GIGABYTE X99-UD7 WiFi Conclusion

GIGABYTE and ASUS are locked in a battle with each other to sell the most motherboards this year. Despite a few recent quarters of lower sales, the upswing in the gaming PC market driven by high resolution gaming and renewed interest sees both manufacturers aiming well above 20 million units each, despite a global motherboard sales number about 75-80 million expected for 2014. Each of these companies has a different tactic – ASUS goes for fewer SKUs and focuses on each one, whereas GIGABYTE offers more SKUs to appeal to more users. There are certain challenges in both lineups, and it reflects in the fact that ASUS had two motherboards at the launch of X99 and GIGABYTE aimed at eight.

The X99 UD7-WiFi sits at the top of GIGABYTE’s Ultra Durable line at $310, followed by the similar UD5, then UD4 and UD3. For overclocking there is the X99-SOC Force (and SOC Force-LN2 for extreme overclockers) with gaming relying on the Gaming 5, the Gaming 7 and the Gaming G1. This encompasses a price range from $245 (UD3) to $350 (SOC Force), so while we are aiming at the cheaper end of X99, the more $400 oriented products might be further down the line.

For the X99-UD7 WiFi, GIGABYTE certainly did a number of things right. Supplying WiFi via M.2 is a nice touch, giving a new way to introduce WiFi and then stacking another M.2 for storage on top. By placing the extra circuitry needed, GIGABYTE also ensures that every motherboard across its range can support full-bandwidth four-way GPU configurations. Things like the 30 micron gold pins and extra space for mounting holes also helps reduce issues from screwdrivers that stray or corrosion oriented climates.

Despite all this, my biggest WOW moment with the GIGABYTE X99-UD7 WiFi was the bundled sleeved cables. Perhaps I spend too much time indoors reviewing CPUs and motherboards, but it is a nice touch that needs to be commonplace across all $150 and up motherboards. A positive about the PCIe area is the VGA power being provided by a SATA cable in the right area. The USB 3.0 layout is also good, giving two PCH headers and two Renesas hubs for eight ports on the rear to free up PCIe lanes.

There are some issues to take with the design, such as PCIe storage still being an issue depending on which route you take meaning that only one type can be used. While M.2 WiFi is a cool idea, and our sample had the WiFi antenna kept close to the motherboard by a plastic tool, it is not always wise to have those cables about on the motherboard. 

On the benchmark front, the GIGABYTE suffers a little similar to the ASUS by not implementing a totally aggressive MultiCore Turbo throughout any hardware setup. So at stock we had a few numbers lower than expected, although when overclocked this no longer mattered so much. Peak power consumption under load was very good, along with USB speeds, although there was an issue with the audio. Similar to Z97, there is some feature on GIGABYTE boards that causes software-detectable distortion at high volume levels. However if the volume is decreased, peak range is lowered. POST times were also around 25 seconds, matching the X99 WS.

Similar to my Z97 conclusions on GIGABYTE, the BIOS still needs work into making it the interactive tool we need. Fan controls are still lacking in depth, and all we end up with is a glorified menu with relatively few new features. The software is a plus point, making it easy to select the options the user needs however there is room for improvement, especially when it comes to Live Update.

The GIGABYTE X99-UD7 WiFi ends up being a nice motherboard to use with a decent technical portfolio. Delving into the features on an intricate level could come easier to hand, but it won’t stop users plugging in a Haswell-E for a high end gaming system.

ASUS X99-Deluxe Conclusion ASRock X99 WS Conclusion
Comments Locked

62 Comments

View All Comments

  • gostan - Friday, September 26, 2014 - link

    feel like I'm transported back to 2001

    good job AT!
  • xunknownx - Saturday, September 27, 2014 - link

    what settings on povray is being used in this article? i would love to compare my results against theirs.
  • todo1 - Tuesday, September 30, 2014 - link

    X79 supports TRIPLE CHANNEL DDR3, not quad!
    I don't how it is even possible to make such a mistake?!?
  • tyaiyama - Wednesday, October 1, 2014 - link

    After reading the following:
    http://www.legitreviews.com/intel-x99-motherboard-...
    Is it worth recommendation from Anadtech? Almost 1 month has passed without Asus solving the problem. What's good about this M/B unable to certain hours operations(^^)
  • tyaiyama - Wednesday, October 1, 2014 - link

    BTW, MSI M/B also has an issue.
    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&...
    Both of these M/B happened to be recommended by Anand over the other two: AsRock & Giga. What does it mean? I personally likes AsRock X99 WS which seems Asus X99-E WS w/o PLX.
  • Haravikk - Thursday, October 2, 2014 - link

    Is there a reason the motherboards with moulded shapes over the various I/O ports don't include the I/O shield built-in? I hate adding those damned things; seems unnecessary if your motherboard is shaped around the ports already.
  • Oxford Guy - Saturday, October 4, 2014 - link

    Power phases?

    Also, it seems really lazy to not check what changing the MSI load line calibration setting would actually do if changed. "This is quite odd. It would seem the efficiency of the MSI motherboard when overclocked is somehow stunted..." vdroop is supposed to be part of the Intel specification and load line calibration defeats it, right? So, it looks like there is your answer. Auto isn't the optimal setting.

    Also, if you tested these motherboards in the order you reviewed the overclocking results in, you may have fatigued the chip which explains why the results kept getting worse.
  • woj666 - Monday, October 6, 2014 - link

    Agreed, it seems very obvious that that Load Line Calibration setting of "auto" on this MSI board is in fact quite aggressive and applying vboost as described here http://www.anandtech.com/show/2404/5 and here http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/24019-load-lin...

    The OC section of this article is not comparing apples to apples as the default LLC settings are not the same for the different boards.
  • akula2 - Tuesday, October 14, 2014 - link

    It was a great review, appreciate it very much.

    1) why Asus X99-E WS is missing out of action?

    2) Asus X99-E WS ($510) or Asrock X99 WS ($310)?

    My ten X99 ultra Workstations will have the upcoming Maxwell based Nvidia Quadro and Tesla cards? I'm also evaluating Firepro W9100 card too. I don't know if there will be Maxwell based Titan Black (II or whatever name)?

    Five builds will have Xeon E5-2680 v3 (more like due to price/performance) or Xeon E5-2690 v3
    Five builds will have i7-5760X CPUs

    I never used Asrock WS boards earlier, but have many Asus WS boards (X79/Z97). So, what do you think of Asrock WS over Asus X99-E WS in the given configuration above?

    Yeah, all Xeon workstations will have Intel P3700 NVMe storage solution. Also, I'm pondering on Synology DiskStation DS2413+ for 48TB NAS solution using WD Red Pro HDDs for those planned ten X99 builds.

    Hence, what do you think about those two boards?

    3) Did you observe any PCI-e 3.0 limitations/bottleneck on those two boards? Asus X99-E board has 16-four lanes solution? Please clarify on this count.

    Thank you
  • eng.michael - Friday, January 23, 2015 - link

    HELLO
    PLEASE HELP ME
    I have one , and i install O.S windows server 2012R2 ,and install all drivers correctly EXCEPT LAN driver , any one can help me in this BIG Problem.
    THANKS

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now