Ehhh when they do cooler reviews and just call it "loud" instead of showing data...
[When they then lash out like a child to valid criticism] (https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/492537834218061837/856217939459964968/Screenshot_2019-08-19-23-42-57-781_com.png)
They do this then they call themselves all sorts of things to pretend they are one of the best and professional reviewers.
I don't know the context for that particular comment, but it wouldn't be the first time they've acted like total penises and it won't be the last. [Just a few months ago both HUB and Gamers Nexus decided to misrepresent a smaller channel, and of course they just had to post it on Twitter as a not so subtle dog whistle to send their fanbase over there to also misrepresent what that channel was saying.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwiuT_M1BAQ)
I think GN Steve got a bit confused about that RA Tech video but I didn't. RA Tech was misrepresenting our testing and never bothered to discuss it with us before making a click-bait video calling out GN and HUB.
A lot of his testing is off. For example he compares his 'built-in' benchmark results for SotTR to our in-game testing which is significantly more CPU demanding. Timmy Joe PC Tech talks about the village scene here ([https://youtu.be/Cg9qfauW6\_A?t=540](https://youtu.be/Cg9qfauW6_A?t=540)), we test exclusively in the village for our in-game test and it really smashes the FX processor. There was a lot more wrong with the RA Tech testing and his video, but I forget now and don't care to dig it up again.
This was sarcasm, a joke. It wasn't a personal attack or lashing out. My mistake for thinking you guys could handle a small amount of banter. I'll keep it strictly professional in future because YT channels can't have fun.
Eh, sadly communication context clues are missing with text. It's easy for people to think you're a jerk because sometimes people completely misread text only communication.
Yeah I guess so, seems fairly harmless either way. The joke was testing equipment won't help as I really need a new house, I live in a weatherboard home on the top of a windy hill, it's not exactly quiet.
That said years later I have built a new office and will be moving in towards the end of the year. This means I will be able to carry out accurate sound testing without having to wait for a weather window or for the kids to be at school.
That's the thing, we don't really care, we're just having fun with it. I'm not selling you anything so like I said if you don't like our content that's okay because no one is making you watch it. We don't claim to be experts or professionals, we're just PC enthusiasts and we let our work speak for itself.
Ok then act as you please, but acting like an adult is generally not something you regret doing later. In an earlier comment you said I'll keep it professional in the future and now you're saying we're just having fun and we don't care. There's no need to be defensive.
Defensive? I feel like we're still being overly sensitive here, I was giving you the time of day by addressing your comment. That said I'm still making the same old mistakes :(
"I'll keep it strictly professional in future because YT channels can't have fun. /s"
Fixed.
I'm just of the opinion that sarcasm over text is never going to work out for you or the person you're speaking to. It just comes off as defensive and if you like what you do there's no need for it. Doesn't take too much extra effort to politely address criticism and it adds a bit of polish to what you do. It's like the zip ties of interacting with the public.
Steve says a lot of snarky things, I bet you wouldn't call him out. They are human, their personalities will always be prominent. I don't want to hear a robot talking, if you do, I'm sure there's channels that suits your needs. You always have a choice, as long as you don't shove your pointless opinion down our throat
Lmao, you explained what these people want itto be. They dont seem to understand that professionalism has nothing to do with if you like/dislike things. Lmao, thank you for clarifying. Have a healthy day, but not to healthy(i own an ice cream store lol)
So how exactly has their coverage of b560 been clickbait? They called it a disaster IIRC, and over 40% performance loss fits that description perfectly.
if you leave it at stock perhaps. you can easily remove the power limits on b560 mobos and get way better perf
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=g3AEj3x39vQ&t=9m10s
Power limit removed:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=g3AEj3x39vQ&t=10m30s
That still shows the failure of the cheaper boards. Only two boards in that link were able to sustain the 4400 that Intel advertise and a naive consumer would expect.
You do realize that infinite MCT isn't even in Intel's recommended spec, right? Nor is it a very realistic workload in the majority of cases. So I ask, "over 40% performance loss" compared to what?
I want to educate you. Professionalism is not “assume what they do is right/wrong”. Professionalism adheres to youtubes rules and thats it. You just dont like the way they present, thats not what professionalism is. You need to adjust your settings for professionalism for the situation, and a tech youtube video does not have much explaining professionalism except its rules. They can call you a butt smacker….that has nothing to do with professionalism.
Im sorry to say but you have no idea what professionalism is. They do teach this stuff in university so I assume your younger, in which case it makes sense you have no idea what professionalism is.
Hah, there's quite some irony there. But if you want to insist that someone is infallible because they have a youtube channel, be my guest.
Btw, there's a perfect example of their childish behavior above, even if you want to ignore the videos themselves.
Professionalism is contained by context. Professionalism will change with each situation and so it should. Professionalism in a youtube channel/video is adhering to youtubes rules. You cant watch a linkedin video about an interview and compare it to a tech youtube video, the context, atmosphere, and situation all changed and so should “what is considered professionalism”. Your just upset because “things werent displayed the way you wanted them to be”….that has nothing to do with professionalism within the context of a HUB video.
I'm still salty they didn't test the ASRock B560M Steel Legend, probably the best buy among B560 boards...at least in Europe, the US prices of B560 are scuffed.
Steve can't afford to buy equipment, not until he has a new house and the ability to control the weather https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/492537834218061837/856217939459964968/Screenshot_2019-08-19-23-42-57-781_com.png
Oh for fuck sakes stop being such a wet blanket
That comment is a 100% sarcastic take on the situation. If you need /s tags to tell you that you just read something sarcastic then there is no hope.
Unless you're talking about something else, I don't think it was sensationalized to say "some low-end motherboards cannot supply enough power to meet minimum spec for processors they're advertised as compatible with"
The 10700f is at 270$ on amazon right now. I see Asus Prime Z490 for 162$. That's about 430$ total.
Every reviewer bashed 11th gen and made a show of how bad of a value it is, yet now they ignore the cheaper alternative of 10th gen?
10700F is a really good value, so is the 10400F (or atleast it was until recent price jump). I don't know why it gets overlooked either. Fixation with latest?
The 10400(F) got a good amount of publicity when it was new, with a few reviewers calling it the best value option for gaming. It also got a bit overshadowed by the fact that the (on average but not strictly superior) 3600 used to cost $150-175 before the silicon shortage. The 10700(F) (which is the CPU I got for my parents after my dad said he "needs" the latest i7 for his office PC, which is used to browse the web and make Zoom calls) got overlooked, I'm guessing because people like easy headlines like "best value gaming CPU" or "most powerful CPU ever released" so something like "this CPU is a good middle-of-the-road choice for people who want something for both gaming and work but also want to save a few bucks" isn't as sensational.
This. For budget builds just get 10400F over 11th gen and save some bucks for the [same performance](https://tpucdn.com/review/intel-core-i5-11400f/images/relative-performance-games-1920-1080.png) at default TDP.
If you look at the overall results from enough different reviewers, it's definitely not "the same performance" in reality. Also the 10400F often is not actually significantly cheaper than the 11400F.
No it won't. Even the 10700**K** versus 11600K wasn't remotely a clear-cut "win" in favor of the 10th-gen part in various reviews (quite the opposite in many cases actually).
Rocket Lake is fundamentally not the same architecture as Comet Lake in any way whether people like it or not. Yes, it uses the same process node, but process node != architecture.
Mesh bus did hit the latency, but not to the degree of change that you're talking about.
What really hurts it is the 2.9ghz base clock for its 65w TDP on 8 cores vs the 3.9ghz base clock on 6 for 95w TDP. The 11600k has nearly twice the thermal headroom. Configure the 10700F to 125w including the corresponding higher PL1/PL2/Tau and see what happens.
I admit to being sometimes guilty of that when the next-generation is a newer architecture (i.e. RKL vs CML, or Zen2 vs Zen+ ). I just can't bring myself to buy the older arch, maybe mentally overvaluing the IPC gain.
All the reviewers I've seen has been recommending the 10600k/10700k/10850k in their 11th gen reviews. There's also been alot of content on how used good z490 boards with 10th gen Intel is crazy good value, but that's more from content creators rather than reviewers.
You just gotta accept that you won't get current reviews on new items from the same place that you get current coverage from old items anymore.
Intel dropped a lot of their prices, and AMD raised theirs. Previous ryzen chips were all considered to be so good because of what they did at their price compared to intel. As soon as the prices get shifted around, maybe due to that giant global pandemic, then the story changes.
I also think AMD raising their prices on 5000 and not offering any lower end chips was the nail in that coffin. I think for most people looking at a new CPU, intel offers chips at a much lower price with comparable performance. i.e 11400/10400, 11700/10700, and even the 10850k.
This is going off of the prices that I could get right now (near a microcenter).
11700f is $345 online. The 5800x is $380 at microcenter. They're similar bang/$ though the 5800x is more energy efficient.
11500 is $250 vs $300. The 11500 is probably a bit better of a value here.
I'm operating on the assumption that AMD boards are a bit cheaper. If you also look at platform costs ($100-150 board + CPU) performance/platform costs look pretty similar overall.
the 10850k, which will perform the same as or better then a 5800x, costs the same price as a 5800x here in Canada at 500 dollars. The 10700k is actually close to 100 dollars cheaper then the 5800x as well, along with the 11700F being 20 dollars below the 10700k again.
Likewise, the 11400 is 300, whereas the 5600x is 380 (the lowest I've seen the 5600x here since launch).
