Supermicro C7H170-M BIOS

As noted in many previous motherboard reviews, some users care deeply about the BIOS interface, whereas others might not care at all. In all honesty, it only gets accessed by a few percent of all users, and usually at most just to set defaults or due to an accidental BIOS reset. Despite this, manufacturers need to spend time on it for two reasons – enthusiasts and optimization. Because the C7H170-M is being advertised as an overclocking motherboard, this means the overclocking tools should be easy to use.

One of the issues of using BIOSes outside the main four motherboard manufacturers is that they tend to be 2-3 years behind in terms of interface, implementation and options. Supermicro is in this space – while there is a graphical interface, it is a bit of a handful to use and doesn’t open up as many options as I would like. One example is that the BIOS does not have a screenshot mode, so apologies for the following photos of a screen. One big aspect I should point out here is that the BIOS does not have an update tool – in order to update the BIOS, the user needs to have a DOS bootable USB with the required files already in place or use the HTML interface after already installing an OS.

The first screen on entry is a basic display showing the time, the board name and the BIOS version. Typically we want to see a lot more in the opening screen – the CPU installed, the CPU speed, voltage, temperature, the DRAM installed, the DRAM speed, the storage drives installed, the fans installed, the fan speeds, the boot order, and basically everything that could facilitate an easy fix for 85% of all problems without entering any other menus. In time, Supermicro will learn to add this, and should see that other motherboard manufacturers typically do this via an Easy Mode.

Regarding the controls of the BIOS, it can be rather confusing to get to grips with. There is mouse movement and selection, however the use of a high-DPI implementation of the BIOS and my usual DPI setting on my mouse meant that it takes a while to scroll over to any of the options. Normally I would use a keyboard anyway, but that can be confusing too. Selecting an option on the far left automatically moves the cursor to the new menu on the right, but it is not always obvious whether it is the first option in the secondary tabs or the list of options at all. Normally most BIOS implementations would leave the cursor on the far left and not move it at all, so you can go through each of the main tabs without any forced movement. I suspect that Supermicro hasn’t done much QA or market research on their BIOS implementation beyond the small group of engineers that coded it.

As for the BIOS options themselves, we have a few options worth talking about. The first set of menus are the System Information screens, which as mentioned above should all be placed in a single entry screen rather than split apart.

The Processor/CPU tab is the list of standard options we typically get relating to CPUs: hyperthreading, ratio, power states, C-states, turbo mode and so on.

As with other BIOS implementations, the actual overclocking options are in a different menu. Supermicro has them here under ‘Extra Performance’, which gives a single menu with a drop down for base clock frequency adjustment (BCLK Clock Frequency, that second clock being grammatically redundant). Here, with our i3-6100TE processor sample, it offered 100 MHz to 150 MHz in 5 MHz increments.

It is worth noting here that this isn’t an automatic overclock look-up table as with some other motherboard vendors – this is simply a MHz adjustment and users will have to manage their own processor voltages. In this case we have a CPU core offset, rather than an absolute value. This can play havoc if the DVFS table decides that the stock voltage needs to be high, and is why we typically request absolute value adjustments (such as the System Agent voltage shown in the screen shot). We also like to see load line calibration options, but they are not enabled here. Nevertheless, our overclocking tests showed that without touching the voltages, we were able to happily push some boundaries moving up to 135 MHz without issue.

Memory options are relatively limited here – no option to change any sub-timings, but the motherboard is only rated at DDR4-2133 anyway. The maximum memory frequency and fast boot options are the primary ones people may use.

The booting menu is similar to other vendors, offering a complete list for boot options. There is no ‘Single Boot’ option here though to boot from a device in a single instance. By default the boot mode is set to Legacy, which may want to be changed if implementing a UEFI boot protocol.

The Input/Output tab is where we see the majority of the options we normally see in a BIOS, such as AHCI/RAID with the chipset ports as above, or enabling/disabling controllers as shown below.

Ideally we would like to see an image of the board and a list of everything that is user installed, such as memory, PCIe devices, USB ports. Both ASRock and MSI do this as a handy aid when hardware might have an issue or is not detected properly.

The monitoring tab is the usual array of temperatures, fan speeds and voltages, although they are split up somewhat and could have been enabled in the same screen. For users that are into their fan controls, unfortunately Supermicro only offers ‘standard’ and ‘full speed’, which is extremely limited. We typically suggest that a motherboard vendor implements an on screen point-and-click multi-point gradient in a graphical interface, ideally with hysteresis so the fans stay on for a short while when coming out of an intense workload to help with cooling.

Nothing else is worth discussing in the BIOS, aside from the ability to save a couple of profiles. For enthusiasts it is worth noting that the button to save and exit the BIOS is F4, rather than the F10 we see on consumer platforms.

