Gigabyte EX58-UD5/Extreme Discussion Thread

[Kensek]

Do you get the double boot problem on that bios?

Sorry I asked a bunch of questions that were already posted and what I meant to say about the Vcore is it's too high for Air but surely not for water...

I get no double boot with that BIOS.

[fly_ebos]

where can we download the latest beta bios?
I didn't find a link on the German site

[Ghigo]

Prime stable too at 1,45 vcore bios and 1,37 qpi, any link for the F4C , with F3 i am never able to boot on a coolboot , board just keep loop till reset settings, but on reboots is just fine

Max temp with 8 thread wprime 53° , love my new watercooling build

P.S. 20 mins wprime passed still going

[stasio]

where can we download the latest beta bios?
I didn't find a link on the German site

http://forums.tweaktown.com/f69/

[beast200]

Nice cpu man, well 3.8ghz for daily use is perfect for me, requires very low voltages and performs great, i have settled at 3.8ghz and will stay here, anymore is just for benchmarks.

Hi

gar
i would agree with you about the speed for 24/7
i am at 195 x 20 3900 @ 1.325 with turbo on
can get to 4.1 but volts over 1.4 which i do not like going above
for this cpu or my old E8500 @ 4.12
any thorts about the on board sund compared with the Xfi

[Guacamole]

Prime stable too at 1,45 vcore bios and 1,37 qpi, any link for the F4C , with F3 i am never able to boot on a coolboot , board just keep loop till reset settings, but on reboots is just fine

Max temp with 8 thread wprime 53° , love my new watercooling build

P.S. 20 mins wprime passed still going

Also my experience with that bios reboot loop from cold loop until eventually it posts but just not a good feeling..

[rge]

I dont have any reboot issues on bios F3, unless I put some settings at auto instead of manually locking them. For example if mem volts or timings are at auto, on cold boot tries to change them to incorrect "default" values. Later bioses will probably fix the auto settings, but manually locking them down works for me.

[Guacamole]

I dont have any reboot issues on bios F3, unless I put some settings at auto instead of manually locking them. For example if mem volts or timings are at auto, on cold boot tries to change them to incorrect "default" values. Later bioses will probably fix the auto settings, but manually locking them down works for me.

That's good to know.. Do you put all of your settings on lock down I mean is anything left on auto? i.e. like my board always had the most stability when I left the QPI on auto but I can't use EZ tune to see what voltage the auto actually set the board too so don't know what voltage to lock down...

[GAR]

http://forums.tweaktown.com/f69/

Stasio, when will we have a new official bios for the EX58-UD5???? thanks.

[rge]

That's good to know.. Do you put all of your settings on lock down I mean is anything left on auto? i.e. like my board always had the most stability when I left the QPI on auto but I can't use EZ tune to see what voltage the auto actually set the board too so don't know what voltage to lock down...

Channel subtimings and channel volts and DRAM termination volts are on auto, everything else is locked down. I will eventually lock subtimings down, just so bios updates that change those timings dont affect my stability....once I play with the timings myself. I had same reboot issue on P35 DQ6, especially after updating bioses, but once I had everything locked down the problem was resolved.

though I did have ?incompatible curcial on my P35 DQ6 that caused reboot hell when cold reboot only, that was solved by changing out mem to corsair approved mem...and nothing was wrong with crucial that memtest 7 passes could detect.

[rge]

The huge GB X58 Extreme heatpipe addition that takes up the pcie slot and comes separately was pretty much useless on mine (circled in red in pic). It did not add any more cooling to what was already there, not surprising since it is not even directly on top of the nb. All ambients 26C, prime run 1hr.

Initially with it off, NB load temps 54-55C, idle 47-48C.
Put it on, NB load temps 54C.
Reinstalled it, put fan against it, NB load 53C
held it on with paste and removed it while running pc, no diff.
Removed it and removed empty WB, (so looks more like UD5) put a spot fan over bare space, load temps dropped to 47C even after several hours of prime. idle dropped to 43.

Not that anyone cares about NB temps on these, but that monster takes up space, a pcie slot, and is useless, especially compared to just a spot fan directly on the NB.

[Guacamole]

The huge GB X58 Extreme heatpipe addition that takes up the pcie slot and comes separately was pretty much useless on mine (circled in red in pic). It did not add any more cooling to what was already there, not surprising since it is not even directly on top of the nb. All ambients 26C, prime run 1hr.

Initially with it off, NB load temps 54-55C, idle 47-48C.
Put it on, NB load temps 54C.
Reinstalled it, put fan against it, NB load 53C
held it on with paste and removed it while running pc, no diff.
Removed it and removed empty WB, (so looks more like UD5) put a spot fan over bare space, load temps dropped to 47C even after several hours of prime. idle dropped to 43.

