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

[mgutierrez33]

While it may be true that they reserve the right to not OPENLY announce these changes, and yes they may be listed on the product splash page, the fact that it's done as quietly as it is gives cause for concern.  Plus it stipulates PRIOR concern, which I believe refers to giving people a "heads-up" that the change is occurring.  Of course I could be wrong on that one, but that's how I interpret that bit of legal schtick.  Not personally a fan of Gigabyte lately anyway, but this isn't surprising.  Those are some pretty meaningfully important changes, too...

[GoodBytes]

It is miss leading when it goes against the consumer.

But I always check the manufacture website for official specs of the hardware at the revision currently sold on the market.

And if it's not what you ordered.. well return it. Sure it may cost you shipping, but then retailer will understand the important for them to mark the revision, or complain to thw manufacture, where the retail store will simply say: "We won't sale your product if you don't fix it, we have too many returns". The manufacture has no choice, as not only they get blasted with returns (so they make no money), but also retail stores will ban their products. When you have Amazon, Newegg, NCIX saying they won't sale their product due to the high return rate, it really hurts.

[Silent_Xaxal]

Time to call a shitstorm on Gigabyte?

[TheMcSame]

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.

Doesn't matter if it has the same SKU or not, Gigabyte clearly states what revision it is one their site, regardless of whether it has the same SKU as the previous one or not, it's got nothing to do with them. I'm not saying you guys are wrong, I'm just saying that Gigabyte isn't the one that's misleading people. 

[Liam-McShane]

Doesn't matter if it has the same SKU or not, Gigabyte clearly states what revision it is one their site, regardless of whether it has the same SKU as the previous one or not, it's got nothing to do with them. I'm not saying you guys are wrong, I'm just saying that Gigabyte isn't the one that's misleading people. 

Yes they are. The seller has no way of knowing which revision the boards are without opening the packaging and finding the "Rev1.x" written on it. If they had to do that everything they sold would have to be classed as open box.

[PerfectTemplar]

Yes they are. The seller has no way of knowing which revision the boards are without opening the packaging and finding the "Rev1.x" written on it. If they had to do that everything they sold would have to be classed as open box.

Exactly. Seems to me Americans have absolutely zero idea about consumer rights and somehow believe that it's OK to be shat on all over by these companies.

[SmokingCrop]

Anyone defending GigaByte on this is just a fanboy, plain and simple...

This is misleading, they should've just sold it with a different EAN code. If you buy this from the store, you have no idea if you're buying rev1.0 or rev1.1 or ... (unless the shop tells you the rev version)

 

What I'd like to know is: are other motherboard manufacturers doing the same? Selling a worse product as the same product (same EAN) with a different revision number? (making a better one, is good of course but still fishy if it's the same ean code..)

 

There are a lot of changes on the GA-BM85-HD3 board..

PS: I have 2 Gigabyte motherboards myself (checked them and they are both rev 1.0) and happy with them. But I'm probably going to buy another brand when I need one in the future.. one does not mislead a customer.

[Qwertious]

same features but different revisions i dont see whats wrong...

 

kinda like the Xbox 360 being sold as the same but different process nodes

[Toddwjp]

same features but different revisions i dont see whats wrong...

kinda like the Xbox 360 being sold as the same but different process nodes

One of the boards no longer has 2 bios chips, only 1, that's a downgrade, and as you cannot tell the rev number from the box and ot has the same product number shops have no way of telling you what revision your getting

[TheMcSame]

Yes they are. The seller has no way of knowing which revision the boards are without opening the packaging and finding the "Rev1.x" written on it. If they had to do that everything they sold would have to be classed as open box.

 

 

No they aren't. The store knows exactly what they are buying form Gigabyte but the store refuses to name them correctly

 

Exactly. Seems to me Americans have absolutely zero idea about consumer rights and somehow believe that it's OK to be shat on all over by these companies.

Insult Americans all you want, I'm sure it'll make you very popular.

 

Anyone defending GigaByte on this is just a fanboy, plain and simple...

Keep telling yourself that. A fanboy doesn't have a signature with a link to a thread that lets people know why they distrust them. Is it a shitty move from Gigabyte? Yes, but it isn't their fault that stores aren't naming their products correctly. 

 

 

Besides, it's not like the different revisions make a big difference anyway. If it was like what Kingston with the V300 then I'd agree with you guys but Gigabyte specifically mentions which revision the board is. Hell, they put  the product name on the side of the master carton that distributors get, the distributors know which revision the boards are.

 

Stores not correctly naming products on their shelves/websites =/= Gigabyte doing a bait and switch.

[Qwertious]

One of the boards no longer has 2 bios chips, only 1, that's a downgrade, and as you cannot tell the rev number from the box and ot has the same product number shops have no way of telling you what revision your getting

 

o lol... thats bad then haha

[Birdhunter]

I can see a downgrade if the first revision is over-engineered and has features / components that are unnecessary and just raise the price. However:

Not communicating those changes to resellers and customers is misleading and should be illegal, or at least be punished/fined (not necessarily by authoties).

