discussion Gigabyte Z68XP-UD5 Motherboard Review Comment Thread

[SKYMTL]

With Sandy Bridge processors becoming all the rage, motherboard manufacturers have had to step up their game in the face of mounting competition. Gigabyte may have a horrifyingly confusing lineup which consists of no fewer than 20 different Z68 models but their Z68XP-UD5 seems to have what it takes to stand apart from many other Sandy Bridge supporting products. It may be on the expensive side of the fence but this board can overclock like no one's business and has a long list of appealing features.

Read more here: http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...te-z68xp-ud5-lga-1155-motherboard-review.html

 

[keto]

"Dynamic Vcore (DVID) is greyed out in the shot above but you can adjust this instead of Vcore if you set Vcore to Standard."

I will make an assumption that this function of the bios is the same as on my Z68X-UD3H-B3. People may also want to know that, set to Standard, vcore cannot be adjusted - you are at the mercy of what the system decides to give you. Near as I can tell on mine, the bios adjusts the vcore based on a calculation that includes the system speed/multi setting. I consider it a failing on their part that you cannot use LLC and DVID at the same time (as you can with ASUS and others). I have read elsewhere that Gigabyte have stated they have no intention of implementing the ability to use both at the same time. I am aware that on some 67/68 boards there are bios versions where both are enabled, so I'm not sure what to believe.

Like this reviewed Gigabyte, mine is very stable. I use LLC level 5 at 4.8 on a 2500K. My issue is that, at idle, vcore is .050v higher than under load (1.428 vs 1.476, to be exact)...this happens regardless what level LLC I use, and that I why I would like the ability to also use DVID for offset. The auto function will provide me with enough voltage for 4.5 but not enough for 4.8 - I need .200 of offset at that point, and my system will not boot at that setting.

I have no long term beef with Gigabyte, my previous 2 high end systems are still running today on Gigabyte boards after many years of trouble free service. I just think their implementation in this case, if they care to cater to overclockers as we know they do, is flawed.

Cheers.

 

[bradleyg5]

truly ugly software and BIOS

So really there is like Zero difference in overclocking potential with more phases? Like in theory it means higher voltages will be more stable? But it never seems to translate into letting you run the chips at lesser voltages.

 

[SKYMTL]

Honestly, you MAY see a difference when moving to extreme levels of cooling but for 24/7 overclocks, I really don't think more phases will do a lick of difference.

On the flip side of that coin though, there is a thin line between enough phases and not enough. When the first Phenoms were released, lower-end AM2 boards had power phases blowing left, right and center since the chips pulled too much juice and the PWM just couldn't handle it.

 

[Eldonko]

More phases dont allow you to run a chip at lower voltages than less phases. More phases give a lower VRM temperature and provide better efficiency. For someone running a 24/7 oc they wouldnt see much of a difference between say a ud4 and ud5 but dropping down to a ud3 you will be working the vrm quite a bit harder. I think the main benefit of more phases is when you are doing benching runs where you are using 1.6v and more. If you run a long bench that loads the system like 3dmark and such the extra phases help a lot to balance out the power and reduce strain on the VRM.

So really there is like Zero difference in overclocking potential with more phases? Like in theory it means higher voltages will be more stable? But it never seems to translate into letting you run the chips at lesser voltages.