Gigabyte GA-Z77X-UD5H Review: Functionality meets Competitive Pricing
by Ian Cutress on July 25, 2012 5:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Motherboards
- Gigabyte
- Z77
Gigabyte GA-Z77X-UD5H In The Box
Gigabyte boxes are typically a bit bare, to cater with Gigabyte's philosophy of trying to reach the price point below the one the board should be placed. Typically, this means not much more than a pair of SATA cables - with the Z77X-UD5H, we get:
IO Shield
Driver CD
Quick Start Guide
Manual
Four SATA cables
Flexi-SLI connector
Front USB 3.0 panel
With a motherboard that has three different USB 3.0 headers on the board, the inclusion of a USB 3.0 panel is a no-brainer. Users of modern cases will also have the opportunity to add two USB 3.0 ports of their own with the case. With the motherboard using an x8/x4/x4 combination of PCIe 3.0 lanes, it is a little surprising we do not see a rigid SLI connector here, if not for three cards then at least for two.
Voltage Readings
After my first publication of OCCT voltage readings, a few readers responded with a more in-depth reasoning behind some of the results we were seeing. With this in mind, I would like to re-describe what we are doing with this test, and how it comes about.
Much of what an enthusiast overclocker does is monitor CPU temperature and voltage. Whatever settings a user places in the BIOS or OS is at the mercy of the motherboard - in terms of actually setting the values and reporting the values back. As an enthusiast, we have to rely on what readings we get back, and hope that motherboard manufacturers are being honest with their readings.
Take CPU voltage. What we as a user see in CPU-Z or OCCT is a time-averaged value that hides voltage ripple (if any) for power delivery. It is very easy for a motherboard manufacturer to hide this value, or to disregard slight deviations and report a constant value to the user. The CPU voltage reading can be taken at a variety of places on the power plane, which can vary between motherboards and manufacturers, meaning that each reading is essentially not comparable with the other. Nevertheless, as an enthusiast, we will constantly compare value A with value B.
Whether or not I can achieve 4.7 GHz with 1.175 volts on a particular board is inconsequential - your motherboard may perhaps produce the same result with a reading at 1.200 volts. The only way to test the actual value is with consistent methodology is via an oscilloscope connected to similar points on each board. This may sound like taking an OCCT reading is therefore redundant.
However, motherboards have settings relating to load line calibration. As load is applied to the CPU, the voltage across the processor decreases (VDroop). Load Line calibration essentially attempts to control this level of droop, by increasing voltage when voltage drops are detected away from a fixed value. Manufacturers have different ideas on how to modify LLC with respect to load, or whether the level of modification should be controlled by the user. Some manufacturers offer the option at a variety of levels, such that overclockers can be sure of the applied setting (even if it increases peak voltage, as explained by AnandTech in 2007).
By doing a full load OCCT test, we are essentially determining both how aggressive the motherboard is reporting the CPU voltage under load and how aggressive load line calibration is performing (from the point of view of the user without an oscilloscope or DVM). If someone has one of the motherboards we have tested and you have a different one, variations in load voltage should describe the offset you may require for overclock comparisons.
As with previous Gigabyte boards, we get a straight line for voltage reading in OCCT. This draws distinct parallels with the previous Gigabyte Z77 boards we have tested - the Z77X-UD3H and the Z77MX-D3H. With the D3H, we found out that Gigabyte was purposely fixing this value, introducing middleware to make sure this value never changed in the OS (as it did not change during overclocking).
Therefore during overclocking on the Z77X-UD5H we also ran the test. We set the VCore in the BIOS to 1.150 volts and got the following result:
Despite the VCore being correctly reported in CPU-Z, in OCCT (in HWMonitor mode), we can see that for some reason it is being fed either the wrong data, or manipulated data. Given our previous experiences with the Gigabyte Z77MX-D3H and the fact that the data fed to OCCT was being manipulated (i.e. overclock voltages were not being fed through to the OS, but were fixed by middleware), it seems rather odd for the motherboard to be performing similarly here.
| Reported Load Voltage / V | |
| ASRock Fatal1ty Z77 Professional | 0.956 |
| ASRock Z77 Extreme4 | 1.050-1.058 |
| ASRock Z77 Extreme6 | 1.040-1.048 |
| ASUS P8Z77-V Deluxe | 1.085 |
| ASUS P8Z77-V Pro | 1.090 |
| Biostar TZ77XE4 | 1.036 |
| Gigabyte Z77X-UD5H | 1.067 |
| Gigabyte Z77X-UD3H | 1.067 |
| MSI Z77A-GD65 | 1.020 |
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
70 Comments
View All Comments
IanCutress - Wednesday, July 25, 2012 - link
As a competitive overclocker, I have used GBTL when pushing the BCLK of these boards as far as my CPU will allow (http://hwbot.org/submission/2301438_). I like GBTL - no mess and no fuss. But it is understandable why they do not include it in the Support CD, and hence why it doesn't really get a mention here. I did touch upon it very briefly in the overclocking section of the Z77X-UD3H review back at Ivy launch. As for voltage read-points, they are mentioned briefly in the board features, but I am also in agreement that perhaps the implementation of other manufacturers is more beneficial in our very niche usage scenario :)Ian
PS On the multi-board reviews I try not to take anything out from what is in a single board review. Every benchmark, test and bit of analysis in each of them gets put in :)
Nickel020 - Wednesday, July 25, 2012 - link
Oh, I missed the part about the GBTL in the UD3H review. While I haven't goten around to playing with my UD3H, I have found the Asus AI suite very practical for "normal" overclocking and I believe the GBTL will also be a real benefit for anyone working out a good 24/7 overclock. If I didn't knwo about it already I certainly would want to read about in your review if I was going to get this board for 24/7 OC.I also missed you mentioning the UD3Hs voltage read points, but in any case there's still an error in the conclusion though where you implicitly state that the UD3H does not have voltage read points (in the part about the GD65).
