GA-870a-UD3 Bios trilema.

[CountMike]

Hello, o Gigabyte motherboard gurus. I have a MB from the theme's subject, together with a AMD Phenom II X4 965 BE processor and 2 x 4GB Kingston 1600 HyperX memory. It's been relatively smooth sailing with 965BE cruising along at 4.1 GHz pending new and better cooler. This is my third or fourth Ga MB. My MB is Rev. V 2.0 with a F5 BIOS.
Now come some of my questions with which I would like to clear up few things, if I may.
First thing is that when SATA 3 ports are set to AHCI, HDDs and an Kingston V300 120GB SSD does not appear at the boot screen and in the Standard Settings in the BIOS but only at Disk priority settings. As I bought this MB second hand, I thought that maybe somebody was messing with it so I flashed it back to F4 and then back to F5 using BIOS I downloaded  from Gigabyte site. Everything went just fine but the problem stayed. After that I checked all the other versions of this MB and found  that v2.0, V2.1, V2.2 have F5 BIOS. (the newest ones of course). Now, V3.0 and V3.1 have FEf  with V3.1 being also the only one to provide AM3+ support. This seems pretty complicated for the essentially almost same MB. Same NB, same SB and most other stuff. How compatible and / or interchangeable are those other versions with my MB ?.
I noticed that V3.0 and V3.1 (FEf BIOS) have also "Hybrid EFI technology with DualBIOS for 3TB HDD support" , so together with AM3+ capability to stick a Bulldozer in my MB it would be nice to have that Hybrid EFI too.
I have tried to contact Gigabyte technical support couple of times on that matter but no dice, did not get an answer at all. So when I found this forum I thought to ask here as obviously there are some knowledgeable people here. Can anybody help, please an thank you.
PS. This MB has few of the nowadays very  rare ports, FDD, IDE PATA, Parallel  and RS232 ports that I need and would like to keep it as long as possible those were some of the main reasons I bought it.

[Tiger]

AM3+ support required a different socket than your version. This is not something an amateur can change.

The newer version use a 16 Mbit flash BIOS compared to a 8 Mbit flash BIOS on the early version.

[CountMike]

So, nothing doing. Not an amateur (long time into electronics ) but in this case it just doesn't pay to do it. Aside from some minor quirks pretty satisfied with what I have. Actually, only that thing with AHCI and some complicated voltage control could be improved.
Thanx.

[Bonded_by_blood]

I know it's an old topic, so don't get too mad, but I am really curious about the am3/am3+ situation.
I have the same board and it would be nice if someone from gigabyte would post about it.

My board is 3.0 and I have the latest bios (downloaded from 3.1 page - FEf) and I was wondering what would happen if I put an FX processor there. I'm aware of the different layout, but it seems that some of those processors could easily fit into the am3 socket (not every fx proc has the same pins, as i can see?!).

Thanks and cheers

[geekyadz]

You want to find out? Do it. But dont expect it to work. Hell, I wouldnt even expect that motherboard to work after flashing that newer BIOS.

So in other words: If this is your only/main computer then dont try it.

If this is a secondary or lower computer (ie not your main one) then take a gamble but be advised that it might not work afterwards.

[Vezina]

I know it's an old topic, so don't get too mad, but I am really curious about the am3/am3+ situation.
I have the same board and it would be nice if someone from gigabyte would post about it.

My board is 3.0 and I have the latest bios (downloaded from 3.1 page - FEf) and I was wondering what would happen if I put an FX processor there. I'm aware of the different layout, but it seems that some of those processors could easily fit into the am3 socket (not every fx proc has the same pins, as i can see?!).

Thanks and cheers

You will have to try and see.

I was able to install a FX 6300 physically in my 890GPA-UD3 v2.1 .that has a white socket ,but even the beta BIOS did not woke it up.Tried to even mod BIOS-es
The problem is that if the socket takes it the BIOS may not be ready.
Chipset wise should be no problem.They have managed to make FX boards even with old 2007 nforce chipsets just to get rid of the chipset stocks.

You will not be able to flash BIOS-es across ,as the BIOS chips on the older mobos are smaller than on the new ones ,this is so you won t try
It s all marketing.

[Bonded_by_blood]

Thank you for your replies dudes!

I guess it's risky, it's my only pc and of course it's not worth buying an FX just to try it.
As I've said, my BIOS is the latest (for 3.1 revision) and in the specification sheet of v3.0 (my board) it states that the BIOS is also 16Mbit, so I guess it's possible but not probable in the same time. Also, I have another question, when you update BIOS, are both chips updated (the other, backup one?) or does it revert back to the "default" version if something goes bad? I'm just exploring my options cause I don't have a lot of money to buy a new board and cpu etc.

I will try to find someone with fx-6xxx or fx-4xxx who can borrow the cpu to me 'cause I'm really curious, there aren't a lot of information out there on the internet regarding this.

Peace!

[Vezina]

The back up BIOS will kick in at any error.
As i ve told you tried many BIOS mods on the 890GPA-UD3 replacing AGESA code and such and every time before i even saw what my BIOS-es were doing the invalid checksum would kick in and along it the back up BIOS.
As i did not had any BIOS chips to play with and test the last HW version BIOS i don t know if flashing across HW versions would work.

So if the version of the board is hard coded somewhere the back up BIOS will kick in ,but it can happen to work.

To be able to flash the BIOS from version 3.1 ,making the presumption the BIOS chip is same size and the LAN audio and such are similar ,use @BIOS ,the flashing tool from withing windows.Just make sure antivirus is turned off while using it.This tool will ignore the checksum at flash.