Not that anyone cares about NB temps on these, but that monster takes up space, a pcie slot, and is useless, especially compared to just a spot fan directly on the NB.

Basically you are saying the Extreme is a complete waste of money unless you plan on WCing the not hot NB?...

[rge]

Basically you are saying the Extreme is a complete waste of money unless you plan on WCing the not hot NB?...

Unless there is something else on the Extreme that I am unaware of and not using either. I was going to buy the UD5, but Extreme was $30 more so I said wtf on a whim...love the GB X58 board, but basically paid $30 more for same board for my use.

[bench2die]

whats the waterblock made out of on the extreme? I havent messed with mines but it looks like aluminum, could it be copper with nickel plating??

[rge]

whats the waterblock made out of on the extreme? I havent messed with mines but it looks like aluminum, could it be copper with nickel plating??

The inside looks like copper, so my guess would be copper with nickel plating on outside.

[btdvox]

the WB is all copper. Though if your WC' you should go Rampage Extreme and swap out the NB passive heat sink for a Swiftech NB-Max. Gabe specified it to work for sure.

And yeah the Heatsink is ridiculously idiotic .
It not only looks ugly, but probably wont benefit it at all (though I cant confirm as i dont have the board).

[X.T.R.E.M.E_ICE]

The huge GB X58 Extreme heatpipe addition that takes up the pcie slot and comes separately was pretty much useless on mine (circled in red in pic). It did not add any more cooling to what was already there, not surprising since it is not even directly on top of the nb. All ambients 26C, prime run 1hr.

Initially with it off, NB load temps 54-55C, idle 47-48C.
Put it on, NB load temps 54C.
Reinstalled it, put fan against it, NB load 53C
held it on with paste and removed it while running pc, no diff.
Removed it and removed empty WB, (so looks more like UD5) put a spot fan over bare space, load temps dropped to 47C even after several hours of prime. idle dropped to 43.

Not that anyone cares about NB temps on these, but that monster takes up space, a pcie slot, and is useless, especially compared to just a spot fan directly on the NB.

Maybe you need to test a retail version. As the 1 in that picture is the engineer sample of the EX extreme.

[rge]

Maybe you need to test a retail version. As the 1 in that picture is the engineer sample of the EX extreme.

I have a retail version. just grabbed a pic from net rather than snapping a pic with camera... easier to describe with illustration. Though I cant imagine a heatsink like that performing differently regardless.

[Guacamole]

I have a retail version. just grabbed a pic from net rather than snapping a pic with camera... easier to describe with illustration. Though I cant imagine a heatsink like that performing differently regardless.

You are on bios F3 correct?? What is your exact OC now I have seen you post a bunch but can you run your settings at the 200-211 Bclk at 4.0? Or are you running things a little different with the higher multi?

Also any onboard WCing solution or the NB has always been well sh***y in my opinion had the Striker II Extrme thing leaked or broke can't remember, had the Uber X38 Asus Maximus Extreme heatsink leaked all over my video cards I think I'll pass on that option forever...

[GAR]

I wish we could get a bios without the twice rebooting and sometimes reseting the bios.

[stasio]

Stasio, when will we have a new official bios for the EX58-UD5???? thanks.

No info yet
Edit:
EX58-Extreme-F4g
EX58-UD5-F4g
soon

[rge]

You are on bios F3 correct?? What is your exact OC now I have seen you post a bunch but can you run your settings at the 200-211 Bclk at 4.0? Or are you running things a little different with the higher multi?

Also any onboard WCing solution or the NB has always been well sh***y in my opinion had the Striker II Extrme thing leaked or broke can't remember, had the Uber X38 Asus Maximus Extreme heatsink leaked all over my video cards I think I'll pass on that option forever...

With turbo off, I can run 20x200, 191x21, 182x22 all prime stable at same vcore of 1.35 bios, loadline on. But I think I finally got lucky and got a nice chip, makes up for my E8600 and E8400.

With turbo on, 182x22 gives me 4/4.2 which is still prime stable, turbo is 182x23 or 4.186 and prime stable.

However with 20x200, turbo on gives me 23x200 or 4.6ghz for turbo, and I have to increase my vcore to ~1.5v just to boot. Same goes for 19x191, turbo gives me 23x191. With i920 20x200 turbo will give you 21 multi, so this issue will not occur on i920 at 20 multi.

