Where Are The Gigabyte GA-N680SLI-DQ6 Motherboards?

[justinburton]

Originally posted by: Smitty1705

Originally posted by: Curr
Hey Gary,

Any word from Giga on either a bios update/fix or the reason for the rev 2 mobo's?

Have to bump this up. I'm really anxious for any information on this also.

Smitty

I agree. I am extremely anxious also. This REv. 2 crap is bullshit. This same thing happened to me when I bought the Gigabyte 965P-DQ6. They even had a third revision.

 

[overpowered]

If they're upgrading it to support something that they didn't claim to support in rev 1, then I can accept that. That's just the way things go.

However, if they're doing it in order to provide the functionality that they claimed to have in the rev 1 board but don't due to a design or parts flaw, then yeah, that is a problem and they should offer to repair or replace the board to provide the full functionality that they advertised from the start.

 

[sskmercer]

Originally posted by: overpowered
If they're upgrading it to support something that they didn't claim to support in rev 1, then I can accept that. That's just the way things go.

However, if they're doing it in order to provide the functionality that they claimed to have in the rev 1 board but don't due to a design or parts flaw, then yeah, that is a problem and they should offer to repair or replace the board to provide the full functionality that they advertised from the start.

Agreed 100% and i think that goes for everyone else as well. On their website the specs/everything is the same between Rev1 and Rev2 with no mention of waht the difference might be. The only difference at this stage is that Rev2 ha a differently named bios?

You look at eVGA(i think) when they realised they had a problem they did an exchange for their boards so you would hope that someone with a name like Gigabyte would atleast do the same.

Though this is all speculation, until someone has a Rev2 board with a Quad Core Cpu and CAN push past 325 fsb on whatever multiplier we wont know if it is a fix or just an update like "Ultra Durable 2" parts. The next lot of Quads due out like the Q6700 which runs at 2.66 will require higher than 333fsb to run at 1333.

So lets all cross our fingers eh!!

 

[cdfire]

Originally posted by: overpowered
If they're upgrading it to support something that they didn't claim to support in rev 1, then I can accept that. That's just the way things go.

However, if they're doing it in order to provide the functionality that they claimed to have in the rev 1 board but don't due to a design or parts flaw, then yeah, that is a problem and they should offer to repair or replace the board to provide the full functionality that they advertised from the start.

Agreed 200%.

 

[KillerG]

Hello All,
First time post, but I have been reading the forum since a few days prior to the purchase of the system I built. Thought I would finally share what I?ve been doing. First build in 10yrs, First time OC?ing so results might seem low or unimpressive, but think I?ve done ok to this point. Would enjoy any +/- feed back if feel the need?

Story is: One weekend decided to start looking to build a pc and started looking at sites and Newegg of course. Happened to like Gigabyte per what I perceived to be a good product from reviews and capabilities /$. I looked at Asus, but a lot of reviews just seemed to have too much of a bandwagon mentality and I hate following the crowd. Hench I purchased the Gigabyte GA-N680SLI-DQ6 not really knowing what I had purchased other than it had what I was looking for plus lots and lots more than what I should ever need. Note that I had purchased this board on the 18th of March, what I would later find out was right before they were sold out across N.A. I was a little worried at first as there was talk about being discontinued etc. To a sigh of relieve being discontinued was far from the truth, more like supply and demand.

So was very happy and received all the components listed below and built the system over the weekend. Build went well, but I then had this smart idea to run Vista x64. Well still running two installs later and multiple learning?s, but most programs and systems are stable other than Steam as it still does not get along all of the time.
To the guts of what I have created, note components are listed below so I will list settings and benchmarks achieved running F4 bios. (Note it took me some time to get back to these set points from the F3. I almost went back, but got some sleep and tried again. System does shut down properly).

CPU Clock 3200.0 MHz (original: 2400 MHz, overclock: 33%)
CPU Multiplier 8.0x
CPU FSB 400.0 MHz (original: 266 MHz, overclock: 50%)
Memory Timings 4-4-4-12 (CL-RCD-RP-RAS) 2T 2.1 V
Command Rate (CR) 2T
CPU Voltage 1.41V
37C Idle (Room temp 25C)
45C Full Load same room temp (Running Burn-In test)
Memory Read: 10004MB/s
Memory Write: 7292MB/s
Memory Copy: 6582MB/s
Memory Latency: 47.3 ns
CPU Queen: 6431
CPU PhotoWorxx: 17464
CPU ZLib: 41755 KB/S
CPU Julia: 12016
CPU Mandel: 5865
CPU SinJulia: 8792
3DMark06: 10866 (Seems Vista 64 and 8800GTX systems combined have low scores. Similar systems with XP and 7900 series cards have much higher scores)?

Performance test v6.1 64x: 1069.6

That?s the information I have so far. I apologize for the very long post, but thought I would share after many of your post have helped me get this far.
Any questions or comments feel free.

 

[cdfire]

Welcome to the forum KillerG. Looks like you built yourself a nice rig. Thanks for posting up what you did to oc. Interesting that you lowered the Multiplier to 8x. Did u change any of the other voltages besides CPU and Ram?