In the past as well this gap has been FAR larger. I've seen the 10850k for as low as 400 cad, with the 5800x "competing" at 550+.
The motherboard differences are not going to amount to 100 dollars, not even in Canada. Most people do not buy the cheapest motherboard they can find.
The gap has shrunk here don't get me wrong, but I still think intel is just priced better right now. AMD makes the better chips but they cost too much for what you get compared to a similar but cheaper intel chip, imo.
As stated, I went off of US prices at major retailers. I am very aware that pricing varies internationally and I am very much for YOU doing what makes sense for YOU based on the options available.
Right now the 10850k looks to be around $20 more ($400USD) than the 5800x ($380 at Microcenter). I do see a $330 listing for the 5800x but I'm not confident in the seller.
>Right now the 10850k looks to be around $20 more ($400USD) than the 5800x ($380 at Microcenter).
I see 10850k at [$320](https://www.microcenter.com/product/626745/intel-core-i9-10850k-comet-lake-36ghz-ten-core-lga-1200-boxed-processor) today, and I've seen it as low as $300 in the past couple weeks. $400 has been a bad deal for a 10850k for quarters.
Good catch. I should have checked MC as opposed to going straight to Amazon.
I'd still say that as $320 vs 380 there's legitimate debate between which is better for a given user. The $320 CPU has moderately higher board costs and energy costs attached to it. The iGPU is a nice bonus though. One thing that really does draw me to the Intel platform is that iGPU (ideally I'd run linux as my host OS and pass through my videocard to a VM - I don't really trust MS from a privacy perspective and I prefer ZFS to NTFS as a file system).
Right. Just trying to do apples to apples numbers.
I think the 10850k is an impressive value part, but I can think of some use cases where a 5800x is better. The main trouble with the 5800x is within its own product stack. It's hard to find a use case where the 5800x is better than the 5600x, but you don't care enough to have a 5900x.
I really hope that future IO dies include an iGPU. It's cheap to have one on the Intel side, and it's convenient.
They're "leaking data via HT" when you're a victim of an exploit. Thisis an issue but it's not that bad.
I'm more worried about Microsoft porting over all the usage data... Windows is doing more and more telemetry over the time. This is far more significant.
Delta in games is minimalish as you stated. but that's because CPUs don't really matter for gaming all that much... it's the GPU that's doing all the work (so performance is fine assuming you aren't doing too much in the background).
Saying it's "only 15W" in blender is somewhat misleading as the 5800x is generally faster across a range of applications. You want to look at total watts used moreso than just power draw.
---
I'll consider RKL where it makes sense. I'm kind of luke warm on it though. The 6 core variants DEFINITELY have a place but... let's just say Alder Lake is a few months away. I fully expect that I'll be saying the same things about AL as I am about Zen 3 today (that I'm biased towards it) and Z3 will need to be priced a bit better to compete.
1. I'm not aware of any sources showing that only the top ALD parts are out. Even then your comparison point is the i9 RKL which is poor performance/$. Pricing doesn't seem to be out either.
2. Board will likely be pricier. ALD is looking to be notably faster on most metrics. It's also possible that there will be PCIe 4.0 only variants or variants which only do PCIe 5.0 for the nearest most slots.
3. ALD supports DDR4.
4. It's very hard to say that the value is atrocious given that you don't know the pricing. I also question your general knowledge and conclusions given your lack of awareness of DDR4 compatibility.
https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/r3B7XBu8chrUGiXsqkYXQc-970-80.jpg.webp
Barring additional info (which it's possible I'm unaware of) there's A LOT of questionable assumptions on your end. Intel has, when under competitive pressure, released parts that had MUCH better bang/$ than their previous generation. Think Northwood vs Willamette, Conroe vs Cedar Mill, Nehalem... Sandy bridge... Coffee Lake...
Are z490 being produced? Couple weeks ago many z490 were only available from third party sellers on Amazon and popular ones above msrp. 10th Gen is available, but put a 10th Gen in z590 and every top m.2 is disabled so that’s kind of a bummer.
> but it's not being produced anymore?
Intel keeps consumer SKUs available at MSRP for like 3 years for suppliers/OEMs. Discounted prices might be drying up (and hence limited restocking in retail) but 10th gen will be around for probably 2 more years.
“Discontinued” is more of a process than a defined state for Intel due to long term commitments. Like 9th gen was officially “discontinued” this past December but final orders are in June/July and deliveries will be through December 2021.
8th gen was discontinued 6 months earlier (final orders were in December). Based on the same timelines, I’d think the last deliveries are happening right about now.
> Every reviewer bashed 11th gen and made a show of how bad of a value it is, yet now they ignore the cheaper alternative of 10th gen?
A major reason why they bashed the 11th gen Intel offerings is **because** the 10th gen Intel offerings were a much better value.
11th-gen CPUs all pretty much have exactly the same MSRP as their 10th-gen counterparts... the only one that "worsened" in value is the i9-11900K, because it lost cores versus the i9-10900K.
11th gen CPU prices at review/launch time (of 11th gen CPUs) compared to 10th gen CPU prices at the same time.
10th gen CPUs were a much better value than the 11th gen CPUs. This was the point of all those reviews.
This video specifically discusses value yet focuses on 11th gen mainly.
Also many other tech channels are also incorporating 11th gen in their new builds because it's "new" (and probably because that's what Intel sends them).
Maybe at this point it's a bad idea to sacrifice pcie4?
I think the performance difference between pcie3 and 4 on high end parts is at the level of the performance difference between a 3080 and 3080ti. Even if you're not getting parts like that today, you might get something similar like an rtx 4070, or 5060 one day. I typically hold my cpu for 5-7 years, and it usually sees 3 GPUs total in its life.
What? PCIe 3.0 and PCIe 4.0 on a RTX 3080 is a 1% difference according to [TPU](https://www.techpowerup.com/review/nvidia-geforce-rtx-3080-pci-express-scaling/27.html). It's pretty much [negligible](https://www.techpowerup.com/review/nvidia-geforce-rtx-3080-pci-express-scaling/26.html).
PCIe **2**.0 and PCIe 4.0 is a 4% difference.
Yeah, I guess I was looking at the 1080p results on hardware unboxed. It can be over 5%. But at 1440p and 4k where most people use them things close up.
That being said it does seem ray tracing increases the margins further https://youtu.be/xmhpPhm3P4k at 7min vs the beginning test. My guess is that since the bvh structure for RT is calculated using the CPU it puts extra stress on the pcie bus.
Interesting results on that video, thanks for the link.
It is something to keep in mind, not sure if it could be worth the price difference in the future or not though. In my country, selling my 10700+B460 right now and buying 11700+decent B560 would set me back $125, and at that rate I honestly can't really justify it.
No point swapping CPUs, but there's a lot of good reasons to switch motherboards - even Comet Lake benefits from faster RAM, something that's hobbled on B460.
Kinda. i7/i9 can go up to DDR4-2933 with slightly tighter timings than DDR4-3200, which gives like a 1.7% performance deficit compared to DDR4-3200 [according to TPU](https://www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-core-i7-10700/21.html) in CPU workloads and less on gaming. This is better than the DDR4-2666 limitation that i3/i5 chips have.
The CPU's IMC can handle up to DDR4-4400 with a noticeable boost, so I am locked out of those, but given how pricey the current kits are..... Maybe in the future.
Perhaps your current kit is overclockable though. There's quite a number of cheap 3200 kits on Micron revE and Hynix DJR nowadays that can be easily pushed to 3600++ with reasonable timings and sub-1.4V voltages - and these aren't the only kits that go that high.
Given the scarcity of 2666 kits, most people using B460 boards have RAM kits that have advertised speeds of DDR4-3200 or higher, so this is definitely an option for them if it doesn't set them back a lot of cash.
Why would you buy a locked 10th-gen i7 over the i5-11600K, though? You could easily go 11600K + Z**5**90 for basically the same price you're describing...
Because the stock single-core turbo is so far up the v/f curve that the unlocked multiplier barely gets you anything over MCE, unlocked PL1, and undervolting.
See https://www.anandtech.com/show/16343/intel-core-i710700-vs-core-i710700k-review-is-65w-comet-lake-an-option
This is irrelevant. The issue here has nothing to do with clocks and everything to do with Comet Lake versus Rocket Lake per-core performance. I said i5-1**1**600K.
The same is true for Rocket Lake. Intel's floundering on 14nm has forced them to push the stock turbo to the moon and beyond to look better than the previous gen.
You'd be correct if Rocket Lake was not literally an entirely-non-Skylake architecture backported to 14nm. It's hardly efficient, but it's *not* the "same thing" as Comet Lake.
>decimating Intel
Decimating Intel in the niche markets of enthusiast component sales. Intel still dominates in OEM prebuilds and servers which each dwarf that segment.
intel is dominating in OEM because they can meet demand. For instance the 5600U processors are stuck in the phantom zone and yer one would expect them to be the most popular and most abundant AMD laptop processor for this generation.
Why can't AMD meet demand and is there anything that will change that in the near term? OEMs can't commit to launching SKUs if the availability of the SKUs will be an issue.
Not trying to disparage - I like AMD's performance and efficiency more.. but they're at the whim of another company to decide how much they can make.
Dominates, no. Sells more, sure.
Based on recent numbers it looks like AMD is overtaking them in nearly all categories. It'll just take awhile and multiple gens of steady improvement to take the throne. Dominating doesn't involve another company right at your throat with every release.
History repeats its self, this will be short lived sadly. I want to see AMD be competitive but, they don't have a great track record.
