Official GIGABYTE Forum

Questions about GIGABYTE products => Motherboards with AMD processors => Topic started by: Begotten on July 09, 2010, 02:57:29 pm

Title: GA-890GPA-UD3H rev1, rev2 rev 2.1?
Post by: Begotten on July 09, 2010, 02:57:29 pm

Hi to everyone,

does anybody knows the difference between the 3 revision for the GA-890GPA-UD3H?

rev 1.0
rev 2.0
rev 2.1

thanks!

Title: Re: GA-890GPA-UD3H rev1, rev2 rev 2.1?
Post by: absic on July 09, 2010, 03:22:39 pm

Well having a quick look at the 3 versions Rev 1.0 seems to have 2 F-1394 Firewire headers whereas version 2.0 & 2.1  have these in a different position with one F-1394 Firewire header between the lower 2 PCI slots rather than along the edge of the board.

Also the design of the Mobo appears to be a little different with regard to layout for some of the capacitors.

Apart from that You will probably find that everything else is the same.

A similar question was raised before on this Forum and, believe it or not, the answer from Gigabyte was:

Quote

There are only some minor component different between these two Rev that you do not have to worry about it.

Check out the thread here: http://forum.giga-byte.co.uk/index.php/topic,1898.0.html

Hope this helps

Title: Re: GA-890GPA-UD3H rev1, rev2 rev 2.1?
Post by: Dark Mantis on July 09, 2010, 03:26:59 pm

I just ran the compare tool on the oldest and newest and the newer one is justa cut down version of the original as far as I can see.

http://www.gigabyte.com/service/comparison/comparison.aspx#p=2

Check them yourself

Title: Re: GA-890GPA-UD3H rev1, rev2 rev 2.1?
Post by: absic on July 09, 2010, 03:35:21 pm

Now why I didn't I think of that? Good job you did DM as I have noticed another difference.

Revision 1 supports ECC memory whereas rev 2.0 & 2.1 don't.

And another thing to consider is: Will you still be able to get hold of the Rev. 1.0 board? My guess is that you won't be able to, as this version would have been the first ones shipped by Gigabyte.

Title: Re: GA-890GPA-UD3H rev1, rev2 rev 2.1?
Post by: runn3R on July 09, 2010, 03:57:57 pm

Quote from: absic115 on July 09, 2010, 03:35:21 pm

(...) Revision 1 supports ECC memory whereas rev 2.0 & 2.1 don't. (...)

No, ECC RAM is not supported in Rev 1.0 (it also applies to 2.0 and 2.1). It's clearly written: Support for non-ECC memory modules.
http://www.gigabyte.com/products/product-page.aspx?pid=3342#sp

Rev. 2.0 supports Auto Unlock and Core Boost functions.

Dark Mantis - as far as I know nothing has been cut off in Rev.2.0

Title: Re: GA-890GPA-UD3H rev1, rev2 rev 2.1?
Post by: absic on July 09, 2010, 04:05:39 pm

Quote

No, ECC RAM is not supported in Rev 1.0 (it also applies to 2.0 and 2.1). It's clearly written: Support for non-ECC memory modules.l

My bad and you are quite correct.  :-[  Guess I picked the wrong week to give up smoking!  ;)

Title: Re: GA-890GPA-UD3H rev1, rev2 rev 2.1?
Post by: Dark Mantis on July 09, 2010, 04:06:30 pm

Well I picked up on the ECC memory the same as absic115 for a start runn3R there were also a coupl of other minor removals too.

I have just checked again and it would appear that I too was wrong about the ECC memory :-[ and the other things were just because it was worded differently. So you were  right(I hate this bit) runn3R

Title: Re: GA-890GPA-UD3H rev1, rev2 rev 2.1?
Post by: runn3R on July 09, 2010, 04:34:50 pm

Quote from: Dark Mantis on July 09, 2010, 04:06:30 pm

(...) So you were  right(I hate this bit) runn3R

Relax mate :). The weekend is coming and you've got bigger number of Karma :'( than me

Title: Re: GA-890GPA-UD3H rev1, rev2 rev 2.1?
Post by: Dark Mantis on July 09, 2010, 05:43:59 pm

I hate to see a grown man cry so I've increased your Karma ;)

Title: Re: GA-890GPA-UD3H rev1, rev2 rev 2.1?
Post by: absic on July 09, 2010, 06:23:59 pm

Boo hoo!  :'( Sob, sob! :'( Sniff, Sniff!  :'(

Do I get my Karma raised too?

Title: Re: GA-890GPA-UD3H rev1, rev2 rev 2.1?
Post by: Dark Mantis on July 09, 2010, 06:25:11 pm

You'll have me crying soon ;D

Title: Re: GA-890GPA-UD3H rev1, rev2 rev 2.1?
Post by: Begotten on July 12, 2010, 04:00:37 pm

thanks for the answers,
i was hoping that the newer revision didnt have new features.