GA-990FXA-UD5 issues (need quick answers)

[absic]

Ok I know you are good absic but I never realised that's how you got your answers. Don't you think that time travel is cheating just a little bit ?
 

Funny thing is I had to sign some documents a few days ago and I signed them with 2012 too! I'm sure it's all the talk of the Olympics I keep hearing on the local news bulletins that has got me thinking 2012 not 2011.  .

[Lordred]

I think I'm going to return my UD5 as well, If I wanted this ammount of Vdrop, I would not have bought a new board. I did not buy the UD5 for the upcomming bulldozer, I bought it for the better voltage regulation.

My M4N98TD EVO gives me 131/1000ths Vdrop with the same OC I was using on the Gigabyte UD5, and the M4N98 never got better with subsiquent driver releases.

So here is a direct comparision of the two.

UD5 @ 4ghz Idle 1.475v in bios 3/1000ths Drop


EVO @ 4ghz Idle 1.475v in bios 31/1000ths Drop


UD5 @ 4ghz Load 1.475v in bios 83/1000ths drop


EVO @ 4ghz Load 1.475v in bios 131/1000ths drop



Now, here is the real kicker, on the UD5 if the voltage drops below 1.36v under load @ 4ghz, I throw errors, mean while over on the EVO the CPU can drop all the way to 1.34v and remain stable. Not only that, my temps are higher on the UD5 then on the EVO. I hate to say it, but I'll be returning thie board, I had very high hopes for the UD5. But I've already thrown my EVO back in, and there really is no performance difference between the two.

[gareth170]

@absic , can u please get a tech guy from gigabyte to come on this forum and give us some information on this???

[absic]

I'm sorry but I have no more real power than the rest of you guys.

I may have the title of moderator but it doesn't give me any extra real clout with Gigabyte. runn3R, the forum moderator and my usual line of communication is on holiday this week. I have contacted one of his work colleagues via PM this morning and also raised a support ticket with GGTS and all I can do is wait until I get a response.

Believe me, I am doing the best I can and I am as concerned over these problems as the rest of you are. As soon as I get any feedback or firm advice from Gigabyte I will let you all know.

[gareth170]

ok

i heard theres a F5B bios, do u have?

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?271757-GIGABYTE-9xx-AM3-thread&p=4888802&viewfull=1#post4888802

p.s whenever u receive new bios's could u send to me also

[absic]

No, I haven't been sent that one yet. I'll make some enquiries and If I can get hold of it I will e-mail it to you.

[Lordred]

I have something Intresting I thought I would share.

I decided to try locking off 2 cores (making my Hexa, a Quad) I found that the drop almost halved, which either means the Vregs cant keep up with the Hexa, or the bios dosnt tell them too. (Also My Vreg temp dropped 10C running the 1100T as a Quad @ 4ghz)

For consistency AMD Turbo Core, Cool & Quiet, and C1E are disabled.

Bios @ 1.475v  Windows Idle 1.504  (29/100ths V Rise)


Bios @ 1.475v Windows Load 1.424 (51/100ths V Drop)

[absic]

I have to say that I hadn't thought of trying that particular strategy but it does raise another thought.
Do you have the same VCore drop if you leave the CPU at stock settings and don't bump it up to 4.0GHz whilst 2 cores are disabled?

[Lordred]

Almost no Vcore drop with 2 cores disabled @ 3300mhz 1.275v (only 8/100ths)

[absic]

Interesting, although I am no expert I still feel this is down to the BIOS rather than the hardware and it makes one wonder how much testing goes into such things.

The problems I am encountering on the GA-990FXA-UD5 are now being seen across a range of Gigabyte AM3+ motherboards, all of which are using the larger BIOS chips. My same hardware, installed onto 3 different older AM3 motherboards with the 8Mb chips work faultlessly and I can't help feeling that the BIOS coding on these AM3+ boards is at fault.

I still have had no reply from Gigabyte from my PM and e-mail sent yesterday and the support ticket I raised on the 25/6 is still unread so I am still none the wiser as to what exactly is going on.

EDIT: UPDATE - I have just received the F5b beta BIOS from Gigabyte and have sent via e-mail to gareth170, zuban & Lordred. Check your spam and Junk boxes just in case it has been deleted by mistake. I am unable to run a complete set of tests at the present but I did run a very short one and it does seem to be better.

If any other user wants this beta BIOS then send me a PM with your e-mail address and I will forward it on to you.

[Dark Mantis]

This is the big problem as far as we are concerned isn't it absic, the fact that we cannot get answers or communicate along any more effective paths than anyone else outside the company payroll. It is something I have been pushing for for a long time that we as moderators should be able to have direct communication with techs at head office.

[absic]

You and me both DM.

Squeezing blood from a stone is much easier than getting anything technical or really helpful out of some of these hardware companies.

[absic]

I have just been sent some screenshot images by Gigabyte of their F5b BIOS tests.

[gareth170]

i've tested f5b but my vcore still drops under full load.

i have turbo,c1e,CnQ disabled...

on auto vcore it says 1.30 which is right, in pc health it say 1.344v which i don't mind, but when i put it under load with prime95 or linx the vcores to 1.296v which is better than before 1.280v.

but when i up the vcore to 1.425v , pc health says 1.475v~ and when i put it under load with prime95 or linx the vcores drops to 1.396v and crashs due to being well under 1.425v, i admit it's slightly better than before 1.360v-1.380v.

with turbo,c1e,CnQ enabled the vcore is at 1.475v and in pc health it says 1.520v...

[Lordred]

Super PI is not an effective load test Abisc, it only uses 1 thread.

IBT, or Lin-Pac (LinX), Prime 95. Those would be good tests as they utilize the CPU and RAM