AM5 support on R5 7600 with two 4K displays
AM5 support on R5 7600 with two 4K displays
I plan to buy an Ryzen 7600 with NO GPU. I use two 4K monitors, so I need an HDMI and a DP port. I don't plan to OC beyond setting it to 80W or whatever the thing is where it automatically boosts. But no excessive things. May most pwoerful use is handbrake h265 encoding of my private videos from phone. That takes hours and is my motivation to go to AM5 (from an i7-7700k) I don't need PCIe5 (not for SSD, nor GPU). Max of 2x16GB RAM. Two m.2 SSD would be ideal. But I have a PCie m.2 bracket I can stick in a PCIe slot if needed. I was waiting for A620 to bring prices down. But ASROCK released the B650M-HDV/m.2 for $125 which would do the trick. it seems to have all features I need (it is a bit low on rear USB, but I can deal). I read the VRM may not up to heavy Oc which i don't do. But the AM5 designs overall seem to be solid due to AMD requiring it. Is that a good MB? it has really good specs (120Hz on 4K etc.). I like it only has 2 RAM slots. Less confusion and potential conflicts and no home users needs 4 slots. it supports one PCIe5 and one PCIe4 m.2. So that is future proofing right there and above any SSD I will have nay time soon. i read the manual, but it wasn't clear, that MB can run two 4K displays (on HDMI and DP) at the same time? On some of my older MB there were limitations what resolution I can run with multiple monitors. i really don't want a dGPU and two 4K monitors are essential. That would be a deal breaker. I assume they don't mention it since it is obvious one can use both 4K ports. But i better ask since that is 100% how i select an MB. Originally I was tracking the Gigabyte B650M for $150 . Would that be better? I have three ASRock MB and they worked fine. But I'm open to other brands. They all have their ups and downs. But I like conservative designs with good caps, cooling etc. My alternative system would be an AM4 ASrock B450/550 Steel system with a 5600G. But that would be a lot inferior power-wise (since AMD neglected iGPU on the AM4 CPUs). I really don't like building inferior systems unless there is a large price gap. AM5 also seem to be an inherently more solid design than AM4 (VRM, flashback BIOS etc.) I plan that to be a main rig for 5+ years. Edit: I don't game nor do I plan to. So a future CPU upgrade is very unlikely.
This would be a superior option compared to the alternatives. It offers a better motherboard than the other models, and for the price you receive a chipset supporting Wi-Fi 6E along with enhanced upgrade potential for future upgrades.
I wouldn't use that HDV model until it's verified by a trusted source. Asrock's past experience with their budget boards isn't favorable, which makes me cautious about using it later if you upgrade to a more powerful chipset. The Gigabyte DS3H offers a surprisingly solid VRM setup, so you should be comfortable with that. It performed well in Hardware Unboxed's VRM thermal tests, and Steve there praised it as the top value board available at the time. The MSI Pro B650M-A WiFi is another solid option – strong VRM and included WiFi if needed.
I neglected to note that all my PC setups use CAT6 cabling, which means no need for WiFi. My upgrade plan is to create a new PC in five years if I require more power; then I’ll relocate the CPU/MB/RAM to another desk or living area. I don’t expect to add high-power workloads like gaming, so a CPU upgrade seems unlikely. However, it’s better to be open-minded. If I do upgrade the CPU, I’ll still need to keep some of it in place for now, making a full CPU swap improbable. I believe the 7600 will be an excellent CPU choice for office tasks long after AM5 is obsolete. Are you asking about improved VRM for more power-hungry CPUs, or do you mean better upgrade flexibility? Also, the board only supports PCIe 4.0 M.2, not the latest generation. I don’t expect 5th-gen support soon, but it’s possible. The rear doesn’t have a USB-C port (ASRock does), and graphics are capped at 60Hz (ASRock offers 120Hz). I currently have 60Hz monitors, though I could upgrade later. How do you interpret the VRM specifications?
Yeah, I'm hoping GN will take a look. I think that's what you meant when you mentioned Steve. It's unlikely I'll ever find a more powerful CPU for this MB. If I decide to upgrade later, this CPU/MB would likely fit into a less demanding system (I own four with different needs). But a better VRM is always preferable unless we're discussing completely impractical designs. What determines the quality of the VRM if it's good? I thought AMD had fairly strict rules for AM5, which explains why affordable $60 MBs aren't common. I hope all these systems are safe to use without overclocking. I usually got budget models from ASRock recently, and they worked well for my needs. Still, it might be wise to wait for some BIOS updates. The B650 should be fairly established now. I'm also curious about whether the A620 MB will meet my requirements. My idea is that if this AM5 setup becomes too expensive, I might switch to an older AM4 system with a 5600G GPU (for the graphics card). All four of my units aren't W11 compatible, so eventually I may need to upgrade more devices and consider AM5 for future upgrades. Ideally, I'd go for AM5 now if it seems reasonable. For AM5, I'd look for an ASRock Steel Legend B450 or B550. So it would probably be more suited toward the lower end either way.