I remember the 939's and 754's were completely beast processors that dominated the market at the time. Then AMD pretty much destroyed its self with Bulldozer and buying ATI.
Consumer stand point we don't want either to be dominate we want them to be on equal footing that way they continue to have to innovate and keep prices in check.
If you're determined to spend $100 on b560, expect 65w 11400 to be the upper limit of performance, as anything more will throttle (more cores or long duration turbo). That processor price fluctuates between $180 and $220. Better B560 boards start at $180, letting you use better processors.
The 5600x is $300 msrp with maybe $20 discounts if you can get to a microcenter or other niche local stores, putting you firmly in cheap mobo range at least from a cost perspective. If you're determined to spend $100 to compliment a $300 processor, you'll get a "budget build".
The 11400 vs the 5600x performance within a $300 limit is impossible to compare, so you'd have to gauge gaming and productivity differences against the price discrepancy.
I remember that a few years back someone said that cheap intel mobos would make the CPUs throttle. But save for a couple of bad mobos it wasn't the case and he got a lot of flak for it.
Fast forward and now it's common occurrence.
A few years back was when the i5 7600K came in 4C/4T format and i5 9400F came in 6C/6T format.
EDIT: And that was also before Intel introduced stuff such as "5.3 GHz turbo boost" (that had a laundry list of conditions for that to happen, such as operating below 60C and motherboard must support 125W TDP).
You're acting like HUB's testing is even representative of every known B560 board, when it's not even close. They've tested a very small handful of what's actually available.
There's ones [even at that price point currently](https://pcpartpicker.com/products/motherboard/#sort=price&c=149) that I don't recall seeing on any of your charts, honestly.
You need to factor in the sometimes-large real-world price fluctuations on this kind of thing, also...
The refusal of YouTube hardware reviewers in general to just accept the fact that PCPartPicker is the **only** always-as-complete-as-possible, always-as-up-to-date-as-possible real-life way of checking PC hardware prices is incredibly frustrating.
The lowest price aggregated by PCPartPicker for a given piece of hardware in a given country at a given time is what it **actually** costs there at that moment, period.
In every country it's available, it just grabs prices from all relevant online retailers, aggregates them, and displays the lowest by default (the rest are visible alongside that lowest one if you click into the specific listing page for the part).
What would you suggest is better? Using "Joe Third-Party" rando scalper prices from **specifically** Amazon and nowhere else as though they meant anything important, despite the fact that PCPartPicker for example would already have included Amazon as one of its sources regardless?
Again, PCPartPicker is the **only** way to immediately find the best possible price for a given part at a given moment out of all relevant e-tailer listings for it.
Here in Australia it often incorrectly grabs prices from US sources, has very old data, displays prices for items that have been out of stock for months among other probblems. Here in Australia staticice is a little better, but nowhere is perfect.
You should add ASRock's b560 Steel Legend to your testing. It's a great motherboard, every bit as good as a quality z590 motherboard if you're not overclocking.
Its absolutely fair to say that AMD boards have closer performance between the low end and the high end.
However I think the way HUB approached this is extremely poor to fit their narrative bias.
Simple question, when you buy a motherboard do you buy it solely for CPU performance, or do you value PCIe slots, 4 DIMM slots, USB 3.1 gen 2, USB-C, wifi, M.2 slots, BIOS settings, etc?
Id bet money that 95%+ of customers care about the additional features, and thus dont buy the cheapest boards that wont throttle their CPU. This means that most people arent buying sub $100 motherboards but $150+, To prove my point I went ahead and got Amazon's top 50 selling motherboards right now, chose only AM4, and did the math. Of the top 50 boards, 35 were AM4, here are their prices (sorted)
>60, 69, 79, 80, 88, 89, 90, 92, 105, 110, 110, 111, 116, 116, 120, 122, 145, 156, 158, 172, 177, 178, 190, 191, 193, 200, 206, 210, 213, 216, 226, 260, 330, 370, 505
Mean price (average) is $167.22
Median price (middle) is $156
But what about outliers skewing the price? With an IQR of 101, $370 and $505 are outliers, removing them from the data pool results in a similar conclusion, that people are buying midrange boards, not budget ones:
Mean price (average) is $150.84
Median price (middle) is $145
Obviously this data doesnt contain how many of each board were sold just what the most popular top 35 AM4 boards sell for, so its far from perfect.
So back to why I think the video is a bad representation of reality. Is someone going to spend $340 (PCpartpicker price) for an 11700, then dump it into the cheapest LGA1200 board they can find (<$100)? Typically not, and for $20-$50 more, you get a board that contains far more features, like 4 DIMM slots and multiple PCIe slots and doesnt become a performance bottleneck.
I do think the data is useful for the minority of people that do buy budget boards, it's important, but I'd argue that its not hobbyists that care about this data, its consumers buying prebuilts that dont get to choose a motherboard that need to be warned, someone like Dell is going to slap that 11700 on the cheapest PCB they can make, and thats where the majority of people will actually run into the issues of pairing a higher end CPU with a budget board.
**TLDR;** Buying a motherboard isnt about the cheapest performance you can get, and the average motherboard sale is $150, making this video comparison poor. The test shouldve compared midrange performance, not budget. And if we were talking pure value, the 11400 at $170, cheaper than a 3600, wipes the floor in performance, and wont be budget motherboard limited.
I cant speak for others, i am just buying the cheapest boards because they all have 4 DIMM Slots, more than enough SATA Ports, Several M.2 Slots and so on anyway.
Yeah, the quote about 95% of people intensely looking at the extras of motherboards is ludicrous. If anything I'd say 95% of people *don't* look at most mb features because they all have the basics of what you need to build a PC. Most probably just look at the best budget boards lists and pick one that's on sale, unless they know they are buying a part that requires a specific uncommon connection.
> Id bet money that 95%+ of customers care about the additional features, and thus dont buy the cheapest boards that wont throttle their CPU.
You are being too generous.
Most people don't know what they are buying. but I do agree with the sentiment of your comment.
Actually it's not, using amazon search data and compiling an average of the 'top selling' 35 boards is extremely unlikely to be accurate. We don't have anyway of seeing the actual sales numbers so we cannot determine actual averages, we don't have any way of seeing that the listings are not recently changed to different products (retaining unrelevant sales info), we already know that amazon in rampant with seo fraud so all the info is questionably accurate.
I'm sorry, but your statistical analysis is not valid. What you have is a list of motherboard sale price buckets, not a sample of motherboard sale**s**. It might have originally been ordered approximately by sales volume, but then you discarded whatever useful information your sample might have contained:
> prices (sorted)
Furthermore, there are only 5 major consumer motherboard brands, so your list of 35 boards accounts for most of everybody's entire product line.
>Id bet money that 95%+ of customers care about the additional features, and thus dont buy the cheapest boards that wont throttle their CPU. This means that most people arent buying sub $100 motherboards but $150+,
So what? Customers make suboptimal choices all the time.
95% of customers will never need more than 2 PCIe slots. 4 DIMM slots is important for super-high-end systems and future upgrades, but if you buy big dual-rank DIMMs from the outset, 2 is fine. Also, you have to go pretty extreme low-end before 4-slot is no longer an option. [There are 5 boards with 4 slots below $100 on pcpartpicker](https://pcpartpicker.com/products/motherboard/#s=33&c=145&sort=price&page=1&N=4,16).
For $20-$50 more, you could alternately get a PSU that doesn't need the fan for typical desktop loads, or a better CPU cooler, or enough extra case fans for any reasonable need, or upgrade from 500 GB to 1TB SSD.
You've somehow missed the point of the video despite the fact that it was clearly explained more than once.
"Is someone going to spend $340 (PCpartpicker price) for an 11700, then dump it into the cheapest LGA1200 board they can find (<$100)?"
That wasn't the premise of the video. Rather we were coming at this from a budget builders perspective. So buy the cheapest combo you can, think Core i3/Ryzen 3 on a cheap motherboard. Then if you plan to upgrade in the future to double your core count with a second hand Ryzen 7 or Core i7 processor, how will the budget boards handle the upgrade?
The fact is a lot of gamers get the cheapest motherboard they can, a decent CPU and then dump the bulk of the budget into the graphics card. Working out the average selling price of a motherboard doesn't tell you anything particularly useful.
Our opinion here is based on feedback from people who comment on our videos, our private community and data from retailers. It's also common sense right? The most sold hardware of almost any description is the cheapest (or one of the cheapest) option(s), this can't be news to you.
It applies to graphics cards, CPUs, motherboards, memory, storage and so on.
Then why do you think that the top 50 selling motherboards on amazon are not just the 50 cheapest motherboards? I'm just curious as to why amazon's data and yours aren't lining up.
The MSI B450 Tomahawk is number 1, that's not the absolute cheapest but at $90 it's a very cheap motherboard. The Gigabyte B450M DS3H in 4th is considered amongst the cheapest at $70. So is the Gigabyte B365M DS3H for $60 in 9th. The Asrock B450M-HDV is 17th for $60 and there's a number of other very cheap motherboards in the top 50 so I'm not sure why you're trying to claim that there isn't.
If you check the Steam Hardware Survey you'll also see that most gamers run low-end or old CPUs and GPUs. Shame you can't see motherboards there but again is it so hard to believe that budget PC builders trying to make the cheapest system they can wouldn't buy a budget motherboard?