[Liam-McShane]

No they aren't. The store knows exactly what they are buying form Gigabyte but the store refuses to name them correctly

 

 

No they don't know as the SKU number is the same. It will still scan on their systems as a rev 1

[Simons]

It surely makes you read the description of features next time even more, and actually checking when you recieve the board, if it similiar with the one onto the websites.

[LAwLz]

Wow you guys disappoint me.

This is unacceptable. Since when was it acceptable to release an inferior product under the same name? I am pretty sure people got very upset when Kingston switched the NAND in some SSD to NAND with far worse performance. Why not get upset when Gigabyte removes features like dual BIOS and possible change to a worse power design on their board?

If they want to make major changes to the board then how about calling it something else? Yeah I know, I must be crazy to even come up with the idea of naming different products different things. You don't release a product and market it as having a bunch of things, then silently release a newer version which removes some of those features, which still keeping the same name on the product.

 

Imagine if AMD or Nvidia would do this. Imagine if AMD made a revision to the 290X that made it perform like the 290. Would you people still be saying the same things? "Just return it if you don't like it". "Different does not equate to misrepresented". "It's the distributors fault".

Not sure about you but I would think that was just as unacceptable as Gigabyte doing this.

 

I am getting pretty tired of people defending companies that do things that hurt consumers. Good companies should be honest and value their customers. This is clearly the exact opposite of that. Gigabyte is being dishonest, and they are willing to throw their customers under the bus if it means making a bit more money. Nobody should defend those kinds of actions, ever.

 

Also, I am not sure how many people actually read the article before jumping in to defend Gigabyte, but some of the differences are NOT listed on their website. So when they make downgrade to some boards they sometimes don't actually list all the downgrades on the official site. In those cases, it doesn't even matter if you're very cautious, contacts your retailer and asks which revision of the board you will get and then double check the specifications on Gigabytes own website, you will still end up with the wrong information.

[SmokingCrop]

No they aren't. The store knows exactly what they are buying form Gigabyte but the store refuses to name them correctly

Is it a shitty move from Gigabyte? Yes, but it isn't their fault that stores aren't naming their products correctly. 

 

Besides, it's not like the different revisions make a big difference anyway. 

 

Stores not correctly naming products on their shelves/websites =/= Gigabyte doing a bait and switch.

 

• They don't know that it is a different one, it has the same EAN/SKU code. Or would you check every part you sell in your shop with thousands and thousand of items?

 

• Why are you defending a shitty move from a company you don't trust? Makes no sense. It would make more sense if you added this thread as another reason why you don't trust them..

 

• It does differ a lot..

•  no Dual Bios anymore
• 4 phase PWM controller is now a 3 phase PWM controller
• Ampere rating mosfets went from 69A to 52A
• Mosfets/gate drivers per phase went from 3 per phase to 2 per phase
• Gate drivers per phase went from max 4 to max 2
• Different Turbo-settings -> e.g. an i7 4770K will turbo to 3,9Ghz on all cores in Rev 1.0  and it will turbo to 3,9Ghz on the first core and 3,7Ghz on the other cores in Rev 2.0
• also this:

"As it turns out, the 4770K CPU on the Rev 2.0 board throttles to 800MHz after about 2.5 minutes of Prime 95. Using an infrared thermometer we measured the mosfet temperatures, which turned out to be 112 ºC. With the board set manually to a more agressive turbo (i.e. the Rev 1.0 default setting) the CPU throttles after merely 15 seconds to 800 MHz.

The Rev 1.0 board using standard settings (so with the agressive turbo) also throttles back, but only after about 3 minutes, i.e. 12 times later than the Rev 2.0. At that time the highest mosfet temperature we measured is about 100 ºC. With the Rev 1.0 set manually to Intel's default Turbo settings (i.e. the Rev 2.0 default) the CPU stays consistently at its maximum speed of 3.7 GHz without any throttling whatsoever, not even after running Prime95 for over an hour. The mosfet temperature in that test didn't go higher than 90 ºC."

 

• and this:

"The significantly higher temperature of the components in the CPU power supply and the unbalanced load over the mosfets in the Rev 2.0 board make it likely that the new revision won't last as long as the Rev 1.0, even though we cannot prove that using this test. What we can demonstrate beyond any doubt is that the CPU power supply of the Rev 2.0 board is not up to the task, even for normal consumer workloads"

 

 

In other news, one of the guys at hardware.info (dutch) commented that he contacted Asus and MSI and they responded that they do not do this.

They say that if they change something big as changing/removing chips - decreasing the amount of phases - decrease the amount of layers of the motherboard - etc, it'll get a new product code & ean code.

 

Beware though, it may still happen with asus and msi as well. Although the guys that update the price comparison database confirm this.

[LAwLz]

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.

But the 2 phase design is not as good as the 3 phase one. In the case of the B85M-HD3 there is a huge difference.

First of all, the 2 phase design is rated for far lower amperage. 52A instead of 69A.

Secondly, the default turbo setting in the BIOS has been changed because the new, worse power phase design can't handle as much stress and produces more heat.