I know you run the same benchmarks, but I find the text/user experience more interesting than the benches, and there's definitely more text in a single board review! The benches I only care about to see whether a board has a significant performance issue, since I'm not into competitive OC I don't care about slight differences that I won't notice anyway.
Conderning the benches, I'm also a little surprised that you somewhat praise GB for auto-overclocking the CPU. IIRC Anandtech has been opposed to that in the past, since it's technically overclocking and thus theoretically voids your CPU warranty. It also makes it hard to compare board performance when CPU settings are actually the same, such as when using a manual overclock. I know it's considerably more work, but I would love to see the benches with the CPU forced to run at stock settings added to the charts, the current version is an apples to oranges comparison imho. For someone just looking at the charts (and not the text, as many do...) the current ones give a very wrong impression, they make it seem like Asus and GB perform better, when without the auto-overclock, they might actually be worse...
IanCutress - Wednesday, July 25, 2012 - link
Most users of these boards never touch the BIOS, let alone update it. This is why we run the boards at default - some manufacturers are being more aggressive with their settings and that is what you are paying for. If that aggressive setting compromises stability, then that can also be an issue. Thus it is a like-for-like comparison, as if a user was taking the boards out of the box and then just strapping in a CPU.After all, if we start changing the application of Turbo modes, what else do we change? Setting the voltage equal on each board to get a VMM reading that is always the same across the range? How about disregarding any board that uses x8/x4/x4 PCIe 3.0 against x8/x8/x4 PCIe 2.0? Default is the choice because that's what most users will end up with. Visiting some LANs recently, you would be surprised how many people buy 2133+ kits of memory and not enable XMP. That's the reality of it.
I used to be wary of this feature (as per my review of the P9X79 Pro, where I disabled it and was severely disgruntled), and still am as it results in motherboard manufacturers artificially inflating some results as to what you would expect. But this did happen before in earlier chipsets, when one manufacturer would run 100.5 BCLK, and the next would use 101.3, and even 102 BCLK, stating 'that's just how the design works'.
There's nothing we can do to change this, so I am taking the position of sitting back and analysing what they are doing, and how aggressive they are taking this philosophy. Any good reviewer will recognise what is pure statistical variation and not assign world class status to a result that is 0.01% difference.
With regards the warranty, it is a tough hammer to nail down. Would a pair of companies ever advertise that by default their settings technically breaches warranty? Or how would Intel take it, given that technically none of the cores ever went past the top turbo mode? Without a direct response on the issue, it's not worth speculating. I've known users to repeatedly successfully RMA CPUs they've overclocked on LN2 way too hard and broke them, so we don't really know if Intel will draw a line much.
Nickel020 - Thursday, July 26, 2012 - link
It's certainly a matter of opinion. As an "enthusiast" I'm of the opinion that a board should not overclock without my knowledge/express wish (since I can easily do so myself. Practically the overclock of course has no bearing on CPU warranty (the CPU also being the very last PC component that you're likely to need warranty on...).I agree that for the average user this is actually added value, a slight performance bonus at absolutely no cost other than a little bit more power consumption. Maybe point out both sides in future reviews? That way everyone's happy :)
PS: Please do fix the error in the UD3H, GD65 conclusion, it's wearing me down ;)
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5793/intel-z77-mothe...
"For the price we lose PCI and mSATA over the Gigabyte, but gain SATA, voltage read points, [...]" <--- wrong, maybe say "better implemented voltage read points"? ;)
Nickel020 - Thursday, July 26, 2012 - link
Thanks Ian :)mystikl - Wednesday, July 25, 2012 - link
No VGA port, no floppy connector, no buy .Dustin Sklavos - Wednesday, July 25, 2012 - link
Seriously?First, it does have a VGA port. Why you would want to use one escapes me now, but it's there.
Second...you still need a floppy drive and can't make do with a USB 2.0 one? Almost no modern motherboards include floppy connectors because floppy disks are horrendously outdated and that real estate can be better employed elsewhere.
mystikl - Wednesday, July 25, 2012 - link
I was actually making fun of the guy who posted the second comment! Why on earth people still need those ancient connectors is beyond me. Some may argue that some ancient software doesn't run without that specific port, but software that old doesn't require a computer with a quad core, 16 GB RAM and 3 videocards.shin0bi272 - Wednesday, July 25, 2012 - link
bios flashes on some boards still require a floppy disk... even on a quad core.SodaAnt - Wednesday, July 25, 2012 - link
Luckily those boards have floppy ports then.