[cw823]

Appreciate your time and effort here EarthDog

[EarthDog]

@ Eduncan911 - I was just thinking. These are PCIe3 slots and have double the bandwidth of PCIe2 slots, right? So even if its 8x/8x/8x/8x, thats like 16x PCIe2. Does CUDA use more bandwidth than in PCIe2 16x or something? Does it really matter outside of not following Intel spec in your case since there is plenty of bandwidth for your setup in the first place?

[johnnyc604]

I went through several EVGA X79 Classifieds trying to get one to work right, and finally gave up. This, and the Gigabyte X79 UD-7, were 2 of the worst motherboards I have ever had the misfortune to attempt to set up and use. I know this is an EVGA FTW review, but on the EVGA website forum, EVGA says the FTW and X79 Classified are identical except for form factor and SLI/Crossfire support. They are also pointing to this review for people looking for X79 Classified reviews, so I think my comments here are appropriate.

My EVGA X79 Classified experience could not have been more difficult. The first board was a direct order from EVGA, and when it arrived it had a red tag attached to it that said DEFECTIVE in English, with a lot of Chinese words I could not decipher on the tag as well. The board would not POST no matter what I did, and I had to RMA it. The second board would hang with different POST codes and I could never successfully boot it. I RMA'd that as well. The third board arrived with a broken PCIE connector, and I RMA'd that as well. The 4th and final board I did get to boot, but I had memory problems with that and could not get any memory I tried to run past 1600. I downloaded the EVGA approved memory QVL and bought 2 different sets of memory, one from G.Skill, and one from Kingston that were on that list. Both were DDR3-2133, and neither set of memory would run past 1600. Attempting to set the XMP profile would result in a no-boot situation. In discussions with their tech support, I was told that the XMP profiles were a suggestion, and that manual settings would be more reliable. I was also told to download the 32 BIOS. I did download and install the BIOS, and there was not much difference except that I could manually set the memory and coax it to 1866. I did try some CPU overclocking on liquid cooling, but could not get past 4.8 GHz, and had severe stability problems.

What really makes me angry is that EVGA claims these boards support DDR3-2133 memory, and when you go into the BIOS to set the XMP Profile, there is a message that says the XMP Profile is "approved", and yet it does not work. Even with memory specifically on their approved list. And yes, I bought 2 different sets of memory from 2 different manufacturers in anticipation of EVGA claiming I had bad memory.

I have subsuquently set up 2 systems, one with an ASUS R4E, and the other with an MSI Big Bang Xpower II, and the contrast could not be more different. Both the ASUS and MSI boards worked right out of the box without any problems whatsoever. Both motherboards ran G.Skill DDR3-2400 memory XMP Profiles without my having to do any extra tweaking. I overclocked the CPU's on both boards to 5.0 Ghz within 30 minutes of power up. Both boards have been running stable since the initial setup. I would also like to add that the BIOS's on both of these motherboards are very well designed and work with both keyboard and mouse. I could only get the EVGA BIOS to work with the keyboard.

All I have to say is that I love EVGA Graphics cards, and was very anxious to try their motherboards. I had high expectations, and these were not met. For a motherboard in this price class to perform so poorly is unexcuseable. From perusing the EVGA forums, I can see that I am not alone in my bad experience.

[hokiealumnus]

Wow, that's an awful experience. Sorry about your luck johnnyc604.

['Cuda340]

Just got a chance to check this out now.......Good read.

Thanks EarthDog.

[cw823]

I would be willing to do secondary analysis, just send items to my home and in 2-4 years I will come up with my own reports.

[eduncan911]

Originally Posted by EarthDog

I just read the thread you linked... not sure how you came to that conclusion (batches) with the information there, but, I digress. Oh well.....lets move on. Thanks again for pointing out the actual configuration of this motherboard vs Intel available lanes on the CPU.

You're correct. That was my pure assumption based on living on their forums 18 hours a day waiting for the "next shipment" statements that they are ready to order - and I'd miss it again and have to wait for the "next shipment" statement.

The base for my statement of "first batch or two" because the first batch of "now available! Go and get 'em!" first reported the missing cpu socket protector part. And then a 2nd batch was released, and 4 days later someone else claimed the same missing cpu socket protector. Hence the "First batch [or two]" cause of the timing of the resupply of stock.



Purely my assumption, but close you have to admit, as it seems no one else reported the issue since.

Originally Posted by EarthDog

@ Eduncan911 - I was just thinking. These are PCIe3 slots and have double the bandwidth of PCIe2 slots, right? So even if its 8x/8x/8x/8x, thats like 16x PCIe2.