But before doing this get your hand on a FX chip and see if it fits.

Keep in mind it s YOUR RISK ONLY ,you are the one doing the procedure so you are the one to blame  for the result .
If it works get back here and tell others.

The AGESA 1.1.0.0 specified in the 3.1 BIOS takes first FX generation(like FX 4100,FX 6100) and not Vishera (FX *300).

[MisterEd]

I can't tell the difference between v3.0 and v3.1 because the specs seem to be the same. It is possible that Gigabyte made some changes to the board that included some that allowed support for some but not all of the FX CPUs. Even if some of the FX CPUs work in the v3.1 boards that does not mean that the boards fully support the  FX CPUs. To fully support the FX CPUs requires a board with chipset that has the needed extra functionally and a board design that the specs for the FX CPU say are needed.

[Vezina]

I can't tell the difference between v3.0 and v3.1 because the specs seem to be the same. It is possible that Gigabyte made some changes to the board that included some that allowed support for some but not all of the FX CPUs. Even if some of the FX CPUs work in the v3.1 boards that does not mean that the boards fully support the  FX CPUs. To fully support the FX CPUs requires a board with chipset that has the needed extra functionally and a board design that the specs for the FX CPU say are needed.

This chipset functionality you are talking about is not a valid argument on this CPU-s.
Gigabyte doesn t seem to have "nailed" the proper way to make a proper board for FX CPU even by using AMD 9xx chipsets
BIOS support itself was extremely slow and painful (at least for me)  on the AMD boards in the last 2 years

Take a look at Gigabyte and other manufacturers ,they are selling boards with all kind of chipsets (AMD 7xx ,8xx as well as nforce 520) with FX support and only the CPU VRM quality makes the difference regarding compatibility list ,so it has nothing to do with the chipset ,even if this may limit performance in some way.
If the CPU VRM is  involved ,  then again ,using a CPU like a FX 4100 should be no problem.

If there is anything wrong the back up BIOS will kick in ,seen the thing working.It may kick in even if the BIOS works

[MisterEd]

I can't tell the difference between v3.0 and v3.1 because the specs seem to be the same. It is possible that Gigabyte made some changes to the board that included some that allowed support for some but not all of the FX CPUs. Even if some of the FX CPUs work in the v3.1 boards that does not mean that the boards fully support the  FX CPUs. To fully support the FX CPUs requires a board with chipset that has the needed extra functionally and a board design that the specs for the FX CPU say are needed.

This chipset functionality you are talking about is not a valid argument on this CPU-s.
Gigabyte doesn t seem to have "nailed" the proper way to make a proper board for FX CPU even by using AMD 9xx chipsets
BIOS support itself was extremely slow and painful (at least for me)  on the AMD boards in the last 2 years

Take a look at Gigabyte and other manufacturers ,they are selling boards with all kind of chipsets (AMD 7xx ,8xx as well as nforce 520) with FX support and only the CPU VRM quality makes the difference regarding compatibility list ,so it has nothing to do with the chipset ,even if this may limit performance in some way.
If the CPU VRM is  involved ,  then again ,using a CPU like a FX 4100 should be no problem.

If there is anything wrong the back up BIOS will kick in ,seen the thing working.It may kick in even if the BIOS works

Sorry if I misspoke about the chipset. It slipped my mind that AMDs 800 and 900 series are not that much different. It has more to do with marketing than technical differences.

Gigabyte engineers probably tested the v3.0 board with an FX CPU and determined that a few minor modifications were required to support the FX CPU.
At least one modification was probably related to power as you suggested. Otherwise a BIOS update would have been all that was needed.

[Vezina]

Sorry if I misspoke about the chipset. It slipped my mind that AMDs 800 and 900 series are not that much different. It has more to do with marketing than technical differences.

Gigabyte engineers probably tested the v3.0 board with an FX CPU and determined that a few minor modifications were required to support the FX CPU.
At least one modification was probably related to power as you suggested. Otherwise a BIOS update would have been all that was needed.

It may be what you say ,but I tend to believe what I see for myself.
 I guess the OP is in the mood to test by himself.

[Bonded_by_blood]

I'm not the original topic creator, but it's a similar dilemma, so I stuck in
And ofcourse I would love to test it, but I don't know anyone in my town with bulldozer processor :/

The bios chip(s) on 3.0 and 3.1 are the same and judging from numerous pics of fx processors, it can easily fit into the am3 socket, so the main question is: what is the difference between am3 and am3b, besides the obvious color difference and an extra pin hole on the am3b? Are there any "behind the scenes" distinctions, regarding voltage or smth?

If the bios works (latest for 3.1 AND 3.0 - they added it to both support sites, wasn't like that before) and the processor can fit, what can go wrong?

Sorry if I'm boring you pepole, cheers!

edit: @Vezina, I've read your posts again, now I understand a little better. Basically, until you try, you won't know.

[Vezina]

The black socket allows for thicker pins thus more amperage to flow to the chip.For octocores may be needed.
I would try the BIOS and see what happens first ,but before doing this put on a paper how to force the back up BIOS to kick in if needed ,just in case.

I can show you a picture with my FX 6300 installed into the white socket of my 890GPA-UD3H ,it fits just fine.

Of course the FULL "GUILT" is YOURS and not mine ,you are the one doing the stuff
Don t cry if anything goes bad .

I think your thread should be moved to the overclocking section as this is a modding issue and has nothing to do with the normal usage of your board.
Warranty may be void by doing the experiment.

If you have understood this precautions feel free to continue.