@@uncrunch398 As Steve explained, the mobo manufacturers followed Intel's standards but that "standard" is very loose and leaves much to be desired. The OEM just did their part based on what specs Intel gave them.
The problem isn't the MB's, its the muppets that rush to buy these products, they are often to lazy to read up on spec, and mostly buy a board with a daft name because it sounds cool. and 'its new, so its gotta be better.
@@Axisoflords ye, I mean not to be rude but Steve is a relatively generic name so it’s not unlikely 2 people from the same community have the same name
What you do it’s very unique. Reviews so well detailed and honest like no other channel does. Thank you for informing and educating whole tech community!
@@shinokami007 Sorry. English isn’t my native language and I’m not perfect. Thanks for digging inside my message and finding imperfections. Your remark leads me one step closer to perfection. Thanks again.
y'es sir. I recently gotta X570 tuf used for 115 and a Hyzen 3 3300x for 120. Teh higher core count CPU right now just for gaming really isnt worth it a 4c 8tread will get teh job done.
I find Steve to be the best tech youtuber. He has useful and interesting discoveries, the best cpu and gpu benchmarks, and is the only guy apart from buildzoid to do extensive vrm testings.
They discovered that high end boards enabled power limit overclocking by default. Turned it around so that boards that don't enable it by default are the bad ones and made comparisons between 'overclocked' parts and standard parts. The most informative part was towards the end where actual VRM throttling and testing happened, which showed what we expect. Being low end boards with worse VRM's throttling. The whole thing could be 'fixed' by the high end boards default setting being.....default! It's like buying a high end Ryzen board that for some reason defaulted to having the power curve optimiser enabled and then making comparisons to boards running correctly without it. Just fix the boards not running at stock settings.
@@TEKDAD Mobo manufacturers have only 1 job, make sure the VRM can keep up with all possible CPUs you can slot in without overclocking. Then consumers are free to choose based on features. If the VRMs can't keep up, it's a fail.
@@peterl.104 I've got that board with a 11400F, and it works fine. Average clock during a gaming session with a NH-L12 Ghost S1 is around 4300mhz. Short PL at 150W and long at 65W. But I'm quite GPU limited with a GTX 970, so we'll see what it looks like under more pressure.
@@sebastiansandvik825 mine seems ok, too, but I have a GTX 1060 and it’s mainly a HTPC and gaming computer. It’s probably worth the $95 price. Just curious.
Definitely, I have been scouting out 11400f for next potential upgrade for my mITX build. But this makes me reconsider. But with this speed my new gpu won't arrive until next Gen Intel and AMD is out anyway...
@@Amusia727 After years of making bad purchases at bad times of the year I started to notice a pattern to hardware manufacturers. Its actually really simple when you take a step back and look at the whole picture, the two most important components are always going to be CPU/GPU so when you purchase a system a good idea is to skip the direct successor( e.g. purchase an 8700k and skip purchasing 9700k) and potentially purchase a newer chip down the road. The good thing about GPUs is that you can squeeze a lot of life out of a GPU when you overclock it, I used a Radeon 7870HD for years and years because it was such a monster for overclocking, I did my consumer research and only paid 240$ for it and got 6+ years out of it. You can easily skip one or two series of GPUs by making a good decision on what to purchase(e.g buy a GTX 1080 or 1080TI and skip 20xx and 20xx SUPER series) and you usually won't be missing all that much.
Maybe need to include some of the cheaper, and similarly priced Z590 for comparison to your B560 testing. With prices all over the place, it might prove useful.
After watching this, all I have to say is: Thank you for justifying my decision to go with the Aorus B560M pro for my computer upgrade.(from an i3-*2120* on an OEM Acer motherboard.)
I loved the video! When you make the inevitable B560 motherboard roundup, I would love it if the ASUS TUF GAMING B560M-PLUS WIFI gets included somewhere. At $149.99, it has a very good rear I/O, but I'm not sure how its VRM stacks up against the B560M Aorus Pro and B560 Tomahawk.
OH NOOOOOOO! I just built myself a Asrock B560m Steel Legend with a 11400f. I have it running at max power levels and it seems to out perform my 3700x currently in games. I hope you guys feature the B560 Steel Legend in your b560 VRM shootout as it looks good on paper at a decent price. Love your channel guys, keep up the great work!
Hey! Is it on par with their results for b560 tomahawk and aorus pro or falls under the other category where the cpu underperforms? I am getting ATX b560 steel legend. Thanks!
You know, it's funny. I always said that motherboards had the LEAST impact on performance when it came to core components and Intel has managed to slaughter that statement. With the wrong motherboard, you could be looking at getting performance out of a modern Intel CPU that would be not too far off from an i7-2600K. Jeez.
An interesting test would be pairing all top end CPU with the cheapest compatible board you can get. I wouldn't expect very high turbo clocks against max turbo announced clock out of that type of setup. If the motherboard power delivery cannot supply enough current to the CPU it won't boost to max turbo clock and outside Z series chipset AIBs aren't obliged to support PL2 level power draw. It leaves room for cheap boards existing for cheap CPU which don't need a 250W capable board for getting max turbo.
I didn't remember seeing such incosistent results among "B" boards in past Intel generations to be honest. What happened here? Z590 sounds even better now, even the cheaper ones. Thanks for looking at these issues in depth.
the only way intel will ever change the way they define and enforce their specs is if reviewers ONLY test intel CPUs at the baseline spec, rather than with limits removed. Right now, because reviews are usually done on high end boards intel gets the benefit of reviews showing their performance in the best possible light, while also being able to sell CPUs that can vastly under perform on more realistic hardware configs. It's not the reviewers fault, but intel absolutely does take advantage of this fact to show their CPU and the platform as both being high performance and affordable, when in reality, the high performance figures are often only available on higher end, more expensive boards that buyers of non-k sku cpus are highly unlikely to actually buy.
Reviewers are to take half of the blame, as they allow this to happen. This got covered in 2018, looks like little was learned from it and nothing done to stop it.
Really like seeing more reviewers actually talking clearly and openly about the pointlessness of K chips. And I'm curious to see how will Intel proceed with them. Probably the only reason they are still selling them is because people aren't checking benchmarks and are buying them, so the question is what makes more sense? Continue selling K chips for as long as they keep selling or just remove them from the lineup completely. With Alder Lake, they'll have more room for actually making better models of different tier CPUs, that is they could make an i5 with two small cores, they could make one with 4 small cores.
K is not pointless, it is, in fact, required for Intel to claim ANY kind of performance advantage in games over Zen 3 at this point. Stock frequency CPUs sucked in 8th and 9th generations with only budget gamers buying them. In 10th and 11th gen, the gap is small, sure, and the amount of additional heat generated when you overclock is completely ridiculous, but Intel won't stop selling K chips, both because "capability to overclock" is a good additional selling point, even if nebulous, and because it makes them look like they're not losing to AMD completely.
@@dexter2392 Overclocking benefits on Intel have been declining since Ivy Bridge. There's just no point in overclocking them. As for sales, Intel does in fact provide the better bang for the buck as far as gaming is concerned.
@@CanIHasThisName You could actually get up to a 5-10% performance improvement in games from overclocking 9th gen. I wouldn't say that's pointless, considering how close they were to the Ryzen 3000. The newest generation is obviously already squeezing all the performance they can get out of 14nm, but K chips will still be selling just because they're "premium" and not locked.
@@dexter2392 It wouldn't be pointless if it there wasn't such huge price premium attached to it. The price/performance value goes completely out the window and you're better off just buying a better or newer CPU.
Problems been fixed?. I've updated my bios 3 times the last year. Now running cinnebench on a b560m ds3h with 11700. Multi core test = 4.8ghz. Score 12826. Would really like you guys to retest with the cheap end models.
Me: *Buys B560 two days ago, shipped yesterday* Steve: *Intel B560 is a Disaster* Goddamit. Luckily, I sighed in relief at the end. I bought that Gigabyte B560M Aorus Pro. If you could save me these scares, it would be great! Awesome video and job as always Steve.
