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

[mr moose]

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.. 

 

I think you will find it doesn't matter if you are buying a shock absorber, motherboard or a pump for the washing machine, the EAN numbers stay the same on many products while the features and details change with each revision.  this is the way it has been for some time. There are some good reasons companies do this, E.G when you need a replacement part you need the EAN to be the same so any replacement part or return is compatible. 

 

It's not blaming the consumer, if the consumer couldn't be arsed checking the rev. then they probably don't care.

[LAwLz]

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.

1) The price point should not matter. Changing a product to be worse, yet keep selling the product under the same name and product code is bad.

2) The 4770K was not being "pushed to it's limits". It could not even handle the 4770K on the default settings. Changes are it won't be able to handle the i5-4670 either.

 

 

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

Again, no overclocking was done in the test. The MSOFETs could not handle the power delivery needed to run the CPU at stock settings.

The test results are not comparable either. Throttling down to 800MHz when encoding a video after 6 minutes when the rev 1 could keep the board at a higher frequency without throttling is not a minor thing.

 

 

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

What do you even mean? The specifications for the revised board is far lower and has big issues such as uneven load and overheating.

 

 

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.

Ad hominem.

I really expected better from you moose.

 

 

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? 

No this is not par for the course and even if it was it still doesn't excuse shitty behavior. Revision products is common. Revision products and lower the specifications to the point where the product becomes unusable even under normal operation, and keeping the same product code is not common.

Even if we go along with your bullshit that this is common practice for motherboard manufacturers, how does that make it okay? Slavery was common practice at one time as well, did that make it totally acceptable? Obviously slavery is far worse but my point is that just because a lot of people are doing the same bad deed doesn't mean it is any less bad to do.

 

 

Why would you even consider a board like this if you where looking to push a 4770K to it's limit anyway? 

Why do you keep saying "push a 4770K to it's limit"? They were running it on stock settings. Can you honestly say that you did read the article before jumping in to blindly defend Gigabyte's bad business practice? I don't think you did. Either you didn't or you're strawmanning.

[mr moose]

1) The price point should not matter. Changing a product to be worse, yet keep selling the product under the same name and product code is bad.

2) The 4770K was not being "pushed to it's limits". It could not even handle the 4770K on the default settings. Changes are it won't be able to handle the i5-4670 either.

 

 

Again, no overclocking was done in the test. The MSOFETs could not handle the power delivery needed to run the CPU at stock settings.

The test results are not comparable either. Throttling down to 800MHz when encoding a video after 6 minutes when the rev 1 could keep the board at a higher frequency without throttling is not a minor thing.

 

 

What do you even mean? The specifications for the revised board is far lower and has big issues such as uneven load and overheating.

 

 

Ad hominem.

I really expected better from you moose.

 

 

No this is not par for the course and even if it was it still doesn't excuse shitty behavior. Revision products is common. Revision products and lower the specifications to the point where the product becomes unusable even under normal operation, and keeping the same product code is not common.

Even if we go along with your bullshit that this is common practice for motherboard manufacturers, how does that make it okay? Slavery was common practice at one time as well, did that make it totally acceptable? Obviously slavery is far worse but my point is that just because a lot of people are doing the same bad deed doesn't mean it is any less bad to do.

 

 

Why do you keep saying "push a 4770K to it's limit"? They were running it on stock settings. Can you honestly say that you did read the article before jumping in to blindly defend Gigabyte's bad business practice? I don't think you did. Either you didn't or you're strawmanning.

 

Is pushing a CPU to 100% load with turbo on not pushing the CPU as far as it can go?

[SmokingCrop]

I think you will find it doesn't matter if you are buying a shock absorber, motherboard or a pump for the washing machine, the EAN numbers stay the same on many products while the features and details change with each revision.  this is the way it has been for some time. There are some good reasons companies do this, E.G when you need a replacement part you need the EAN to be the same so any replacement part or return is compatible. 

 

It's not blaming the consumer, if the consumer couldn't be arsed checking the rev. then they probably don't care.

 

I often add new products and revisions to a popular dutch price comparison database (tweakers.net) and what you say is simply not true If there are relatively big changes to a product like what happened with these motherboards, it gets a new ean/SKU code and gets launched as V2 instead of a revision.

 

For example the 

• MSI B85M-P33 => EAN: 0816909107081, 4719072295646

• MSI B85M-P33 V2 => EAN: 0824142015766, 4719072312039

[mr moose]

snip

 

 

snip

 

Given I appear to be wrong on too much in this topic I am bowing out.  I still hold that it isn't bad business practice though, but that's just my experience.

[LAwLz]

Is pushing a CPU to 100% load with turbo on not pushing the CPU as far as it can go?

Nope

Pushing it to 100% load is what I'd call just regular operation. Overclocking it would be "pushing it as far as it can go".

 

What's next, I should expect my RAM to corrupt my data if I actually dare to use all 8GB of it?

I should expect my GPU to throttle all the way down to a few MHz if I get 100% load for 6 minutes while gaming (which happens quite often)?

I should expect my SSD to overheat if I simply transfer a big file to/from it?