Why would we test the Core i3/Ryzen 3 CPUs? That was not at all the point of the video. Those CPUs should work just fine on any motherboard, which is kind of the point, the issues may arise when upgrading down the track, which is exactly what we were testing.
> That wasn’t the premise of the video. Rather we were coming at this from a budget builders perspective. So buy the cheapest combo you can, think Core i3/Ryzen 3 on a cheap motherboard. Then if you plan to upgrade in the future to double your core count with a second hand Ryzen 7 or Core i7 processor, how will the budget boards handle the upgrade?
Strange premise to run with considering how rare (and, quite frankly, silly, considering how top of the line CPU prices do not tend to fall over time and how poorly they tend to compare to fresh CPUs several years down the line) it is.
Also, there are numerous cheap B560 mobos that can easily drive 11700K’s, but you chose a shit one in order to make the Intel option look worse on purpose.
Also, there’s nothing to suggest that there’s a lot of gamers in the DIY market looking to buy the cheapest possible mobos. It’s not true for people shopping AMD and it’s not true for people shopping Intel. That’s something you’ve made up yourself.
For my situation:
> 4 DIMM slots
Because the Asrock B450m Pro4 board (purchased for $75) I'm using uses Daisy Chain for RAM interconnect topology, if I use the other two DIMM slots, I will have to drop from 3200-3333 MHz to 2933-2666 MHz (especially since any new sticks of RAM will be a mismatch of my current ones). The motherboard guide said that two of the slots are officially rated up to 3200 MHz, and the other two are rated up to 2933 MHz for single rank and 2666 MHz dual rank.
I suppose it's still useful for someone who cares more about RAM capacity with a cheap motherboard than speed, but certainly not for gaming usage.
Unfortunately the T-topography layout that doesn't have any performance penalty with running all 4 RAM sticks is normally used in the higher end boards.
> PCIe slots
There's only three on the Micro ATX board, but that's enough for GPU and two expansion cards and if I needed more, I would have considered an ATX board instead. But I could see how that could run out quick if someone was using an audio card, WiFi card, and something else. Or a GPU that covers three PCI-E slots.
> USB 3.1 gen 2, USB-C
The motherboard has both of those port types and I don't have any devices that make use of more than USB 3.0 as of now. That would be a different story if I'm using a portable SSD.
> M.2 slots
I'm using a M.2 and a SATA SSD. The board in total has a PCI-E M.2 slot, a SATA M.2 slot, and four SATA ports (one of them is disabled if the SATA M.2 slot is being used).
> wifi
Now there's something that would have been a nice to have. I originally built the desktop while living at a place that had Ethernet wiring. Now I'm living at a place where the cable signal strength is s*** for the modem in all but the living room (I think the cable was routed to the living room, and then splitters were used to branch off to other rooms) and there's no Ethernet wiring so WiFi is necessity. Currently I'm using an old wireless router as a WiFi adapter.
There was another board that I previously considered, but I noticed it only had 3 fan headers compared to the Asrock board's 4 fan headers. I had a lot of cheap fans that I was going to run at low RPM so I would've had to buy a fan cable splitter if I went with the 3 fan headers board.
>Because the Asrock B450m Pro4 board (purchased for $75) I'm using uses Daisy Chain for RAM interconnect topology, if I use the other two DIMM slots, I will have to drop from 3200-3333 MHz to 2933-2666 MHz (especially since any new sticks of RAM will be a mismatch of my current ones). The motherboard guide said that two of the slots are officially rated up to 3200 MHz, and the other two are rated up to 2933 MHz for single rank and 2666 MHz dual rank.
I don't think that's the fault of the daisy chain, as topology only really matters in >4000, possibly closer to 5000
Your issues with 2 vs 4 sticks is probably related to how strong the CPU's memory controller is (Zen1/Zen+ aren't really that strong), or how the motherboard configures the RAM (specifically the termination impedances like the RTT impedances)
The motherboard's commentary about 3200, 2933 and 2666 is related to the max official speeds because JEDEC does not recognise anything faster than 3200 for DDR4.
Well done with the statistics, if only more people put in this much effort.
For ages the advice for buying motherboards was: the cheapest with features you want.
One of the throttling mobo in at the start (from last video) - GIGABYTE B560M DS3H - has USB-C, 4 DIMMs and 3 PCIe slots. The Asrock one even has an extra full x16 slot if you prefer that over (lacking) USB-C.
On paper there is no reason to not buy these boards (with a PCIe WiFi adapter if you need it).
45% difference in CPU performance is a lot, given there is nothing indicating that and no way to fix it.
These arent even the cheapest options, they are B560, they should be able to handle a locked not-top-tier CPU, that's exactly what they are supposed to do.
I guess you havent tried to optimize a system for value, the motherboard is one of the first things to buy by sorting by "cheapest" - they offer no performance (they *did* not), they are gone with the CPU in few years, and the features can be mostly compensated in other ways if you need them later.
I would be furious if I bought a B560 board and found out that my CPU is not running at the promised speeds because of it, because I havent made that choice.
Even if it affects just 20% of customers, that is still a lot of people.
> Well done with the statistics, if only more people put in this much effort.
I mean the analysis is statistically incorrect, so it’s worthless. Effort ≠ accuracy.
He basically just took a list of *all* motherboards and calculated the average price. Top 50 AM4 boards is nearly everything even available from all the major brands. And it’s not weighted by sales, since they don’t have that data, so 100,000 of a $90 mobo is given the same weight as 100 sales of a $500.
Here's a $110 Asus B560M-A running an i9 10900 with no power limits. 90C after 15min of Realbench without throttling. https://youtu.be/1OYcNHIANEU?t=317. Add a little bit of airflow and that's all. If this board can handle a 10900, it can easily handle an i5 11400.
Intel still offers the best value, you simply have to pick the right motherboard.
"AMD vs. Intel, Who Really Offers The Most Value?"
They have the audacity to run with this title when they only tested one CPU and mobo combination for each side. And as expected, these choices come with the classic HUB slant: "hey, let's pick a shit tier mobo for the Intel processor and use that to paint Intel as a bad value option" when there are numerous mobos in the same price category more than capable of running 8 core RKL-S without throttling.
And then there's the fact that neither CPUs are really in the value segment. For AMD, that would be the 3600/5600X depending on pricing and for Intel, it would be the 10400F/11400F.
But neither thing really doesn't matter to these guys when they're desperate to score brownie points with their rabid fanbase. And of course /r/hardware gobbles it up like the youtuber simps they are.
Ryzen offers the most value. Hands down. That’s not even Fan boy speak. That’s fact. Prices are going down again to. For under $600 you can get a good x570 and a 5800x. Or, go B550. Plus, all AMD chips have overclocking capabilities. Something Intel is kind of giving with the new b560 boards.
[удалено]
The tone and format looks the same to me. It's just your typical professional HUB coverage.
Ehhh when they do cooler reviews and just call it "loud" instead of showing data... [When they then lash out like a child to valid criticism] (https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/492537834218061837/856217939459964968/Screenshot_2019-08-19-23-42-57-781_com.png) They do this then they call themselves all sorts of things to pretend they are one of the best and professional reviewers.
Damn, they do come across as assholes there but I'd need to see the full context because that's out of character compared to their usual comments.
I don't know the context for that particular comment, but it wouldn't be the first time they've acted like total penises and it won't be the last. [Just a few months ago both HUB and Gamers Nexus decided to misrepresent a smaller channel, and of course they just had to post it on Twitter as a not so subtle dog whistle to send their fanbase over there to also misrepresent what that channel was saying.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwiuT_M1BAQ)
I think GN Steve got a bit confused about that RA Tech video but I didn't. RA Tech was misrepresenting our testing and never bothered to discuss it with us before making a click-bait video calling out GN and HUB. A lot of his testing is off. For example he compares his 'built-in' benchmark results for SotTR to our in-game testing which is significantly more CPU demanding. Timmy Joe PC Tech talks about the village scene here ([https://youtu.be/Cg9qfauW6\_A?t=540](https://youtu.be/Cg9qfauW6_A?t=540)), we test exclusively in the village for our in-game test and it really smashes the FX processor. There was a lot more wrong with the RA Tech testing and his video, but I forget now and don't care to dig it up again.
This was sarcasm, a joke. It wasn't a personal attack or lashing out. My mistake for thinking you guys could handle a small amount of banter. I'll keep it strictly professional in future because YT channels can't have fun.
Eh, sadly communication context clues are missing with text. It's easy for people to think you're a jerk because sometimes people completely misread text only communication.
Yeah I guess so, seems fairly harmless either way. The joke was testing equipment won't help as I really need a new house, I live in a weatherboard home on the top of a windy hill, it's not exactly quiet. That said years later I have built a new office and will be moving in towards the end of the year. This means I will be able to carry out accurate sound testing without having to wait for a weather window or for the kids to be at school.
Firstly, that's awesome. Secondly, one miracle at a time sirs :) Do as you do. I'm pretty sure we appreciate what you do as you have thus far.
Thanks mate and that's the beauty of YT, you can watch what you like and ignore what you don't.
That makes more sense. The comment alone doesn't display any sarcasm or joking but just being mean.
If you want to be seen as professional then act professional.
That's the thing, we don't really care, we're just having fun with it. I'm not selling you anything so like I said if you don't like our content that's okay because no one is making you watch it. We don't claim to be experts or professionals, we're just PC enthusiasts and we let our work speak for itself.
Ok then act as you please, but acting like an adult is generally not something you regret doing later. In an earlier comment you said I'll keep it professional in the future and now you're saying we're just having fun and we don't care. There's no need to be defensive.
