GIGABYTE X58A-OC First Touch and Preliminary Performance Review

Introduction

ASUS have for a long time been producing their ROG series that we all feel is very well targeted to overclockers. Recently Gigabyte got into the game with their release of the high end X58A-UD9 board, but where both of these platforms fall short is being designed from the ground up by overclockers for overclockers, and this is where the X58A-OC steps in.

From the pictures already released you can see this board means business, with an IO panel that looks like it lost a leg in the war to features such as OC-VRM and OC-Touch it's clear this board has potential to be a serious contender.

I don't have the extreme performance I know your all hungry for quite yet but today is just a quick look at performance and a demonstration of the OC Touch feature set. Later I will investigate the extreme performance from this board when paired with an Intel 990X processor.

I have picked a few benchmarks that I like to use when comparing performance on different platforms. Vantage Performance, SuperPI 8m, 3DMark03 and Everest. These four give a good overview of motherboard performance and any areas a board might excel or have problems.



Test Platform
GIGABYTE X58A-OC @ 4GHz, 3276 MHz uncore
Intel 980X Gulftown
GSKILL Perfect Storm 2000 9-9-9-24 @ 910 8-9-8-24
CORSAIR Force SSD 60GB
GIGABYTE HD 5870

All benchmarks are run on the same clean operating system, the same versions of software and drivers and with no addition tweaking done in BIOS.



Preliminary Performance Analysis

Vantage Performance

http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/a...arkvantage.jpg

A strong note to start on, despite what looks to be a big lead on the graph, there is not a lot in it, but the OC does take the lead. This is an important result as the X58A-UD9 was a little of the mark when it comes to 3DMark scores, a little behind ASUS. Gigabyte hits back hard here with efficiency that is capable of taking world records



SuperPI 8M

http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/a...58aoc/8m-1.jpg

So with the SuperPI 8M graph the lower the seconds taken to complete 8M, the better the result. Again here the results are in favor of the OC, followed closely behind by the Sapphire PURE X58 which I have mentioned is very efficient out of the box in the past.

The X58A-UD9 which I will continue comparing back to throughout this report is an extremely fast board for SuperPI and while the OC is a "TOUCH" behind when I compared them directly it is only by under 100ms over 3 separate runs. I would be confident this board could take out low clock challenges, I guess we will shortly find out!



3DMark03

http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/a...c/3dmark03.jpg

In 3DMark03 the Sapphire board pulls a nice figure that puts it into first place but the OC is only 30 marks behind. Again this is an encouraging result as the UD9 was a few hundred marks behind when it came to single card 3DMark03.



Everest

http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/a...oc/everest.jpg

There is no shame losing to an ASUS board in Everest bandwidth as ASUS bios are always apply tight settings from the out set. This difference of 20 MB/s between all 3 boards shows there is nothing in it with all boards on a level playing field for write bandwidth.

With this result in mind it does explain the 200 milliseconds the Sapphire is behind the Gigabyte in 32m, but doesn't go anywhere to explaining the R3E being 4 seconds off the pace. As can be seen on low clock challenge threads when the R3E is tightened up it is arguably the fastest X58 board on the planet... but for how long?



OC-Touch Demonstration

This feature kicks serious ass, Gigabyte have been slow on the uptake with a hardware style frequency control but I love the multiplier adjustment, this will change the way I bench. No more having to worry about software hotkeys for multiplier adjustments. The keyboard hooks running in the background polling the system every however many milliseconds for keystrokes the better.

http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/a...oc/youtube.jpg



Results

Here are the screen shots from the above results plus a few more I ran

Vantage X looks good , a little more efficient than the Sapphire X58, where it should be for a board aiming to be the premier overclocking platform in the world
http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/a...c_vantagex.jpg

http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/a...c_vantagep.jpg

some high clock 32M with the Corsair GTX6 sticks and CPU on air
http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/a..._highclock.jpg

http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/a...8oc_crysis.jpg

was looking at the last two screenshots...the amount of ram not readable..is it 2048mb/single channel?

its two 1GB modules dude lol, corsair gtx6 is 1GB module hehe

nice job man! It looks to be a really nice board, i can't wait to get mine.

you did disable the memory executable thing in the bios right? for superpi?