In fact if I decrease the multi to 15 and bootup, turbo still gives me 23 multi for +8 turbo, then drops to 15 multi on load. Have been doing beta testing for unclewebb and reading about turbo....but difficult when bios itself is ? doing things correctly.

So I run 182x22, in order to run turbo enabled. The million dollar ? is, when intel says +1 turbo do they mean +1 over stock, in other words bios is acting correctly and will always go to turbo of stock multi +1 (23 on i940) regardless of multi setting in bios, or is it a bios bug and the chip is supposed to run at +1 over bios multi. If turbo is +1 over stock, then for 4ghz those with i920 will only be able to run 20x200 turbo enabled, and those with i940 will only be able to run 22x182 turbo enabled. My guess is on i920 19x211 will not be stable with turbo on, as your turbo will then be 21x211 or 4.4.

Given msr editor shows max turbos listed as 23,23,23,24 on i940 chip, and that is probably what sets turbo multi, I am starting to think it is not a bios bug, and that turbo enabled will bring your multi all the way up to stock +1, regardless of what multi is set at in bios.

Which means I need a 9 multi to bring my mem up to stock, b/c I can not run turbo 20x200 (which would allow x8 multi for 1600 native mem speed), so I am stuck at 182x22....or buy some 1800 and run x10 multi. That will be one advantage of i920, for those that can run 20x200 stable.

According to intels white paper on turbo, which I posted in realtemp thread, it states max turbo is +1 (again ? over stock or +1 over bios) when 1 to 4 cores are loaded providing there is enough power headroom and within other operating parameters. For example light load of even all 4 cores still yields turbo. To get the +2 or 24 turbo (i940), I had to shut off 3 cores in bios and only truly run 1 (intel states this in white paper), which begs the question what is the purpose of 24 turbo multi on i940 or 22 turbo multi on i920, how many are going to shut off 3 cores in bios to get it.

Earlier in i7 thread I posted a prime run of 20x200, that was with turbo off.

[GAR]

No info yet
Edit:
EX58-Extreme-F4g
EX58-UD5-F4g
soon

F4G will be OFFICIAL bios???

[giorgos th.]

still with F4f here...seems the best for me...

[Guacamole]

With turbo off, I can run 20x200, 191x21, 182x22 all prime stable at same vcore of 1.35 bios, loadline on. But I think I finally got lucky and got a nice chip, makes up for my E8600 and E8400.

With turbo on, 182x22 gives me 4/4.2 which is still prime stable, turbo is 182x23 or 4.186 and prime stable.

However with 20x200, turbo on gives me 23x200 or 4.6ghz for turbo, and I have to increase my vcore to ~1.5ghz just to boot. Same goes for 19x191, turbo gives me 23x191. With i920 20x200 turbo will give you 21 multi, so this issue will not occur on i920 at 20 multi.

In fact if I decrease the multi to 15 and bootup, turbo still gives me 23 multi for +8 turbo, then drops to 15 multi on load. Have been doing beta testing for unclewebb and reading about turbo....but difficult when bios itself is ? doing things correctly.

So I run 182x22, in order to run turbo enabled. The million dollar ? is, when intel says +1 turbo do they mean +1 over stock, in other words bios is acting correctly and will always go to turbo of stock multi +1 (23 on i940) regardless of multi setting in bios, or is it a bios bug and the chip is supposed to run at +1 over bios multi. If turbo is +1 over stock, then those with i920 only will be able to run 20x200 turbo enabled, and those with i940 will only be able to run 22x182 turbo enabled. My guess is on i920 19x211 will not be stable with turbo on, as your turbo will then be 21x211 or 4.4.

Given msr editor shows max turbos listed as 23,23,23,24 on chip, and that is probably what sets turbo multi, I am starting to think it is not a bios bug, and that turbo enabled will bring your multi all the way up to stock +1.

Which means I need a 9 multi to bring my mem up to stock, b/c I can not run turbo 20x200 (which would allow x8 multi for 1600 native mem speed), so I am stuck at 182x22....or buy some 1800 and run x10 multi. That will be one advantage of i920, for those that can run 20x200 stable.

According to intels white paper on turbo, which I posted in realtemp thread, it states max turbo is +1 (again ? over stock or +1 over bios) when 1 to 4 cores are loaded providing there is enough power headroom and within other operating parameters. For example light load of even all 4 cores still yields turbo. To get the +2 or 24 turbo, I had to shut off 3 cores in bios and only truly run 1 (intel states this in white paper), which begs the question what is the purpose of 24 multi, how many are going to shut off 3 cores in bios to get it.

Earlier in i7 thread I posted a prime run off 20x200, that was with turbo off.

Dude you're awesome thanks!!