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

  • Flying Aardvark - Monday, April 23, 2018 - link

    There's usually a lag from 6-12 months on any change that's already in place. Any topic really. Humans aren't very good at seeing what's in front of them. It requires enough people repeating it over and over around them, until they accept reality.

    Before that reassurance from society around them, they don't have the confidence to see/admit reality. Just something I've noticed. :)
  • mapesdhs - Monday, May 14, 2018 - link

    That's why I like Goodkind's "1st Rule": people will believe a lie either because they want to believe it's true, or they're afraid it's true.
  • Kaihekoa - Tuesday, April 24, 2018 - link

    I don't know what reviews you read, but the WCCF review shows slight favor to 8700K in gaming. However, it's an incomplete review of gaming as they only test at 1440p Ultra, where the GPU bears most of the workload, and only show average framerate. Tech Report doesn't even go into any detail whatsoever on gaming and only broaches the topic in a couple paragraphs on the conclusion page. Still, they even show a lead to Intel. Anandtech shows the 2700X leading every game in framerate, which is flat out inaccurate when compared to other reviews.

    The Spectre BS has marginal, if any, impact on game performance. I don't know how you get the idea that CPU IO is related to loading textures in a game when textures are loaded into VRAM by the GPU. Looking further into the test setup, Anand uses slower RAM on Intel platforms, an ECC mobo for Z170, doesn't disclose GPU driver versions and uses an enterprise OS on consumer hardware. I'm guessing these and/or other factors contributed to the inaccurate numbers, relative to other reviewers, causing me to lose a lot of respect for this once well-regarded hardware reviewer. I'll get my benchmark numbers from PC Perspective and Gamers Nexus instead.

    Not hating on AMD, and I even own stock in both AMD and Intel. They offer tremendous value at their price points, but I spend alot of money on my PC and use it for gaming, overclocking/benching, and basic tasks, which all seem better suited to Intel's IPC/clock speed advantage. I need reviews to post accurate numbers so that I can make my upgrade decisions, and this incomplete review with numbers not reflective of actual gaming performance fails to meet that need.
  • Flying Aardvark - Tuesday, April 24, 2018 - link

    Come on man. I almost stop responding to replies like this. WCCF benches the base 2700, of course the 8700K wins, they don't include the 2700X. Again, the results line up with AT's. I wrote TR but meant TechRadar.

    Eh, I'm not going to keep going on addressing all these "points". IO is a syscall, reading/writing to disk is a syscall and that's where Intel takes up to a 50% perf hit with their Spectre v3 patches in place. This is known, and been known for months on the impact for games that do lots of texture steaming like ROTR. I even provided user provided evidence, that beat Anandtech here to the punch by 3 months.

    Anand used Intel/AMD memory spec. That's what you're supposed to do when testing a product advertised to use certain components (for good reason, BTW, stupid gamer kids discounted).

    Bottom line is that you and people flipping out just like you are wrong. I already knew about this being under the surface months ago. Now that it's impossible to cover it up with the 2000 series launch, more people are simply aware that AMD has taken over.
  • GreenMeters - Tuesday, April 24, 2018 - link

    But Anandtech has the 2700, and even the 2600X and 2600, beating the 8700K. So how are the WCCF benchmarks lining up with Anandtech's?
  • Maxiking - Tuesday, April 24, 2018 - link

    "I just finished running Rise of the Tomb Raider benchmarks, 1080p, very high preset, FXAA.

    Unpatched:

    Mountain Peak: 131.48 FPS (min: 81.19 max: 197.02)
    Syria: 101.99 FPS (min: 62.73, max: 122.24)
    Geothermal Valley: 98.93 FPS (min:76.48, max: 117.00)
    Overall score: 111.31 FPS

    Windows patch only:

    Mountain Peak: 135.34 FPS (min: 38.21 max: 212.84)
    Syria: 102.54 FPS (min: 44.22, max: 144.03)
    Geothermal Valley: 96.36 FPS (min:41.35, max: 148.46)
    Overall score: 111.93 FPS

    Windows patch and BIOS update:

    Mountain Peak: 134.01 FPS (min: 59.91 max: 216.16)
    Syria: 101.68 FPS (min: 38.95, max: 143.44)
    Geothermal Valley: 97.55 FPS (min:46.18, max: 143.97)
    Overall score: 111.62 FPS

    Average framerates don't seem affected."

    From the link you posted, you got rekt by yourself.
  • Maxiking - Tuesday, April 24, 2018 - link

    Actually, I can't bother waiting because, it's futile.

    The benchmark from that thread shows there has been no noticable performance regression after the updates had been applied.

    I know what you gonna do. Look at those min fps. I WAS RIGHT. I WAS RIGHT. You are thinking right now. No, you weren't. If you ever had run TOR benchmarks, you would have experienced it. There are quite severe discrepancies in the inbuilt benchmark when comes to min/max fps. I noticed it myself when I was overclocking 6700k and running game benchmarks, stability tests. Since you are mostly using anecdotal evidence, you do not know how to make proper arguments, don't provide valid sources, we are really limited here, but that's what we have.

    To support my statement, here is the video:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZEhkcs9hpU

    It is not mine, but it is proving my point, there is an issue in the benchmark. It shows wrong/misleading min/max fps pretty often which other benchmarking solutions doesn't record.

    The video was published on 7 Jul 2016, so no meltdown/spectre for you. I know you will argue it is no coincidence with those min fps, but look at the max as well.
  • Maxiking - Tuesday, April 24, 2018 - link

    *solution
  • Flying Aardvark - Wednesday, April 25, 2018 - link

    Are you retarded? I know you are because I ran those benchmarks myself and it's reproducible on more games than ROTR. Where's your contradicting information to back your claim, you do know that trying to poke holes in info is not an argument.
  • Ranger1065 - Wednesday, April 25, 2018 - link

    So sad the review failed to meet your expectations. Enjoy your time at Gamer's Nexus (cough).

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now