BTW it is very nice to see this board own in 2D and even in 3D that is impressive.

oh gtx6 i thought it was gtx2

why not tripple channel?

well just to clarify all the test results except that SuperPI 32M are done with GSKILL Perfect Storm 2000 kit, the 32m has been done with GTX6 2x1GB modules for a few reasons,

firstly i only have 2 gtx6 sticks,

but also i think they are the way to go for 990X, being 1GB modules, they are much lighter on the IMC,

so when you are looking at clocking your 990X to 6.6 on LN2 you will probably need single channel, as you would have noticed from all the results out so far, but maybe with a kit of 2x 1GB modules that are easier on the IMC you can use 2GB of ram and for benchmarks like AM3, PIFAST even 3D05 this is important!

real life scenario testing you could say..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sin0822

you did disable the memory executable thing in the bios right? for superpi?

---

hey mate,

nope my prelim performance testing is always done without touching anything in bios except making the 3 platforms frequency, uncore, qpi and memory frequency/timings identical... all other settings are left as default (except of course disabling some of the unrequired ethernet ports, c1, etc)

i want to get an idea of performance right out of the box to start with, then move on to tightening things up from there

ok so you only have 2 sticks...i know we need 3 sticks for pifection32 :)

Hey James,
Can you please tell a bit more about accurracy of your test..
Results are really close, could be random...

What did you do? Did you take average of X runs on each product?
Hope you dont mind me asking, just like this clarified when it is very close results.

Also can you please post CPU-Tweaker, or other verification, to let us know aggressivity of ram subbies per default versus the other products.

Cheers,
Marc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by youngpro

hey mate,

nope my prelim performance testing is always done without touching anything in bios except making the 3 platforms frequency, uncore, qpi and memory frequency/timings identical... all other settings are left as default (except of course disabling some of the unrequired ethernet ports, c1, etc)

i want to get an idea of performance right out of the box to start with, then move on to tightening things up from there

---

gotcha, that makes sense :)

And yea single channel for subzero to get around cold bug too.

LOL @ OC-Peg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by youngpro

hey mate,

nope my prelim performance testing is always done without touching anything in bios except making the 3 platforms frequency, uncore, qpi and memory frequency/timings identical... all other settings are left as default (except of course disabling some of the unrequired ethernet ports, c1, etc)

i want to get an idea of performance right out of the box to start with, then move on to tightening things up from there

---

So you enabled Microcode ignore option on the Sapphire and OC boards but not on the RIIIE, but then disabled it for the 3D runs on those same boards? That option is what allows you to drop the SuperPI times down to those results but then 3D will suffer if it is left enabled. ;)

I assume you left PM settings alone as the setups between the boards (assume OC is similar to the UD9 in regards to BIOS setup). If those options are not the same between each board, then the tests are not truly apples to apples.

Looks like a solid board. But seriously James, those scales are retarded :D Difference of 0.08% and it shows as twice the size.

Gary microcode ignore only improves efficiency on A0 Gulftown, not on B1 ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bingo13

So you enabled Microcode ignore option on the Sapphire and OC boards but not on the RIIIE, but then disabled it for the 3D runs on those same boards? That option is what allows you to drop the SuperPI times down to those results but then 3D will suffer if it is left enabled. ;)

I assume you left PM settings alone as the setups between the boards (assume OC is similar to the UD9 in regards to BIOS setup). If those options are not the same between each board, then the tests are not truly apples to apples.

---

LOL i just watched that video, the ending was the best. LOL

hey gary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bingo13

So you enabled Microcode ignore option on the Sapphire and OC boards but not on the RIIIE, but then disabled it for the 3D runs on those same boards? That option is what allows you to drop the SuperPI times down to those results but then 3D will suffer if it is left enabled. ;)

---

er no i didnt touch the microcode options at all, and fyi even if i did touch any microcode options, it only works for a0, there is no performance gains for b1 chips, you really think i am doing bias review? if i am doing bias review, why would i post 1 graph where r3e wins and 1 graph where sapphire x58 wins... it doesnt make sense? :confused::confused::confused:

i dont mind you having a go at me if i do something wrong mate, but at least get your facts straight before you do it ;)

and yes Jon I know the scales are retarded, i am sux at excel :rofl:

this is just average over 2 runs Marc, yes the close results could average out even closer over time for sure, the Sapphire could jump in front in Vantage or 8m, but also the X58A-OC could jump in front in Everest or 03 also..

