GA-Z68X-UD3H-B3 On-Chip Frame Buffer Size

[Kingboyk]

Hi all,

My system is:
GA-Z68X-UD3H-B3
I7-2600K
4xG-Skill 4GB DDR3 1600Mhz RipjawsX (16GB total)
Intel 510 250GB SSD
3 hard drives
2 optical drives
Windows 7 x64 SP1

I'm using the on-chip graphics as I'm not a gamer.

Can somebody recommend a value for the "On-Chip Frame Buffer Size" setting? I ran Windows Experience Index (scoring 6.4 on graphics), rebooted into the BIOS, and chose the maximum 480MB. I figured that with 16GB of RAM I may as well give video all the RAM it can eat. However, the machine took about a minute to boot into Windows when it usually takes 10 seconds and was horrendously slow once I'd got logged in. The network and sound card devices weren't initialised. I rebooted again and went back to 64MB and the system is running fine. I'm not overclocking yet as the system is still new and I want to ensure stability first.

Failing that, would it be worth me getting a PCI-E video card and using Virtu? I only use the machine for office work, programming and listening to music, not into games at the current time.

Btw, whilst I'm a big fan of Gigabyte products (I have 4 motherboards, all Gigabyte) the BIOS in this latest board leaves quite a lot to be desired. Not only does it look the same as a BIOS from the mid 90s it seems a bit flaky/buggy sorry to say. This is the 3rd or 4th issue I'd had with it.

[yeti]

Talk about synchronicity!

I came here from a google search for "on-chip frame buffer", to see this post from someone with the identical mobo, CPU and OS. I also have 16GB memory and use only the integrated graphics as I don't game.

I used your logic to try to max out the buffer, and got the same results, only Win7 took over 5 minutes to load! The graphics performance was dismal as well. Back to 64 and it's humming along again.

BTW, what did you upgrade from? Myself: a 6 year old Athlon 64 with 1GB RAM. I'm loving this rig for sure! YeeHaw!

Currently I'm loading it up with multiple flavours of VirtualBox guests on an Ubuntu host. 16GB and the core virtualization make this very easy and worthwhile.

With the maxed out buffer the graphics did seem slower with Ubuntu but not much at all. Only the Vista and Win7 guests where noticeably slower. MacOS X and XP Pro were fine...

[Dark Mantis]

Hi and welcome.

Whilst I do not see why it should take so long to boot because of the extra memory allocation I also don't really see the point in it. You are not gaining from having a large frame buffer as you will not be doing a lot of 3D work and even if you were it would be sensible to invest in a dedicated graphics card for that. You do not need large amounts of graphics memory for running the standard 2D programs.

[emaleemjay]

I too have a GA-Z68X-UD3H-B3 running the F9 firmware release and am experiencing the same issue. When the "on-chip frame buffer size" setting is set to a high value the, pc slows down to a grinding halt.

Mobo: GA-Z68X-UD3H-B3
CPU: Core i7 2600K
RAM: 16GB G-Skill Ripjaw 2133
HDD: 1x OCZ Vertex 3 (128GB), 5x WD GREEN 2TB
OS: MS Win7 SP1

[Dark Mantis]

Hi

I take it that you are running the 64 bit version of Windows 7. As you know what the problem is why not just adjust the buffer size ?

The newer system actually determines the amount of system memory that it is set for but only uses the amount during DOS sessions etc like when booting. It is used dynamically not like the old UMA system where it was fixed once allocated. Therefore you don't need to set it to such a high level as before. 8 GB is normal.

[yeti]

8 GB is normal.

If it is normal, could you show me how to set it that high? Mine doesn't go up nearly that far.

[Dark Mantis]

Sorry just a typo there would be no point in allocating that much just to be wasted. It should have said 8 MB It is only to make sure that you have enough memory to cover any large splash screens on startup or anything like that.

[Maru]

My system:

Mother Board: GA-Z68XP-UD3 Rev 1.0 F6
CPU: i5-2500k
Ram: 2 x (G.SKILL Ripjaws X Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1333 (PC3 10666) Desktop Memory Model F3-10666CL9D-8GBXL)

I also have the same problem with the ga-z68xp-ud3 F6.  The windows 7 installation CD will not even get to the first screen when I set the on chip frame buffer size to 480.  I have also tested 128 and 256 they seem to work but at a slower rate.  when I ran the performance test in windows with 64 MB setting.... my video rating was a 1.

hmmm seems like we all have ripjaw....

I realize that yeah we can get to work on lower settings but come on that's kind of like getting a nice new car (or whatever you like) and the dealer saying don't step on the gas peddle too much cause it will blow up.

[marshall409]

bump! same issue here.

[Dark Mantis]

Hi and welcome.

I am afraid I don't have access to one of these boards to test so I have to rely on manuals etc. It would seem that this problem is few and far between judging by the number of posts on the forum here. That leads me to the conclusion that it is either caused by a wrong setting or faulty hardware.

Can you please post a list of your components in your system with make and model number. Aslo are you running on Optimised BIOS Default settings or have you customised them ?

[hammommah]

Im having same problem too.
Set frame buffer to 480 and boom, slow slow slow.
Once back down to 128mb it is good again. Also when set too high it has an adverse affect other hardware.

Does anyone know the best value to set this too? There was a post saying that you can calculate how much you need use screen res plus color depth.

Any ideas?

Windows 7 64bit
z68xp-ud3r
16gig ram
i5-2500k

[Lsdmeasap]

Are you using only the onboard graphics, or do you have a dedicated graphics card?  If you have an actual graphics card, then set that buffer size to the lowest amount

[hammommah]

Im currently using onboard graphics but getting card soon.

I have run a few tests and i get best wow frame rate by using 32mb buffer size. I would have thought more ram would give better performance but not the case.
I dual boot linux as well and have found lubuntu runs faster with less frame
buffer.

Hammo

[Lsdmeasap]

Nice to know what you found about smaller buffer size giving better performance, thanks for sharing (As I suspected what you mentioned too, more = better)