New X470 Chipset and Motherboards

A Focus on Power

For our reviews, AMD shipped us two motherboards: the ASUS ROG Crosshair VII Hero (Wi-Fi) and the MSI X470 Gaming M7 AC. These will be two of the high-end halo motherboards to focus on the new X470 chipset.


Katamari loves motherboards. Or just loves sitting on my review samples. (ed: it's the latter)

The new X470 chipset is designed to sit above the X370 chipset, although looking at the specifications, users might be forgiven for not seeing a difference. Technically the X470 part has identical PCIe and SATA support to the older X370 chipset, and for a while AMD will be running both chipsets concurrently for the main motherboard manufacturers to use. Both sets of boards will be using the AM4 chipset, which AMD has guaranteed to support for several generations now.

AMD AM4 Chipsets
AnandTech
  DDR4 OC USB SATA PCIe
2.0
GPU XFR2
PB2
StoreMI TDP RAID
SATA
RAID
NVMe
3.1 3.0 2.0
X470 2933 Y 2 6 6 6 8 x8/x8 Y Y 4.8W 0,1,10
X370 2667 Y 2 6 6 6 8 x8/x8 N N 6.8W 0,1,10
B350 2667 Y 2 2 6 4 6 x16 N N 6.8W 0,1,10
A320 2667 N 1 2 6 4 4 x16 N N 6.8W 0,1,10 -
Embedded
X300 2667 Y 0 4 0 2 4 x8/x8 N N ? 0,1 -
B300 2667 N 0 4 0 2 4 x16 N N ? 0,1 -
A300 2667 N 0 4 0 2 4 x16 N N ? 0,1 -

The big change in the chipset will be in the power consumption. Currently the X370 chipset, built on a 55nm manufacturing process using ASMedia IP, runs at a 6.8W TDP (running at full load). For X470, we were told that this is the same process and IP, but the chip will now run at 4.8W peak and 1.9W in an idle mode. This is due to an improved power infrastructure within the chip, and AMD also claims that overall throughput is improved. The chipset firmware is also set to provide better memory OC support and stability.

The other factor in this is StoreMI, on the next page. This new feature technically does not require chipset support, however the free installer will check for the presence of an X470 chipset before providing a free license, otherwise the software will cost $20 and not have AMD branding.

All X470 boards, and X370 boards with the latest BIOS updates, will support the new Ryzen 2nd Gen processors. X370 motherboards that have had the BIOS updated already will have the ‘Ryzen 2000 Desktop Ready’ logo attached on the box, however X470 boards will automatically be covered.

AMD Boot Kits

For users in that buy an X370/B350/A320 motherboard that has old firmware, AMD has a support page to manage the issue. Users should first reach out to the retailer for a replacement board with an updated BIOS, but failing that, users with verified purchases can obtain an “AMD Boot Kit” – a short term loan of an A-series processor with which people can update the BIOS for their new processor.

AMD will supply the kit, free of charge, if the user can:

  1. Show a picture of the new 300-series motherboard,
  2. Show a picture of the new Ryzen 2000-series CPU,
  3. With model numbers / unique serial numbers in shot, and
  4. A copy of the purchase invoice.

This means that users who want to take advantage of the Boot Kit will have to buy retail components, and buy them second hand. The kit will have an A-series (Bristol Ridge) processor and a cooler, as well as a pre-paid return label for the hardware. Offering a kit like this for a motherboard BIOS update is relatively unheard of, as previously users would have to go through the retailer and pay for an RMA. However, one might suggest that AMD has enough A-series processors in stock for this to not be much of an issue, and the positive reaction from such a service outweighs the sending and return costs.

Users that need a Boot Kit can go to this link to find the official details.

X470 Motherboards

Each manufacturer has already announced a handful of new motherboards for the chipset, although it is clear this is not a full stack.

X470 Motherboards
Name Size Price Amazon Price Newegg
ASRock
X470 Master SLI/AC ATX - $150
X470 Gaming K4 ATX - $170
X470 Gaming-ITX/ac Mini-ITX - $180
X470 Taichi ATX - $230
X470 Taichi Ultimate ATX - $300
X470 Master SLI ATX - -
ASUS
TUF X470-Plus Gaming ATX $160 $160
Prime X470-Pro ATX - $185
Strix X470-F Gaming ATX - $215
Strix X470-I Gaming (Wi-Fi) Mini-ITX $210 $210
X470 Crosshair VII Hero ATX $280 $280
X470 Crosshair VII Hero Wi-Fi ATX $300 $300
Biostar
X470GT8 ATX - -
X470GTN Mini-ITX - -
GIGABYTE
X470 Aorus Ultra Gaming ATX $140 $140
X470 Aorus Gaming 5 Wi-Fi ATX $180 $180
X470 Aorus Gaming 7 Wi-Fi ATX $240 $240
MSI
X470 Gaming Plus ATX - $140
X470 Gaming Pro ATX $170 -
X470 Gaming Pro Carbon ATX - $190
X470 Gaming M7 AC ATX $260 $260
X470 Pro Carbon AC ATX - -

Most vendors will run the X470 and X370 chipsets side by side, with the X470 taking up some of the more premium offerings at this time.