Thanks for the write up James. Even if your excel sux :D

Nice features on that board - will definitely be giving one of these a spin. Love that on the fly multi adjustment :up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sin0822

LOL i just watched that video, the ending was the best. LOL.

---

heh not my idea of a "happy ending" Still scares the living bejesus out of me :rofl:

hey James is it going to be cold in Adelaide next month for some mankini action :D lmao nvm imagine watching a V8 supercars race wearing a mankini, LOL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dinos22

hey James is it going to be cold in Adelaide next month for some mankini action :D lmao nvm imagine watching a V8 supercars race wearing a mankini, LOL

---

I'll pay $$$$$$ to see you walking around the general admin area like that. We can run a sweepstake to see how long you last :ROTF:

lol for sure but the money we collect will need to go into paying the gap for dinos private health insurance after he gets the crap beaten out of him

i can already see the enraged bogans, some red faces in anger and others puking at the site of mankini :rofl:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by youngpro

lol for sure but the money we collect will need to go into paying the gap for dinos private health insurance after he gets the crap beaten out of him

---

LOL make sure to pay a nice deductible too lol.

pro- excel sucks it automatically scales like this when you downsize the graph.

Anyways I can see this board ruling the 2D scene like no other.

What the f*** is wrong with you, people?! So I open the thread to read a review and see this... :rofl:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by elmor

Looks like a solid board. But seriously James, those scales are retarded :D Difference of 0.08% and it shows as twice the size.

---

What do you know? It's 1337 PR and marketing skillz! :ROTF:
Gotta say the SPi difference is significant, though.

Any word on the release date?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by elmor

Looks like a solid board. But seriously James, those scales are retarded :D Difference of 0.08% and it shows as twice the size.

---

LMAO yeah james is the new sascha90210 or was it 95 or 35....easily forgettable :p::D

dinos in a mankini.......... oh my eyes... damn it.. had to watch the video...... oh the horror...

32M results accross the boards sir, my room is whiter than white, James plz ? Wprime ? interesting results there... and resize ya pictures James, I don't have acces to a 30 inch monitor here :p My old eyes can't read it anymore :p

The scaling is "ahum" awesome though !!

Nice preview, now like already mentioned you only need to master real excel tweaking skillz :D

anyway... would love a tweaked 32M comparation with same tweaks at say 4Ghz :)

Charts look too funny to be true. You have the excel skills to make it in the world of marketing :D.

Board's looking good - digging the buttons and additional peg. Didn't not love the Dino at the end. Will be interesting to see what others can produce with this board.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bingo13

I assume

---

:yepp:

Impressive board to say the least.

Estimated retail price Dino ? 250 euros ? I'll order a few OC pegs for my girlies valentine ( for next year :p )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by elmor

Looks like a solid board. But seriously James, those scales are retarded :D Difference of 0.08% and it shows as twice the size.

---

Amen to that. Maybe he's just completed a course in Taiwanese marketing mathematics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mean Machine

Amen to that. Maybe he's just completed a course in Taiwanese marketing mathematics.

---

I think Saaya-San teached James :)

:rofl: you guys are hilarious :rofl:

lol james i was like man the OC really shines then i looked at the charts correctly and seen there was hardly no difference LOL... Dino you love the borat mankini..

ok im sorry about the funny looking charts lol

next time i will take a microsoft excel course before hand so i know how to make my charts look perfect to your approval :)

Here you go pro........ :) ... Couldn't help myself....

Excel for Dummies

The video was a nice touch.. but my eyes now hate you.....lol

Can't wait to see the damage on lN2.. Looks good :)

lol funny

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by youngpro

ok im sorry about the funny looking charts lol

next time i will take a microsoft excel course before hand so i know how to make my charts look perfect to your approval :)

---

What has world come to, you got Idiots benching 32m with shiny new 580GTX's perfectly centered in the shot like it had anything to with the results and now excell noobs and biased excell charts.

The end is near folks, very near.

Seriously though, nice testing James even though your charts have reached the depths of space even NASA has yet to explore. :p:

lol cheers guys, thanks for that

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dinos22

i can already see the enraged bogans, some red faces in anger and others puking at the site of mankini :rofl:

---

Haha oh man, I don't know whether to hide and apologize or lmao off for creating that mankini pic of you...... in my defense I had had a few beers by that time of the afternoon :rofl:

Nice review and that board is looking very nice. Does it have a full digital PWM or adjustable freq analogue?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CryptiK

Haha oh man, I don't know whether to hide and apologize or lmao off for creating that mankini pic of you...... in my defense I had had a few beers by that time of the afternoon :rofl:

Nice review and that board is looking very nice. Does it have a full digital PWM or adjustable freq analogue?