My Asus Prime B560m-a runs my 11400f on 4.19 ghz and progressively downclocks all the way to 3.7 ghz over 35 minutes time, then 5 to 10 minutes later it jumps back to 4.0 - 4.05 ghz again and seems to remain there for the past half hour. It never went below 3.7 though and was only there for a short amount of time. I do use great cooling (Arctic Freezer 34) So the temps aint the problem (Max temp of 71c. Averaging 66), using prime 95 to stress my CPU. So yeah you are right , luckely this motherboard aint performing as bad as some in your graph and seems to hover around 3.8 - 4.0 most of the time during the stressing. I would say the average clockspeed in an hour test is 3.95 to 4.0 ghz so i am missing out on about 0.2 to 0.3 ghz power which i am not too disappointed about concidering the price (120 dollar ish)! :) Looks like i did make the right decision by going with Asus purely based off their VRM quality over lets say asrock. Do keep in mind that you should probably invest 10 to 20 dollar more into a TUF gaming, as the audio chip on the TUF is better ALC1200 instead of 889. I regret not buying the TUF thoughh the VRM should be the same.
Back in the day, I got myself a P85-D3 mobo because it had been shown to be on par, if not better than the Z boards for a fraction of the price. I paired it with an i5 4670, which I still own today along with my R5 2600 system.
Usually when I think about buying motherboards, I will buy the mid-low end one, like B series with mid-low price boards and the ones that meet my IO demand. Since in the past, MB really not affect performance a lot if you dont OC, just pick the one with the IO you like. But now, even for non OEM boards (usually OEM PC has a strict and can not be unlocked PL settings), you still can not get full performance out of a non top CPUs, like 11700.... That's frustrating.
Oh boyy, i just bought an ASUS TUF Gaming B560M-Plus to pair with 11600. Now I'm scared af, please test this board!! Thank you as always for ur work!🙏🙏
I have Asus B560M-A with 10400f, tested in prime 95 loads for 30 mins with CPU temps hovering at 80 degrees using 111watts of power at max. It held the clocks at 4ghz all the time. Your board has 2 more vrms than mine and 11600 will consume 140watts atleast so the first thing you need to do is set the power limits to atleast 150 watts as it will be 125watts by default in the bios and then give it a run. What I feel is it should handle the loads. Hope for the best tho.
If I get this right : 1) Cheaper board use cheaper and lower-rated components 2) Some board use different/lower power limit, cheaper board more likely to use LOWER power limit (likely an effort to match their component quality and life expectancy?) 3) So cheaper board has potentially less performance when the cpu is power limited compared to higher end motherboard, but there is options to use higher power limit manually (and likely higher VRM temp) edit: 4) The cheaper board works with BASE Intel power limit specs So.......don't cheap out on motherboards? It's been like this for years :) Where is the 'disaster', exactly? Or we expect higher quality component priced the same as the entry level ones? Am I missing something here?
The difference is that the performance impact is not clear when buying a board or chip. Being unable to use boost performance means _every_ single performance claim made by Intel was false for your purchase. There's the scandal. They market one thing to their customers, but tell their board partners something that's in direct contrast with that.
Nah, for the AMD equivalent even the cheapest boards don’t show this nonsense variation, it true problem here all stems from how power inefficient these 11th gen Intels are and how scared the MB makers are of things melting
@@paulelderson934 For 10th and 11th Gen, the intel performance claim on their press briefing slide always made on the base spec PL1/PL2/Tau, they did include this disclaimer. But yes, it seems Intel allows motherboard vendor to tune their power limit differently according to the board spec - since some boards has higher quality components or good VRM cooler design that allowed them to have more performance. In the end though, users could potentially get higher performance(while sacrificing power efficiency ofc) with higher 'grade' motherboard, and I don't have problems with that.
Great job, Intel. My undervolted 12-Core Xeon 2678V3 gets a better Cinebench 23 score under sustained load than your 11700 on a cheap B560 board. And that for 180 EUR for a China board and CPU together - people willing to upgrade from their low-core parts should do their research and also consider options on the used market.
The problem with the MSI B560M PRO is that it doesn't have heatsinks for the VRM but it does have the mounting holes for it. If you get some thermal pads and cut a old heatsink to fit the VRM you can extract a lot of performance out of that board on the cheap. The good thing is since it has the mounting holes it's not a permanent mod so you don't void the warrant. The mosfets on that board are probably of very efficient since they can handle that much power without a heatsink.
I feel like the title is misleading to viewers. The point of the video is that B560 may yield different performance which is confusing to consumers. Saying that "B560 is a disaster" on a headline will bring more people to buy X series boards and unlocked CPUs which is contradictory to the final statement (15:50) saying that budget B560 boards have the potential to perform at max performance to save money. Also, the video's topics call for simplification and standardization of the performance of all B560 boards (15:30), but how else would motherboard manufacturers differentiate from other motherboards. Is it really a decrease in performance or that motherboards have a way to improve the performance compared to others. I think it's a problem of consumer knowledge if anything such as the common occurrence where people don't turn on their XMP on capable RAM. And that knowledge is gained by watching these videos.
@@gamingunboxed5130 I disagree as that would be a baseline performance which everyone can expect. Anything beyond is achievable if you get better cooler and motherboard. It's on Intel for not putting those CPUs as 125W for example.
@@FakeMichau It makes less sense because A: you wouldn't discover the good boards and B: It's not the out of the box behaviour for most LGA1200 B560 and Z590 boards.
@@gamingunboxed5130 You totally could by adding some OC results. You get the benefit of having baseline numbers applicable to all boards - good and bad with the ability to show max performance when exceeding the TDP and the cooling ability of the included cooler. I mean, I'm not stupid, i know why they remove the limits in stock configuration on the better boards but testing like this just encourages that questionable behavior.
@@FakeMichau Yeah, you get all the information except for how it actually works out of the box, the way 99% of people plan on using the product. (we know, we polled it)
@@duyhungphannguyen3049 Nah it just works. I didn't change anything in Bios and my 11400F uses over 100W in Cinebench, staying at 4,2Ghz all Core. As long as it keeps cool. Once it gets over a certain Temp, the Mhz drops to 3,8Ghz.
@@gucky4717 how about gaming bro? i tested some game and it runs ~65 to 80W only, and usually run at 4.2GHz. It does not run maximum 4.4GHz as the specs said :(
@@duyhungphannguyen3049 4.4Ghz is only for running 1-2 Cores, while 4,2 Ghz is the all Core boost. Cinebench does inherently use more Watts then Gaming. So 65-80W is normal.
I recently bought a used MSI B560 Tomahawk WiFI from Ebay. I was pleased to see what you had to say about it. I'm also very please with the board. Although there were two issues that I had to figure out: 1. Could not install Windows 11 until I turned on TPM in the BIOS, 2. The system would not wake up from sleep when I moved the mouse as again I had to change a BIOS setting. I wonder why these are not on by default.
Could you make a video on how to tweak the power limits for max performance for all of the different UEFIs and see how close they can get? I'm interested in a budget B560 board that can actually utilize a i5-11400 to the max, tweaking required or not.
Omg. Dude. 2 years later, thinking something in my pc isn't right, I have now learnt what owning a msi pro board is doing for me. 😂😢 I have 11700 and an evga 3090. Nearly 50% performance left on the table thanks to my AWEFUL motherboard. I need to upgrade now! Can't believe I nearly went 2 years without doing my homework. Thank you for your research 👍
It's such a massive headache! 😫 Now that there are no lower rend ryzen parts, you basically have to buy Intel. Intel finally made a decent value proposition with the I5 11400 and now they have to f*** us with some stupid nonsense where you have to either spend way too much for a MB or try to find a gem of a model through loads of research
I'd noticed this same thing also, and didn't even find out about removing those limits. I'd just found it wasn't even worth it to go with an 11400 at all with the boards currently available. Kind of depressing since it almost looked like Intel wanted to take the budget cpu space away, but failed in my eyes here.
In case anyone is interested: The Asus Tuf Gaming B560-Plus Wifi runs the 11400 at 4200 MHz with a score of 10099 in Cinebench R23, no throttling. Seems like I dodged the bullet with this board.