ASUS ROG Crosshair VII Hero

The first board we opened was the ASUS ROG Crosshair VII Hero (Wi-Fi), with the box well and truly battered either by shipping or how it was stored.

At first glance we already see a few notable features: a combined 12-phase power delivery (likely 10+2) on the CPU, with dual M.2 slots and reinforced PCIe for x8/x8 SLI operation. The rear IO panel is pre-attached to the system with the shroud, and there is a small cable connecting the integrated LEDs on the motherboard.

The socket is the same as before: AM4 with 1331 holes for the processor. The latch mechanism is the same, as are the cooler dimensions.

ASUS has added a number of RGB headers on the board, as well as what looks like easy-to-use voltage read points or points to enable any 5V operation (such as cold-cathode lighting?).

With the two M.2 sockets, one will be PCIe 3.0 x4 from the CPU and the other is PCIe 2.0 x4 from the chipset. For other storage needs, there are six SATA ports as well.

Onboard are a variety of USB 3.1, USB 3.0, and USB 2.0 ports and headers, although I found it quite amusing that ASUS decided to put ‘native USB’ on this header to signify that it is from the chipset and not from a controller. This has benefits for VR that requires native ports, allowing the user to put front panel connectors into the native USB headers.

Being a halo board, ASUS has put in its SupremeFX audio configuration. This is based on a custom Realtek ALC1220A codec, Nichicon audio capacitors, an EMI shield, PCB separation, and bundled software.

On the back we get ASUS BIOS Flashback button, such that users can upgrade the BIOS without the CPU/GPU/DRAM installed, a Clear CMOS button, the 802.11ac Wi-Fi, two USB 2.0 ports, a combination PS/2 port, eight USB 3.0 ports, two USB 3.1 ports (one Type-C), the gigabit Ethernet port, and the audio jacks.

MSI X470 Gaming M7 AC

By contrast, the MSI X470 Gaming M7 AC box was not bashed up, and showed the picture of the motherboard directly on the front. Normally we are used to seeing MSI and the ‘ACK’ moniker on some of its Gaming M7 motherboards with Wi-Fi, to indicate using a Killer network controller, but not here.

The first look at the board shows something a little less heavy on the styling than the ASUS, although MSI is still pushing a bit of an angled look. The obvious features are the DRAM supports, the multitude of chokes in the power delivery, and that dual-fingered chipset heatsink which hides two M.2 slots.

A close up of the DRAM ‘cover’ shows that this is how MSI is evolving its reinforced memory slot concept. We can argue if reinforcing memory slots is actually worth anything (it certainly helps PCIe), but here it can contribute to the aesthetic.

I’m counting 14 chokes on this motherboard, which would make it one of the biggest power delivery options on any AM4 motherboard. The power delivery heatsinks are not connected together, perhaps indicative of cost or MSI’s confidence in the power delivery efficiency. It is worth noting that MSI uses dual 8-pin power for the CPU here, compared to the 8+4-pin arrangement on the ASUS ROG.

One of the more esoteric features of recent MSI motherboards is this big knob, which goes all the way up to 11. This is MSI’s Game Boost overclocking feature, designed such that each twist gives a bigger overclock boost to the processor. In the past these features are often overly harsh to most processors, in an effort to encapsulate as many as possible, and in the past we’ve never been able to go much beyond the ‘2’ setting on air cooling. Luckily there are power/reset buttons right next to it.

MSI’s Audio Boost 6 branding for the audio is almost like the others: a Realtek ALC1220 codec with specialized audio capacitors, an EMI shield, and PCB separation. MSI’s add here is in the software, using a license from a company called Nahimic to offer various EQ adjustments and in-game benefits.

Like the ASUS, MSI offers a BIOS update feature without the CPU/GPU/DRAM installed. On the rest of the rear panel we get two USB 2.0 ports, a combination PS/2 port, four USB 3.0 ports, the 802.11ac Wi-Fi module, two USB 3.1 ports, the gigabit Ethernet port, and the audio jacks.

A couple of interesting things to note on the rear of the board - around the chipset heatsink area, MSI has placed this warning about keeping case standoffs away from the bottom of the board. Because most cases are designed to house all sorts of motherboard form factors, users that take older cases and do not remove the unneeded standoffs can result in short circuits and possibly ruined hardware. Although if a user doesn’t remove the older standoffs, I doubt they will bother reading the rear of the motherboard.

Here’s a handy addition to some motherboards: this tells you how many PCB layers there are. In this case, six. To put that into context, the cheapest motherboards usually have three or four, most mainstream boards will have six or sometimes eight, while high-end desktop usually require eight or ten. Money-no-object motherboards, like server systems, can have twelve. Additional features, like double copper or high-humidity protection, can add +50% each to the cost of the pure PCB.

Precision Boost 2 and XFR2: Ensuring It Hertz More StoreMI: The Way To A Faster JBOD
Comments Locked

545 Comments

View All Comments

  • mapesdhs - Saturday, April 21, 2018 - link

    Not an argument.
  • 0ldman79 - Thursday, April 19, 2018 - link

    In the real world we have to choose depending on features and performance while constrained by a budget.

