Gigabyte GA-X58A-UD7 LGA1366 Motherboard Review

[MAC]

Feature Test: USB 3.0

Feature Test: USB 3.0

Without a doubt one of the most popular technologies of 2010 is going to be USB 3.0. Not only is this new interface almost ten times faster than then ancient USB 2.0 standard, but it is backwards compatible too. Regrettably, Intel haven't committed to releasing a chipset with native USB 3.0 support until sometime in 2011. Nevertheless, motherboard manufacturers have recognized the importance of this new standard and have turned to third-party manufacturers like NEC and VIA. Gigabyte have added USB 3.0 support to all their new "A" models, like the X58A-UD7, with an onboard NEC D720200 host controller, which can supply up to two USB 3.0 ports.

Click on image to enlarge​

In order to test out this new interface, Gigabyte kindly loaned us a Buffalo 1TB USB3.0 hard drive enclosure, the HD-H1.0TU3. This unit has just hit North American shores (as the HD-HX1.0TU3) and is retailing for roughly $190-200 CDN.

Click on image to enlarge​

As you can see, this unit is a mighty fingerprint magnet but it is otherwise a very sleek product. This enclosure houses a standard hard drive (unknow brand/model), so it obviously will not be able to utilize all of USB 3.0's available bandwidth, but the results should obviously be a quite a bit higher than USB 2.0's ~35MB/s bandwidth limit. Let's check out the results:

As you can see, USB 3.0 lives up to its billing. Whereas the hard drive in this enclosure is severely bottlenecked by the USB 2.0 interface, its true capabilities are finally unleashed with USB 3.0. This level of performance from an external device was previously only achievable with the eSATA interface, which although excellent still hasn't gained much popularity.

Synthetic numbers are all fine & dandy, but let's see what this speed means in a real-life scenario:

Now you may be less than impressed while looking at these figures. While USB 3.0 reduced transfer times by 76%, that's still not as much as one would expect looking at the synthetic numbers. Well the reason for this is that the hard drive is the weak link in this equation. Although the transfer rates start off strong at ~125MB/sec, and remain above 100MB/sec for approximately 30 seconds, there is inevitably a slow and steady decline down to to 22MB/sec. A faster hard drive or preferably an solid state drive (SSD) would better demonstrate the potential performance benefits of USB 3.0.

 

[MAC]

Test Setup & Methodology

Test Setup & Methodology

Click on image to enlarge​

Test Setup​

Testing will occur on a Highspeed PC Standard Top Deck Tech Station and not in a traditional case. This allows easier access to the motherboard for the constant poking and prodding that is required during the reviewing process. The setup remained as pictured during the duration of the benchmarking and stability overclocking process.

Overclocking Methodology

As a high-end X58 model, we fully expect the X58A-UD7 to have some impressive overclocking capabilities. The overclocking section is definitely the part of our reviews that we take the most pride in, and we spend an excruciating numbers of hours testing, tweaking, failing, and succeeding in order to give you the best possible insight into each motherboard’s overclocking capabilities. After all, if you are anything like us, the overclocking section is the first (and often last!) part that you read when checking out a motherboard review.

For the purposes of this review, our overclocking efforts will primarily focus on three main areas: highest stable BCLK overclock, highest stable CPU overclock, and highest stable memory overclock.

In these overclocking tests we put an emphasis on stability. While the question “What is stable?” could be debated endlessly, we have devised a methodology that combines a wide range of programs that test the stability of the entire system.

Here are some of the applications that will be run in order to validate the overclocks:

• Four/Eight 32MB instances of SuperPi Mod 1.5 (ran at the same time)
• 3+ hours of dual Prime 95 v25.6 using the Stress Testing Blend
• 1 hour of OCCT Auto 1H Medium Data Set OCCT v3.1.0
• LinX 0.5.9 - 25 runs - use all memory
• Multiple loops of 3DMark 06 (30 minutes of looping the full tests each)
• 1 hour of game play in Left 4 Dead & Crysis @ 1680x1050

Altogether, the above suite should provide enough stress testing to ensure a completely stable overclock, however we are always up for new suggestions. As always, no two systems are ever alike, so your results may vary. Also, overclock at your own risk! If you aren’t fully confident in what you are doing, feel free to stop by our forums and our helpful community will be glad to offer some assistance.

