From what I've read they're not identical though, X470 Prime Pro is good enough, but Strix X470-F does have better VRMs.
The second best board is probably the Crosshair VI Hero, but its 6+1 VRM config is not going to be suitable for the 3900x. It has proven itself for 1800x chips and UEFI support for Asus has overall been good. It might do okay for the 3700x and 3800x as long as you don't get too crazy.
Excellent question. I'm trying to sort this out for myself. Consider this:
X370: There's only one "good" VRM config for X370, and that's the X370 Taichi. Only 12+4 out there. It's cheap, but . . . X370 has potential signal routing problems that can make it less performant than X470 or (presumably) X570 when doing things like overclocking RAM. And I'm pretty sure there isn't any X370 UEFI rev that supports RAM speeds above DDR4-4000. On top of that, the UEFI support for X370 Taichi is terrible. I own one, and I've done nothing but lose RAM clockspeed headroom with each UEFI update that either fixes some version of Spectre or supports Pinnacle Ridge or whatever.
Maybe the latest X370 UEFI revs will be great for Matisse and terrible for Summit Ridge. I don't know.
The second best board is probably the Crosshair VI Hero, but its 6+1 VRM config is not going to be suitable for the 3900x. It has proven itself for 1800x chips and UEFI support for Asus has overall been good. It might do okay for the 3700x and 3800x as long as you don't get too crazy.
X470: X470 has improved routing for better overall performance (especially from RAM) and a larger number of boards with acceptable VRM configs. X470 Taichi and Crosshair VII Hero are both available and sensibly-priced. Crosshair VII Hero has "only" a 10+2 design while the Taichi repeats the X370 Taichi's 12+4 config. There may be other suitable X470 boards, but those are the two I would look at, and again I think the UEFI support from Asus is likely to be better than ASRock's. I think the 10+2 config will be at least suitable for 8c chips, and maybe moderate overclocks on the 3900x.
There may be other X470 boards out there with 12+4 configs (I don't honestly know; too lazy to look at Gigabyte, MSI, Biostar, or anyone else).
edit: okay I got unlazy and looked up some others.
Biostar X470GT8: 8+4 phase. Some have praised the components, but for me, it's mostly a "pass". It's cheap though.
MSI Gaming M7 AC: 12+4 phase. Suitable, assuming you trust MSI's selection of components. It is MSI after all. Are they 60 amp VRMs? I don't know.
Gigabyte X470 Aorus Gaming 7 Wifi: 10+2. Again, look at the components:
from https://www.kitguru.net/components/...aorus-gaming-7-wifi-hurrah-for-proper-vrms/2/
40 amps? Cmon man. Not cool. Literally. I would pass on that one for Matisse. Crosshair VII Hero would be better.
If you're worried about power delivery, I think X470 has you covered as long as you stick to ASRock or Asus, along with the improved routing that made AM4 a more solid platform overall. So the question is down to UEFI support and proper support for high RAM speeds and high RAM allocations. X470 only officially supports 64 GB of RAM, but that may be more a function of the microcode and CPU than anything else. Drop Matisse in there with a proper UEFI update and 128 GB support may be exposed. Also I know my X370 Taichi just can't run DDR4 faster than DDR4-4000 at all, but is that limitation present on the Crosshair VII Hero or X470 Taichi? I really don't know (don't own either one). If you aren't planning on running high memory clocks, it may not matter to you.
It's gonna matter to me, because I'm taking this DDR4-4400 as far as I can.
I would not touch X370 for Matisse except for the X370 Taichi. And I would be very skeptical of the UEFI support on that board!
See above, I would ditch X370 in most cases. I know I am.
i cannot follow every reply in timesome late information:
https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=https://www.chiphell.com/forum.php?mod=redirect&goto=findpost&ptid=2000764&pid=42308041
1.single die, 8 cores, 4.7Ghz is generally achievable, 4.8 need some luck
2.dual die, 6+6 cores, 5Ghz is generally achievable
3.3800x is worse than 3900x at oc ability
4.sweetpot SKUs 3900&3600
5.temperature wall 57C, good heat sink needed
well i think most important is single die & dual die difference
Agree, but then a 8C part could have also cores that are better than others, there is one that will clock as high as the highest clocking ones in a 6C, AMD wouldnt use average dies for 8C SKUs given the prices, and also the competition, after all the contenders can clock at 5Ghz, be it on SC.
Edit : 300Mhz is a lot for SC overclock capability, this would mean that all 8C are far from one highest clocking core in a 6C part, albeit well binned, that s somewhat too much dispersion for this process to be realistic.
Don't you do distributed computing apps? Didn't think they meant this.Not to go too OT, but they are all over the house (heat distribution) Under the dining room table, under the kitchen table beside my bed, etc.....
Yes, trying to help cure cancer. I had cancer untill they removed my bladder. Now I am also deaf from the cancer drugs.Don't you you do distributed computing apps? Didn't think they meant this.
They don't need to do anything. B450 is already dirt cheap. It may not be that way where you live and that is unfortunate, but also not AMD's problem.
i cannot follow every reply in timesome late information:
https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=https://www.chiphell.com/forum.php?mod=redirect&goto=findpost&ptid=2000764&pid=42308041
1.single die, 8 cores, 4.7Ghz is generally achievable, 4.8 need some luck
2.dual die, 6+6 cores, 5Ghz is generally achievable
3.3800x is worse than 3900x at oc ability
4.sweetpot SKUs 3900&3600
5.temperature wall 57C, good heat sink needed
well i think most important is single die & dual die difference
Well, I have not heard of that rumor. What I HAVE heard, is that X570 motherboards are capable of delivering 300 watts, not that the chips take that much. Why don't we wait until reviews come out before speading bad rumors that have no basis in fact.A day or so before Computex, there was a rumor relayed by Gamers Nexus that Zen 2 could use 300W when overclocked on water. Since the top Zen 2 SKU has a stock TDP of 105W, that implies that it can be pushed much further... but only at the cost of nearly tripling power consumption. (And that would explain why AMD didn't have the CPUs boost that high by default, even if the silicon is capable of it; only the best enthusiast boards will be able to handle that much juice reliably.)