---

Its the ISL controller - analogue. Also why it needs dip switches unless a GPIO is used to give software control via BIOS. On-the-fly switching freq adjustment isn't really of any use for OC, you just set what you need and let rip.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by raju

Its the ISL controller - analogue. Also why it needs dip switches unless a GPIO is used to give software control via BIOS. On-the-fly switching freq adjustment isn't really of any use for OC, you just set what you need and let rip.

---

i personally like the switches, i think its cool.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sin0822

i personally like the switches, i think its cool.

---

I'm sure you'll have lots of fun with them :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by raju

Its the ISL controller - analogue. Also why it needs dip switches unless a GPIO is used to give software control via BIOS. On-the-fly switching freq adjustment isn't really of any use for OC, you just set what you need and let rip.

---

it is when you start doing initial testing, its not there to look pretty

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dinos22

it is when you start doing initial testing, its not there to look pretty

---

How do they help during initial testing - are you hampered by switching frequency for POST?

so what we should just run at maximum switching frequency at all times? lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sin0822

so what we should just run at maximum switching frequency at all times? lol

---

You could just change in software if the board had a GPIO lol

I guess my point is that it doesn't help OC to have it on-the-fly, hopefully it won't be marketed in a way that it becomes another urban myth that on-the-fly switching frequency control gives the ability to reach clock speeds that were unobtainable before its inception. The OC buttons I understand perfectly, just wondering why the switch freq was done on a switch unless at the behest of costing or someone thinking it would extend some kind of clocking margin somehow. It certainly doesn't save any appreciable time over flicking it on when you go into BIOS to set all the RAM timings you need to. I guess it comes down to what you think is cool after all.

it saves a reboot tho, such as you are OCing in windows and you are using OC touch, and you start at 6ghz and at something like 800khz so you want to boost upto 7ghz without rebooting, so you can easily switch it. The whole purpose is that this board is able to OC with hardware 100%. plus to quote your friend OCer like buttons.

Well that's just it, it doesn't really hurt to have the frequency on max from the point where you go into BIOS and set CAS, there's no real affect on the clocking margin from having the frequency up high as you're loading Windows when you're ready to OC.

Raja i used on the fly description in my article so users can distinguish between software and hardware changes not some lame ass gimmick marketing you are trying to make it out to be :p:

its just a simple switch that saves a reboot when you're subzero so you can flick to different frequencies during initial CPU testing over a few sessions. it is just a little easier. Its all about user control. Does it help, well if i tell you one way or the other you wont trust me so its best people do their own testing and see what works best for them with their setups.

Actually my initial post explained why the switch was there - because it's an analogue VRM so needs a GPIO if it is to be set by software. Your response to that was that it's not there to look pretty so I asked why it was deemed beneficial to have it in hardware. You're really only playing with transient response and to an extent overshoot/undershoot duration, I suppose it depends on how important you think that is to do in the OS rather than just "set and forget" once in BIOS.

really nice! :) Maybe a good evolution path for my X58A-UD7(rev1) since i'm not leaving x58 that soon :)

i am not sure if there is a benefit of it being hardware over software,

it does help with stable frequencies though,

990x i tested, 6500 only with the lower PWM frequency settings, when i jack it to 750 it will now bench 6600.. this setting definitely helps and i dont think it matters if its in a hardware switch, controlled by bios or is plugged into your mind via usb... if it works, it works...

if you think it is urban myth, please take some CPU and try different settings, same bios settings, same subzero temperature and try different settings..

lol i definitely will take hardware over bios anyday, for me its just another placebo effect that i am actually doing somthing.

Either way its there, its a great feature, and there is no reason to argue over it being hardware over software, its just not something you need on an analogue PWM which makes it neat. Plus it works.

pro- did you try pushing it to 1mhz?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by raju

Actually my initial post explained why the switch was there - because it's an analogue VRM so needs a GPIO if it is to be set by software. Your response to that was that it's not there to look pretty so I asked why it was deemed beneficial to have it in hardware. You're really only playing with transient response and to an extent overshoot/undershoot duration, I suppose it depends on how important you think that is to do in the OS rather than just "set and forget" once in BIOS.