 

[TheBeagle]

Hello Mr. KG.

As Mr. CD said, welcome aboard. That shutdown problem has been a pain in the butt since the first release of the F4f BIOS. I had the same darn problem, and found it was necessary to revert to the F4e BIOS. Gary posted that F4e BIOS here a few weeks ago (04/17/07, Page 27 of this Thread). I would suggest that you use the "Revised Final" F4 BIOS (or whatever they are gonna call it) when it is finally released and corrects the screw up with regard to shutting down the PC (However, I would NOT suggest using the current "Final" F4 BIOS until they fix it!). Glad to hear that our collective contributions on this Thread have been of some assistance to you in getting your new rig up and running. Enjoy. TheBeagle

 

[Smitty1705]

Originally posted by: TheBeagle
Hello Mr. KG.

As Mr. CD said, welcome aboard. That shutdown problem has been a pain in the butt since the first release of the F4f BIOS. I had the same darn problem, and found it was necessary to revert to the F4e BIOS. Gary posted that F4e BIOS here a few weeks ago (04/17/07, Page 27 of this Thread). I would suggest that you use the "Revised Final" F4 BIOS (or whatever they are gonna call it) is finally released and corrects the screw up with regard to shutting down the PC. Glad to hear that our collective contributions on this Thread have been of some assistance to you in getting your new rig up and running. Enjoy. TheBeagle

KillerG - Welcome and congrats on your new board!

Beagle - Did I read your post correctly that the F4 (final release from the Gigabyte site) is working correctly for you and allows you to shut down? I went from F4f to the final F4 and I still have the shutdown problem.

Smitty

 

[RichardU]

Originally posted by: Smitty1705
Beagle - Did I read your post correctly that the F4 (final release from the Gigabyte site) is working correctly for you and allows you to shut down? I went from F4f to the final F4 and I still have the shutdown problem.

Smitty

I'm not Beagle, but I can tell you I'm running the final F4 and have no problems shutting down. I am not overclocking.

 

[Andrei80]

I do keep my e6600 overclocked to 3.0 ghz and I don't have any problems shutting down my computer. I'm running f4 as well on windows xp.

 

[sskmercer]

Originally posted by: RichardU

Originally posted by: Smitty1705
Beagle - Did I read your post correctly that the F4 (final release from the Gigabyte site) is working correctly for you and allows you to shut down? I went from F4f to the final F4 and I still have the shutdown problem.

Smitty

I'm not Beagle, but I can tell you I'm running the final F4 and have no problems shutting down. I am not overclocking.

Unless they changed the the final F4 bios within the last week or so then it's still aproblem for me. See specs in my sig. Tried @stock and various O/C speeds as well and the shutdown problem is still there. Running Vista 32bit

 

[KillerG]

Originally posted by: cdfire
Welcome to the forum KillerG. Looks like you built yourself a nice rig. Thanks for posting up what you did to oc. Interesting that you lowered the Multiplier to 8x. Did u change any of the other voltages besides CPU and Ram?

No actually these are the voltages posted, but system voltages were left in auto no adjustment. I adjusted the multiplier as to increase the FSB as I could only get to 330 X9 and was unstable. With the F3 and the f4 my setup seems to enjoy 3.2 MHz & 400FSB.

Beagle: I might have miss-stated, but my system shuts down fine it just took some time to make everything stable, much longer than the F3 took to get OC stable.

Thanks all for the feed back.

 

[Smitty1705]

I'm still running stock, the finaly F4 and I still can't shutdown under Vista or XP.

=(

Smitty

 

[RichardU]

Does anyone else have a problem getting from page one to the last page of this thread?

Here is what I see:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next

I think it should look like this:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >> Next

 

[FSH42NA]

Yup I have the same problem since they did their system upgrade over the weekend.

Originally posted by: RichardU
Does anyone else have a problem getting from page one to the last page of this thread?

Here is what I see:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next

I think it should look like this:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >> Next

 

[bka4u2c]

Same here, but if click the motherboard category, the link for the thread also has a "last" link.

 

[Beacon147]

Yeah... it wasnt easy to get to the last page...

So, I came here to share a thing that happened to me...

I was having problems in my ADSL Broadband Net... Because of what was happening, I though it was an DNS problem... I tried every configuration possible... and couldn't make the net access some sites... microsoft.com was one of them...

I had this problem for a while... Them, after search and search, microsoft and provider support, nothing worked...

Then I read somewhere of problems of compatibility from the network ports from the nvidia chipsets and windows vista... I tryed a bunch of drivers... even tryed to let the generic driver on... but nothing worked... ssooo, i changed the door... I put the cable from the ADSL modem in the Marvell controled and it worked like a charm...

Has anyone had this kinda of problem around here?

I'm not planning to use all the 4 doors right now... but for a eventual lanparty, I wanna be prepared...