A B560 roundup would be nice, because in this video we only see high-end and low-end B560 mobos. What about Steel Legend, Bazooka, Aorus Elite, TUF, etc?
3 ปีที่แล้ว +3
Excelent video, i'm waiting for the benchmark of more b560 motherboards.
Great video Steve. I’ve been posting to Reddit that there’s a $100-$150 additional cost of ownership for a 14nm 8-core Intel CPU in MB and cooling costs relative to an AMD 5800x.
See Tech Yes City review of i5-11400F on ASRock H510-ITX/ac, with "power tuning" performance only 1% less in games than in a Z590 mobo, without "power tuning" is 7% less. RandomGaminginHD test of i5-400F on Gigabyte H510M-S2H with memory in 3200MHz show that some games performance worst than i5-11400F in the same board. Video "The I5 11400 - Is It Worth It For Budget Gaming PC Builds?"
Excellent video. It a right shame that it's just a minefield to get the right budget 560 board, particularly after Intel added RAM overclocking. Budget builders would have definitely gone for the i5-11400F, but now I'll probably go for a 2nd hand Ryzen 3600 instead to avoid all this hassle.
I appreciate this video. I returned the asus b560 plus and ordered the gigabyte b560 aorus pro ax. Nice looking board, 1.3x the performance, I'd say its worth it. Plus, I'll be upgrading from an i5-11400f to i7-11700 in the future. You're the man.
@@Morteza1313 it's primo. Games play at 4.2 GHz. Low heat, not stutter, no lag. Highly recommended. Though, I bought it from someone who won a Newegg shuffle for $135. Might want to look on ebay for a similar price.
@@keyboard_mouse i live in iran so no ebay service 😅 b560m elite is about 188$ and b560 aorus pro (not with ax) is about 210$ also im planning to use a 10th gen cpu. Sad that there is no wifi version here
The 11700F has a TDP of 65 watts. This means that it is intended to be run with a 65W TDP limit. Clock frequrency will vary depending on load. In the worst case it will be run at base clocks, will less energy intensive applications it will be much higher. All boards should run the CPU at 65W at default settings. If some boards offer a setting for increasing power limits they may do so, same as for OCing features, but it is in the responsibility of the system builder to ensure sufficient cooling. So all these entry level boards did everything right. Those that are doing it wrong is boards increasing (or even removing) power limits by default. For boards intended for OCing I think it is also OK to provide the customer with a wizard to ask him if he wants to run with or without power limits when first entering BIOS, but running above intended TDP (for which the power supply and cooling solution may not be designed) is wrong. But the huge issue is that most reviewers do not understand TDP limits, publishing misleading information about performance numbers, that are never achieved at intended settings at stock settings and later trying to blame Intel that CPUs are running hot or using too much power or trying to blame board vendors if there are insane VRM temps or all sorts of stability issues if you are running way outside of the intended parameters. Only because Intel does allow running a 11900K at 300W does not mean every board vendor needs to provide VRM cooling solutions for 300W.
Basically Z series boards are enforced to comply with PL1, PL2 and Tau of the K series CPU. If the board vendors offer more they can: LN2 capable beefy expensive boards. Other boards is up entirely to the vendors as long as they meet PL1 of supported CPU. So they make too very cheap boards for office use in which boosting to the sky isn't valued since there's no profit in letting the CPU go out of the efficiency zone. Sounds right to me...
So true, there are probably a lot of people who want drop in a locked processor with the box cooler and be done for which any of these boards will suffice! Even the cheapest AsRock B560 can raise the power limit to 100W in the bios which should bring back 99% of the gaming performance.
I also observed a difference of more than 20% between different BIOS versions in Z590. It even decreases the frequency to stock turbo even when overclocked. I locked c-state and p-state, set all vrm and package power limits to max and many more settings but nothing changed. 11th gen CPU is good but everything supporting it are so bad.
Have no performance issues with the I9-10900kf from my B560M-A at only $85.00... plenty fast with the boost options in the bios. Some people were never around for the 80's and 90's personal computers and their limits. And by the way my 5900x screams on B550M-Plus wifi...
Would love to see thermals on those. I guess it will be in next video. Shame on Intel. And some shame on other companies for going with minimum specifications. Though if they didn't then they wouldn't sell.
Remember in summer 2019 after the Ryzen 3000 launch, where lots of users were complaining that e.g. their Ryzen 7 3700X would "only" hit 4350Mhz instead of 4400Mhz? Well, how about this then? 50% less performance from the same CPU just due to the motherboard, I'm sure Reddit will have a feast with this one
It is really important? I mean, the gigabyte B560M H costs 70€ while the other are at +140€, does it really matters that much or I will be ok with that?
Good information. I bought B560-C Wi-fi motherboard ($299AUD) with 10600KF cpu. I cannot get the onboard network hardware to work. I intend to return both parts. Not sure if I can get full refund on the fact that I can't get network adaptor to go on an older version of Windows. Oh well, I would probably need to pay 20% restocking fee. Would rather have Z chipset with 11th gen CPU.
Probably should've tested it with an i3 as well... It would be nice to know if the 4 core CPUs also get affected with lower performance using the cheaper boards
for anyone interested in knowing whether the shitty boards affect i3s or not I have good news, they don't. I guess i3s consume so little power that even at full load the cheaper boards can keep up without a problem
@@Captain_Kouga Yeah, these low end boards can sustain 80-90 watt without much issue even under poor airflow, so a 10100 at 60-70w max load isn't going to be an issue; a 10400f will be alright too for games at least
SO basically MSI Tomahawk and Aorus M motherboards are one of the only ones that give you all the juice out of the box without any special tinkering? A store where i live now has some nice deals on a b560m Aorus ELITE for only 130 euro. Was thinking of pairing that with an 11400
My Asus Prime B560m-a runs my 11400f on 4.19 ghz and progressively downclocks all the way to 3.7 ghz over 35 minutes time, then 5 to 10 minutes later it jumps back to 4.0 ghz again and seems to remain there for the past half hour. It never went below 3.7 though. I do use great cooling (Arctic Freezer 34) So the temps aint the problem, using prime 95 to stress my CPU. So yeah you are right , luckely this motherboard aint performing as bad as some in your graph and seems to hover around 3.8 - 4.0 most of the time during the stressing.
If you're not upping the PL1 limit on the ASrock B560M Pro4 with an 11400, you're just tossing performance out the window. I'm looking at buying that one, and after some research I've learned that increasing PL1 is a must for optimal performance.
Well done, again! No wonder you guys have to face the flak of those brands pushing out substandard parts, specially when it comes to cpus and mobos. Invaluable content, a true public service announcement to the PC DIY community.
I'm waiting for my upgrade parts to arrive after the weekend. Initially I wanted to wait before I saw the full B560 roundup, but I couldn't wait any longer with my aging I7-3770k. Then this video shows up a few days later and I'm worried I might have screwed up. Fortunately I ordered the B560 Tomahawk with an i5-11400f, so it looks like I've put my money in the right place :) Thanks for making these videos, I don't know anyone else who put in as much work as you guys do!
Please also look at some asus b560 boards, those seem to be a bit higher end so would be interesting to see if that made a difference when compared to other boards.
@@sammiller6631 I’m assuming there isn’t, but then again that’s what most of us assumed about all b560 boards, so imo it would be interesting to see how they stack up against each other
@@sammiller6631 not saying to test every single board, but seeing them include at least 1 board from every major manufacturer currently would be helpful imo, as it also helps you determine between brands. Yes, Steve’s reviews can sometimes be the opposite of what manufacturers want to hear, but he still finds a way to review them so might as well include some other boards as well.
XMP isn’t automatically set so I don’t see the problem with having to unlock the power limit. If you’re building a computer then do the research and figure out the bios...
The headline caught my curiosity, but now you have my attention. I'd like to see how AMD's comparable boards at the same price point fare in similar tests.