---

Would the transient response at say 400KHz be potentially worse than the UD7 or other analogue PWM board due to the lack of electrolytic caps? What about the tantalums ripple handling?

sorry in my above post i meant 800 not 750,

1000 is tonight bro ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by youngpro

i am not sure if there is a benefit of it being hardware over software,

it does help with stable frequencies though,

990x i tested, 6500 only with the lower PWM frequency settings, when i jack it to 750 it will now bench 6600.. this setting definitely helps and i dont think it matters if its in a hardware switch, controlled by bios or is plugged into your mind via usb... if it works, it works...

if you think it is urban myth, please take some CPU and try different settings, same bios settings, same subzero temperature and try different settings..

---

My point is that it's not something that makes a difference from where it's set Pro - so not a requirement. Unlike jacking CPU frequency within the OS - which needs to be done because a processor may not be unconditionally stable at XXXX frequency.



I was told it wasn't there to look pretty so asked what it was doing that a conventional setup can't do, and you've proven that it does the same thing.

You could have set 800KHz in BIOS and OC'd to the same level. I'm glad it isn't an urban myth that you need this control in the OS to do something special :)

i never tried to say it was :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CryptiK

Would the transient response at say 400KHz be potentially worse than the UD7 or other analogue PWM board due to the lack of electrolytic caps? What about the tantalums ripple handling?

---

Of course it would be worse at 400KHz than having it set up higher. As for how it compares to the other Gigabyte implementations at a given switching frequency, the only way you're going to know that for real is to have someone do transient load testing with the right equipment. There are too many factors involved to call it based on raw levels of capacitance alone.

Your ripple is going to be lower at higher switching frequencies too, which negates the need for larger levels of bulk decoupling. There are optimum levels of decoupling for every PSU, add too much and you risk making the performance of the power supply worse.

Tantalum caps are generally favored over electrolytic types because of their better hf response and durability; microfarad for microfarad, their esr will be lower so you don't need the same level of bulk capacitance for the same "effect". From a raw performance standpoint MLCC caps are better still (lowest esr at hf which is where "most" of the padding is needed on multi phase setups that operate at high switching frequency). After a certain point, socket inductance becomes the dominant factor and no matter how much decoupling or "bandwidth" you have, it'll be will be lost via the interconnect; it's then down to the local decoupling on the rear of the CPU.

On a side-note, unless the controller is having issues with a high switching frequency at higher levels of current draw - there is no need to manipulate it up and down during benching sessions - you could go into BIOS and set 800KHz or 1MHz because you're benching and leave it at that. The only reason to pull it back down is for the sake of energy efficiency. The relative location of the frequency switch on this board also makes it a candidate for condensation, you'll need to seal around it and ensure there is no chance of moisture "bridging" the contacts.



-Raja

from what i have learned tantalum capacitors have many benefits over electrolytic, many of which are very beneficial to subzero overclocking, first they usually are able to run at much lower temperatures, second they have much better volumetric efficiency meaning they can store more than equally rated electrolytic capacitors, third they seem to not degrade over time and actually are rated for longer lifespan. While they are more expensive, they do offer many benefits, lower series resistance(ESR) seems to be huge, because that was one of the biggest problems with just tossing in electrolytic caps, and it seems that is why they are able to raise the bulk capacitance on this board. Correct me if i am wrong but MLCC caps also exhibit very low series resistance? correct?


I think they were added on this board for 2 huge reasons, #1 it is much easier to insulate a board with tantalum caps, and i think that is why every capacitor(other than the MLCC Caps(the really small ones like on the back of the socket) were replaced. This can also help to insulate the PCI-E area.

#2 I think hicookie really pushed for high performance, as in lower ripple and better transient performance.

