghz model) but as they all actually died I no longer have any of them.
 

captaincranky

Posts: 19,123   +8,233
So no, definitely do not overspend or upgrade every gen (you‘d have to be mentally challenged to even suggest such a thing imho).

I specifically went out of my way to phrase that in an impersonal way There are obviously people who approach the "hobby" in exactly that way.. You're not trying to tell me that, "keeping up with the Joneses", doesn't attach itself to computer ownership, are you?

My "most important" observation, (if you can call anything I say "important"), was that "platform longevity", means different things to different people. So I wasn't addressing you specifically, it was more of a "if the shoe fits", generalization.

IMO, relying on one mobo to carry you through several generations of CPUs is a bit of a fool's errand. Speaking very generally, every generation of boards brings with it collateral, sometimes colossal, improvements, (DDR 2 < DDR-3, SATA 2 < SATA 3 < NVme, and so forth).

So, if you're going to "upgrade", or "build", (euphemism for, "plug stuff together"), might as well start on the ground floor, I mean board..

BTW, my new B660 board has a programmable RGB header..!!! Which I need like a hole in the head. If course if some of the innuendo I hear at Techspot is true, I already have one.
 
Last edited:

captaincranky

Posts: 19,123   +8,233
Because the Intel fanbois always latch to anything in their dire need to push their agenda against AMD specially resorting to lie based on old data.
Same as the nvidia ones seems to always repeat "AMD drivers sucks! give master Jensen all your moneis!".
I'm really hurt that you consider me an "Intel fanboy". But that's perhaps easily explicable, since you've been here for two years, and I've been here for sixteen.

Once upon a time AMD was "king". Then Intel released the Core 2 Duo E-6300, which flushed AMD down the toilet, where they stayed for the better part of a decade. It got to the point where they had to move out of Silicon Valley, leaving the grass uncut..

In the meantime, Intel blew a bunch of smoke up their stockholder's a**es, calling it a "road map". Ir was supposed to illustrate a timely fashion in which Intel would be narrowing their process widths.. As we all know, that didn't happen, and I vowed off buying another Intel CPU until they at least hit 10 nm. Accordingly, my "newest" operable Intel system, is based on a Z170 board, and an i5-6600K. (Skylake) they're calling it "6th generation".@ 14 nm. While I'm not certain if it was the 1st 14 nm line, it was on sale with a board combo, $220.00 for the pair.

So, when the 12th generation 10 nm CPUs came out, in lieu of going back on my word, I bought an i3-12100 (w/IGP) & B660 mobo w/DDR-4 compatibility. I thought the availability off DDR-4 was a great accommodation at the time, given the scalped prices of DDR-5 at the time

I buy and build with Intel out of habit and familiarity, not loyalty. Never had one not work, thus, no reason to change.

I buy Nvidia cards because they work, and I'm familiar with them. Again, no reason to change.

No, here's my offer, go back through my 18K+ posts, and find one (1) where I said, "I don't buy AMD Radeon cards because the drivers suck", or STFU..

On a socio-political note: The CCP is putting huge amounts of money into a buildup of naval assets, in large part aircraft carriers. These are things they would need to perform a successful invasion of Taiwan. (Arguably, they just want them for prestige).

However , should mainland China decide to take that step, AMD is sh!t out of luck, lacking fabs of its own, without any plans to build them. Now the AMD fanboys seem to revel in that dependence and the current superiority TSMC's of product.

At the end of the day, AMD is nothing more than a design firm, (granted a very good one), and TSMC is almost entirely responsible for their success.
 
Last edited:

Irata

Posts: 2,221   +3,857
I specifically went out of my way to phrase that in an impersonal way There are obviously people who approach the "hobby" in exactly that way.. You're not trying to tell me that, "keeping up with the Joneses", doesn't attach itself to computer ownership, are you?

My "most important" observation, (if you can call anything I say "important"), was that "platform longevity", means different things to different people. So I wasn't addressing you specifically, it was more of a "if the shoe fits", generalization.

IMO, relying on one mobo to carry you through several generations of CPUs is a bit of a fool's errand. Speaking very generally, every generation of boards brings with it collateral, sometimes colossal, improvements, (DDR 2 < DDR-3, SATA 2 < SATA 3 < NVme, and so forth).

So, if you're going to "upgrade", or "build", (euphemism for, "plug stuff together"), might as well start on the ground floor, I mean board..

BTW, my new B660 board has a programmable RGB header..!!! Which I need like a hole in the head. If course if some of the innuendo I hear at Techspot is true, I already have one.
Oh, don‘t disagree that e-pen is a thing with computers, as well - either real or - as I‘m under the impression in many forums - pretend (not referring to you here).

In general, I consider one gen upgrades not worth it unless something drastically changes between generations like a new process node (e.g. GloFo 12nm to TSMC 7nm but not Glofo 14nm to 12nm) or drastic architecture changes but generally it has to be at least +2 gen to be worth it.

Sure, by staying on AM4 I will stay on PCIe 3 but compared to the performance and efficiency gains by going from a 2700x to a 5700x it‘s not an issue for me. I doubt having to upgrade the nVme would be worth it from a price / perf perspective. Also aim for an easy upgrade, I.e. good gains for the work.

But yes, everyone sees it differently - in my case, I don‘t need the latest so buying last gen at reduced prices will still give nice improvements over what I previously had. Also, not using an expensive graphics card means that performance differences vs a cutting edge platform will be much lower vs having a high end graphics card.
 

bviktor

Posts: 1,042   +1,519
All "rejoicing" aside, do these boards require the still astronomically expensive DDR-5?
Astronomical my arse... 8GB DDR4: $28. 8GB DDR5: $35. Where are your astronomy skills, seriously. This is the cheapest f*cking part in the whole build, yet you guys keep whining about ewwwwww DDR5 muhhh moneyz! Just let it go already.