No, not all consumer boards are this bad. Some may have issues while others perform well.
No, not all consumer boards are this bad. Some may have issues while others perform well.
1366 was HEDT, wasn't it? I assumed the consumer side used around 11 something. Yeah, but it’s pretty surprising we’ve lost so many PCIe lanes while adding lots of M.2 drives that consume them. I get that most buyers of these entry-level CPUs don’t expand much anymore—usually one GPU and maybe two M.2 drives. Hope you’re okay if you’re settling for that. If you’re building a system with just one or two GPUs, a sound card, and perhaps a TV capture card, a RAID card, and a network card, it’s pretty limited now. We mostly stick to single GPU builds, and TV capture cards aren’t really needed anymore since cable TV is rare. Still, I enjoyed the quirky stuff I plugged in, and I use a lot of storage—my dad’s PC had three HDDs plus an SSD, while mine now has one HDD and an M.2 drive. I’d consider adding a second HDD for backup or RAID if I wanted, and I bought an Intel Optane SSD at a discount to use in a second slot for fun. But what about future SSD expansion options? You can buy a mux card to split bandwidth across drives, but it’s not the same as having multiple slots. If you ever want a professional-grade card, maybe you’ll need to upgrade to a workstation later. Still, it’s tough finding people who build PCs this way anymore.
They focus on standard applications, assigning lanes mainly for storage since that’s what buyers expect. If demand exists for many PCIe expansion ports, one major supplier would develop a solution. The challenge isn’t about segmentation; they’re already prepared to pay over $1000 for such boards. What consumers actually need is unclear. In the past, we relied on multiple slots for sound cards, network cards, Wi-Fi, and extra video cards. Now those functions are integrated directly onto the board, making SLI/crossfire obsolete. I personally use a slot for a USB card, which puts me in the small group of users with more than just a graphics card. Most people won’t even consider it. I believe adding more than four slots isn’t practical for the average consumer. There simply isn’t a substantial market for it on mainstream platforms.
However, this setup isn’t the best choice since NVME components tend to slow down when they get hot, especially when they’re placed close to the motherboard with poor heatsinks. Compared to a PCIe card mounted higher in the case, it’s tougher to manage airflow. PCIe slots let you install multiple NVME drives instead of just one, but they all share the same bandwidth. Most users only access one at a time, so it shouldn’t cause real issues. The problem gets worse with many budget NVME drives that throttle at low speeds, like the Crucial P3. Even with a high-speed internet connection, a game might be limited by these slow drives. You might have a powerful CPU and fast internet, but if the game updates are stuck due to NVME throttling, performance suffers. Some of this could come from QLC NAND, but I’m not sure it’s just about thermal limits. You might save on the motherboard because a PCIe x4 slot is more costly than a small M.2, but then you need a better NVME drive to avoid throttling, which can undo any savings. I’ve seen SATA 2.5" SSDs beat NVME in speed and don’t throttle, though they lack IOPS benefits.
Some older boards came with PCIe adapters for NVMe cards, but they didn’t gain much popularity. Users often prefer connecting NVMe directly to the board without extra adapters. I also read about someone frustrated because their new GPU couldn’t fit an adapter card, highlighting another challenge for makers. Now, consumer GPUs on four-slot cards are common, so designers are adjusting by restricting what fits in the lower three slots for high-end systems. NVMe drives are generally safe here, allowing them to function without interference from graphics cards. This explains why top boards often have two NVMe slots beneath the GPU and just one slot below or beside them. Manufacturers are making sure these setups work smoothly. Regarding overheating, I’ve noticed it on my laptop but not on my desktop—drives stay under 70°C even without heatsinks. That helps a lot. However, some drives lack DRAM caches, which can affect long writes due to thermal issues. This is mainly a problem for the drive makers themselves. Motherboards usually include heatsinks or expect airflow to keep things running. If a drive overheats so much that it can’t cool properly, it’s usually the manufacturer’s responsibility. If it requires a large heatsink, fan, or tower, the drive company should provide those too. Otherwise, it’s not their fault.
The issue is simply placing a piece of metal on something and labeling it a "heatsink" isn't honest—it's more about spreading heat. A real heatsink features fins to increase surface area, though it doesn’t solve the problem entirely. It’s annoying how many people prioritize appearance over performance. I understand manufacturers focus on what sells, even if it’s not ideal. Regarding GPUs, I own an older X570 that was fully cooled and tucked away under a 4090 FE, which is a fair observation—I’d have fewer NVME drives if I couldn’t install one underneath.