Ultimately Supermicro has a long way to go in order to make the BIOS as consumer friendly as their competition, and as mentioned above it is eerily similar to the implementations we saw from the big four when they first started going graphical in the BIOS. Hopefully the Supermicro engineers can have a look at their competition in detail and take some feedback as to how to move forward with their design.

Motherboard Features and Visual Inspection Supermicro C7H170-M Software
Comments Locked

62 Comments

View All Comments

  • Taristin - Thursday, March 17, 2016 - link

    Total War: Atilla shows the incorrect graph for performance with a GTX card. It shows the Alien Isolation score (Which is... significantly different!)
  • yannigr2 - Thursday, March 17, 2016 - link

    Did I saw an Athlon 845 somewhere in there? Is a review incoming?
  • Bad Bimr - Thursday, March 17, 2016 - link

    I miss the days of the cheap CPU with BIG TIME OC potential. My first foray in OCing was with the legendary Celeron 300A. That got me hooked. Next was the P3 600 and next came the P4 2.8 (Northwood) followed by the i7-920. Last year I bought a i7-4790k only to sell it when I came upon a thread on X-58 Xeon overclocking. Currently rocking a very conservative Xeon x5675 @ 4.15 Ghz (25x166) on stock voltage on air on all 6 cores with HT on. I have had it stable to 4.4 GHz but feel better with the lower voltage, plenty fast enough. Total cost for the x5675, $76 on eBay! I love cheap CPU overclocking.
  • OrphanageExplosion - Friday, March 18, 2016 - link

    This is a remarkable article. Anandtech has overclocked a *really slow* Core i3 processor so that it's not as fast as the slowest consumer-level i3 and written a *15-page* piece on it?!

    Why didn't you just buy the Core i3 6100?

    The data elsewhere demonstrates why Intel never released a K i3 - it gives quad-like performance for gaming at 4.4GHz, where the i5 is king. The value argument is diluted a bit by the fact you will need a third party cooler though, while the i5 6500 is pretty awesome just with a stock HSF and some fast DDR4.

    I really, really hope that AMD targets this sector aggressively with Zen - it could be a game-changer.
  • ReverendDC - Friday, March 18, 2016 - link

    The perfect explanation why AMD is needed in the CPU space as well. No competition = restrictions to force more purchases from a single vendor.
  • Achaios - Friday, March 18, 2016 - link

    I was thinking, looking at the gaming benchmarks, that I am going to be stuck with the 4770k for maaaaaaannnnyyyy years to come.
  • JoeyJoJo123 - Friday, March 18, 2016 - link

    I honestly think asking why an i3 K-series processor doesn't exist is an awful question.

    I think the real question here that everyone isn't asking is:
    "Why is Intel even selling non-K processors in anything but business grade (Xeon) CPUs?"

    Doing a 15 page investigation where you compare an awful starting point locked i3 sample (one that isn't even relevant to consumers), examining its overclocked results, and the results of a locked i5 sample, then concluding that yes, the lower grade processor indeed does have worse performance than an i5, that might be why they don't have a K-series i3, is both completely obvious yet misses the point entirely.

    Overclocking is a choice for the consumer. Whether or not the i3 part fully closes the gap with an i5 part is irrelevant, and if it doesn't close the gap, that's not a valid reason to then conclude that's why they don't sell K-series i3's. Overclocking gets me more performance than stock, and regardless of how big or small the overclock is, it should be up to the user to choose whether to overclock, not up to the manufacturer to dictate whether you can attempt to overclock at all (with non-K chips.)

    I still can't understand why people are trying to find logic in strategic marketing placement of Intel chips (ie: rationalizing it for Intel, exactly what their marketing department wants) when you should be asking "Why are you selling me a locked down chip? I should be free to run this at whatever level of performance I can muster, as after I purchase this product, it is wholly mine to use as I please"
  • RobATiOyP - Sunday, March 20, 2016 - link

    From the OEM & Intel's point of view, having ppl add volts & frequency to their complicated processors, may well lead to unstable chips or non-functioning, which may be (attempted) to be returned under warranty. If you buy a 3GHz locked CPU they're not fleecing you by not letting it be run faster, like options you pay more for.

    What is more annoying to me, is how there are various instruction options, like encryption & virtualisation which they turn on/off for market segmentation.
  • zodiacfml - Friday, March 18, 2016 - link

    Awesome. More care and effort was given here than I expected.
    Simply, Intel refuses to. Limiting higher frequencies to i5 and i7. The market Intel is limiting is gaming market. They might open it if AMD, miraculously, becomes competitive again.
  • TheHolyLancer - Friday, March 18, 2016 - link

    honestly i think the author missed the fact that intel( and amd to a point ) prices their stuff no-linearly

    to jump from a pentium to i3 may only be 50 but to jump from i5 to i7k or the extreme (well soon? for the 2011 revamp?) costs a lot more

    i remember the i7 920 too and with an oc i had i7 965 extreme levels of performance for way way cheaper

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now