Fox2232:

M.2_2 on PCIe 3.0 x4 at cost of 2nd PCIe GPU. For many, good idea. For CF/SLI users, not so much.

Very true, realistically though, how many users out there still use SLI/CFX? And then add to that, how many users will actually install two NVME M2 storage units? For 99.9% this simply is not an issue.

Fox2232:

Getting connection schematics is not as common as I would like it to be.

Which is why I request them these days, and ASUS delivered. In short, there is no other viable solution at hand, other than to link a second M2 SSD through the chipset, here it would get limited towards PCIe Gen 2.0 lanes where you get half gen3 performance, ergo this is why the motherboard manufacturers all prefer an x4 Gen 3 path directly to the processor. But again this only applies to people using SLI in combo with a second M2 NVME SSD. I have not noticed a forced bundle with LCS though, where is that?

Fox2232:

All x470 MBs from ASUS comes like this on all Czech shops

There really should be a law against that, crazy.

lord_zed:

Poor Overclocking options Review... You ahve not used Asus exclusive performance enhancer that boosts 1 core to over 4.4 ghz !!!

There is no such option in the BIOS neither can Ryzen be configured with per core tweaks in the BIOS, but considering the 2700X will reach 4.35 on a single thread all by itself with XFR2, I fail to see the benefit of the extra one core 50 MHz as well.

Looks like a decent mobo, but I'll still wait to see what else we will have.

Any news on when the B450 will come out?

Really there are more gains to be had by overclocking and tweaking RAM timings as far as Ryzen goes.

Awesome review as Hilbert. Thank you for a great article , good read !

Good review, as usual...the pricing on some of these x470 boards has me scratching my head...As you mention, the x370 chipset is very, very close and ~$100 less than these prices...! Hmmmm....

waltc3:

Good review, as usual...the pricing on some of these x470 boards has me scratching my head...As you mention, the x370 chipset is very, very close and ~$100 less than these prices...! Hmmmm....

You can spot X470 motherboards for 150 bucks, just not these flagship model motherboards. Once I find some time, I'll look deeper into the performance effects in between X370 and X470. However, even now the CH6 and CH7, for example, both cost roughly the same.

Fox2232:

I meant it more as a choice. Someone who can afford 2x GPU is quite likely to be able to afford 2x M2 drive.

Someone that can afford all that likely has a threadripper CPU and doesn't need to worry about that issue.

OddGentleman:

2700x same clocks as 8600k yet again for gamers 8600k delivers about 10FPS more. At the same price.

^ Guess this guy likes to play at 720p. Ultra gamer here guys!

Hilbert Hagedoorn:

You can spot X470 motherboards for 150 bucks, just not these flagship model motherboards. Once I find some time, I'll look deeper into the performance effects in between X370 and X470. However, even now the CH6 and CH7, for example, both cost roughly the same.

Yep, you're right...I spoke too soon, I think. The MSI board you reviewed is the top of the line offering from MSI, apparently, which I didn't realize. I was of the opinion that they'd probably keep the same branding names for the x470 motherboards--so at first it appeared that they were charging a big premium for the x470 mboards that were middle-to-high end in the x370 series. Thanks for setting me straight on that--glad to hear it...;)

Aura89:

^ Guess this guy likes to play at 720p. Ultra gamer here guys!

Oh, so true...! I did not buy an 8GB GPU so that I could game @ 1920x1080 or 720p....;) Looking at the QHD (and up) game benches there's hardly a spit's worth of frame-rate difference between GPUs...! At decent resolutions, gaming is very much GPU-dependent. Really, it's pretty much always been that way, imo.

^ Yep, I'm playing Hell Let Loose @ 1440p, epic textures but mainly high settings with a few medium and getting low 60 - mid 70 fps (still looks great as well). Oh I've realised you can't game on a Ryzen (1600X) can you..... 😛

I'm finally considering the upgrade to Ryzen from a 4790K, but just haven't decided on which. I have a Noctua NH-D15 already, so it might make more sense to get the regular 2700 over the X. At the same time its mildly depressing that my 4790K @ 4.6ghz has equal to greater single threaded performance as a stock 8700K.

blkspade:

I'm finally considering the upgrade to Ryzen from a 4790K, but just haven't decided on which. I have a Noctua NH-D15 already, so it might make more sense to get the regular 2700 over the X. At the same time its mildly depressing that my 4790K @ 4.6ghz has equal to greater single threaded performance as a stock 8700K.

Heck, I'm seriously considering going to Ryzen + myself (I know, I am stupid beyond belief...but I love buying decent computer hardware offered at very decent prices...;) I am such a sucker! They can see me coming...) I am very happy with the 1600 @ 3.8GHz stable--but the 2600X looks to be a bit better, and perhaps won't have the Spectre2 microcode penalty that I currently am seeing. I think that I would go to a 2600x, maybe, instead of the 1600 I have installed now--although I could probably get as much from the 2600 as I could from the x cpu--and I will probably go with a x470 mboard, too, this time around (I really like the external Clear CMOS buttons these boards have that the x370 boards--mine, anyway--didn't.) There is only ~$30 difference between the X ($230)and the non-X 2600 ($199); but there's about a ~$100 jump to an 8-core, as well as elevated cpu power requirements. For that matter, I think I read that the 2600x has 95W TDP, but the 2600 has a 65W TDP. So maybe the extra MHz peak for the 2600x has to do more with power consumed than it does with binning, which means I might have to stick with the 2600. Still collating... But maybe this whole Spectre 2 microcode slowdown that I am seeing and measuring is just MSI doing something wrong relative to applying this update--and *maybe* they will fix it by the next bios update. That would be refreshing news--what bothers me is that MSI is being mum--very mum, about the whole thing.

Jagman:

^ Yep, I'm playing Hell Let Loose @ 1440p, epic textures but mainly high settings with a few medium and getting low 60 - mid 70 fps (still looks great as well). Oh I've realised you can't game on a Ryzen (1600X) can you..... 😛

That sentiment "you can't game with a 1600" is bizarre, especially when I consider I had no trouble gaming on my FX-8320e, either. *Who* is going to spend ~$700 on a nVidia GPU, for instance, and then game @ 1080P...? What a waste...;)

waltc3:

That sentiment "you can't game with a 1600" is bizarre, especially when I consider I had no trouble gaming on my FX-8320e, either. *Who* is going to spend ~$700 on a nVidia GPU, for instance, and then game @ 1080P...? What a waste...;)

I think he's saying that the 1600x is the CPU he has and he's gaming just fine, basically what pretty much any Ryzen user has said in regards to the nonsense that other people continue to try and push about "ryzens not being gaming CPUs"

@Aura89 - Yes a little bit of sarcasm there 😀 @airbud7 - Yep 1440p is much more about the GPU @waltc3 - Go for the 2600X minimum (2700X ideally) forget about the tdp. Your 1600s tdp will be over 65W because you're overclocking it, so I wouldn't worry at all 🙂

Yes yes, this all looks very interesting for my next build, maybe Zen2. Playing at 1440p I don't see a reason not to buy a RyzenCPU, since it matches Intel's performance on that resolution "already" (beyond 1080p is what I'm talking about, not time wise).