 

[overpowered]

I had a problem downloading multiple Fedora 7 images with BitTorrent and with Azureus. Both clients would hang after a while. It turns out to apparently be something to do with some sort of nVidia firewall that is both in the nVidia network drivers and in the hardware that I had previously not known existed. It seems to be a particular problem with 64-bit OS+multi-core processor. The problem was significantly reduced by making the client have an affinity for only one of the cores. I still haven't figured out how to disable the firewall. I have enough stupid firewalls.

 

[sskmercer]

Originally posted by: Beacon147
Yeah... it wasnt easy to get to the last page...

Agreed hopefully it will be fixed, with alittle tweak to the code, as it will be a right pain if this thread falls off the frong page as thats the only way to get the end of thread ATM with having to hit next 40 times:disgust:

Originally posted by: Beacon147So, I came here to share a thing that happened to me...

I was having problems in my ADSL Broadband Net... Because of what was happening, I though it was an DNS problem... I tried every configuration possible... and couldn't make the net access some sites... microsoft.com was one of them...

I had this problem for a while... Them, after search and search, microsoft and provider support, nothing worked...

Then I read somewhere of problems of compatibility from the network ports from the nvidia chipsets and windows vista... I tryed a bunch of drivers... even tryed to let the generic driver on... but nothing worked... ssooo, i changed the door... I put the cable from the ADSL modem in the Marvell controled and it worked like a charm...

Has anyone had this kinda of problem around here?

I'm not planning to use all the 4 doors right now... but for a eventual lanparty, I wanna be prepared...

Thia is a bit strange, for the only reason as i have run a SINGLE cable through all 4 ports to my ADSL Modem/Router and they all worked fine for me and this is under Vista 32 and 64 bit, also with XP.

The only thing i can think of is drivers. Though from your system i will guess you know what your doing, just make sure you are using the Nvidia drivers first, then chuck in teh Gigabyte CD to get the rest of the drivers.. I have seen this issue with some ah! versions of Vista though?

If you still cant get it to work let us/me know and we'll see what we can do for and if you can list your system/software/drivers hopefully we can get it sorted for you.

Cheers

PS - Gigabyte fix your act re Bios and Quad Core issues:thumbsdown: (sry broken record)

 

[TheBeagle]

Hello Everyone.

Here's a very interesting excerpt from Gary's latest article on AnandTech regarding the 2007 Computex:

On a side note, we have some information for the users of Gigabyte's GA-N680SLI-DQ6 board who were wondering about the new revision 2 launching this month. The difference between the boards is that the rev2.0 board will utilize the 570 SLI Southbridge instead of the 590 SLI Southbridge. NVIDIA is phasing out the 590 SLI Southbridge so Gigabyte and others will be moving to the 570 SLI Southbridge. We should expect to see an updated BIOS shortly. In short, the new revision is not necessarily an improvement; it is merely a change that is necessitated by chipset availability.

Based upon Gary's information, I believe we should all wait a while longer to see how all this develops. It just might be that those of us with Rev 1 boards may have the "premium" version of this board, since the 570 SB chipset does not have all the features of the 590 SB chipset that is presently embedded in the Rev 1 boards. Hopefully the "new" BIOS that Gary refers to will solve some current problems and also address the 1333 FSB Quad-Core issues as well.

Stay tuned for the latest developments. TheBeagle

 

[overpowered]

Thanks Beagle for adding this to the forum and thanks to Gary for getting the information and publishing it.

Do we all feel a little better now?

 

[Warpx9]

Yes thanks Gary and TheBeagle,

So, it appears that those of us which have Revision 1.0 are actually better off with the 590 Southbridge.

I was curious so I went thru and compared both sets of specs from the Gigabyte site and sure enough the only difference is that the Revision 1.0 has the MCP55PXE (590) and Revision 2.0 has the MCP55P (570). Everything else remains the same, and looks like this was a cost measure since the 590 is more expensive than the 570.

Here is an article HERE on the differences between 590 and 570

I'll take my 48 PCI Express lanes over 20 anyday, even though so they say there is no difference.
You can also go here to see NVIDIA's comparison HERE

 

[Smitty1705]

Man that's good news so far, lets just see some solid updates now!
BTW - I coudl NOT find this thread earlier, it seemed to have disappeared earlier! Glad to see it back..

Smitty

 

[cdfire]

Great News. Thanks Beagle and Gary.

 

[overpowered]

Originally posted by: Warpx9Here is an article HERE on the differences between 590 and 570

I'll take my 48 PCI Express lanes over 20 anyday, even though so they say there is no difference.
You can also go here to see NVIDIA's comparison HERE

Interesting. It looks like the 590 is quite a lot more capable than the 570. The specs on the 570 only give x8+x8 plus a few x1's or x16 plus a few x1's instead of the x16+x8+x16 plus several x1's of the 590. The Gigabyte Rev 2 page says nothing about this difference. There also seems to be less of everything (USB, SATA, Network) with the 570.

x16+x8+x16 was one of the major factors in my choice of this board. On the one hand, I'm happy that I have the better version. On the other, I feel bad that this board is headed backwards.