My oldest boy's ASRock B450 Steel Legend handles the 3700x exactly the same as my MSI MPG X570 Gaming Pro Carbon WIFI board did. I also have an MSI B450i Gaming Plus AC and Asus PRIME B550M-A (WI-FI) board that handle the 3700x almost identically (within a very small margin of error). AMD set the spec limits much higher with their CPUs close to the maximum potential out of the box so you won't find anywhere near as much disparity as this example.
It looks to do fine...... Look at the comparisons with power limit overclocking enabled on all boards and it does well. Even on the i7 its only loosing 100mhz and is barely different. There isn't a big problem, the problem is that the power limit overclocking is enabled by default on the higher end boards.
The Tomahawk was a good deal for me (got it in discount due to broken box so I got it at the same price as the other cheaper b560), but I was prepared to pay it's full price, even if pricy but I researched at the time of purchase the only Mobo I saw that could do the job without breaking bank was the Tomahawk B560, other mobo's with good reviews were all much more expensive, I am from the UK so regional pricing is different everywhere.
These differences are of course much worse than the difference between different CPUs, since a regular customer probably isn't going to think that the choice of motherboard will mean any difference in performance.
I’m not sure I understand the rant tone in this video. It should be more about education. Buying a 65W processor is buying a 65W processor. The good b560 motherboards will unlocked this and that’s good for us. Would you prefer having that option locked ? By the way, a lot of reviewer are doing the benchmarks without power locked because of this (even on a good board). In fact, the biggest problem you didn’t talk about is some will run the cpu with power unlocked by default with the intel cooler.
Intel markets processors with performance claims. Customers buy them. They also buy a motherboard that according to its description is "up to Intel spec". When using it you suddenly find out your expensive hardware does not even get close to the claims. There's the issue!
If you are pumping 125+ Watts into an Intel stock cooler, you are going to have a bad time 🤣 As soon as you amp things up, you need a better cooler and probably adding your own heat sinks to the VRM.. I think this channel assumes everyone drops the intel stock cooler straight in the trash.
Cheers Steve for Inwin Chopin the content, I just installed the B560-itx strix with 11500 in the wee inwin chopin black edition., what a smooth machine with 500gb 980 Pro and x2 8gb 3200 corsair LPX.. Put the wee cooler from noctua NH-L9i chromax on there, such a tidy wee build. Cheers from NZ
Yes, but quite different since 11th gen use more power. A 10400F can do a lot at 65w. Max all core is 4ghz, but depending on application at 65W sustained you'd see between 3800mhz and 4000mhz.
"Looks at I7 11700 + B560M Aorus Pro AX I got last week on sale because of ebay coupon codes for $725 aud and breathes a sigh of relief" Thank god I got it right shooting in the dark LOL. I have set power limits manually in bios though due to my deepcool gammaxx gt argb (rated for 180w tdp) not being enough when I also do a fan profile to keep the noise down so guess I'm down for a cooler upgrade but good to know my board isn't a limiting factor and that cooling is.
I've got no real intention of buying a new PC at the moment but it's kind of fascinating to see billion-dollar companies screw up this badly.
@@uncrunch398 it's intel allowing board makers run wild with their platform, no clear defined limits/expectations
@@uncrunch398 As Steve explained, the mobo manufacturers followed Intel's standards but that "standard" is very loose and leaves much to be desired. The OEM just did their part based on what specs Intel gave them.
Pretty much par for the course in every industry, based on my experiences over the last ~2 decades I've had a brain.
Is it though? Nowadays that's very common sadly
The problem isn't the MB's, its the muppets that rush to buy these products, they are often to lazy to read up on spec, and mostly buy a board with a daft name because it sounds cool. and 'its new, so its gotta be better.
Everyone: please make a simple and easy cpu performance scale
Tech companies:▶️🔼🔽◀️🔽🔼▶️◀️🔽🔼
gotta hold 🔽+🔼 at the end for exactly 42 frame lengths... what is a frame length? Good question.
Sir ! You Forget about RGB.
Missed opportunity... should have been up up down down left right left right b a start.
@@screes620 Nah, too simple and efficient.
I'm just going to assume frame length is a proprietary standard and a trade secret
Welcome back to Steve roasting hardware for 18 minutes.
I assumed you meant Steve from GN toasting Hardware unboxed until I rethought and assumed the dudes name was *probably* Steve.
@@adsrbad9733 Yes, the man talking in this video, is also named Steve
@@Axisoflords ye, I mean not to be rude but Steve is a relatively generic name so it’s not unlikely 2 people from the same community have the same name
To be fair the hardware featured here kinda roasted itself
@@countach27 Well played
What you do it’s very unique. Reviews so well detailed and honest like no other channel does. Thank you for informing and educating whole tech community!
thorough?
nvm thanks for being part of the community
@@shinokami007 Sorry. English isn’t my native language and I’m not perfect. Thanks for digging inside my message and finding imperfections. Your remark leads me one step closer to perfection. Thanks again.
@Crest I’ll take note of your suggestion. Thanks.
@@gametestinglab8861 Crest is probably just being sarcastic, don't worry about it lol.
Thanks for staying civil and giving insightful comments.
@@josephdu1952 I’m not mad at all. It’s all good.
thank you for your work sir, you are a godsend for us budget users who cant afford to purchase a bad part
Especially countries with no return policy because of taxes
@Cleru Zinek In some countries the taxes are so ridiculous that you better off buying a new part than returning it just to pay taxes again.
y'es sir. I recently gotta X570 tuf used for 115 and a Hyzen 3 3300x for 120. Teh higher core count CPU right now just for gaming really isnt worth it a 4c 8tread will get teh job done.
Don't get why you can't return due to taxes. Is it because you don't buy as a private person?
@@fastertove I think what he is trying to say is you pay taxes for money transfer in both ways, buying the product and then get a refund.
HUB once again making huge discoveries, benefitting the entire tech community. Amazing work, Steve!
I find Steve to be the best tech youtuber. He has useful and interesting discoveries, the best cpu and gpu benchmarks, and is the only guy apart from buildzoid to do extensive vrm testings.
You got the wrong hub
@@Ant_Stark Nice joke.
They discovered that high end boards enabled power limit overclocking by default. Turned it around so that boards that don't enable it by default are the bad ones and made comparisons between 'overclocked' parts and standard parts. The most informative part was towards the end where actual VRM throttling and testing happened, which showed what we expect. Being low end boards with worse VRM's throttling.
The whole thing could be 'fixed' by the high end boards default setting being.....default!
It's like buying a high end Ryzen board that for some reason defaulted to having the power curve optimiser enabled and then making comparisons to boards running correctly without it. Just fix the boards not running at stock settings.
@@unpotat7672 where you've gone wrong here is in assuming that there is a default spec, there isn't and Intel will tell you as much.
AMD : You don't need x570
Intel : You don't want b560
Intel: you don’t want a CHEAP b560
@@TEKDAD some decent b560 models cost more than z490 so you might as well get that (in australia)
@@TEKDAD Mobo manufacturers have only 1 job, make sure the VRM can keep up with all possible CPUs you can slot in without overclocking. Then consumers are free to choose based on features. If the VRMs can't keep up, it's a fail.
@@TEKDAD If it's going to be expensive what's the point of B560? I would just go get a nice Z590...
The B-series from AMD is the most useless chipset, considering that for a same tier board, it cost $10-50 more to get X-series.
Thank you for includeing a budget mobo without VRM heatsink ! :) Was interesting to know how they preforme.
you could always add d.i.y. heatsink on it
Thank you for making videos like this! Also, please include ITX-boards in your roundup!
Too late for me who bought an Asrock B560M-ITX/AC for $95, but I am curious if I got what I paid for. :)
@@peterl.104 I've got that board with a 11400F, and it works fine. Average clock during a gaming session with a NH-L12 Ghost S1 is around 4300mhz. Short PL at 150W and long at 65W. But I'm quite GPU limited with a GTX 970, so we'll see what it looks like under more pressure.
@@sebastiansandvik825 mine seems ok, too, but I have a GTX 1060 and it’s mainly a HTPC and gaming computer. It’s probably worth the $95 price. Just curious.
