X58 In 2010: Four LGA 1366 Boards With USB 3.0 And SATA 6Gb/s

[youssef 2010]

[citation][nom]Crashman[/nom]2 things: Getting a historic overclocking record, and...someone else was using the Gulftown.[/citation]

Good point

 

[vic20]

I built a few i7 rack mount video capture machines using X58A-UD3Rs for a firm that captures battle simulations for the military. Been excellent so far, especially considering they are sitting in a rail car on a flat deck Mercedes truck going offroad.

The Gigabyte is a great buy. Go ahead and vote me down for calling the ASRock boards crap, based on real world experiences. Whatever

 

[blacksun]

Crashman, if we would like to go 2 GTX480 SLI configuration, which M/B's layout is best for 2 PCIex16 config. & best for airflow?

 

[Crashman]

[citation][nom]blacksun[/nom]Crashman, if we would like to go 2 GTX480 SLI configuration, which M/B's layout is best for 2 PCIex16 config. & best for airflow?[/citation]

Unfortunately, all Gigabyte and most Asus boards are lame when it comes to card spacing for two graphics cards. Asus has a couple "WS" series boards, plus the Rampage III Extreme, that allow the cards to be spaced farther apart without reverting to x8 mode.

Beyond that, there are some old models from several manufacturers (but not Gigabyte) that have the slots spaced differently. You really want TWO cards to be spaced THREE slots apart, to get the extra airflow between them.

 

[blacksun]

What do you think about X58 Extreme3 for this kind of configuration?

 

[Guest]

where's the 1.52 bios? can't find it on the net... any help appreciated

 

[Crashman]

[citation][nom]blacksun[/nom]What do you think about X58 Extreme3 for this kind of configuration?[/citation]
Perhaps. My experience with the board tells me that it was already at the bleeding edge of overclocking capability however, and I'd like to keep a little in reserve at the same speed.
[citation][nom]ayoli[/nom]where's the 1.52 bios? can't find it on the net... any help appreciated[/citation]The board was tested using 1.40 BIOS. You'll only need the 1.52 BIOS if you plan to disable the USB 3.0 or SATA 6Gb/s controllers.

 

[Henri Brands]

O bought Gigabyte’s X58A-UD3R 6 weeks ago and I am very happy with it. And I am happy to see that Tom is happy with it to....
One curious thing: my WD My Book 500 GB external HD won't work with the e-SATA connection. Do I have to look for special drivers? I cannot find information about this issue.

 

[neiroatopelcc]

[citation][nom]Henri Brands[/nom]O bought Gigabyte’s X58A-UD3R 6 weeks ago and I am very happy with it. And I am happy to see that Tom is happy with it to....One curious thing: my WD My Book 500 GB external HD won't work with the e-SATA connection. Do I have to look for special drivers? I cannot find information about this issue.[/citation]

Think you should ask in the regular forums instead of in talkback, but anyway here goes some suggestions:

a) check that your esata controller is set to ahci in the bios
b) check if it exists in the device manager and doesn't have some exclamation mark (devmgmt.msc in run or search depending on windows version)
c) check that the drive isn't simply foreign and needs approval to work in your windows (diskmgmt.msc)
d) check it in another system or using usb

I ofcourse assume you've checked cabling etc.

 

[Henri Brands]

@neiroatopelcc;

Thank you for your tips. I will try them out.
Cabling is correct and My Book runs OK with Firewire and USB connection.
BTW: I am not so familiar with forums.

 

[Guest]

Tom's Hardware question: Regarding review.
There is an important featue of these boards that you have left out.
1 big question. ASROCK advertises as a benfit that the usb3-sata6-x16(x2) all run at full speed at the same time while others do not run full speed with all 3 running. If this is true of these boards this is a big part of the review left out. Please update: do these boards run usb3-sata6-x16 at full speed at same time or are some of these boards limiting speed if attempting to use features at same time. Gigabyte and asus are not mentioning this at all so i figure even this is a featue they dont want to mention or that all these x58 boards run at full speed which is it . thanks

 

[Crashman]

[citation][nom]eagle1967[/nom]Tom's Hardware question: Regarding review.There is an important featue of these boards that you have left out.1 big question. ASROCK advertises as a benfit that the usb3-sata6-x16(x2) all run at full speed at the same time while others do not run full speed with all 3 running. If this is true of these boards this is a big part of the review left out. Please update: do these boards run usb3-sata6-x16 at full speed at same time or are some of these boards limiting speed if attempting to use features at same time. Gigabyte and asus are not mentioning this at all so i figure even this is a featue they dont want to mention or that all these x58 boards run at full speed which is it . thanks[/citation]Wow, that sounds like ASRock is comparing its X58 board to the P55 boards of other companies, doesn't it? The Asus and Gigabyte boards both get one 5.0 Gb/s lane per high-speed controller, just like ASRock.

 

[neiroatopelcc]

Could asrock be using an nvidia bridge to split the bandwidth more appropriately? (or does it only work on graphics cards) if not, most definetly some marketing cheating.