    For intellectual discussion and better understanding of the chips and architecture we need direct comparison.

    Both arguments work for entirely different reasons. I rarely have the budget for high end Intel. I'm also into overclocking and run VM, so the only way I hit both of those is to run AMD.

    I've also got a few apps that really take advantage of AVX2 and AVX512, which even the Ryzen gets monstrously stomped by Intel.

    If you judge by a single metric you're missing the big picture. Everything is a compromise.
  • Ninjawithagun - Thursday, April 19, 2018 - link

    Actually, the comparison between the 2600X (not 2700X) and the 8700K is based upon multiple metrics, not just one.
  • Ninjawithagun - Thursday, April 19, 2018 - link

    Once again incorrect. Cost vs. Cost is only one of many factors to consider, but is not a main one, especially if the competition has a processor of equal quality for much less cost. Comparing an Intel 6 core/12 thread CPU to an AMD 8 cores/16 thread CPU makes absolutely no sense if you are measuring cost vs. performance. Your argument makes no sense, sorry.
  • LurkingSince97 - Thursday, April 19, 2018 - link

    Once again incorrect. Cost vs Cost is the primary factor for a buyer on a budget. It is the main one.
    Case in point, if I can get a 2600X for the same price as a much slower Intel chip, it is obviously better.
    Comparing a $300+ chip to a $200+ one makes absolurely no sense if you are measuring cost vs. performance. Your argument makes no sense, sorry.

    See what I did there? Your argument (and the one above) are BS. You are either a troll, or have a serious intellectual disability. Price, performance, and implementation details (core count) are all independent dimensions and you can look at any of them from the perspective of the other.

    Price just happens to be the constraint that most shoppers have to start with. They can vary the other parameters, within the price constraint.

    A others with more money might instead lock in a performance / feature set requirement and _then_ consider price, but that is the minority.
  • fallaha56 - Thursday, April 19, 2018 - link

    Well said

    I suggested the chap apply his own facile argument and compare threadripper to the 8700k...
  • gglaw - Saturday, April 21, 2018 - link

    They compared multiple "qualities" of processors between two Ryzen generations and CL. If you want to look at them core for core, is it that hard to shift your eyes 3 lines up to see the next line of results? Do you want them to exclude the 2700X since there isn't a consumer level CL to match it?
  • LurkingSince97 - Thursday, April 19, 2018 - link

    Price and absolute performance are paramount. Comparing at raw architecture levels is interesting but less important.

    In the real world, there are consumers who are not that price sensitive, in which case they only care about a top end part that is within their range. They don't care if it is 10 core/ 20 thread vs 8 core /16 thread or 6 core 12 thread -- they care about the raw performance for what they need, and are usually willing to go up in cost somewhat for that performance (including mobo/ram costs). This is the sort of consumer I am today.

    There are then others who are price sensitive and have a budget. For these people the price tag is paramount. The flaw with this review (and most in general) is that it does not include mobo / ram / etc costs and often just looks at the CPU price alone. For someone budget conscious they have to carefully consider whether saving $100 on a CPU or $50 on a mobo can give them the ability to spend that on say, a better GPU or nicer monitor. For those, comparing products by price point is way more important than comparing them by architecture. This is the sort of consumer I was when I was a poor college student / gamer that had to part together my own systems with very limited budgets.

    As a tech geek, I am always interested in the core-for-core or clock-for-clock comparison, but in the real world for purchasing decisions it doesn't matter if a Ryzen with 6 cores/12 threads at 3Ghz is faster or slower than an Intel chip with 6 cores/12 threads at 3Ghz. In the end, they can have different core counts, threads, and Ghz -- all that matters is the actual performance.
  • Targon - Monday, April 23, 2018 - link

    In the case of Ryzen, you can use the same motherboard from the first generation to the second, or the third, or the fourth(in 2020). You may not get all the features, but they will work, and CPU cost is the only thing needed since you already have the other components.

    Actual performance is the correct focus, but game performance isn't the same as rendering performance, or for those who tend to have 8+ programs open as a part of their normal work environment. Just saying "performance" ignores that what you use your computer for isn't necessarily the same as what other people use their computer(s) for.
  • Targon - Monday, April 23, 2018 - link

    That is why they use different game benchmarks. Some do make use of more cores/threads, and others make use of other design differences between different products. Price vs. performance is a very valid comparison based on workload, not just games, but in other tasks. You could have higher core count processors with lower clock speeds at the same price point, even when looking at Intel. 6-core lower speed, or 4-core higher speed at the same price point. Which does better for the tasks you personally care about? Intel 8700K vs. AMD 2700X is the fair comparison, while you will compare the 2600 to the i5, again, due to the price point. When you look at the performance results, you SHOULD in theory, see that these chips match up in terms of performance for the price, though AMD tends to have an advantage these days in multi-threaded tasks, while Intel tends to do better in lightly threaded workloads due to clock speeds.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now