Raju- while you said there is a direct correlation between switching frequency and transient performance, i think there are many other variables that can impact transient performance as well. i am not disagreeing, there is a huge correlation between transient response and lower overshoot and undershoot and transient. There is also is inverse relationship between efficiency and switching frequency, which is why GB has aimed to increase the phase count, because that way they can still get pretty damn great efficiency and handle loads much better.

i think capacitance and overall inductance has a huge impact on transient response. Of course increase inductance seems to have a negative impact on switching frequency, and from what i have seen, GB is using inductors with half the inductance rating or those previously used(plus the new inductors are rated at 50A!!), as well as a HUGE increase in polymer capacitance. I do agree that there is a balance point for every VR for capacitance. In the past it seems GB has had success using much lower bulk capacitance. From my calculations they are using 8000uF of polymer bulk output capacitance(not counting MLCC capacitive) from the tantalum caps, which is something i have not seen on a GB board.

of course not all of us, if anyone other than the mobo companies have a VRTT, I am sure GB has been putting theirs to good use.

in the end this board is going to be fantastic, and I cannot wait to write about it!!!!!
-Steve

Raju i would like your input?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sin0822

from what i have learned tantalum capacitors have many benefits over electrolytic, many of which are very beneficial to subzero overclocking, first they usually are able to run at much lower temperatures, second they have much better volumetric efficiency meaning they can store more than equally rated electrolytic capacitors, third they seem to not degrade over time and actually are rated for longer lifespan. While they are more expensive, they do offer many benefits, lower series resistance(ESR) seems to be huge, because that was one of the biggest problems with just tossing in electrolytic caps, and it seems that is why they are able to raise the bulk capacitance on this board. Correct me if i am wrong but MLCC caps also exhibit very low series resistance? correct?

---

MLCC caps have far lower ESR than electrolytic and tantalum types over most of the frequency range but are susceptible to "drift" in capacitance according to temperature (losing upto 50% of their capacitance at -50 Celsius). The upshot is that you can get away with almost 50% of the capacitance with MLCC versus tantalum across most of the workable range and they still have lower ESR. Just depends on what your design goals are and the capabilities of the FETs and controller.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sin0822

I think they were added on this board for 2 huge reasons, #1 it is much easier to insulate a board with tantalum caps, and i think that is why every capacitor(other than the MLCC Caps(the really small ones like on the back of the socket) were replaced. This can also help to insulate the PCI-E area.

#2 I think hicookie really pushed for high performance, as in lower ripple and better transient performance.

---

One would assume it's a better solution for overclocking than what is on the other GBT boards, otherwise there would be no real reason to change anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sin0822

Raju- while you said there is a direct correlation between switching frequency and transient performance, i think there are many other variables that can impact transient performance as well. i am not disagreeing, there is a huge correlation between transient response and lower overshoot and undershoot and transient. There is also is inverse relationship between efficiency and switching frequency, which is why GB has aimed to increase the phase count, because that way they can still get pretty damn great efficiency and handle loads much better.

---

Given current demands of modern CPUs and the buck controllers/FETs that are available, 8~10 phases is plenty. That way you don't waste excessive space, complicate the topology to the point where ripple and other ringing artifacts manifest or create issues with balancing across a larger power plane. Of course, if the design brief was to chase high efficiency and maximum raw current handling at the expense of the other scenarios, then I suppose the brief has been met.

The comment I made above about switching frequency was relative to a single design - ie increasing the switching frequency of a particular VRM versus running it slower (provided the system can handle it). Hence why I said each VRM would need to be evaluated in transient tests to find out which is superior at a given operating frequency.

I've got nothing against the board at all, I just found the choice of using hardware mode on switching frequency a curious one given where the switch is placed and the board's target audience. Like you I hope this motherboard is the start of something new. We all want products to improve and as with all things, there is a balance between what is really beneficial and the overall execution. Asking questions and evaluating the purpose and need for various features is all part of the process - an interjection of objectivity instead of raw bally-hoo isn't a bad thing.

-Raja

Didn't Gigabyte make a video showing a UD9 supporting like 1500 watts of power to just the CPU socket? Isn't that like 3x the max power required on even like a 7+Ghz 990x?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by raju

MLCC caps have far lower ESR than electrolytic and tantalum types over most of the frequency range but are susceptible to "drift" in capacitance according to temperature (losing upto 50% of their capacitance at -50 Celsius). The upshot is that you can get away with almost 50% of the capacitance with MLCC versus tantalum across most of the workable range and they still have lower ESR. Just depends on what your design goals are and the capabilities of the FETs and controller.





One would assume it's a better solution for overclocking than what is on the other GBT boards, otherwise there would be no real reason to change anything.