Definitely, I have been scouting out 11400f for next potential upgrade for my mITX build. But this makes me reconsider.
But with this speed my new gpu won't arrive until next Gen Intel and AMD is out anyway...
we appreciate this kind of journalism and reporting. thank you for the work you do to find these issues. holy crap.
Is it dark up there
hey, cmiiw 30% slowness come from limited ram clock speed not the chipset alone, so blame is on manufacturer, correct?
The Tomahawk is a $200 board. So basically the same price as a entry level Z590 board. I would much rather see how the Torpedo boards perform.
The B560 Tomahawk is basically a downgraded Z590 Tomahawk. No surprise it does a good showing here
intel's marketing with boards is a joke. AMD is doing way better job for like 5 years now.
MSI literally calls their cheapest boards the "Grenade" series :D
@@TheBackyardChemist It's a bomb! ;)
Just built my first PC with a B560 Torpedo and an 11700. Looks like I‘ll have to run some benchmarks. *sigh*
This is a very interesting and important video. Thank you for taking the time and spending the money necessary to find this out.
This is a good example of how Intel treats their fans. Basically, they're like: "whatever, they'll buy it anyway."
idk whos even an intel fan at this point. none of these corporations deserve any kind of fandom, theyre all fueled by greed and profit
No company loves his customers. Not intel, neither amd, neither nvidia, neither any sort of multinational company like those.
@@Angel7black there are still *plenty* of Intel zealots. Its a Ford vs Chevy thing.
If intel 11th gen wasn't a flop enough. 11th gen is worse than the people who bought the quad core 7700K right before the 8700K.
I bought a quad core 11370H before new Tiger-lake parts were announced
@@Amusia727 After years of making bad purchases at bad times of the year I started to notice a pattern to hardware manufacturers.
Its actually really simple when you take a step back and look at the whole picture, the two most important components are always going to be CPU/GPU so when you purchase a system a good idea is to skip the direct successor( e.g. purchase an 8700k and skip purchasing 9700k) and potentially purchase a newer chip down the road.
The good thing about GPUs is that you can squeeze a lot of life out of a GPU when you overclock it, I used a Radeon 7870HD for years and years because it was such a monster for overclocking, I did my consumer research and only paid 240$ for it and got 6+ years out of it.
You can easily skip one or two series of GPUs by making a good decision on what to purchase(e.g buy a GTX 1080 or 1080TI and skip 20xx and 20xx SUPER series) and you usually won't be missing all that much.
Well i think i5-11400F is damn good value CPU though considering what AMD has in store at current prices.
@@fleurdewin7958 Absolutely the 11th gen i5 lineup is good for value.
@@Amusia727 F
Dr. Ian Cutress to budget b560 boards: "What's your minimum specification?"
65W
boards above $140 US
"Hammer on Box" to the rescue once again. Thank you, guys!
Maybe need to include some of the cheaper, and similarly priced Z590 for comparison to your B560 testing. With prices all over the place, it might prove useful.
After watching this, all I have to say is:
Thank you for justifying my decision to go with the Aorus B560M pro for my computer upgrade.(from an i3-*2120* on an OEM Acer motherboard.)
How is your motherboard
Can you give me some reviews about it
Okay so the problem is only with rendering and editing right it wont really matter if i only play games?
I loved the video! When you make the inevitable B560 motherboard roundup, I would love it if the ASUS TUF GAMING B560M-PLUS WIFI gets included somewhere. At $149.99, it has a very good rear I/O, but I'm not sure how its VRM stacks up against the B560M Aorus Pro and B560 Tomahawk.
I am sure that the ASUS TUF B560 boards sports the DrMOS VRMs and beefy inductors.
First I was affraid of my MSI B560M-PRO choice, but as you stated if you have a better cooling, it'll do just fine unlocked
Holy cow that difference is massive.
OH NOOOOOOO! I just built myself a Asrock B560m Steel Legend with a 11400f. I have it running at max power levels and it seems to out perform my 3700x currently in games. I hope you guys feature the B560 Steel Legend in your b560 VRM shootout as it looks good on paper at a decent price. Love your channel guys, keep up the great work!
Hey! Is it on par with their results for b560 tomahawk and aorus pro or falls under the other category where the cpu underperforms? I am getting ATX b560 steel legend. Thanks!
You know, it's funny. I always said that motherboards had the LEAST impact on performance when it came to core components and Intel has managed to slaughter that statement. With the wrong motherboard, you could be looking at getting performance out of a modern Intel CPU that would be not too far off from an i7-2600K. Jeez.
An interesting test would be pairing all top end CPU with the cheapest compatible board you can get. I wouldn't expect very high turbo clocks against max turbo announced clock out of that type of setup. If the motherboard power delivery cannot supply enough current to the CPU it won't boost to max turbo clock and outside Z series chipset AIBs aren't obliged to support PL2 level power draw. It leaves room for cheap boards existing for cheap CPU which don't need a 250W capable board for getting max turbo.
I didn't remember seeing such incosistent results among "B" boards in past Intel generations to be honest. What happened here? Z590 sounds even better now, even the cheaper ones. Thanks for looking at these issues in depth.
the only way intel will ever change the way they define and enforce their specs is if reviewers ONLY test intel CPUs at the baseline spec, rather than with limits removed. Right now, because reviews are usually done on high end boards intel gets the benefit of reviews showing their performance in the best possible light, while also being able to sell CPUs that can vastly under perform on more realistic hardware configs. It's not the reviewers fault, but intel absolutely does take advantage of this fact to show their CPU and the platform as both being high performance and affordable, when in reality, the high performance figures are often only available on higher end, more expensive boards that buyers of non-k sku cpus are highly unlikely to actually buy.
Reviewers are to take half of the blame, as they allow this to happen.
This got covered in 2018, looks like little was learned from it and nothing done to stop it.
Really like seeing more reviewers actually talking clearly and openly about the pointlessness of K chips. And I'm curious to see how will Intel proceed with them. Probably the only reason they are still selling them is because people aren't checking benchmarks and are buying them, so the question is what makes more sense? Continue selling K chips for as long as they keep selling or just remove them from the lineup completely. With Alder Lake, they'll have more room for actually making better models of different tier CPUs, that is they could make an i5 with two small cores, they could make one with 4 small cores.
K is not pointless, it is, in fact, required for Intel to claim ANY kind of performance advantage in games over Zen 3 at this point. Stock frequency CPUs sucked in 8th and 9th generations with only budget gamers buying them. In 10th and 11th gen, the gap is small, sure, and the amount of additional heat generated when you overclock is completely ridiculous, but Intel won't stop selling K chips, both because "capability to overclock" is a good additional selling point, even if nebulous, and because it makes them look like they're not losing to AMD completely.
@@dexter2392 Overclocking benefits on Intel have been declining since Ivy Bridge. There's just no point in overclocking them. As for sales, Intel does in fact provide the better bang for the buck as far as gaming is concerned.
@@CanIHasThisName You could actually get up to a 5-10% performance improvement in games from overclocking 9th gen. I wouldn't say that's pointless, considering how close they were to the Ryzen 3000. The newest generation is obviously already squeezing all the performance they can get out of 14nm, but K chips will still be selling just because they're "premium" and not locked.
@@dexter2392 It wouldn't be pointless if it there wasn't such huge price premium attached to it. The price/performance value goes completely out the window and you're better off just buying a better or newer CPU.
Problems been fixed?. I've updated my bios 3 times the last year. Now running cinnebench on a b560m ds3h with 11700. Multi core test = 4.8ghz. Score 12826. Would really like you guys to retest with the cheap end models.
Yeah I have the b560m with 11400f and is all time at 4.2, is giving me better frames than a 10600k
Simple rule of thumb: don't buy mobo with naked VRM if you want actual performance.
Addendum: Or boards with flimsy, small excuses for VRM heatsinks.
Me: *Buys B560 two days ago, shipped yesterday*
Steve: *Intel B560 is a Disaster*
Goddamit.
Luckily, I sighed in relief at the end. I bought that Gigabyte B560M Aorus Pro. If you could save me these scares, it would be great!