If it's really possible to get 12 cores maxed out at 5 GHz at 300W, this still wouldn't be too bad from a perf/watt perspective compared to Intel, though it would definitely be inferior to stock settings in that regard. In terms of efficiency, this overclock would actually be about on par with the stock 9900K, which has 2/3 as many cores and uses about 2/3 as much power (205W according to Tom's Hardware, which does a pretty good job at isolating CPU power usage).
Well, I have not heard of that rumor. What I HAVE heard, is that X570 motherboards are capable of delivering 300 watts, not that the chips take that much. Why don't we wait until reviews come out before speading bad rumors that have no basis in fact.
My 32 core 2990wx takes less than 250 to do 32 cores and 64 theads@3.3 ghz stock.
I'm not claiming any of this as absolute truth, just coming up with some plausible speculations based on the rumors floating around from semi-reliable sources.
That's because Ryzen (at least on 14nm/12nm) is optimized to run at this kind of clock rate. Once you get above 3.5 GHz or so, power consumption starts to go up exponentially. Above 4.0 GHz, it gets even worse.
The SKU lineup for Ryzen 3000 indicates the same is likely to be true on 7nm. The 3700X has a base frequency of 3.6 GHz and a boost frequency of 4.4 GHz, and a TDP of only 65W. The 3800X has the same number of cores, increases the base to 3.9 GHz and the boost to 4.5 GHz, and the TDP balloons to 105W. That's an increase of over 60% in power consumption for an increase of 8.3% in base clock and 2.3% in boost clock (admittedly, it will probably stay at the boost clock longer than the 3700X). And it's likely to get exponentially worse above 4.5 GHz, even if the silicon can take it.
I would say so. Did I hear June 10th for NDA ? That means reviews ? I think I read that pre-order was July 1, so maybe thats true ?Soooooooo.....we should wait for reviews, am I right?
I would say so. Did I hear June 10th for NDA ? That means reviews ? I think I read that pre-order was July 1, so maybe thats true ?
Soooooooo.....we should wait for reviews, am I right?
That is some very creative misuse of TDP numbers.I'm not claiming any of this as absolute truth, just coming up with some plausible speculations based on the rumors floating around from semi-reliable sources.
That's because Ryzen (at least on 14nm/12nm) is optimized to run at this kind of clock rate. Once you get above 3.5 GHz or so, power consumption starts to go up exponentially. Above 4.0 GHz, it gets even worse.
The SKU lineup for Ryzen 3000 indicates the same is likely to be true on 7nm. The 3700X has a base frequency of 3.6 GHz and a boost frequency of 4.4 GHz, and a TDP of only 65W. The 3800X has the same number of cores, increases the base to 3.9 GHz and the boost to 4.5 GHz, and the TDP balloons to 105W. That's an increase of over 60% in power consumption for an increase of 8.3% in base clock and 2.3% in boost clock (admittedly, it will probably stay at the boost clock longer than the 3700X). And it's likely to get exponentially worse above 4.5 GHz, even if the silicon can take it.
Reading your post history i am both shocked and amazed......AMD has done a poor job in terms of Motherboard support, i don't like it.
How so?Reading your post history i am both shocked and amazed......
IMO the only thing they could have done better, is communication.Tthey probably should have explicitly mentioned that A320 should not be relied upon, for upgrades, that's it.AMD has done a poor job in terms of Motherboard support, i don't like it.
B350 and B450 aren't exactly cheap. Launch prices close to $100. They must all receive guaranteed support until Zen 3 because that's what was promised. A320 i can understand.IMO the only thing they could have done better, is communication.Tthey probably should have explicitly mentioned that A320 should not be relied upon, for upgrades, that's it.
Yet to me, even that is common sense. Buying an A320 for 20$ less than already very cheap B350 boards and expecting it to be exactly as good is ludicrous and is never something AMD promised.
I for instance have a B350 Tomahawk and a 1700X. I bought them in 2017 with the knowledge that such a cheaper board might not get upgrades to Zen 2 at all. To my surprise it seems it actually will. Nevertheless the VRMs on this board are crap even for overclocking the 1700X (thus I run at stock). When the X470 boards launched with better VRMs across the board, I already knew I'll probably want to upgrade the board anyway.
I agree it would be nice if A320 supported some lower-end Ryzen 3xxx series, but it wouldn't be a free lunch, actually would cost considerable $$$ for the MOBO makers (money they could use to support premium older products instead). IMO you are definitely being unfair to them if you only give them flack about it.
I guarantee, that having even limited support to say 65W Ryzen 3xxx would result in a number of support tickets along the lines:
1. Help. I updated my motherboard to latest bios, now my A6-9500E won't boot! (and the bios needs to remove support for older processors, just check the B350 link above, as the room is limted)
2. (in a couple of years) Help, I just bought a used R9-3800X, why doesn't it run in my A320!
etc, etc, ...
Providing support is not free. I don't think a motherboard vendors need to put in development resources for 50$ bargain crap they sold in 2017. Especially as such buyers tend to be the most vocal and least appreciative of any help you do actually provide them.
Exactly, looking at comments in AMD subreddit, I often found it alarming that people thought these two statements were equivalent.Please show where AMD promised support for all released motherboards for all cpu's until Zen 3.
All I have seen is promise for AM4 until Zen 3. That is totally different than supporting all cpu's on all motherboards.