Technically, they are PCIe 2.0 as of today, but is supposed to support 3.0 with "future updates". But no EVGA BIOS, nor video hardware, is available at this time to enable that speed. And if you want to get very technical, Intel did not finish their PCIe 3.0 specifications in time before they "released" the Sandy Bridge-E chipset to RTM. But, it didn't stop Intel from stating that "Future X79 chipsets will support PCIe 3.0 [post launch]" meaning it physically can support it, but something is missing (no one is clear why Intel didn't finish the 3.0 release in time, nor do they know what is 'missing' to enable PCIe 3.0 on these boards). They actually backed off the support for 3.0, as well as the 8 SATA 6Gbps port. (only 2 SATA 6Gbps are native to the X79 chipset, and the other 4 SATA 3Gbps. Any additional 6Gbps ports have to be enabled via additional controllers. This is a chipset limitation.

You are also correct that the bandwidth doubles yet again moving from 2.0 to 3.0 (it doubles from 1.0 to 2.0). This would make everything mute, yep.

Originally Posted by EarthDog

Does CUDA use more bandwidth than in PCIe2 16x or something?

Depends on the application. I'm using it to tinker for data mining performance, which is extremely intensive on the data packets I send to it and what I want back (read: bandwidth).

Originally Posted by EarthDog

Does it really matter outside of not following Intel spec in your case since there is plenty of bandwidth for your setup in the first place?

Now, this is where we start to venture into the "Let me throw $X at a new part, and see if I fix the lag in Y" guessing game. So, it's my assumption that the every so slight "jittery" or "lag" when spinning very quickly in a FPS, or when playing Batman Arkham City and trying to move the camera is enough to be extremely annoying. It does not exists in single or 3-way SLI on a single monitor - only in tri-monitor gaming mode.

It's tri-gaming mode that eats up a lot of bandwidth.

1920x1080 = 2,073,600 pixels
2650x1600 = 4,240,000 pixels (30" Dual-Link monitor)
5760x1080 = 6,220,800 pixels (tri-monitor 2D Vision Surround)

And that's per frame that has to transfer through the PCIe bandwidth.

So, we have to start playing the guessing game at what this lag could be.


GPU usage? Perhaps, and its high around 85% and a few peaks to 95%. But in single monitor, they hit 100% so I know it's not the limit.

CPU bottleneck? Perhaps, but usually the CPU bottlenecks manifests themselves as shark drop in frame rates or "stalling" as some reviews I've read proved CPU bottlenecks. What I am experiencing is a noticeable "lag" during all sequences in all scenarios.

My #1 guess: The X58 chipset has the PCIe controller on the Northbridge itself (can't recall the controller, I want to say PCH or QPI but can't remember all of those IOH, MCH, QPI, etc). With the P67/Z68 and the X79 chipsets, they moved this PCIe controller onto the processor (CPU) die itself, which removed the latency. It was a core reason for the new architecture of LGA1155 and LGA2011.

This PCIe controller latency is what I suspect I am reaching the limit of, since it was completely constant during all scenarios, unlike CPU bottlenecks that would come and go (noticed those too, usually around extreme debris since BF3 does not use Nvidia's PhysX but built their own that runs off of the CPU).

With the tri-monitor setup I have, that's a resolution of 5760x1080 and over 6.2 million pixels (6.5 million with 6000x1080 bezel corrected resolution).

With that said, I wanted to increase the links of x16-x8-x8 to x16-x16-x8. This was the reason I bought the EVGA X79 FTW, and then later found out about the actual link assignments. "I just spent $1000 on what?" <- including the 3930k that is.

But as mentioned, it's resolved now.

[Lvcoyote]

I should have a review finished in about a week or so on this board, EVGA will be sending one out on Monday. It will be posted at OverclockersTech.com when done.

I've done several reviews for EVGA over the past few years and trust me, I never get paid for any of them either.....LOL.

You reviewers here at Overclockers do a fantastic job, keep up the great work guys!!

[EarthDog]

Technically, they are PCIe 2.0 as of today, but is supposed to support 3.0 with "future updates". But no EVGA BIOS, nor video hardware, is available at this time to enable that speed. And if you want to get very technical, Intel did not finish their PCIe 3.0 specifications in time before they "released" the Sandy Bridge-E chipset to RTM. But, it didn't stop Intel from stating that "Future X79 chipsets will support PCIe 3.0 [post launch]" meaning it physically can support it, but something is missing (no one is clear why Intel didn't finish the 3.0 release in time, nor do they know what is 'missing' to enable PCIe 3.0 on these boards). They actually backed off the support for 3.0, as well as the 8 SATA 6Gbps port. (only 2 SATA 6Gbps are native to the X79 chipset, and the other 4 SATA 3Gbps. Any additional 6Gbps ports have to be enabled via additional controllers. This is a chipset limitation.

You are also correct that the bandwidth doubles yet again moving from 2.0 to 3.0 (it doubles from 1.0 to 2.0). This would make everything mute, yep.