 

If you buy a product you should at the very least expect it to actually function properly under normal operation (yes transcoding a video is normal operation). If they were overclocking it before running into issues then I could kind of forgive them, but this is running into issues with the out-of-the-box configuration. On top of that, the out-of-the-box configuration is worse than the rev 1 version.

 

 

 

Given I appear to be wrong on too much in this topic I am bowing out.  I still hold that it isn't bad business practice though, but that's just my experience.

I applaud you for that but I just don't get how you can think of this as being acceptable business practice. Remember, just because a lot of companies does it (which I'd argue they don't, at least not in the PC space) doesn't mean it should be defended. Owning slaves used to be common, but it didn't make it any less horrible.

You don't have to defend your opinion or anything but personally I find this kind of thing appalling.

[Mo5]

The text has a different layout

[mr moose]

 

I applaud you for that but I just don't get how you can think of this as being acceptable business practice. Remember, just because a lot of companies does it (which I'd argue they don't, at least not in the PC space) doesn't mean it should be defended. Owning slaves used to be common, but it didn't make it any less horrible.

You don't have to defend your opinion or anything but personally I find this kind of thing appalling.

 

It's common in a lot of other fields for sure,  lots of minor changes in things like replacement parts and stuff, especially when they discover the bearings aren't good enough or the plastic is weak, or my favorite, when they took asbestos out of brake pads.  Lots of revisions that make the products change in quality but they can't change the EAN or else people would be buying the wrong parts and returns would be a nightmare to handle.

[LAwLz]

It's common in a lot of other fields for sure,  lots of minor changes in things like replacement parts and stuff, especially when they discover the bearings aren't good enough or the plastic is weak, or my favorite, when they took asbestos out of brake pads.  Lots of revisions that make the products change in quality but they can't change the EAN or else people would be buying the wrong parts and returns would be a nightmare to handle.

That logic doesn't work on PC parts though, and most examples you bring up makes the products better. In this case they made the product so bad it can't even operate under normal scenarios with the default configurations.

[mr moose]

That logic doesn't work on PC parts though, and most examples you bring up makes the products better. In this case they made the product so bad it can't even operate under normal scenarios with the default configurations.

Oh no, the brake pads were definitely worse, better for our health, but shit house on the road. for about a decade there was a constant slew of shitty then good then shitty pads coming out as they tried to perfect an asbestos free pad.

 

I have also just replaced a hose on my dishwasher and the replacement pipe was crap.  Hence why I will not buy that brand again even though last time it was fine (unless I can find old stock). 

[LAwLz]

Oh no, the brake pads were definitely worse, better for our health, but shit house on the road. for about a decade there was a constant slew of shitty then good then shitty pads coming out as they tried to perfect an asbestos free pad.

 

I have also just replaced a hose on my dishwasher and the replacement pipe was crap.  Hence why I will not buy that brand again even though last time it was fine (unless I can find old stock). 

So you acknowledge that it is a problem, but you are still okay with it? Not just okay with it, but will actively defend companies who does it?

Why defend a company who is trying to screw you over?

 

I encourage @Victorious Secret and @Colonel_Gerdauf to join the conversation as well because to me it makes absolutely no sense.

[NumLock21]

Not sure what that article is taking about, both boards have dual bios. Both of them have the bios chip at the bottom right of the board.

And here are some of the visual differences between the two boards. The text has been moved around, but that isn't important.

 

[Diederik_Gr]

I know that Asus also makes revisions of mobo's, but i can not find any article over decreasing the quality, even seems like they improve some things with revisions. I might be wrong, so feel free to correct me if what i said isn't correct.

This is just pathetic from Gigabyte, but not the first time it happens, and not the only company on this either.

[LAwLz]

Not sure what that article is taking about, both boards have dual bios. Both of them have the bios chip at the bottom right of the board.

And I've pointed out some of the visual difference I've seen between the two boards. The text has been moved around, but that isn't important.

 

<picture>

The dual BIOS is gone on the GA-B85M-D2V.

As you can see on their site, the rev. 1.1 says "GIGABYTE UEFI DualBIOS" with the other (in pretty much the same place on the site) says "GIGABYTE UEFI BIOS".

 

The picture you posted is of the B85M-HD3, which is the one where they shat on the power delivery.

[Yoinkerman]

Changing for the better is good. Changing for the worse and calling it the same had better be more transparent than a simple Rev number change on the board itself.

[SSOB]

 

Read the fine print: 

 

 

 

As said in the article and even in my post. Yes they can legally get away with it. Is it a good thing to do, of course not. It's very disturbing IMO. 

[LAwLz]

Read the fine print:

Just because they have a tiny disclaimer on their site doesn't make it okay. Legally they might be allowed to do it but ethically they should not.

I mean, if Samsung stopped using V-NAND in the 850 SSDs would you be saying the same thing? I can honestly say I would be saying the same thing, and I am saying that Gigabyte should fuck off with their scummy tactics.

Anyway this is a repost. I am glad to see that people in this thread are upset. In the other thread the response was basically "Gigabyte did nothing wrong. I love when companies take huge shits on me and are scumbags".

[TwistedDictator]

Low end mobos in the first place I'm just glad it wasn't on their overclock or gaming series.

