Spot the differences: Gigabyte motherboard revisions present markedly different test results

[Linemi]

Two revisions of the B85M-HD3. Quite suitable for a game of "spot the differences"!

 

 

http://us.hardware.info/reviews/5835/spot-the-differences-gigabyte-motherboard-revisisons-present-markedly-different-test-results

Gigabyte has been making new revisions of its motherboards, using the original product name, since time immemorial. This is nothing special, nor anything the manufacturer is less than open about. New motherboards are easily identified by the addition to their name: Rev. 2.0 or Rev 3.0 for example. However, lately these revisions appear to be primarily instigated by cost considerations. In the boards we tested, we observed very clear differences, such as a lowering of the number of CPU power supply phases and in one case even the removal of a secondary BIOS chip.

 

Apparently Gigabyte regularly revises their products without changing the manufacturer and UPC codes, which results in webshops and price comparison engines, and its costumers, being unaware of the changes that were made to the products. This seems to be a widespread practise in the industry. While usually these revisions are positive for the consumer and might result in more features, compatibility and/or reliability - making it a questionable, but negligible practise - , this time Gigabyte actually removed the second (advertised!) BIOS chip on a revision on one of their motherboard products.

Hardware.info decided to test another motherboard; the B85M-HD3 rev 1.0 vs the rev 2.0 and found there are actual measurable and noticeable performance differences. Check the link for some comparison tables.

 

Does LTT think this kind of practise is acceptable? The usual, the more transparency, the better, applies here imo. Changing details on your product(without changing productname), even if it doesn't violate the official spec sheet(so no legal issues), is still questionable.

 

Edit: A very similar problem happened with Kingston early in the year: http://www.anandtech.com/show/7763/an-update-to-kingston-ssdnow-v300-a-switch-to-slower-micron-nand

[ZetZet]

this happens all the time. that's why they say what revision board it is.

[H4X3R]

same with their X99 series between the X99 UD5 and UD7 as well as between the X99 Gaming 7 and Gaming G1

[Linemi]

this happens all the time. that's why they say what revision board it is.

Yes, very true, but doesn't this pose a problem when the webshop and the cosumer is unable to know which rev they are receiving? This particular user bought the board especially for the dual BIOS, then it turns out the second BIOS chip was removed, while it was still on the official specification list.

[Cats can use computers]

found something

[Sharif]

The other one is more shiny 

[NAP51DMustang]

There are actually several differences between those two boards (just look at the electrical components above the upper left corner of the cpu socket for starters, see below). Also Asus does revisions like this too, whey is this news?

 

[TheMcSame]

Well considering it says this on the bottom of every single product page on Gigabyte's site (AFAIA) it doesn't surprise me...

 

The entire materials provided herein are for reference only. GIGABYTE reserves the right to modify or revise the content at anytime without prior notice.

[Linemi]

There are actually several differences between those two boards (just look at the electrical components above the upper left corner of the cpu socket for starters). Also Asus does revisions like this too, whey is this news?

Because usually a revision means an upgrade, an unadvertised downgrade doesn't sound very costumer friendly, especially if there is no way to know in advance which version you'll receive.

As I said above, imagine buying a cheapo motherboard, because the official page tells you it has dual BIOS, and the board that you receive doesn't have that second BIOS chip. Is that alright to you?

[NAP51DMustang]

Because usually a revision means an upgrade, an unadvertised downgrade doesn't sound very costumer friendly, especially if there is no way to know in advance which version you'll receive.

As I said above, imagine buying a cheapo motherboard, because the official page tells you it has dual BIOS, and the board that you receive doesn't have that second BIOS chip. Is that alright to you?

 

then wouldn't that be a problem with the site you bought it from and not the board manufacturers?

[Linemi]

then wouldn't that be a problem with the site you bought it from and not the board manufacturers?

I suppose you are correct. But doesn't the fact that Gigabyte doesn't supply a unique manufacturer code / "barcode" play a factor here.

 

Making your revision a downgrade, where modern webshops are unable to automatically change this on their productpages, still sounds iffy to me.