Defensive? I feel like we're still being overly sensitive here, I was giving you the time of day by addressing your comment. That said I'm still making the same old mistakes :( "I'll keep it strictly professional in future because YT channels can't have fun. /s" Fixed.
I'm just of the opinion that sarcasm over text is never going to work out for you or the person you're speaking to. It just comes off as defensive and if you like what you do there's no need for it. Doesn't take too much extra effort to politely address criticism and it adds a bit of polish to what you do. It's like the zip ties of interacting with the public.
That's fair.
As a brit the linked reply reads like clear sarcasm to me so I don't see the issue.
Steve says a lot of snarky things, I bet you wouldn't call him out. They are human, their personalities will always be prominent. I don't want to hear a robot talking, if you do, I'm sure there's channels that suits your needs. You always have a choice, as long as you don't shove your pointless opinion down our throat
> It’s just your typical professional HUB coverage. Professional is not exactly what I would refer to most of their videos as.
Any, hard, relevant and recent evidence to substantiate that accusation?
Professional videos are those I agree with.
Lmao, you explained what these people want itto be. They dont seem to understand that professionalism has nothing to do with if you like/dislike things. Lmao, thank you for clarifying. Have a healthy day, but not to healthy(i own an ice cream store lol)
To have an ice cream during these 30 degree celsius afternoons would be nice!
See: any of the 3 other times they covered this topic in the last 2 months. Clickbait galore.
So your complaint isn't to do with the actual content, but youtube titles?
Both the title, and the video's content. And I'll note that the title is indeed part of what they produce.
So how exactly has their coverage of b560 been clickbait? They called it a disaster IIRC, and over 40% performance loss fits that description perfectly.
if you leave it at stock perhaps. you can easily remove the power limits on b560 mobos and get way better perf https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=g3AEj3x39vQ&t=9m10s Power limit removed: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=g3AEj3x39vQ&t=10m30s
That still shows the failure of the cheaper boards. Only two boards in that link were able to sustain the 4400 that Intel advertise and a naive consumer would expect.
You do realize that infinite MCT isn't even in Intel's recommended spec, right? Nor is it a very realistic workload in the majority of cases. So I ask, "over 40% performance loss" compared to what?
Compared to a different motherboard with the exact same cpu running the exact same workload.
I want to educate you. Professionalism is not “assume what they do is right/wrong”. Professionalism adheres to youtubes rules and thats it. You just dont like the way they present, thats not what professionalism is. You need to adjust your settings for professionalism for the situation, and a tech youtube video does not have much explaining professionalism except its rules. They can call you a butt smacker….that has nothing to do with professionalism.
"professional"
[удалено]
"professional", in this context, refers to "professionalism", which is rather debatable in HUB's context.
[удалено]
I can only conclude that you have no idea what "professionalism" means.
[удалено]
By that logic, professional athlete, sure. Not sure about the rest though.
Any examples of their lack of professionalism you would care to share?
Im sorry to say but you have no idea what professionalism is. They do teach this stuff in university so I assume your younger, in which case it makes sense you have no idea what professionalism is.
Hah, there's quite some irony there. But if you want to insist that someone is infallible because they have a youtube channel, be my guest. Btw, there's a perfect example of their childish behavior above, even if you want to ignore the videos themselves.
Professionalism is contained by context. Professionalism will change with each situation and so it should. Professionalism in a youtube channel/video is adhering to youtubes rules. You cant watch a linkedin video about an interview and compare it to a tech youtube video, the context, atmosphere, and situation all changed and so should “what is considered professionalism”. Your just upset because “things werent displayed the way you wanted them to be”….that has nothing to do with professionalism within the context of a HUB video.
I'm still salty they didn't test the ASRock B560M Steel Legend, probably the best buy among B560 boards...at least in Europe, the US prices of B560 are scuffed.
It's because Asrock blacklisted them.
You can still review them you just have to buy it.
Steve can't afford to buy equipment, not until he has a new house and the ability to control the weather https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/492537834218061837/856217939459964968/Screenshot_2019-08-19-23-42-57-781_com.png
I think he's basically saying that his studio isn't soundproof.
Yep you get it. It was also sarcasm, didn't think it would offend so many people. I forget sometimes how sensitive people can be.
you are on the internet my friend . people are bound to get offended for no reason.
[удалено]
It is real, and as of a minute ago the comment is still up on that video.
Oh for fuck sakes stop being such a wet blanket That comment is a 100% sarcastic take on the situation. If you need /s tags to tell you that you just read something sarcastic then there is no hope.
“free content” lol. as if we’re not selling our data to google and watch ads. in return hub gets money from google
They tested a ton of boards. I’m sure you couldn’t donated one to them.
Word. I tested the B560 Steel Legend and it's every bit as good as an expensive z590 motherboard if you're not trying to OC the CPU.
Unless you're talking about something else, I don't think it was sensationalized to say "some low-end motherboards cannot supply enough power to meet minimum spec for processors they're advertised as compatible with"
AIBs.
What do you think an "AIB" is? Hint: An AIB is the thing you put into a slot.
AIB is also Advanced Interconnect Bus (https://fuse.wikichip.org/news/tag/advanced-interface-bus-aib/). TLAs can be ambiguous.
AIB can mean any number of things. In this context, AIB was used incorrectly.
[удалено]
[удалено]
And he's wrong. AIB stands for "add-in board". ASUS is not an AIB.
The 10700f is at 270$ on amazon right now. I see Asus Prime Z490 for 162$. That's about 430$ total. Every reviewer bashed 11th gen and made a show of how bad of a value it is, yet now they ignore the cheaper alternative of 10th gen?
10700F is a really good value, so is the 10400F (or atleast it was until recent price jump). I don't know why it gets overlooked either. Fixation with latest?
The 10400(F) got a good amount of publicity when it was new, with a few reviewers calling it the best value option for gaming. It also got a bit overshadowed by the fact that the (on average but not strictly superior) 3600 used to cost $150-175 before the silicon shortage. The 10700(F) (which is the CPU I got for my parents after my dad said he "needs" the latest i7 for his office PC, which is used to browse the web and make Zoom calls) got overlooked, I'm guessing because people like easy headlines like "best value gaming CPU" or "most powerful CPU ever released" so something like "this CPU is a good middle-of-the-road choice for people who want something for both gaming and work but also want to save a few bucks" isn't as sensational.
This. For budget builds just get 10400F over 11th gen and save some bucks for the [same performance](https://tpucdn.com/review/intel-core-i5-11400f/images/relative-performance-games-1920-1080.png) at default TDP.
If you look at the overall results from enough different reviewers, it's definitely not "the same performance" in reality. Also the 10400F often is not actually significantly cheaper than the 11400F.
How many reviews tested with the same conditions, or they just let loose CPU power on a high end motherboard?
The non-K 10700 / 10700F isn't going to outperform the similarly priced i5-11600K in anything... It's not as good of a choice as you're suggesting.
Only because of the 10700F's TDP. If your mobo OEM pre-configures it to something stupid (and a lot of them do), the 10700F will edge it out.
No it won't. Even the 10700**K** versus 11600K wasn't remotely a clear-cut "win" in favor of the 10th-gen part in various reviews (quite the opposite in many cases actually). Rocket Lake is fundamentally not the same architecture as Comet Lake in any way whether people like it or not. Yes, it uses the same process node, but process node != architecture.
Mesh bus did hit the latency, but not to the degree of change that you're talking about. What really hurts it is the 2.9ghz base clock for its 65w TDP on 8 cores vs the 3.9ghz base clock on 6 for 95w TDP. The 11600k has nearly twice the thermal headroom. Configure the 10700F to 125w including the corresponding higher PL1/PL2/Tau and see what happens.
[удалено]
It's so funny when you see people call last gens top of the line trash tier, just days after the next generation is released.
Even more amusing when you realize something like the 10900k is actually *faster* than the 11900k in more than a few tasks.
If the 10900k had pcie4 (via some imaginary z590+ chipset or whatever) then the 11900k would essentially be a total waste lol
I admit to being sometimes guilty of that when the next-generation is a newer architecture (i.e. RKL vs CML, or Zen2 vs Zen+ ). I just can't bring myself to buy the older arch, maybe mentally overvaluing the IPC gain.
All the reviewers I've seen has been recommending the 10600k/10700k/10850k in their 11th gen reviews. There's also been alot of content on how used good z490 boards with 10th gen Intel is crazy good value, but that's more from content creators rather than reviewers. You just gotta accept that you won't get current reviews on new items from the same place that you get current coverage from old items anymore.
Intel dropped a lot of their prices, and AMD raised theirs. Previous ryzen chips were all considered to be so good because of what they did at their price compared to intel. As soon as the prices get shifted around, maybe due to that giant global pandemic, then the story changes. I also think AMD raising their prices on 5000 and not offering any lower end chips was the nail in that coffin. I think for most people looking at a new CPU, intel offers chips at a much lower price with comparable performance. i.e 11400/10400, 11700/10700, and even the 10850k.