Wait.. Im a bit confused... The 7970, 7950, etc have been out for a few weeks now that take advantage of PCIe3...X79 has PCIe3. This bios has options to switch PCIe2 or 3. It says PCIe3 in GPUz with my 7950 in it. Am I not in PCIe3?

With that said, I wanted to increase the links of x16-x8-x8 to x16-x16-x8. This was the reason I bought the EVGA X79 FTW, and then later found out about the actual link assignments.

So I ask, again I guess, does this nomenclature matter at all when bandwidth is effectively doubled with the proper gpu in place?

It seems like from the post that you are not even sure if you are at the limit of anything to be honest. Is that a fair assesment? I would like to somehow capture that bandwidth number and see what it is... Just seems like a lot of your concern is based on assumption (in which those assumption are a logical few steps away).

@ Lv - It will be nice to check out other reviews on the board and thank you for your support.

[Boulard83]

Sorry for taking this thread out of the dust.

I just ordered this board cause the low price for an higg end X79 board. its the K2 revision, supposed to have some issue fixed and ill flash to latest bios on the fisrt boot. I may go for a SLI in a near futur so the 32 lane are perfect for me.

Lots of the other X79 board use a PLX chip as soon as you go for multiple GPUs and this add some latency, i prefer not to pass through it as long as i dont need it.

Hope the board comes in and work out of the box, seems to have few people that had issue with this board.

[kmo_9000]

Originally Posted by EarthDog

Wait.. Im a bit confused... The 7970, 7950, etc have been out for a few weeks now that take advantage of PCIe3...X79 has PCIe3. This bios has options to switch PCIe2 or 3. It says PCIe3 in GPUz with my 7950 in it. Am I not in PCIe3?

So I ask, again I guess, does this nomenclature matter at all when bandwidth is effectively doubled with the proper gpu in place?

It seems like from the post that you are not even sure if you are at the limit of anything to be honest. Is that a fair assesment? I would like to somehow capture that bandwidth number and see what it is... Just seems like a lot of your concern is based on assumption (in which those assumption are a logical few steps away).

@ Lv - It will be nice to check out other reviews on the board and thank you for your support.

They have support for 8GT/s, which is PCIe 3 speeds. For some reason intel refuses to give officially give PCIe 3 branding though. If you go look up any SB-E CPU the intel website will only list PCI-e 2. But you should still get PCI-e 3 speeds though.

[PolePosition]

Originally Posted by Boulard83

Hope the board comes in and work out of the box, seems to have few people that had issue with this board.

Considering this review was done in 2/12 and now its 10/12, I would tend to think any previous issues were resolved by now.

Does FTW mean "For The Web"? Meaning it was designed and built for web surfing but not so much other applications or benching? This is probably a dumb question but still I'm curious to know what is the meaning.

Also, I don't see why its such a big deal when somebody like Horsehead suggest a reviewer might have been paid. Surely people who work for newspapers, magazines, and perhaps some technical sites such as Tom's Hardware or Hardware Secrets get paid to write columns, news articles, and reviews. It is possible that some of them may be biased toward some things yet write articles which do not reflect their personal opinions, as their jobs could be in jeopardy for such behavior when certain facts are not true. A reader can sometimes tell when the writer is favorable or passionate about what they are writing, particulary when the reader has studied courses in creative writing. Clearly, this review had both positive and negative points which is a fair assessment in any review, as noted in both the body and conclusion. Occasionally though, someone comes along who has actual bad experiences with the product and stumbles upon the article which he or she feels must be addressed to warn others or at the very least show dissent.

I grew up with the notion of "sticks and stones..........." and if someone made an accusation for which I knew/know it isn't true, it doesn't offend me. However, such things can put others on the defensive to refute such claims.
What I'd like to know is, are all reviews required to be followed by comments of only praise and appreciation where negative comments are forbidden? Surely I can appreciate the time and effort that goes into writing and presenting the content and praise the author for his/her efforts, but sometimes critics can come out and feel or have a negative impression.

[Bobnova]

FTW = For The Win.

Making offensive accusations generally generates offense, strange as it may seem.
The accusation that a reviewer is being positive because they were paid is pretty much the worst possible insult. I can't think of a worse one right now anyway.
While groundless accusations may not annoy you, the vast majority of the world does not appreciate them at all. Legal system included!

The method used to criticize a review, or anything, is extremely important. There's a line between genuine constructive criticism and just being a Bad Person, he who cannot find that line should not try to leave constructive criticism.
Getting paid to write a review is a very different accusation from being paid to write a good review. Similarly being paid by a newspaper to write a review is very different than being paid by a manufacturer to write a review.
Lastly, I see no reason to revive drama that was put to rest eight months ago. Not helpful, that.


As to the question of whether issues have been fixed, time is far from the best way to guess at that.

[EarthDog]

FTW = For The Win

...and this thread is 8 months old as you noted, but you are bringing that point up AGAIN? Did Hokie's (and my) post(s) not already show you the reasons? Let me break down your post and answer this stuff though.....