Given current demands of modern CPUs and the buck controllers/FETs that are available, 8~10 phases is plenty. That way you don't waste excessive space, complicate the topology to the point where ripple and other ringing artifacts manifest or create issues with balancing across a larger power plane. Of course, if the design brief was to chase high efficiency and maximum raw current handling at the expense of the other scenarios, then I suppose the brief has been met.

The comment I made above about switching frequency was relative to a single design - ie increasing the switching frequency of a particular VRM versus running it slower (provided the system can handle it). Hence why I said each VRM would need to be evaluated in transient tests to find out which is superior at a given operating frequency.

I've got nothing against the board at all, I just found the choice of using hardware mode on switching frequency a curious one given where the switch is placed and the board's target audience. Like you I hope this motherboard is the start of something new. We all want products to improve and as with all things, there is a balance between what is really beneficial and the overall execution. Asking questions and evaluating the purpose and need for various features is all part of the process - an interjection of objectivity instead of raw bally-hoo isn't a bad thing.

-Raja

---

I am glad that we agree on what i said :)

Callsign vega this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsFG0Pv-7bM

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sin0822

I am glad that we agree on what i said :)

Callsign vega this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsFG0Pv-7bM

---

Most of it was already in this http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...0&postcount=61 post above, but you missed it somehow ;)

WRT inductance and high switching freqeuncies, the inductors are storage, the larger the inductance the more time it will take to charge them and the more bulk capacitance you will need.

hahah you know what this looks like to me, Raja and sin0822 fighting over a toy in kindergarden,

no it's mine, no it's mine :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by raju

Most of it was already in this http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...0&postcount=61 post above, but you missed it somehow ;)

WRT inductance and high switching freqeuncies, the inductors are storage, the larger the inductance the more time it will take to charge them and the more bulk capacitance you will need.

---

lol kind of, i just glanced over it, i was just trying to go over some things that you missed lol, but yea we are saying the same thing. Anyways you want to see some sick voltage regulation take a look at the DMM: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTHqmgePj2I&hd=1 6.6ghz real world performance, from 1.831-1.8350 and no more.

Are we? lol I thought I was saying something else Sin. :D

nah i am trying to agree the best way i can lol. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sin0822

nah i am trying to agree the best way i can lol. :)

---

That's cool, over the past few weeks we've covered small tidbits on things like where VDDQ comes from, switching frequency and current thresholds, and now a small one on higher inductance needing more bulk capacitance rather than the other way round. It'll take time for that to sink in to the point where it really clicks, so take your time. It took me a while just to get here, and I'm not anywhere near what's needed at EE level to design this stuff from the ground up (factoring loop gain and phase margin).

-Raja

well its not just that, i do a lot of my own research, i have a subscription to IEEE and that has shed a lot of light on a lot of things. I actually got the info on inductance and capacitance from the OCmag article and some forums for EE, but yea you said the same thing, but i tried not to copy what you said..

I hope you understand it before you post because some of the stuff that I and others have had to correct over the past few weeks suggests otherwise. The info in datasheets and whitepapers is helpful if you understand what it means otherwise what you present can be wide of the mark.

-Raja

Did is the Gigabyte has confirmed that it intends to introduce full UEFI implementations (friendly graphical interface with 1024x768 resolution,support mouse,more languages - Asus efi bios currently support 6 languages ,Msi efi bios support 15 languages and other efi features )) to their bios the socket 1155, AM3 + and future sockets ??? because for now uses it hybrid efi bios.
http://gigabytedaily.blogspot.com/20...37625918667235
quotation from page http://www.gigabyte.com/products/pro...px?pid=3761#ov
DualBIOS™ 3TB+ HDD Support (Hybrid EFI Technology)
Hybrid EFI Technology combines the benefits of GIGABYTE's mature BIOS platform including stability and compatibility with 3rd party products with 3TB+ HDD support from EFI technology, allowing GIGABYTE to offer the best of both worlds through a quick and easy BIOS update using GIGABYTE's @BIOS utility that is freely available from the GIGABYTE website.
one could surely do with the Bios would be chip version of the classic elements of efi bios and full efi bios with support for mouse-friendly graphical user interface, support for multiple languages.
Did Gigabyte hybrid efi bios, running in 32-bit or 64 bit mode and is immediately available to boot the system, all memory. If your motherboard bios P67 B3 operates in 16 bit mode and is available for the latter only 1 MB of memory??