Standard Gaming Performance

As usual, gaming performance was tested with a variety of current games. We ran benchmarks with our standard 1280x1024 resolution without antialiasing enabled (and generally without anisotropic filtering, though that varies by game). Given the number of users that run 19" LCDs these days, 1280x1024 represents one of the most commonly used resolutions. We could certainly increase the amount of eye candy being displayed in most of the games, but as this is a motherboard benchmark we aren't particularly interested in maxing out the graphics cards in our tests.

Gaming Performance - Battlefield 2

Gaming Performance - Company of Heroes

Gaming Performance - Half Life 2

Gaming Performance - Quake 4

It's the same old song and dance but these results basically show that any of the chipsets listed will perform equally in today's games when equipped with the same GPU. We did not experience any issues during testing or during game play with the Gigabyte board. We generally play every game for at least a couple of hours on each board to ensure there are no issues such as overheating, stuttering, or network problems when playing on-line with various combinations of components.

General Application Performance Disk Controller and FSB Performance
Comments Locked

12 Comments

View All Comments

  • sirius4k - Thursday, May 17, 2007 - link

    Overview in Gigabyte' website said there will be some eSATA (Quad eSATA or something) ports. On this preview... read panel indicates no eSATA ports :S
    ---
    No eSATA means going back to Striker Extreme... of course.
  • yacoub - Friday, March 30, 2007 - link

    The reviews at NewEgg are tearing this board a gaping butthole. I'm staying away. :[
  • Gary Key - Monday, April 2, 2007 - link

    Every review at NewEgg was either a four or five star rating for this board. Where are the bad ones?
  • Binkt - Monday, March 19, 2007 - link

    Can someone over there put in a few PCI-E RAID cards in those extra PCI-E slots and see if they function? The Areca SATA RAID cards (ARC-12x0ML) are what I'm looking at right now. Pretty please?!

    There is a rather cryptic FAQ entry on using PCI-E for "graphics" slots on Areca's website in regards to this subject. I'd just like some more physical validation before plunking down the green.
  • erwos - Monday, February 26, 2007 - link

    Am I the only one who's totally and utterly confused as to why this board has four ethernet interfaces? I can see using two interfaces. I could even contemplate three for really weird setups. But what networking setup requires four gigabit interfaces? Are they supposed to be bonded, or used for fail-over?

    Speaking purely as a gamer, the MSI P6N Diamond looks like a better deal. It may be shorter on the ports, but that built-in X-Fi seems a lot more handy than a couple more SATA and ethernet ports.
  • Gary Key - Monday, February 26, 2007 - link

    1. XP Professional will show 3.25GB of RAM when 4GB is installed. The board will show 4GB at POST.


    2. The RAM timings will drop with 4 x1GB when overclocking, at stock speeds with the F3 BIOS they require an additional .0125V to operate at the same timings.

    3. The timings matter when using 2x2GB compared to 2x1GB,512MB, however at same timings we found 2X2GB was generally more stable and performance did not vary more than a percent or two.

    4. If you use a 32-bit OS such as XP you are limited to 3.25GB of usable memory space.

    5. This board did not have an issue with Vista-64 and recognizing 4GB or 8GB of memory, as stated in the article we are still conducting memory compatibility testing as certain modules perform better than others (stability, voltages, timings), even though they are based on the same IC. Gigabyte still has some tuning work to do in this area.

    Thanks, more information will be in the roundup.
  • anandtech02148 - Saturday, February 24, 2007 - link

    per example dfi infity 975g requireds 300watts just to post.
    also what is the idle /load for this? more electricity mo heat.
  • cornfedone - Saturday, February 24, 2007 - link

    ...or don't. As long as gullible, foolish fanboys buy these defective products, there is no FINANCIAL incentive for these unscrupulous companies to change their ways and deliver quality products.

    Obviously if every hardware review site on the planet can duplicate the unending operational (and often design/engineering) defects in these mobos, then certainly the mobo and chip makers could detect these defects BEFORE they ship this crap if they weren't intentionally pumping garbage out the door to suckers willing to pay $200 plus for a mobo that is a total POS.

    There is absolutely NO reason to release a defective hardware product today other than financial greed and/or technical incompetence. Hell most of the Asian mobo companies can't even make a friggin quality copy of a reference mobo from AMD or ATI so why would you expect them to deliver a properly functioning "performance mobo" priced at hundred of dollars more when they can't buy a clue?

    With any luck all of the slimy mobo makers will go tits-up soon and the real mobo companies will see an opportunity to provide quality mobos to the marketplace. At $200 a copy there is one Helleva incentive for honest, competent mobo companies to step forward and waste the Asian scum who are dumping crap into the marketplace. When a $200 plus mobo causes data corruption it's time for a massive class action lawsuit to end this consumer fraud and exploitation.

    Now is the time.
  • sdsdv10 - Tuesday, February 27, 2007 - link

    quote:

    At $200 a copy there is one Helleva incentive for honest, competent mobo companies to step forward and waste the Asian scum who are dumping crap into the marketplace.


    Cornfedone, what major motherboard manufacturer isn't in Asia? It appears you are painting all the current companies with the same bruch, Asus, Gigabyte, abit... Who would be left to be the "honest, competent mobo companies"?
  • tuteja1986 - Sunday, February 25, 2007 - link

    Well Gigabyte GA-N680SL-DQ6 isn't even selling it. It will sale next month. They still have time to fix the bugs. Anyways i say buying the striker at launch for $400 was a foolish thing to do since it was buggy as hell. It took for them months to fix the problem.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now