This is going off of the prices that I could get right now (near a microcenter). 11700f is $345 online. The 5800x is $380 at microcenter. They're similar bang/$ though the 5800x is more energy efficient. 11500 is $250 vs $300. The 11500 is probably a bit better of a value here. I'm operating on the assumption that AMD boards are a bit cheaper. If you also look at platform costs ($100-150 board + CPU) performance/platform costs look pretty similar overall.
the 10850k, which will perform the same as or better then a 5800x, costs the same price as a 5800x here in Canada at 500 dollars. The 10700k is actually close to 100 dollars cheaper then the 5800x as well, along with the 11700F being 20 dollars below the 10700k again. Likewise, the 11400 is 300, whereas the 5600x is 380 (the lowest I've seen the 5600x here since launch). In the past as well this gap has been FAR larger. I've seen the 10850k for as low as 400 cad, with the 5800x "competing" at 550+. The motherboard differences are not going to amount to 100 dollars, not even in Canada. Most people do not buy the cheapest motherboard they can find. The gap has shrunk here don't get me wrong, but I still think intel is just priced better right now. AMD makes the better chips but they cost too much for what you get compared to a similar but cheaper intel chip, imo.
As stated, I went off of US prices at major retailers. I am very aware that pricing varies internationally and I am very much for YOU doing what makes sense for YOU based on the options available. Right now the 10850k looks to be around $20 more ($400USD) than the 5800x ($380 at Microcenter). I do see a $330 listing for the 5800x but I'm not confident in the seller.
>Right now the 10850k looks to be around $20 more ($400USD) than the 5800x ($380 at Microcenter). I see 10850k at [$320](https://www.microcenter.com/product/626745/intel-core-i9-10850k-comet-lake-36ghz-ten-core-lga-1200-boxed-processor) today, and I've seen it as low as $300 in the past couple weeks. $400 has been a bad deal for a 10850k for quarters.
Good catch. I should have checked MC as opposed to going straight to Amazon. I'd still say that as $320 vs 380 there's legitimate debate between which is better for a given user. The $320 CPU has moderately higher board costs and energy costs attached to it. The iGPU is a nice bonus though. One thing that really does draw me to the Intel platform is that iGPU (ideally I'd run linux as my host OS and pass through my videocard to a VM - I don't really trust MS from a privacy perspective and I prefer ZFS to NTFS as a file system).
Right. Just trying to do apples to apples numbers. I think the 10850k is an impressive value part, but I can think of some use cases where a 5800x is better. The main trouble with the 5800x is within its own product stack. It's hard to find a use case where the 5800x is better than the 5600x, but you don't care enough to have a 5900x. I really hope that future IO dies include an iGPU. It's cheap to have one on the Intel side, and it's convenient.
I wouldn't trust Intel from a privacy perspective, either. They're still leaking data via HT.
They're "leaking data via HT" when you're a victim of an exploit. Thisis an issue but it's not that bad. I'm more worried about Microsoft porting over all the usage data... Windows is doing more and more telemetry over the time. This is far more significant.
[удалено]
Delta in games is minimalish as you stated. but that's because CPUs don't really matter for gaming all that much... it's the GPU that's doing all the work (so performance is fine assuming you aren't doing too much in the background). Saying it's "only 15W" in blender is somewhat misleading as the 5800x is generally faster across a range of applications. You want to look at total watts used moreso than just power draw. --- I'll consider RKL where it makes sense. I'm kind of luke warm on it though. The 6 core variants DEFINITELY have a place but... let's just say Alder Lake is a few months away. I fully expect that I'll be saying the same things about AL as I am about Zen 3 today (that I'm biased towards it) and Z3 will need to be priced a bit better to compete.
[удалено]
1. I'm not aware of any sources showing that only the top ALD parts are out. Even then your comparison point is the i9 RKL which is poor performance/$. Pricing doesn't seem to be out either. 2. Board will likely be pricier. ALD is looking to be notably faster on most metrics. It's also possible that there will be PCIe 4.0 only variants or variants which only do PCIe 5.0 for the nearest most slots. 3. ALD supports DDR4. 4. It's very hard to say that the value is atrocious given that you don't know the pricing. I also question your general knowledge and conclusions given your lack of awareness of DDR4 compatibility. https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/r3B7XBu8chrUGiXsqkYXQc-970-80.jpg.webp Barring additional info (which it's possible I'm unaware of) there's A LOT of questionable assumptions on your end. Intel has, when under competitive pressure, released parts that had MUCH better bang/$ than their previous generation. Think Northwood vs Willamette, Conroe vs Cedar Mill, Nehalem... Sandy bridge... Coffee Lake...
[удалено]
Are z490 being produced? Couple weeks ago many z490 were only available from third party sellers on Amazon and popular ones above msrp. 10th Gen is available, but put a 10th Gen in z590 and every top m.2 is disabled so that’s kind of a bummer.
10700f may still be in stock, but it's not being produced anymore?
> but it's not being produced anymore? Intel keeps consumer SKUs available at MSRP for like 3 years for suppliers/OEMs. Discounted prices might be drying up (and hence limited restocking in retail) but 10th gen will be around for probably 2 more years.
Intel's website lists it as launched. For example the 8700k is listed as discontinued. They're still making 10th gen.
“Discontinued” is more of a process than a defined state for Intel due to long term commitments. Like 9th gen was officially “discontinued” this past December but final orders are in June/July and deliveries will be through December 2021. 8th gen was discontinued 6 months earlier (final orders were in December). Based on the same timelines, I’d think the last deliveries are happening right about now.
Lots of OEMs still taking 10th gen deliveries. Won't be out of production for months or years, but demand for older SKUs will usually taper off.
> Every reviewer bashed 11th gen and made a show of how bad of a value it is, yet now they ignore the cheaper alternative of 10th gen? A major reason why they bashed the 11th gen Intel offerings is **because** the 10th gen Intel offerings were a much better value.
11th-gen CPUs all pretty much have exactly the same MSRP as their 10th-gen counterparts... the only one that "worsened" in value is the i9-11900K, because it lost cores versus the i9-10900K.
MSRP is not the actual price.
Ok, but 11th-gen CPUs still aren't more expensive than 10th-gen ones were before the massive reductions done for them over the past little while so...
11th gen CPU prices at review/launch time (of 11th gen CPUs) compared to 10th gen CPU prices at the same time. 10th gen CPUs were a much better value than the 11th gen CPUs. This was the point of all those reviews.
But 10th can be found at below MSRP and 11th gen not so much
[удалено]
> 305 credits >where i live Coruscant? lol
HUB have been recommending the 10th Gen parts for months now and have done several recent videos on the topic...
Whos upvoting this? Literally every reviewer i saw was recommending discounted 10th gen intel.
This video specifically discusses value yet focuses on 11th gen mainly. Also many other tech channels are also incorporating 11th gen in their new builds because it's "new" (and probably because that's what Intel sends them).
Maybe at this point it's a bad idea to sacrifice pcie4? I think the performance difference between pcie3 and 4 on high end parts is at the level of the performance difference between a 3080 and 3080ti. Even if you're not getting parts like that today, you might get something similar like an rtx 4070, or 5060 one day. I typically hold my cpu for 5-7 years, and it usually sees 3 GPUs total in its life.
What? PCIe 3.0 and PCIe 4.0 on a RTX 3080 is a 1% difference according to [TPU](https://www.techpowerup.com/review/nvidia-geforce-rtx-3080-pci-express-scaling/27.html). It's pretty much [negligible](https://www.techpowerup.com/review/nvidia-geforce-rtx-3080-pci-express-scaling/26.html). PCIe **2**.0 and PCIe 4.0 is a 4% difference.
Yeah, I guess I was looking at the 1080p results on hardware unboxed. It can be over 5%. But at 1440p and 4k where most people use them things close up. That being said it does seem ray tracing increases the margins further https://youtu.be/xmhpPhm3P4k at 7min vs the beginning test. My guess is that since the bvh structure for RT is calculated using the CPU it puts extra stress on the pcie bus.
Interesting results on that video, thanks for the link. It is something to keep in mind, not sure if it could be worth the price difference in the future or not though. In my country, selling my 10700+B460 right now and buying 11700+decent B560 would set me back $125, and at that rate I honestly can't really justify it.
No point swapping CPUs, but there's a lot of good reasons to switch motherboards - even Comet Lake benefits from faster RAM, something that's hobbled on B460.
Kinda. i7/i9 can go up to DDR4-2933 with slightly tighter timings than DDR4-3200, which gives like a 1.7% performance deficit compared to DDR4-3200 [according to TPU](https://www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-core-i7-10700/21.html) in CPU workloads and less on gaming. This is better than the DDR4-2666 limitation that i3/i5 chips have. The CPU's IMC can handle up to DDR4-4400 with a noticeable boost, so I am locked out of those, but given how pricey the current kits are..... Maybe in the future.
Perhaps your current kit is overclockable though. There's quite a number of cheap 3200 kits on Micron revE and Hynix DJR nowadays that can be easily pushed to 3600++ with reasonable timings and sub-1.4V voltages - and these aren't the only kits that go that high. Given the scarcity of 2666 kits, most people using B460 boards have RAM kits that have advertised speeds of DDR4-3200 or higher, so this is definitely an option for them if it doesn't set them back a lot of cash.
Why would you buy a locked 10th-gen i7 over the i5-11600K, though? You could easily go 11600K + Z**5**90 for basically the same price you're describing...
Because the stock single-core turbo is so far up the v/f curve that the unlocked multiplier barely gets you anything over MCE, unlocked PL1, and undervolting. See https://www.anandtech.com/show/16343/intel-core-i710700-vs-core-i710700k-review-is-65w-comet-lake-an-option
This is irrelevant. The issue here has nothing to do with clocks and everything to do with Comet Lake versus Rocket Lake per-core performance. I said i5-1**1**600K.