 

Maybe I overreacted when I read it and it may not belong here.. My bad.

[That Norwegian Guy]

Well considering it says this on the bottom of every single product page on Gigabyte's site (AFAIA) it doesn't surprise me...

 

Misleading marketing is misleading marketing, it's illegal no matter what fancy small text you use.

[NAP51DMustang]

That doesn't hold up in court in any civilized country on earth.

 

Except USA, but whether USA counts as civilized is borderline.

 

Misleading marketing is misleading marketing, it's illegal no matter what fancy small text you use.

I would like to know where the missleading marketing here is as the article is talking specificaly to how the issue arises when buying the mobo off a retailer site when the retailer doesn't know which board it is not in its advertisement or marketing (and like I pointed out before more than just Gigabyte makes mobo revisions and most if not all have varying performance differences).

 

 

I suppose you are correct. But doesn't the fact that Gigabyte doesn't supply a unique manufacturer code / "barcode" play a factor here.

 

Making your revision a downgrade, where modern webshops are unable to automatically change this on their productpages, still sounds iffy to me.

 

Maybe I overreacted when I read it and it may not belong here.. My bad.

 

I does belong (as everyone needs to know about revisions and how they work) but from what I saw in the article I think it should be more of a calling to get shops and manufacturers working together for actual product identification support (ie which revision is which, and could be done if it isn't already by printing the rev number on the board). And on the subject of bar codes, go to a retailer and you'll see similar practices to this as even though the products are different revisions they are the same product and get the same item number (this happens with all Skylanders of the same pricepoint at Target NA for example).

[Octagoncow]

This isn't really new; I think most manufacturers do this.

[TheMcSame]

Misleading marketing is misleading marketing, it's illegal no matter what fancy small text you use.

It's not misleading in anyway. Gigabyte is doing nothing wrong with this and it isn't their fault that distributors aren't correctly naming the products that they are selling.

[mr moose]

Very superficial thinking here guys.

 

Reducing the number of power phases does not equal reducing performance.  If  2 better designed power channels can provide the same performance as 3 of the last revisions, then why spend more to get the same?

It is indeed an improvement. 

 

Would you consider it an upgrade if they released a new board with 2 PCIe's each capped at 8x instead of one at 16x?  Different does not automatically equate to misrepresented.

[Akolyte]

What the hell?  This is disturbing and I'm Disgusted.

 

No Dual BIOS and other stuff, they advertise that!

[ZacDaMan72]

It seems that bait-and-switching is starting to become more common these days

[Simons]

As you have already stated, lets hope that this does not become a trend, but overall wouldn't this lead to the consumers moving away from the manufactor, if they keep doing it, and that would lead to them reintroducing ''no removal of features''?

As it makes a quiet noticeable difference, it should never of been removed, without a notification.

[Fate]

It seems that bait-and-switching is starting to become more common these days

Thanks Kingston.

 

As you have already stated, lets hope that this does not become a trend, but overall wouldn't this lead to the consumers moving away from the manufactor, if they keep doing it, and that would lead to them reintroducing ''no removal of features''?

As it makes a quiet noticeable difference, it should never of been removed, without a notification.

Consumers don't care, as seen with the Kingston V300. It's still one of the most rated SSD's on Amazon/Newegg, yet it's possibly the worst SSD on the market.

[Simons]

Well.. Thats what makes the difference between the mainstream consumer and the enthuatiast that check his hardware.

[Faceman]

Not ok.

[SSOB]

Did i mention they even changed the 4 pin to a 3 pin and in some situations the cpu throttles.

Gigabyte:

[Guest]

Read the fine print: 

 

* GIGABYTE reserves the right to make any changes to the product specifications and product-related information without prior notice

 

 

[PerfectTemplar]

It's not misleading in anyway. Gigabyte is doing nothing wrong with this and it isn't their fault that distributors aren't correctly naming the products that they are selling.

It is misleading if it's on their official website and SKUs have not been changed. In most developed nations (Not the United States) there are consumer rights that protect you from this bullshit. You would have grounds for a refund or a replacement of the item you ordered with listed specifications.