 

Dont know why people are crying... Unless they only read the title lol Its make sense as low end mobos are not even recommended to overclock with.

 

When your on a budget you should do your homework like the fine people in this article did so you don't end up paying for cheap underperforming garbage. Get the most for your money.


Also these low end mobos don't need a trillion vrm phases in the first place, chances are you weren't gonna go far overclocking on them anyways

[mr moose]

So you acknowledge that it is a problem, but you are still okay with it? Not just okay with it, but will actively defend companies who does it?

Why defend a company who is trying to screw you over?

 

I encourage @Victorious Secret and @Colonel_Gerdauf to join the conversation as well because to me it makes absolutely no sense.

 

I acknowledge that that is the way it is,  Again to me the EAN numbers have to remain the same or there can be costly confusion when ordering replacement parts.  I don't see it a s a problem because now I know REV 2 is shit I'll avoid it, just like I will avoid the plastic hose.  If I can't find an earlier version then I will try a different brand or generic part.  The problem in this case is not that the EAN are the same, but that the product is shit.

 

Victorious and colonel Gerdauf will probably berate me for being an idiot.

[GoodBytes]

Ok Guys. I think it is the retailer fault.

I check the box of my Gigabyte X58A-UD5 motherboard, and it states on the label on the side of the box that it is revision 2.0

[Ren]

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.

Pretty sure the revision is listed directly on the motherboard for Gigabyte.

*Cough*

This is a Z97 board but this little doodle of info at the corner there has been around for a long, long time.

Yeahh, you can find out what you're getting quite easily but you should be yelling at the retailer and not Gigabyte for poor labeling. Whether or not features are added or removed is subject to the manufacturer, as in they dictate what they want to sell to you. You buy what you need, you complain if they are listing features that aren't there anymore. Make sure you go to the manufacturer's website if you actually want to be sure.

Most revisions - if not all, never heard of a worse revision - are to swap out faulty or poor-quality bs. If the motherboard is doomed for failure (MSi has had many of these in the past), then it'll be discontinued and either refreshed or completely replaced. Most of the time mobos are just replaced or stacked out and refreshed on a new platform.

[SmokingCrop]

I acknowledge that that is the way it is,  Again to me the EAN numbers have to remain the same or there can be costly confusion when ordering replacement parts.  I don't see it a s a problem because now I know REV 2 is shit I'll avoid it, just like I will avoid the plastic hose.  If I can't find an earlier version then I will try a different brand or generic part.  The problem in this case is not that the EAN are the same, but that the product is shit.

 

Victorious and colonel Gerdauf will probably berate me for being an idiot.

What on earth would you replace on the motherboard then? You just replace it all together.. You can't compare a motherboard to a plastic hose or a washing machine or whatever..

Just give it another ean code.. a lot of motherboards already have multiple ean codes for the same product.. It's not a big deal.

 

The problem IS that the ean code is the same... as a customer you haven't got a clue what you're getting because it's labeled as the same product (with a different rev. number). 

This leads to shops having both 1.0 and 1.1 versions in stock and selling them as the same motherboard.

 

You can't expect shops to check all motherboards that come in to see if it's a different revisioned model. For one because it's just not necessary as revisions are supposed to make the product better. In order to know if it's better or not, they'd have to test the actual motherboard.. and revisions are usually just very minor adjustments.

On top of that, most medium+ sized webshops use databases (with the product, p-code, information etc) made by other companies as for what they are selling. That's another level of difficulties with something like this.

 

Easy solution would've been that Gigabyte released this so called "revision" (It's clearly more than a typical revision) as new version (V2) with new productcodes etc.

Then this would've never been a thing.

[mr moose]

 

The problem IS that the ean code is the same... as a customer you haven't got a clue what you're getting because it's labeled as the same product

 

You can't expect shops to check all motherboards that come in to see if it's a different revisioned model.

 

Yes I can, I ask them to ensure its the rev. I want or I don't buy it.  I don't know what the retailers are like in your part of the world but where I am the consumer has a right to not only return something but demand any replacement part be identical.   That is the retailers responsibility. 

[SmokingCrop]

Yes I can, I ask them to ensure its the rev. I want or I don't buy it.  I don't know what the retailers are like in your part of the world but where I am the consumer has a right to not only return something but demand any replacement part be identical.   That is the retailers responsibility. 

 

Yes, you could ask the shop and you could send it back as well but why?

Because Gigabyte didn't change the ean code.

and you demand the replacement part to be identical? It's the same ean code so it's the exact same product. (they don't care about revisions, "it's the same product"!)

 

but whatever, we both made our points clear I guess 

[spartaman64]

Low end mobos in the first place I'm just glad it wasn't on their overclock or gaming series.

 

Dont know why people are crying... Unless they only read the title lol Its make sense as low end mobos are not even recommended to overclock with.

 

When your on a budget you should do your homework like the fine people in this article did so you don't end up paying for cheap underperforming garbage. Get the most for your money.

Also these low end mobos don't need a trillion vrm phases in the first place, chances are you weren't gonna go far overclocking on them anyways

whats stopping them from doing it with high end motherboards also