 

[Crashman]

[citation][nom]neiroatopelcc[/nom]Could asrock be using an nvidia bridge to split the bandwidth more appropriately? (or does it only work on graphics cards) if not, most definetly some marketing cheating.[/citation]
No, they have no bridge, and I cannot think of any way that routing a single PCIe 2.0 lane through a bridge would help. They are most likely comparing their X58 motherboards to someone else's P55 motherboards.

 

[neiroatopelcc]

[citation][nom]Crashman[/nom]No, they have no bridge, and I cannot think of any way that routing a single PCIe 2.0 lane through a bridge would help. They are most likely comparing their X58 motherboards to someone else's P55 motherboards.[/citation]
No but what if they were to run a pciex16 slot thru a bridge and attach some of the other controllers to the bridge too?
Granted, if they have no bridge, they're probably cheating, but I see no reason why they couldn't add on. Asrock often does odd things

 

[Crashman]

[citation][nom]neiroatopelcc[/nom]No but what if they were to run a pciex16 slot thru a bridge and attach some of the other controllers to the bridge too? Granted, if they have no bridge, they're probably cheating, but I see no reason why they couldn't add on. Asrock often does odd things[/citation]
OK, let me explain this to you: The chipset has 36 PCIe 2.0 lanes, not 32. Each of those controllers uses EXACTLY one PCIe 2.0 lane, and there are two PCIe 2.0 controllers. That means you need EXACTLY two PCIe 2.0 lanes, of which you have four. It's impossible to shove more data into those controllers, because the interface on those controllers is 5.0 Gb/s.

Now do you see why they couldn't add on?

 

[neiroatopelcc]

[citation][nom]Crashman[/nom]OK, let me explain this to you: The chipset has 36 PCIe 2.0 lanes, not 32. Each of those controllers uses EXACTLY one PCIe 2.0 lane, and there are two PCIe 2.0 controllers. That means you need EXACTLY two PCIe 2.0 lanes, of which you have four. It's impossible to shove more data into those controllers, because the interface on those controllers is 5.0 Gb/s.Now do you see why they couldn't add on?[/citation]

Yes I get that part, but maybe I misunderstood the whole point?
Isn't the issue, that not all the onboard junk can be operational at the same time, because of controllers sharing the pathways? Isn't that what asrock claims it has solved? Or is it simply the slowdown measured, that they've claimed to have solved?

 

[Crashman]

[citation][nom]neiroatopelcc[/nom]Yes I get that part, but maybe I misunderstood the whole point?Isn't the issue, that not all the onboard junk can be operational at the same time, because of controllers sharing the pathways? Isn't that what asrock claims it has solved? Or is it simply the slowdown measured, that they've claimed to have solved?[/citation]No, the devices are not sharing pathways, there are 36 unshared PCIe 2.0 pathways on the X58 northbridge. What I'm saying is that the burden of proof is ASRock's, because there is no logic behind any such claim without that added proof.

 

[Guest]

Sorry didnt mean to get a war going. Although I dont believe anyone from tom's or anyone that has actually run any tests of these boards has chipped in!... I have found that although they continue with x58 to call it true 333 seeming to hint that not all are. the video i mentioned is actually an asrock p55 board that was doing this. they did it by adding an extra chip to up the expess lanes on their p55 board that are now available on the x58 boards. So Although i would like someone that has these boards to confirm there are no limitations with any of them I believe the video refered to p55 because they were acutally doing something other p55 boards were not.


After reading benchmarks,reviews (newegg,toms,others) I find the largest problem with asrock is only a 1 warranty , the other boards i find biggest problem to be placement of expansion card slots. Warranty may be a problem not being able to use any other expansion slots if you run sli/crossfire is a definate problem. after reviews of amd x6 im definatley going with i7 930(can get for $199 at microcomputers) the 3 boards here are definatley the only ones worth purchasing and with what i have read i just can not find a reason why any is better than the asrock board(unless of course it fries at 13 months)

 

[Crashman]

[citation][nom]eagle1967part2[/nom]the video i mentioned is actually an asrock p55 board that was doing this. they did it by adding an extra chip to up the expess lanes on their p55 board[/citation]

Here's what you need to know about P55:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/p55-crossfire-nf200,2537.html

If you want the ASRock board, buy the ASRock board. I still think the Gigabyte X58A-UD3R offers the best value.

 

[Guest]

does the gigabyte do ecc ram?

 

[Crashman]

[citation][nom]antalya[/nom]does the gigabyte do ecc ram?[/citation]
Are you planning to use a Xeon processor?

 

[zaznet]

[citation][nom]C 64[/nom]At first quick look at the picture I almost fell from my chair... a quad processor MB, but then I realized Tom had problems squeezing the MBs in the pic.[/citation]

I want the case to fit all four boards in.

 

[blacksun]

Crashman: Gigabyte X58A-UD3R provide 4 PCIex16 slots but it cannot work well with 2 GTX480 SLI, is its layout good?

 

[Crashman]

[citation][nom]blacksun[/nom]Crashman: Gigabyte X58A-UD3R provide 4 PCIex16 slots but it cannot work well with 2 GTX480 SLI, is its layout good?[/citation]
It can hold two double-slot cards shoved tightly together, but cooling is compromised. That's true of many motherboards, and the biggest problem it creates is an inability to overclock the graphics. It also requires a case with extra-good airflow.