Also, I don't see why its such a big deal when somebody like Horsehead suggest a reviewer might have been paid.

Getting paid for writing a review clearly isnt the issue here, its getting paid to give the review a positive outcome which is what I(and Hokie) took exception to.

Occasionally though, someone comes along who has actual bad experiences with the product and stumbles upon the article which he or she feels must be addressed to warn others or at the very least show dissent.

Is that what it is though? Is that the best way to get your point across the first time you post? Is stating the review sucks which COMPLETELY disregards my experience with the board? Would you think a 'hey, just an FYI, I saw this review and wanted to share my different experience. I had problems with the USB ports dropping, and...................just wanted to let the site know'. Dont you think that would have been received better and noted as opposed to what actually happened here? Let's look at his post in detail and see how his post was structured....and then look at the other guy's reply that had an issue. I have to imagine you can see a difference there, especially in the responses towards the bad experiences.

This review is not a real honest one.

The conclusion also tells me that the reviewer was trying to make the EVGA X79 MB look good, when in fact it is a poorly developed MB that has many problems and could never come close to competing with ASUS, Gigabyte, ASRock, and MSi.

Have reason to believe this review was setup by EVGA (Maybe EVGA through a little money at someone?). Why? EVGA is having serious issues when it comes to MB sales. Someone needs to tell EVGA if they want to increase sales, then they should make an MB that actually works right.

The EVGA X79 MBs are having all kind of weird reliability problems. Way too many! Just visit the EVGA forums and see all the problems the EVGA X79 line-up of MBs have. EVGA even shipped MBs with missing parts and QC tags still attached to them, some even came with bent pins.

It would be gratefully appreciated if Overclock.com removed the EVGA X79 review and replaced it with a more honest one. Because there is know way a good reviewer would recommend the EVGA X79 MBs in there current form/function-able state!

This is a blatant attack on the credibly of me as a reviewer and this site as a whole. I mean, his first line states this isn't an honest review. That means I lied about my findings...I lied in my review. Does it get any worse???????

He also goes on to state, with terrible grammar no less, that we are paid to give positive outcomes. This is also false. He also tears apart my conclusion to which you, PoleP, appear to support it as it supports what the body states/my findings.

I guess I'm just left wondering something. WHY this would be brought up AGAIN, when there are clear answers to what you asked already in the thread? Why are you dredging up and beating on this long time dead thread when the answers are already on the page? This is no the first, second, or third time you have inferred that our reviewers are shills either...


EDIT: Heh, thanks BobN, thats what I get for not refreshing before I post!

[PolePosition]

Fair enough, you made your point, and now I can see how Horsehead's response did get under your skin, and rightly so considering how he stuctured his post. Perhaps he would have been better to use the FYI as you stated instead of his other words. By him saying it wasn't an honest review, that was a poor choice of words and blatant attack, but it should be noted that I do NOT share Horsehead's feelings on this review, and my comments on it are my own. I know you didn't lie and you know you didn't lie, as well as many others know who responded. On a sidenote, I can't think of one review I've ever read here (or much anywhere) which sheds light on a negative outcome, as most all reviews are optimistically focused, yet may distinguish some negative factors, but those are usually very few.
I did state that I do support the fact you showed an UNBIASED review, even though I don't agree with your conclusion to infer all X79 boards are trash by saying you're "disappointed with them". I also didn't bump this thread, as it was already bumped by someone else and just happened to notice it. When old threads are bumped, I don't see the harm in responding to them,(or is that prohibited as well?) and in no means did I ever call anyone here a shill, so please don't put words in my mouth I have NOT said. You're the only one who keeps bringing that term back up, not me.

The getting paid remark by Horsehead was a question, followed by what HE thought was the reason, hence the "?" marks, or maybe I'm wrong for seeing it for what it is.

I'm only responding here (again) because you asked me questions in your response to my response, but won't dare to bump this thread again. Let's "Let sleeping dogs ly"

[EarthDog]

You should read more reviews here and also check the definitions of approved, meh, and fail to get a better handle on why we rate things the way we do. But I would say the vast majority of products are approved.

Nothing wrong with bumping the thread its the content that already had hte answers you seek or perhaps that were painfully obvious in responses already listed that was perplexing

You never directly call us shills but a couple of posts and an inquiry in chat I shot down certainly make me(and others) feel this way (in reference to recommending the z77 extreme4). Since the answers were in front of u here, I could only come to one conclusion. My apologies if I was off in this case.

I along didn't state x79 boards were trash. Not remotely did I allude to that. I am dissapointed that the boards I reviewed had (correctable) issues out of the box. In fact the only board that worked well out of the box was ASRock x79 extreme 4-m. I suggest you reread the first paragraph in the conclusion again.