MSI Reveals B550 Torpedo, A Potential Successor to the B450 Tomahawk

(Image credit: MSI)

MSI introduced its 11th B550 chipset motherboard today, the MAG B550 Torpedo. The Torpedo is an ATX form factor unit that looks similar to the B550 Tomahawk, but it comes with a more cut-down feature set.

MSI hasn't revealed pricing yet, but judging by the looks of the board and its features, the Torpedo very similar to the previous-gen B450 Tomahawk. Which, if true, is really good news. The B450 Tomahawk was an iconic motherboard at the time, featuring all the necessities an AMD system builder wanted at a reasonable price point. For those wondering about the B550 Tomahawk, it's nothing like the B450 variant - MSI upgraded it to a mid-range SKU with features and pricing to match. All they have in common is the naming scheme.

Currently, MSI's budget offerings in the $120-$140 range are limited to the B550-A Pro and B550M Bazooka. The Pro is targeted towards content creators/professionals. Meanwhile, the Bazooka, while very similar to the Torpedo in terms of features, is only a micro ATX form factor and has what looks to be weaker a power delivery system. If the Torpedo is a budget part, I hope it slots into the same price bracket as the Bazooka.

The Torpedo's feature set is incredibly solid, featuring PCIe Gen 4 NVMe support, 2.5G LAN, MSI's 10+2+1 Duet Rail Power System (identical to the B550 Tomahawk), which allocates 10 phases for the CPU, two for the SOC, and one for other system components. This will likely be a primary selling point for the Torpedo because having this level of power delivery means it can handle all third-gen Ryzen CPUs with headroom to spare.

For the rear I/O, we have four USB 3.2 Gen 2 ports (one is Type-C), two USB 2.0s, a PS/2 legacy port, surround sound capable audio, and HDMI + DisplayPort. There's also a button for BIOS flashback.

MSI has not revealed pricing or availability yet, but we will update as soon as we know more information.

Aaron Klotz
Freelance News Writer

Aaron Klotz is a freelance writer for Tom’s Hardware US, covering news topics related to computer hardware such as CPUs, and graphics cards.

  • HideOut
    Hopefully it'll have a good audio chips set too, at least the 1200 series. if it does this could be the board to have for most common gaming builds
    Reply
  • cryoburner
    HideOut said:
    Hopefully it'll have a good audio chips set too, at least the 1200 series. if it does this could be the board to have for most common gaming builds
    They have a link to the product page in the article, and the Torpedo does appear to have an ALC1200 audio chipset with six ports including optical out, just like the B550 Tomahawk.

    Actually, feature-wise, I'm struggling to find almost anything different from the Tomahawk, and comparing images of the two boards side-by-side, the board layouts look almost identical. The only real noticeable changes to the face of the board are smaller heatsinks, with no heatsink for the second M.2 slot, and no RGB around the chipset heatsink. And on the back panel, only the second networking port is gone. Aside from that, nothing appears to have changed.

    Compared to the B550M Bazooka, that board has one less PCIe x16 slot, two fewer SATA ports, no USB 3.2 Gen2 with type-C, only ALC892 audio with just three audio ports, no 2.5G networking, three fewer fan headers, no integrated IO shield, and less-capable VRMs.

    So, unlike what the article states, the Torpedo is not at all like the Bazooka. It appears to be almost identical to the Tomahawk, with only smaller heatsinks and the removal of the second networking port to differentiate it. It's also more fully featured than the A Pro. So, price-wise, I would expect it to be priced higher than both the Bazooka and the A Pro, unless they are planning price cuts or something. The Tomahawk is currently $180, while the Bazooka is $130 and the A Pro $140, so I would expect it to priced more in the $150-$160 range. Probably not any higher than that though, as that would put it too close to the Tomahawk.
    Reply