Benchmark Methodology

For this review, we have compared the X58A-UD7 with the ASUS Rampage II Extreme, both in stock configuration and using the Xeon W3520 2.66Ghz processor with Turbo Boost enabled.

We have outlined the two setups in the sample graph above. The blue results are from Gigabyte X58A-UD7 and the red results are from the ASUS Rampage II Extreme.

For all of the benchmarks, appropriate lengths are taken to ensure an equal comparison through methodical setup, installation, and testing. The following outlines our testing methodology:

A) Windows is installed using a full format.

B) Intel Chipset drivers and accessory hardware drivers (audio, network, GPU) are installed followed by a defragment and a reboot.

C) Programs and games are then installed followed by another defragment.

D) Windows updates are then completed installing all available updates followed by a defragment.

E) Benchmarks are each ran three times after a clean reboot for every iteration of the benchmark unless otherwise stated, the results are then averaged.

We have listed the benchmark versions above each graph as results can vary between updates. That should about cover everything so let's see what kind of numbers this motherboard puts up in the overclocking section and in our chosen suite of benchmarks.

 

[MAC]

Overclocking Results

Overclocking Results

Overclocking the Bloomfield/X58 platform is quite different then anything else on the market, even Lynnfield/P55. There are five clock speeds (CPU/BCLK/MEM/UCLK/QPI) and four multipliers (CPU/MEM/UCLK/QPI) to tweak and monitor, as well as eight different important voltages. Put simply, there are lot of variables and potential limitations that an overclocker must now take into consideration.

While overclocking we used the F3k beta BIOS, whereas we used the public F3g for our benchmarking results. Ultimately, there wasn't any discernible difference between the two during our overclocking endeavours. Voltage wise we tested up to 1.40vCore, 1.50V VTT/QPI, 1.96V CPU PLL, 1.70V PCIE, 1.30V QPI PLL, 1.30v IOH Core, 1.70V ICH I/O, 1.30V ICH Core, and 1.70vDIMM.

Highest Stable BCLK Overclock

Click on image to enlarge​

With the X58A-UD7 we were able to achieve our best BCLK results yet, just sneaking by the 214.8 MHz we achieved on the ASUS Rampage II Gene. 217-218MHz were achievable with EasyTune, but all stability went out the window and there were visual artifacts. Our results are very likely skill/time limited though, and we have seen a large cross-section of results whereby this motherboard easily achieved 220-237Mhz BCLK's on air and water. Gigabyte have definitely learned from their original EX58 series and have done hardware modifications to their design to ensure much better BCLK capabilities.

Highest Stable CPU Overclock

Click on image to enlarge​

Our CPU overclocking results are nothing to write home about, but that's simply because our low leakage chip runs hotter than the surface of the sun. Utilizing the highest possible achievable-but-unstable BCLK we were able to hit up to 4.55Ghz.

Highest Stable Memory Overclock

Click on image to enlarge​

The only area in which the X58A-UD7 did not distinguish itself was memory overclocking. While the results are very good, this particular G.Skill Trident PC3-16000 has proven itself capable of DDR3-2100 9-9-9-24-98-1T on an ASUS Rampage II Extreme, which we couldn't achieve no matter the voltage or secondary memory timing. Others have also remarked about this model's lower memory overclocking capabilities, so hopefully Gigabyte can address this in a future BIOS release.

 

[MAC]

Synthetic Benchmarks

Synthetic Benchmarks

Lavalys Everest Ultimate v5.02

Everest Ultimate is the most useful tool for any and all benchmarkers or overclockers. With the ability to pick up most voltage, temperature, and fan sensors on almost every motherboard available, Everest provides the ability to customize the outputs in a number of forms on your desktop. We selected two of Everest's seven CPU benchmarks: CPU Queen and FPU Mandel. According to Lavalys, CPU Queen simple integer benchmark focuses on the branch prediction capabilities and the misprediction penalties of the CPU. It finds the solutions for the classic "Queens problem" on a 10 by 10 sized chessboard. At the same clock speed theoretically the processor with the shorter pipeline and smaller misprediction penalties will attain higher benchmark scores. The FPU Mandel benchmark measures the double precision (also known as 64-bit) floating-point performance through the computation of several frames of the popular "Mandelbrot" fractal. Both tests consume less than 1 MB system memory, and are Hyper-Threading, multi-processor (SMP) and multi-core (CMP) aware.