Awesome video and job as always Steve.
Sorry mate ;)
Oh man 😂
What is your opinion on the board so far? Bios, oc performance, etc
My Asus Prime B560m-a runs my 11400f on 4.19 ghz and progressively downclocks all the way to 3.7 ghz over 35 minutes time, then 5 to 10 minutes later it jumps back to 4.0 - 4.05 ghz again and seems to remain there for the past half hour. It never went below 3.7 though and was only there for a short amount of time. I do use great cooling (Arctic Freezer 34) So the temps aint the problem (Max temp of 71c. Averaging 66), using prime 95 to stress my CPU. So yeah you are right , luckely this motherboard aint performing as bad as some in your graph and seems to hover around 3.8 - 4.0 most of the time during the stressing. I would say the average clockspeed in an hour test is 3.95 to 4.0 ghz so i am missing out on about 0.2 to 0.3 ghz power which i am not too disappointed about concidering the price (120 dollar ish)! :) Looks like i did make the right decision by going with Asus purely based off their VRM quality over lets say asrock. Do keep in mind that you should probably invest 10 to 20 dollar more into a TUF gaming, as the audio chip on the TUF is better ALC1200 instead of 889. I regret not buying the TUF thoughh the VRM should be the same.
Back in the day, I got myself a P85-D3 mobo because it had been shown to be on par, if not better than the Z boards for a fraction of the price. I paired it with an i5 4670, which I still own today along with my R5 2600 system.
Usually when I think about buying motherboards, I will buy the mid-low end one, like B series with mid-low price boards and the ones that meet my IO demand. Since in the past, MB really not affect performance a lot if you dont OC, just pick the one with the IO you like. But now, even for non OEM boards (usually OEM PC has a strict and can not be unlocked PL settings), you still can not get full performance out of a non top CPUs, like 11700.... That's frustrating.
Oh boyy, i just bought an ASUS TUF Gaming B560M-Plus to pair with 11600. Now I'm scared af, please test this board!! Thank you as always for ur work!🙏🙏
Asus Tuf is generally a mid range brand, so I doubt if it would have the power limit enforced out of the box, but let's see if I am wrong.
I have Asus B560M-A with 10400f, tested in prime 95 loads for 30 mins with CPU temps hovering at 80 degrees using 111watts of power at max. It held the clocks at 4ghz all the time. Your board has 2 more vrms than mine and 11600 will consume 140watts atleast so the first thing you need to do is set the power limits to atleast 150 watts as it will be 125watts by default in the bios and then give it a run. What I feel is it should handle the loads. Hope for the best tho.
chill bro, no issues with the TUF lol.
I have the same mobo with 11400F. Power limits are not enforced out of the box. I get all core boost of 4.2Ghz during workloads.
@@msnehamukherjee yeah same with B560M Aorus Elite, you can download intel XTU and adjust limits without rebooting to BIOS.
I really like this kind of investigative content. Keep it coming.
If I get this right :
1) Cheaper board use cheaper and lower-rated components
2) Some board use different/lower power limit, cheaper board more likely to use LOWER power limit (likely an effort to match their component quality and life expectancy?)
3) So cheaper board has potentially less performance when the cpu is power limited compared to higher end motherboard, but there is options to use higher power limit manually (and likely higher VRM temp)
edit: 4) The cheaper board works with BASE Intel power limit specs
So.......don't cheap out on motherboards? It's been like this for years :)
Where is the 'disaster', exactly? Or we expect higher quality component priced the same as the entry level ones? Am I missing something here?
The difference is that the performance impact is not clear when buying a board or chip.
Being unable to use boost performance means _every_ single performance claim made by Intel was false for your purchase.
There's the scandal. They market one thing to their customers, but tell their board partners something that's in direct contrast with that.
Nah, for the AMD equivalent even the cheapest boards don’t show this nonsense variation, it true problem here all stems from how power inefficient these 11th gen Intels are and how scared the MB makers are of things melting
@@paulelderson934 For 10th and 11th Gen, the intel performance claim on their press briefing slide always made on the base spec PL1/PL2/Tau, they did include this disclaimer.
But yes, it seems Intel allows motherboard vendor to tune their power limit differently according to the board spec - since some boards has higher quality components or good VRM cooler design that allowed them to have more performance.
In the end though, users could potentially get higher performance(while sacrificing power efficiency ofc) with higher 'grade' motherboard, and I don't have problems with that.
Great job, Intel. My undervolted 12-Core Xeon 2678V3 gets a better Cinebench 23 score under sustained load than your 11700 on a cheap B560 board. And that for 180 EUR for a China board and CPU together - people willing to upgrade from their low-core parts should do their research and also consider options on the used market.
I9 11950k, 2Ghz base/5ghz boost(2c, 2.2ghz all core), 35w tdp.
Nvidia rtx 3080ti, 500mhz base/900mhz boost, 130w tdp.
Ryzen 3955x, 16c32t, 2ghz base/3ghz boost, 65w tdp
They're not throttling.....they're "boosting less"
The problem with the MSI B560M PRO is that it doesn't have heatsinks for the VRM but it does have the mounting holes for it.
If you get some thermal pads and cut a old heatsink to fit the VRM you can extract a lot of performance out of that board on the cheap. The good thing is since it has the mounting holes it's not a permanent mod so you don't void the warrant.
The mosfets on that board are probably of very efficient since they can handle that much power without a heatsink.
This content is simply put top-quality. Relevant, factual and in-depth. And the results are quite surprising. A big thumbs up to HUB.
I feel like the title is misleading to viewers. The point of the video is that B560 may yield different performance which is confusing to consumers. Saying that "B560 is a disaster" on a headline will bring more people to buy X series boards and unlocked CPUs which is contradictory to the final statement (15:50) saying that budget B560 boards have the potential to perform at max performance to save money.
Also, the video's topics call for simplification and standardization of the performance of all B560 boards (15:30), but how else would motherboard manufacturers differentiate from other motherboards. Is it really a decrease in performance or that motherboards have a way to improve the performance compared to others. I think it's a problem of consumer knowledge if anything such as the common occurrence where people don't turn on their XMP on capable RAM. And that knowledge is gained by watching these videos.
8:42 And that's why testing using power limits makes more sense
If anything it makes less sense, far less sense.
@@gamingunboxed5130 I disagree as that would be a baseline performance which everyone can expect. Anything beyond is achievable if you get better cooler and motherboard. It's on Intel for not putting those CPUs as 125W for example.
@@FakeMichau It makes less sense because A: you wouldn't discover the good boards and B: It's not the out of the box behaviour for most LGA1200 B560 and Z590 boards.
@@gamingunboxed5130 You totally could by adding some OC results. You get the benefit of having baseline numbers applicable to all boards - good and bad with the ability to show max performance when exceeding the TDP and the cooling ability of the included cooler.
I mean, I'm not stupid, i know why they remove the limits in stock configuration on the better boards but testing like this just encourages that questionable behavior.
@@FakeMichau Yeah, you get all the information except for how it actually works out of the box, the way 99% of people plan on using the product. (we know, we polled it)
Well this tells me, that i bought the right Mainboard (Aorus B560 Pro). Thanks Steve.
hey bro do we have to manually unlock 65W limit or something with B560 Aorus Pro ? I just bought it but didnt see that option in BIOS
@@duyhungphannguyen3049 Nah it just works. I didn't change anything in Bios and my 11400F uses over 100W in Cinebench, staying at 4,2Ghz all Core. As long as it keeps cool. Once it gets over a certain Temp, the Mhz drops to 3,8Ghz.
@@gucky4717 how about gaming bro? i tested some game and it runs ~65 to 80W only, and usually run at 4.2GHz. It does not run maximum 4.4GHz as the specs said :(
@@duyhungphannguyen3049 4.4Ghz is only for running 1-2 Cores, while 4,2 Ghz is the all Core boost. Cinebench does inherently use more Watts then Gaming. So 65-80W is normal.
@@gucky4717 so i dont have to worry about my mobo + CPU ? thank you bro !
I was expecting to see a full review of the boards, hopefully in the next days it releases.