I meant the Australian Steve from Hardware Unboxed and Gamers Nexus – they don’t really focus on motherboard reviews these days, so it’s unlikely they’ll be checking this out now. The video in question is linked here: Asrock has faced some backlash on Techtube when they initially banned both Steve’s content (GN and HUB) over reports about poor VRM design on their Z590 boards. Other platforms have also been blacklisted by Asrock, showing a shift toward being less supportive of reviewers lately. When examining their budget models recently, you’ll notice the reasoning behind these decisions. For instance, the B660M HDV was restricted to 95W even for K-series chips at stock settings, whereas those parts typically run at 125W base PL1. If you’re certain you won’t upgrade to better components, that board should be acceptable – it does have heatsinks on both sides, unlike the subpar Asus units Steve exposed in that video. To be honest, even their lower-end boards can manage a 7600 chip, but issues arise only with top-tier chips like the 7950X.
The latest HDV Asrock board is still under evaluation since its release came after HUB's selection of budget options. This should be a priority to observe closely, as noted by @Lurking. For a model with PBO and CO activated, the board appears suitable. Both DP and HDMI connections operate independently and directly from the iGPU.
Here’s a rephrased version of your text:
Thanks for sharing this review. It’s one of those honest tech channels you can rely on. I appreciate that the boot time was measured, which is important to me. The MSI had the slowest performance, while Gigabyte was the fastest and ASRock came in third. This matters a lot to me because I actually turn off power to the PSU. For other tests, it was hard to say which brand truly stood out—they all seemed quite similar overall.
Appreciate you mentioning ASRock’s ability to block certain channels. I try to consider ethical aspects when making decisions. However, I think most companies probably do something comparable. So I can’t just boycott any brand without a solid reason, or else I’d have to worry about my own PC’s reliability.
I know we mainly deal with three big manufacturers and ASRock (which is a branch of ASUS). From what I’ve read, all four seem to have inconsistent quality and poor customer service. That makes it tricky to decide.
Another issue with the ASRock HDV is its narrow width—only 22.6 cm. This means fewer side mounting holes, which can cause flexing when connecting or removing power cables. Every time I work on my PCs with those holes, I worry about damaging the circuit board. It’s a concern, but not during operation. What are your thoughts on this? How long do you think it’ll take for independent reviewers to evaluate this?
Besides the missing mounting options, I believe they did a great job with the features. Personally, I prefer the Gigabyte DS3H. It doesn’t support PCIe5 M.2, but that’s not a big deal for most builds (I already have a PCIe 3 SSD and plan to buy a 4th-gen one). The DS3H supports two DP and HDMI ports, which lets me run three monitors in 4K—something I use often. I have two 43-inch 4K displays on my desk, and I don’t want to limit myself to smaller ones. But it’s still a risk every time I work with those mounting holes.
I’m also a bit disappointed not having a PCIe 5 SSD, though. The MSI board seems fine if you need WiFi connectivity. For my needs, the Gigabyte DS3H seems like a better value. Thanks for sharing your experience!
I usually hope we can use all types of displays today, but I’ve had older models with DVI, HDMI, and analog ports that only worked well with fewer than three monitors. Running two 4K screens is what really limits my choices (since most assume a dedicated GPU).
I noticed the Gigabyte has revisions up to 1.5, but it’s unclear which one I’m getting. Vendors don’t always list the exact revision. How can I be sure it’s the latest? Also, will RAM up to 6000 MHz work? They say it’s compatible with 6400, but since it’s listed as OC, I can’t guarantee optimal performance. Around 6000 seems to be the sweet spot.
I believe the specifications have been reduced slightly. I might wait a few days to check if more reviews or thoughts appear about the ASRock board. Now regarding RAM, my main task is converting Handbrake h265 1080p videos from my phone to save space. On my old machine (i7-7700K, W10) I have 16GB 2400MHz RAM. When using Handbrake on all cores at 4.4GHz it exceeds 8GB. Originally I thought 16GB would work too. However, I discovered that for DDR5 the quicker RAM (6000CL36) is quite costly for two 8GB modules. That would cost around $92, whereas two 16GB units would be about $122. So buying two 8GB sticks seems almost unnecessary. I guess it only makes sense if I upgrade to something like 5200CL40 for under $70. I think my current RAM is faster than my old DDR4 2400. But a faster CPU also demands more data. I’m mainly choosing between two 16GB 6000CL36 sticks for $122 or two 8GB 5200CL40 sticks for roughly $68. Maybe I’d never notice the difference. Still, I might worry each time I see a spinning wheel if I made a mistake by skimping on quality. My RAM concerns: - Will my new system with W11 and a CPU possibly twice as fast as now also need much more RAM while running Handbrake? Absolutely, 32GB would be safer in the long run. - If I ever switch to 4K (unlikely soon) for my phone, would RAM usage increase with the same CPU? I know Handbrake is quite CPU-bound. - Would Handbrake gain more from higher frequency or better timings? I already see latency details in PCPartPicker, which is helpful. But does it really matter much for Handbrake?
I saw this DDR4/DDR5 speed comparison video with Handbrake included. It highlights how important first-word latency is for Handbrake (noted at 8:20). The reviewer also mentions using a Ryzen 9-7950x, which suggests my 7600 might not need much data. I’m considering a 7700 (8-core) for better performance, though it may use more memory. According to the review, Handbrake doesn’t scale well with extra cores. The bottom chart shows about 17% faster speed with 8 cores versus 6, plus a boost in clock speed. Both 6 and 8 cores share the same L3 cache. In an older Handbrake tutorial I read it handles up to 6 cores well, which makes sense and could help keep the PC useful for other tasks during encoding while Handbrake updates support more cores.