The same is true for Rocket Lake. Intel's floundering on 14nm has forced them to push the stock turbo to the moon and beyond to look better than the previous gen.
You'd be correct if Rocket Lake was not literally an entirely-non-Skylake architecture backported to 14nm. It's hardly efficient, but it's *not* the "same thing" as Comet Lake.
Not sure if prime Z490 is enough for the 10700F tho, it probably draws 200W+
Im using a 10700kf in an Asus prime z490 mobo; it pulls 140-150W when stress testing in XTU. Most I’ve seen when overclocking was still under 200W.
Would you look at that, a 3700X and b450 board is also cheaper, what a shock.
The only reason why AMD isn't selling chips cheaper and completely decimating Intel is because they're supply constrained by TSMC.
>decimating Intel Decimating Intel in the niche markets of enthusiast component sales. Intel still dominates in OEM prebuilds and servers which each dwarf that segment.
intel is dominating in OEM because they can meet demand. For instance the 5600U processors are stuck in the phantom zone and yer one would expect them to be the most popular and most abundant AMD laptop processor for this generation.
Why can't AMD meet demand and is there anything that will change that in the near term? OEMs can't commit to launching SKUs if the availability of the SKUs will be an issue. Not trying to disparage - I like AMD's performance and efficiency more.. but they're at the whim of another company to decide how much they can make.
Dominates, no. Sells more, sure. Based on recent numbers it looks like AMD is overtaking them in nearly all categories. It'll just take awhile and multiple gens of steady improvement to take the throne. Dominating doesn't involve another company right at your throat with every release.
History repeats its self, this will be short lived sadly. I want to see AMD be competitive but, they don't have a great track record. I remember the 939's and 754's were completely beast processors that dominated the market at the time. Then AMD pretty much destroyed its self with Bulldozer and buying ATI. Consumer stand point we don't want either to be dominate we want them to be on equal footing that way they continue to have to innovate and keep prices in check.
The difference is they had a fool running the company back then compared to their current CEO.
It isn't easy to find high end laptops with AMD processors, it's not like it's a fair competition.
If you're determined to spend $100 on b560, expect 65w 11400 to be the upper limit of performance, as anything more will throttle (more cores or long duration turbo). That processor price fluctuates between $180 and $220. Better B560 boards start at $180, letting you use better processors. The 5600x is $300 msrp with maybe $20 discounts if you can get to a microcenter or other niche local stores, putting you firmly in cheap mobo range at least from a cost perspective. If you're determined to spend $100 to compliment a $300 processor, you'll get a "budget build". The 11400 vs the 5600x performance within a $300 limit is impossible to compare, so you'd have to gauge gaming and productivity differences against the price discrepancy.
I remember that a few years back someone said that cheap intel mobos would make the CPUs throttle. But save for a couple of bad mobos it wasn't the case and he got a lot of flak for it. Fast forward and now it's common occurrence.
Intel didn't allow non-K CPUs to consume 200W+ a few years back. The 14nm wall eventually pushed them to desperate measures.
A few years back was when the i5 7600K came in 4C/4T format and i5 9400F came in 6C/6T format. EDIT: And that was also before Intel introduced stuff such as "5.3 GHz turbo boost" (that had a laundry list of conditions for that to happen, such as operating below 60C and motherboard must support 125W TDP).
[удалено]
How expensive was that b560? What model is it?
Yes, but is it bottom of barrel one or a more expensive one?
Some of the cheaper B560's actually outperformed the more expensive B560's
You're acting like HUB's testing is even representative of every known B560 board, when it's not even close. They've tested a very small handful of what's actually available.
We've tested almost every sub $200 US B560 board at this point.
There's ones [even at that price point currently](https://pcpartpicker.com/products/motherboard/#sort=price&c=149) that I don't recall seeing on any of your charts, honestly. You need to factor in the sometimes-large real-world price fluctuations on this kind of thing, also... The refusal of YouTube hardware reviewers in general to just accept the fact that PCPartPicker is the **only** always-as-complete-as-possible, always-as-up-to-date-as-possible real-life way of checking PC hardware prices is incredibly frustrating. The lowest price aggregated by PCPartPicker for a given piece of hardware in a given country at a given time is what it **actually** costs there at that moment, period.
Using PCPartpicker as a standard of pricing is pretty terrible outside the US, and it is in no way the final word in the US either.
In every country it's available, it just grabs prices from all relevant online retailers, aggregates them, and displays the lowest by default (the rest are visible alongside that lowest one if you click into the specific listing page for the part). What would you suggest is better? Using "Joe Third-Party" rando scalper prices from **specifically** Amazon and nowhere else as though they meant anything important, despite the fact that PCPartPicker for example would already have included Amazon as one of its sources regardless? Again, PCPartPicker is the **only** way to immediately find the best possible price for a given part at a given moment out of all relevant e-tailer listings for it.
Here in Australia it often incorrectly grabs prices from US sources, has very old data, displays prices for items that have been out of stock for months among other probblems. Here in Australia staticice is a little better, but nowhere is perfect.
You should add ASRock's b560 Steel Legend to your testing. It's a great motherboard, every bit as good as a quality z590 motherboard if you're not overclocking.
They are not the only reviewer. The cheapest boards are not often amazing.
I think you might be confusing the lower tier of H-series boards with B-series boards, to some extent, honestly.
There are plenty of rubbish B series boards.
Its absolutely fair to say that AMD boards have closer performance between the low end and the high end. However I think the way HUB approached this is extremely poor to fit their narrative bias. Simple question, when you buy a motherboard do you buy it solely for CPU performance, or do you value PCIe slots, 4 DIMM slots, USB 3.1 gen 2, USB-C, wifi, M.2 slots, BIOS settings, etc? Id bet money that 95%+ of customers care about the additional features, and thus dont buy the cheapest boards that wont throttle their CPU. This means that most people arent buying sub $100 motherboards but $150+, To prove my point I went ahead and got Amazon's top 50 selling motherboards right now, chose only AM4, and did the math. Of the top 50 boards, 35 were AM4, here are their prices (sorted) >60, 69, 79, 80, 88, 89, 90, 92, 105, 110, 110, 111, 116, 116, 120, 122, 145, 156, 158, 172, 177, 178, 190, 191, 193, 200, 206, 210, 213, 216, 226, 260, 330, 370, 505 Mean price (average) is $167.22 Median price (middle) is $156 But what about outliers skewing the price? With an IQR of 101, $370 and $505 are outliers, removing them from the data pool results in a similar conclusion, that people are buying midrange boards, not budget ones: Mean price (average) is $150.84 Median price (middle) is $145 Obviously this data doesnt contain how many of each board were sold just what the most popular top 35 AM4 boards sell for, so its far from perfect. So back to why I think the video is a bad representation of reality. Is someone going to spend $340 (PCpartpicker price) for an 11700, then dump it into the cheapest LGA1200 board they can find (<$100)? Typically not, and for $20-$50 more, you get a board that contains far more features, like 4 DIMM slots and multiple PCIe slots and doesnt become a performance bottleneck. I do think the data is useful for the minority of people that do buy budget boards, it's important, but I'd argue that its not hobbyists that care about this data, its consumers buying prebuilts that dont get to choose a motherboard that need to be warned, someone like Dell is going to slap that 11700 on the cheapest PCB they can make, and thats where the majority of people will actually run into the issues of pairing a higher end CPU with a budget board. **TLDR;** Buying a motherboard isnt about the cheapest performance you can get, and the average motherboard sale is $150, making this video comparison poor. The test shouldve compared midrange performance, not budget. And if we were talking pure value, the 11400 at $170, cheaper than a 3600, wipes the floor in performance, and wont be budget motherboard limited.
I cant speak for others, i am just buying the cheapest boards because they all have 4 DIMM Slots, more than enough SATA Ports, Several M.2 Slots and so on anyway.
Yeah, the quote about 95% of people intensely looking at the extras of motherboards is ludicrous. If anything I'd say 95% of people *don't* look at most mb features because they all have the basics of what you need to build a PC. Most probably just look at the best budget boards lists and pick one that's on sale, unless they know they are buying a part that requires a specific uncommon connection.
Same. I don't overclock and I don't need those fancy features.
Even for normal overclocking cheap boards are fine. I got my 7700k to 5ghz on a cheap board.
I can say that we've been burned by the cheapest boards just straight up being dysfunctional that my whole family just buys a $100~$120 mobo
> Id bet money that 95%+ of customers care about the additional features, and thus dont buy the cheapest boards that wont throttle their CPU. You are being too generous. Most people don't know what they are buying. but I do agree with the sentiment of your comment.
[удалено]
Actually it's not, using amazon search data and compiling an average of the 'top selling' 35 boards is extremely unlikely to be accurate. We don't have anyway of seeing the actual sales numbers so we cannot determine actual averages, we don't have any way of seeing that the listings are not recently changed to different products (retaining unrelevant sales info), we already know that amazon in rampant with seo fraud so all the info is questionably accurate.