I recently bought a used MSI B560 Tomahawk WiFI from Ebay. I was pleased to see what you had to say about it. I'm also very please with the board. Although there were two issues that I had to figure out: 1. Could not install Windows 11 until I turned on TPM in the BIOS, 2. The system would not wake up from sleep when I moved the mouse as again I had to change a BIOS setting. I wonder why these are not on by default.
Could you make a video on how to tweak the power limits for max performance for all of the different UEFIs and see how close they can get? I'm interested in a budget B560 board that can actually utilize a i5-11400 to the max, tweaking required or not.
Omg. Dude. 2 years later, thinking something in my pc isn't right, I have now learnt what owning a msi pro board is doing for me. 😂😢
I have 11700 and an evga 3090. Nearly 50% performance left on the table thanks to my AWEFUL motherboard.
I need to upgrade now!
Can't believe I nearly went 2 years without doing my homework. Thank you for your research 👍
It's such a massive headache! 😫
Now that there are no lower rend ryzen parts, you basically have to buy Intel. Intel finally made a decent value proposition with the I5 11400 and now they have to f*** us with some stupid nonsense where you have to either spend way too much for a MB or try to find a gem of a model through loads of research
I'd noticed this same thing also, and didn't even find out about removing those limits. I'd just found it wasn't even worth it to go with an 11400 at all with the boards currently available. Kind of depressing since it almost looked like Intel wanted to take the budget cpu space away, but failed in my eyes here.
Got home from school after being told to self isolate and I see that Intel did an oopsie again...
honestly removing the power limit or manually setting it to like 120-150 watts isn't that big a deal.
Apparently a big deal for noobs that are afraid to get into bios. Or who buy crappiest boards with expectations it’ll be the same for less.
@@flaviusseverus8507 don't @ me Flavius...
In case anyone is interested: The Asus Tuf Gaming B560-Plus Wifi runs the 11400 at 4200 MHz with a score of 10099 in Cinebench R23, no throttling. Seems like I dodged the bullet with this board.
sorry im a pc noob, when u say you dodged a bullet, is the TUF gaming supposed to be on par with AORUS and tomahawk?
thanks, was wondering about that myself
I've just bought the ASUS ROG STRIX B560-I, hopefully it will be good...
A B560 roundup would be nice, because in this video we only see high-end and low-end B560 mobos. What about Steel Legend, Bazooka, Aorus Elite, TUF, etc?
Excelent video, i'm waiting for the benchmark of more b560 motherboards.
Great video Steve. I’ve been posting to Reddit that there’s a $100-$150 additional cost of ownership for a 14nm 8-core Intel CPU in MB and cooling costs relative to an AMD 5800x.
Do you know where I can find the list of good intel b560 mobos?
Where does H510 fit into this mix? Could you feasibly recommend an H510 board for gaming on an 11400?
Would definitely be interesting to see the a few H510 boards in there
See Tech Yes City review of i5-11400F on ASRock H510-ITX/ac, with "power tuning" performance only 1% less in games than in a Z590 mobo, without "power tuning" is 7% less.
RandomGaminginHD test of i5-400F on Gigabyte H510M-S2H with memory in 3200MHz show that some games performance worst than i5-11400F in the same board.
Video "The I5 11400 - Is It Worth It For Budget Gaming PC Builds?"
Excellent video.
It a right shame that it's just a minefield to get the right budget 560 board, particularly after Intel added RAM overclocking. Budget builders would have definitely gone for the i5-11400F, but now I'll probably go for a 2nd hand Ryzen 3600 instead to avoid all this hassle.
Intel used to be a recommendation for users who just want best performance right out of the box. But now... I guess now that's not the case anymore.
I appreciate this video. I returned the asus b560 plus and ordered the gigabyte b560 aorus pro ax. Nice looking board, 1.3x the performance, I'd say its worth it. Plus, I'll be upgrading from an i5-11400f to i7-11700 in the future. You're the man.
Hi how is the borad? Im planning to buy one
@@Morteza1313 it's primo. Games play at 4.2 GHz. Low heat, not stutter, no lag. Highly recommended. Though, I bought it from someone who won a Newegg shuffle for $135. Might want to look on ebay for a similar price.
@@keyboard_mouse i live in iran so no ebay service 😅 b560m elite is about 188$ and b560 aorus pro (not with ax) is about 210$ also im planning to use a 10th gen cpu. Sad that there is no wifi version here
@@Morteza1313 I think a b560 aorus pro mini could be shipped from Australia, check on the amazon Australia page
@@keyboard_mouse ok thx for info👌
I'm really hoping the ASUS B560M Plus TUF for $150 is included in the next video. It is the only one currently available in MicroCenter
I just bought that board, and an i5-11400. Haven't built it yet, now I'm debating whether I should keep it or not
The 11700F has a TDP of 65 watts. This means that it is intended to be run with a 65W TDP limit. Clock frequrency will vary depending on load. In the worst case it will be run at base clocks, will less energy intensive applications it will be much higher.
All boards should run the CPU at 65W at default settings. If some boards offer a setting for increasing power limits they may do so, same as for OCing features, but it is in the responsibility of the system builder to ensure sufficient cooling.
So all these entry level boards did everything right. Those that are doing it wrong is boards increasing (or even removing) power limits by default. For boards intended for OCing I think it is also OK to provide the customer with a wizard to ask him if he wants to run with or without power limits when first entering BIOS, but running above intended TDP (for which the power supply and cooling solution may not be designed) is wrong.
But the huge issue is that most reviewers do not understand TDP limits, publishing misleading information about performance numbers, that are never achieved at intended settings at stock settings and later trying to blame Intel that CPUs are running hot or using too much power or trying to blame board vendors if there are insane VRM temps or all sorts of stability issues if you are running way outside of the intended parameters. Only because Intel does allow running a 11900K at 300W does not mean every board vendor needs to provide VRM cooling solutions for 300W.
Basically Z series boards are enforced to comply with PL1, PL2 and Tau of the K series CPU. If the board vendors offer more they can: LN2 capable beefy expensive boards.
Other boards is up entirely to the vendors as long as they meet PL1 of supported CPU. So they make too very cheap boards for office use in which boosting to the sky isn't valued since there's no profit in letting the CPU go out of the efficiency zone.
Sounds right to me...
So true, there are probably a lot of people who want drop in a locked processor with the box cooler and be done for which any of these boards will suffice! Even the cheapest AsRock B560 can raise the power limit to 100W in the bios which should bring back 99% of the gaming performance.
I'm very interested to the follow up video to this on
I also observed a difference of more than 20% between different BIOS versions in Z590. It even decreases the frequency to stock turbo even when overclocked. I locked c-state and p-state, set all vrm and package power limits to max and many more settings but nothing changed. 11th gen CPU is good but everything supporting it are so bad.
Finally, Thank you!
Have no performance issues with the I9-10900kf from my B560M-A at only $85.00... plenty fast with the boost options in the bios. Some people were never around for the 80's and 90's personal computers and their limits. And by the way my 5900x screams on B550M-Plus wifi...
Would love to see thermals on those. I guess it will be in next video.
Shame on Intel. And some shame on other companies for going with minimum specifications. Though if they didn't then they wouldn't sell.
This is probably to instill nostalgia for the 386 and 486 era where performance in Doom depended on your mobo as well as the CPU.
I was expecting this, but not this huge
Well I underestimating Intel, they always find a way to set a new low
Remember in summer 2019 after the Ryzen 3000 launch, where lots of users were complaining that e.g. their Ryzen 7 3700X would "only" hit 4350Mhz instead of 4400Mhz? Well, how about this then? 50% less performance from the same CPU just due to the motherboard, I'm sure Reddit will have a feast with this one
It is really important? I mean, the gigabyte B560M H costs 70€ while the other are at +140€, does it really matters that much or I will be ok with that?
no your losing 11 fps at most. Doesnt matter when your hovering over 130fps average as you save $70.