 

 

It even starts throttling with the default settings for crying out loud. The new power design is far worse than the rev 1 design. It can't handle the default settings and the load balancing on the power phases is awful, which means it will wear out far quicker.

 

I am really disappointed by your post. I don't know if OP has edited it since you posted but if he hasn't then you really should have looked into it before opening your mouth and defending Gigabyte.

[The Crazed Child]

shitty move, I expected better from Gigabyte

[Sauron]

Lol! They completely butchered it

[Akolyte]

 

Yes, they are different.  But if one of them lacks dualbios, why do they both say dualbios on them??? Is gigabyte being naughty?

 

 

Lol! They completely butchered it

I was going to use that motherboard in my customer's build.  Luckily I picked a different one. 

[Linemi]

Untitled.png

 

Yes, they are different.  But if one of them lacks dualbios, why do they both say dualbios on them??? Is gigabyte being naughty?

 

 

I was going to use that motherboard in my customer's build.  Luckily I picked a different one. 

You're mixing up the 2 discussed boards. The dual BIOS issue is about the B85M-D2V and the performance issue is about the B85M-HD3.

[mr moose]

But the 2 phase design is not as good as the 3 phase one. In the case of the B85M-HD3 there is a huge difference.

First of all, the 2 phase design is rated for far lower amperage. 52A instead of 69A.

Secondly, the default turbo setting in the BIOS has been changed because the new, worse power phase design can't handle as much stress and produces more heat.

 

 

It even starts throttling with the default settings for crying out loud. The new power design is far worse than the rev 1 design. It can't handle the default settings and the load balancing on the power phases is awful, which means it will wear out far quicker.

Capture.PNG

 

I am really disappointed by your post. I don't know if OP has edited it since you posted but if he hasn't then you really should have looked into it before opening your mouth and defending Gigabyte.

 

 

I understand there is contention over the performance of the power phase design, I did see the throttling comments before I posted and I am willing to concede that.

 

I did however base my consensus on a few things:

 

1. it's a $70 mobo, it's neither designed to push a 4770K to it's limits nor is it an enthusiasts overclocking board.

2. regardless of CPU throttling the actual test results between revisions where pretty close considering neither rev. is advertised as being overclockable.

3. So long as it all operates within spec the number of phases shouldn't matter.

 

The article seems to go out of it's way to crucify what is essentially an entry level product.  By their own admission they were biased because they don't like the way Gigabyte manage their product codes.

[SmokingCrop]

I understand there is contention over the performance of the power phase design, I did see the throttling comments before I posted and I am willing to concede that.

 

I did however base my consensus on a few things:

 

1. it's a $70 mobo, it's neither designed to push a 4770K to it's limits nor is it an enthusiasts overclocking board.

2. regardless of CPU throttling the actual test results between revisions where pretty close considering neither rev. is advertised as being overclockable.

3. So long as it all operates within spec the number of phases shouldn't matter.

 

 

 

The 4770K was not overclocked. It was just running at 100% load in Prime95.

rev 1.0 with Intel Turbo did not throttle after 1 hour of Prime95, the rev 2.0 throttled after 2,5 minutes with Intel Turbo!!

 

The mosfet temperatures were quite different as well, rev 1.0 with Intel Turbo was around 90°C, while rev 2.0 with Intel Turbo was 106-112°C...

=> probably bad for longevity.

 

 By their own admission they were biased because they don't like the way Gigabyte manage their product codes.

 

That's the whole point of why this is bad... It would've been fine if they made it a new ean code, but instead sell both revisions as the same motherboard. 

Which makes it a luck of the draw..

 

 

I seriously don't understand why people are talking this shitty move right... If enough people complain about bad things like this, the companies will not do it anymore!

Now it's like: "if they do this without us knowing, what else are they doing?"

[mr moose]

The 4770K was not overclocked. It was just running at 100% load in Prime95.

rev 1.0 with Intel Turbo did not throttle after 1 hour of Prime95, the rev 2.0 throttled after 2,5 minutes with Intel Turbo!!

 

The mosfet temperatures were quite different as well, rev 1.0 with Intel Turbo was around 90°C, while rev 2.0 with Intel Turbo was 106-112°C...

=> probably bad for longevity.

 

 

That's the whole point of why this is bad... It would've been fine if they made it a new ean code, but instead sell both revisions as the same motherboard. 

Which makes it a luck of the draw..

 

 

I seriously don't understand why people are talking this shitty move right... If enough people complain about bad things like this, the companies will not do it anymore!

Now it's like: "if they do this without us knowing, what else are they doing?"

 

I get that, I just don't consider it shitty,  I consider that par for the course and how all product lines are managed.   If you don't like the next revision because the features then don't buy it. Why would you even consider a board like this if you where looking to push a 4770K to it's limit anyway? 

[SmokingCrop]

I get that, I just don't consider it shitty,  I consider that par for the course and how all product lines are managed.   If you don't like the next revision because the features then don't buy it. Why would you even consider a board like this if you where looking to push a 4770K to it's limit anyway? 

 

To "shave" some money?

The problem is that they made it worse and put the same ean code/tag on it.

 

Stop putting the blame with the customers..