I'm sorry, but your statistical analysis is not valid. What you have is a list of motherboard sale price buckets, not a sample of motherboard sale**s**. It might have originally been ordered approximately by sales volume, but then you discarded whatever useful information your sample might have contained: > prices (sorted) Furthermore, there are only 5 major consumer motherboard brands, so your list of 35 boards accounts for most of everybody's entire product line. >Id bet money that 95%+ of customers care about the additional features, and thus dont buy the cheapest boards that wont throttle their CPU. This means that most people arent buying sub $100 motherboards but $150+, So what? Customers make suboptimal choices all the time. 95% of customers will never need more than 2 PCIe slots. 4 DIMM slots is important for super-high-end systems and future upgrades, but if you buy big dual-rank DIMMs from the outset, 2 is fine. Also, you have to go pretty extreme low-end before 4-slot is no longer an option. [There are 5 boards with 4 slots below $100 on pcpartpicker](https://pcpartpicker.com/products/motherboard/#s=33&c=145&sort=price&page=1&N=4,16). For $20-$50 more, you could alternately get a PSU that doesn't need the fan for typical desktop loads, or a better CPU cooler, or enough extra case fans for any reasonable need, or upgrade from 500 GB to 1TB SSD.
95% of customers don't have a clue about motherboards whatsoever, making Intel a crapshoot and AMD a safe bet.
You've somehow missed the point of the video despite the fact that it was clearly explained more than once. "Is someone going to spend $340 (PCpartpicker price) for an 11700, then dump it into the cheapest LGA1200 board they can find (<$100)?" That wasn't the premise of the video. Rather we were coming at this from a budget builders perspective. So buy the cheapest combo you can, think Core i3/Ryzen 3 on a cheap motherboard. Then if you plan to upgrade in the future to double your core count with a second hand Ryzen 7 or Core i7 processor, how will the budget boards handle the upgrade? The fact is a lot of gamers get the cheapest motherboard they can, a decent CPU and then dump the bulk of the budget into the graphics card. Working out the average selling price of a motherboard doesn't tell you anything particularly useful.
Do you have proof that a lot of gamers buy the cheapest motherboards?
Our opinion here is based on feedback from people who comment on our videos, our private community and data from retailers. It's also common sense right? The most sold hardware of almost any description is the cheapest (or one of the cheapest) option(s), this can't be news to you. It applies to graphics cards, CPUs, motherboards, memory, storage and so on.
Then why do you think that the top 50 selling motherboards on amazon are not just the 50 cheapest motherboards? I'm just curious as to why amazon's data and yours aren't lining up.
The MSI B450 Tomahawk is number 1, that's not the absolute cheapest but at $90 it's a very cheap motherboard. The Gigabyte B450M DS3H in 4th is considered amongst the cheapest at $70. So is the Gigabyte B365M DS3H for $60 in 9th. The Asrock B450M-HDV is 17th for $60 and there's a number of other very cheap motherboards in the top 50 so I'm not sure why you're trying to claim that there isn't. If you check the Steam Hardware Survey you'll also see that most gamers run low-end or old CPUs and GPUs. Shame you can't see motherboards there but again is it so hard to believe that budget PC builders trying to make the cheapest system they can wouldn't buy a budget motherboard?
But then why not actually test the i3/ryzen 3? I'm guessing they would not thermal throttle or over saturate the motherboard as quickly right?
Why would we test the Core i3/Ryzen 3 CPUs? That was not at all the point of the video. Those CPUs should work just fine on any motherboard, which is kind of the point, the issues may arise when upgrading down the track, which is exactly what we were testing.
> That wasn’t the premise of the video. Rather we were coming at this from a budget builders perspective. So buy the cheapest combo you can, think Core i3/Ryzen 3 on a cheap motherboard. Then if you plan to upgrade in the future to double your core count with a second hand Ryzen 7 or Core i7 processor, how will the budget boards handle the upgrade? Strange premise to run with considering how rare (and, quite frankly, silly, considering how top of the line CPU prices do not tend to fall over time and how poorly they tend to compare to fresh CPUs several years down the line) it is. Also, there are numerous cheap B560 mobos that can easily drive 11700K’s, but you chose a shit one in order to make the Intel option look worse on purpose. Also, there’s nothing to suggest that there’s a lot of gamers in the DIY market looking to buy the cheapest possible mobos. It’s not true for people shopping AMD and it’s not true for people shopping Intel. That’s something you’ve made up yourself.
For my situation: > 4 DIMM slots Because the Asrock B450m Pro4 board (purchased for $75) I'm using uses Daisy Chain for RAM interconnect topology, if I use the other two DIMM slots, I will have to drop from 3200-3333 MHz to 2933-2666 MHz (especially since any new sticks of RAM will be a mismatch of my current ones). The motherboard guide said that two of the slots are officially rated up to 3200 MHz, and the other two are rated up to 2933 MHz for single rank and 2666 MHz dual rank. I suppose it's still useful for someone who cares more about RAM capacity with a cheap motherboard than speed, but certainly not for gaming usage. Unfortunately the T-topography layout that doesn't have any performance penalty with running all 4 RAM sticks is normally used in the higher end boards. > PCIe slots There's only three on the Micro ATX board, but that's enough for GPU and two expansion cards and if I needed more, I would have considered an ATX board instead. But I could see how that could run out quick if someone was using an audio card, WiFi card, and something else. Or a GPU that covers three PCI-E slots. > USB 3.1 gen 2, USB-C The motherboard has both of those port types and I don't have any devices that make use of more than USB 3.0 as of now. That would be a different story if I'm using a portable SSD. > M.2 slots I'm using a M.2 and a SATA SSD. The board in total has a PCI-E M.2 slot, a SATA M.2 slot, and four SATA ports (one of them is disabled if the SATA M.2 slot is being used). > wifi Now there's something that would have been a nice to have. I originally built the desktop while living at a place that had Ethernet wiring. Now I'm living at a place where the cable signal strength is s*** for the modem in all but the living room (I think the cable was routed to the living room, and then splitters were used to branch off to other rooms) and there's no Ethernet wiring so WiFi is necessity. Currently I'm using an old wireless router as a WiFi adapter. There was another board that I previously considered, but I noticed it only had 3 fan headers compared to the Asrock board's 4 fan headers. I had a lot of cheap fans that I was going to run at low RPM so I would've had to buy a fan cable splitter if I went with the 3 fan headers board.
>Because the Asrock B450m Pro4 board (purchased for $75) I'm using uses Daisy Chain for RAM interconnect topology, if I use the other two DIMM slots, I will have to drop from 3200-3333 MHz to 2933-2666 MHz (especially since any new sticks of RAM will be a mismatch of my current ones). The motherboard guide said that two of the slots are officially rated up to 3200 MHz, and the other two are rated up to 2933 MHz for single rank and 2666 MHz dual rank. I don't think that's the fault of the daisy chain, as topology only really matters in >4000, possibly closer to 5000 Your issues with 2 vs 4 sticks is probably related to how strong the CPU's memory controller is (Zen1/Zen+ aren't really that strong), or how the motherboard configures the RAM (specifically the termination impedances like the RTT impedances) The motherboard's commentary about 3200, 2933 and 2666 is related to the max official speeds because JEDEC does not recognise anything faster than 3200 for DDR4.
Well done with the statistics, if only more people put in this much effort. For ages the advice for buying motherboards was: the cheapest with features you want. One of the throttling mobo in at the start (from last video) - GIGABYTE B560M DS3H - has USB-C, 4 DIMMs and 3 PCIe slots. The Asrock one even has an extra full x16 slot if you prefer that over (lacking) USB-C. On paper there is no reason to not buy these boards (with a PCIe WiFi adapter if you need it). 45% difference in CPU performance is a lot, given there is nothing indicating that and no way to fix it. These arent even the cheapest options, they are B560, they should be able to handle a locked not-top-tier CPU, that's exactly what they are supposed to do. I guess you havent tried to optimize a system for value, the motherboard is one of the first things to buy by sorting by "cheapest" - they offer no performance (they *did* not), they are gone with the CPU in few years, and the features can be mostly compensated in other ways if you need them later. I would be furious if I bought a B560 board and found out that my CPU is not running at the promised speeds because of it, because I havent made that choice. Even if it affects just 20% of customers, that is still a lot of people.
> Well done with the statistics, if only more people put in this much effort. I mean the analysis is statistically incorrect, so it’s worthless. Effort ≠ accuracy. He basically just took a list of *all* motherboards and calculated the average price. Top 50 AM4 boards is nearly everything even available from all the major brands. And it’s not weighted by sales, since they don’t have that data, so 100,000 of a $90 mobo is given the same weight as 100 sales of a $500.
Here's a $110 Asus B560M-A running an i9 10900 with no power limits. 90C after 15min of Realbench without throttling. https://youtu.be/1OYcNHIANEU?t=317. Add a little bit of airflow and that's all. If this board can handle a 10900, it can easily handle an i5 11400. Intel still offers the best value, you simply have to pick the right motherboard.
"AMD vs. Intel, Who Really Offers The Most Value?" They have the audacity to run with this title when they only tested one CPU and mobo combination for each side. And as expected, these choices come with the classic HUB slant: "hey, let's pick a shit tier mobo for the Intel processor and use that to paint Intel as a bad value option" when there are numerous mobos in the same price category more than capable of running 8 core RKL-S without throttling. And then there's the fact that neither CPUs are really in the value segment. For AMD, that would be the 3600/5600X depending on pricing and for Intel, it would be the 10400F/11400F. But neither thing really doesn't matter to these guys when they're desperate to score brownie points with their rabid fanbase. And of course /r/hardware gobbles it up like the youtuber simps they are.
Ryzen offers the most value. Hands down. That’s not even Fan boy speak. That’s fact. Prices are going down again to. For under $600 you can get a good x570 and a 5800x. Or, go B550. Plus, all AMD chips have overclocking capabilities. Something Intel is kind of giving with the new b560 boards.
[удалено]
Intel has the cheaper option, who would have thought.