Good information. I bought B560-C Wi-fi motherboard ($299AUD) with 10600KF cpu. I cannot get the onboard network hardware to work. I intend to return both parts. Not sure if I can get full refund on the fact that I can't get network adaptor to go on an older version of Windows. Oh well, I would probably need to pay 20% restocking fee. Would rather have Z chipset with 11th gen CPU.
Probably should've tested it with an i3 as well... It would be nice to know if the 4 core CPUs also get affected with lower performance using the cheaper boards
for anyone interested in knowing whether the shitty boards affect i3s or not I have good news, they don't. I guess i3s consume so little power that even at full load the cheaper boards can keep up without a problem
@@Captain_Kouga Yeah, these low end boards can sustain 80-90 watt without much issue even under poor airflow, so a 10100 at 60-70w max load isn't going to be an issue; a 10400f will be alright too for games at least
SO basically MSI Tomahawk and Aorus M motherboards are one of the only ones that give you all the juice out of the box without any special tinkering?
A store where i live now has some nice deals on a b560m Aorus ELITE for only 130 euro.
Was thinking of pairing that with an 11400
I hope you make videos on asus b560 prime and tuf boards aswell
My thoughts exactly, it seems odd that he didn't have any Asus boards or even the steel legend in this video.
it's because asus is doing well even on their h510 prime
My Asus Prime B560m-a runs my 11400f on 4.19 ghz and progressively downclocks all the way to 3.7 ghz over 35 minutes time, then 5 to 10 minutes later it jumps back to 4.0 ghz again and seems to remain there for the past half hour. It never went below 3.7 though. I do use great cooling (Arctic Freezer 34) So the temps aint the problem, using prime 95 to stress my CPU. So yeah you are right , luckely this motherboard aint performing as bad as some in your graph and seems to hover around 3.8 - 4.0 most of the time during the stressing.
If you're not upping the PL1 limit on the ASrock B560M Pro4 with an 11400, you're just tossing performance out the window.
I'm looking at buying that one, and after some research I've learned that increasing PL1 is a must for optimal performance.
Thank you so much for this information. This is why you don't just buy whatever is available.
Well done, again! No wonder you guys have to face the flak of those brands pushing out substandard parts, specially when it comes to cpus and mobos. Invaluable content, a true public service announcement to the PC DIY community.
What about the 10400f and cheaper H410m boards?
This is nuts. You shouldn't need to stuff about in the bios to get comparable performance at the low end.
Oh boy I'm here early for it 🍿!!!!!
and your mother is very proud
@@Takashita_Sukakoki 😂😂😂😂
I'm waiting for my upgrade parts to arrive after the weekend. Initially I wanted to wait before I saw the full B560 roundup, but I couldn't wait any longer with my aging I7-3770k. Then this video shows up a few days later and I'm worried I might have screwed up. Fortunately I ordered the B560 Tomahawk with an i5-11400f, so it looks like I've put my money in the right place :)
Thanks for making these videos, I don't know anyone else who put in as much work as you guys do!
Please also look at some asus b560 boards, those seem to be a bit higher end so would be interesting to see if that made a difference when compared to other boards.
I actually bought an ASUS Prime B560M-A board recently for a 10400F.
There's not much of a difference
@@sammiller6631 I’m assuming there isn’t, but then again that’s what most of us assumed about all b560 boards, so imo it would be interesting to see how they stack up against each other
@@flammerz1938 It's very expensive to test every b650 model especially when manufacturers stop sending their boards because HUB is too honest
@@sammiller6631 not saying to test every single board, but seeing them include at least 1 board from every major manufacturer currently would be helpful imo, as it also helps you determine between brands. Yes, Steve’s reviews can sometimes be the opposite of what manufacturers want to hear, but he still finds a way to review them so might as well include some other boards as well.
XMP isn’t automatically set so I don’t see the problem with having to unlock the power limit. If you’re building a computer then do the research and figure out the bios...
The headline caught my curiosity, but now you have my attention. I'd like to see how AMD's comparable boards at the same price point fare in similar tests.
Much better. Just look at how some b550 mid tier mobos like the ASUS TUF B550m can handle a ryzen 9 5900x just fine.
My oldest boy's ASRock B450 Steel Legend handles the 3700x exactly the same as my MSI MPG X570 Gaming Pro Carbon WIFI board did. I also have an MSI B450i Gaming Plus AC and Asus PRIME B550M-A (WI-FI) board that handle the 3700x almost identically (within a very small margin of error). AMD set the spec limits much higher with their CPUs close to the maximum potential out of the box so you won't find anywhere near as much disparity as this example.
I mean he hints at it at 4:25. There's no real difference.
damn.. I just recently bought a b560 setup..
I bought the b560 pro4 the day it came out, too bad these videos weren't out a month ago
It looks to do fine...... Look at the comparisons with power limit overclocking enabled on all boards and it does well. Even on the i7 its only loosing 100mhz and is barely different. There isn't a big problem, the problem is that the power limit overclocking is enabled by default on the higher end boards.
Sell that board
Update your BIOS. b560m Pro4 does now have the feature to auto-bypass the 65W limit.
The Tomahawk was a good deal for me (got it in discount due to broken box so I got it at the same price as the other cheaper b560), but I was prepared to pay it's full price, even if pricy but I researched at the time of purchase the only Mobo I saw that could do the job without breaking bank was the Tomahawk B560, other mobo's with good reviews were all much more expensive, I am from the UK so regional pricing is different everywhere.
This doesn't look like a failure of B560, but a failure of cheap motherboards.
true
As per usual. It's like saying why isn't a cheap $20 white label PSU, as reliable as a $90 gold label PSU.
My 11400 on my B560 Tomahawk runs at 4.4 GHz. I set it to tower cooler 255W in the BIOS.
Any idea when your b560 board reviews are coming out?
These differences are of course much worse than the difference between different CPUs, since a regular customer probably isn't going to think that the choice of motherboard will mean any difference in performance.
I’m not sure I understand the rant tone in this video. It should be more about education. Buying a 65W processor is buying a 65W processor. The good b560 motherboards will unlocked this and that’s good for us. Would you prefer having that option locked ? By the way, a lot of reviewer are doing the benchmarks without power locked because of this (even on a good board). In fact, the biggest problem you didn’t talk about is some will run the cpu with power unlocked by default with the intel cooler.
Intel markets processors with performance claims. Customers buy them.
They also buy a motherboard that according to its description is "up to Intel spec".
When using it you suddenly find out your expensive hardware does not even get close to the claims.
There's the issue!
If you are pumping 125+ Watts into an Intel stock cooler, you are going to have a bad time 🤣
As soon as you amp things up, you need a better cooler and probably adding your own heat sinks to the VRM..
I think this channel assumes everyone drops the intel stock cooler straight in the trash.
Cheers Steve for Inwin Chopin the content, I just installed the B560-itx strix with 11500 in the wee inwin chopin black edition., what a smooth machine with 500gb 980 Pro and x2 8gb 3200 corsair LPX.. Put the wee cooler from noctua NH-L9i chromax on there, such a tidy wee build. Cheers from NZ
Thank you, Steve!
The fact that very few other outlets, especially the big ones, test this thoroughly is a different kind of disappointing.
Okay! Like! I just joined on Patreon! Super helpful channel!
The Ryzen 9 5900HX mobile chip scores 13k in CBR23 Multi.
Is this scenario also applicable for i5 10400f?
Yes, but quite different since 11th gen use more power. A 10400F can do a lot at 65w. Max all core is 4ghz, but depending on application at 65W sustained you'd see between 3800mhz and 4000mhz.
Thanks Steve, I think I dodged a (probably very slow) bullet there.
Gracias por sacarnos de tantas dudas a la hora de comprar nuestros componentes para pc
"Looks at I7 11700 + B560M Aorus Pro AX I got last week on sale because of ebay coupon codes for $725 aud and breathes a sigh of relief" Thank god I got it right shooting in the dark LOL. I have set power limits manually in bios though due to my deepcool gammaxx gt argb (rated for 180w tdp) not being enough when I also do a fan profile to keep the noise down so guess I'm down for a cooler upgrade but good to know my board isn't a limiting factor and that cooling is.