This is going to be fairly boring benchmarking section since most of the results are statistical dead heats, but there are a few instances in which either motherboard really distinguishes itself.

Lavalys Everest Ultimate v5.02

As part of its enthusiast favourite Cache & Memory Benchmark, Everest provides very useful and in-depth cache performance figures. For this chart, we have combined the read, write, and copy bandwidth figures to achieve an aggregate bandwidth figure for each cache stage.

Although the L1 and L2 cache results are effectively identical, the X58A-UD7's L3 results are much higher than the the Rampage II Extreme's (RIIE). The reason for this disparity has something to do with how each motherboard handles the seemingly innocuous C-STATE processor setting.

While it was enabled for both motherboards, the RIIE takes a hit in the L3 department with it enabled. With C-STATE disabled, its L3 cache results are very much inline with the UD7's.

Lavalys Everest Ultimate v5.02

Everest Ultimate is the most useful tool for any and all benchmarkers or overclockers. With the ability to pick up most voltage, temperature, and fan sensors on almost every motherboard available, Everest provides the ability to customize the outputs in a number of forms on your desktop. In addition to this, the memory benchmarking utility provides a useful tool of measuring the changes to your memory sub-system.

In the memory bandwidth realm, the RIIE does manage to outperform the UD7 in both write and copy speeds. Everest memory benchmarking on the Bloomfield/X58 platform never really provides stable results since all of the CPU technology that is constantly changing clock speeds really affects the results.

The X58A-UD7 could achieve similar write results as the RIIE only once every 10 or so runs, but it never came close to matching the copy bandwidth.

The Gigabyte motherboard definitely has the memory latency advantage according to Everest, but let's see if ScienceMark echoes these results.

ScienceMark v2.0

Although last updated almost 3 years ago, and despite its rudimentary interface, ScienceMark v2.0 remains a favorite for accurately calculating bandwidth on even the newest chipsets.

While Everest showed the Rampage II Extreme as beating the X58A-UD7 in two of three bandwidth tests, ScienceMark really illustrates the difference with the RIIE having a 6% memory bandwidth lead over the X58A-UD7.

When it comes to memory latency, the ScienceMark results mirror the Everest ones, which is to say that the UD7 has the lowest memory latency.

While interesting, these are all the synthetic benchmarks, so will the results be any different in real-life applications? Let's find out.

 

[MAC]

System Benchmarks

System Benchmarks

SuperPi Mod v1.5

When running the SuperPI 32MB benchmark, we are calculating Pi to 32 million digits and timing the process. Obviously more CPU power helps in this intense calculation, but the memory sub-system also plays an important role, as does the operating system. We are running one instance of SuperPi via the HyperPi 0.99b interface. This is therefore a single-thread workload.

Cinebench R10

Cinebench R10 64-bit
Test1: Single CPU Image Render
Test2: Multi CPU Image Render
Comparison: Generated Score

Developed by MAXON, creators of Cinema 4D, Cinebench 10 is designed using the popular Cinema software and created to compare system performance in 3D Animation and Photo applications. There are two parts to the test; the first stresses only the primary CPU or Core, the second, makes use of up to 16 CPUs/Cores. Both are done rendering a realistic photo while utilizing various CPU-intensive features such as reflection, ambient occlusion, area lights and procedural shaders

PCMark Vantage x64

PCMark Vantage Advanced 64-bit Edition (1.0.0.0)
PCMark Suite / Default Settings
Comparison: Generated Score

The main focus of our General Tasks category lies with the most recent installment of the PCMark series, Vantage. While still classified under the description of a Synthetic benchmark, PCMark Vantage uses many of Vista's (Note - Vantage is Vista-only) built-in programs and features along with its own tests, so it is "real-world" applicable in regards to CPU performance. The following is a general list of the tests in the PCMark suite, very much in line with tasks of an average user: Data encryption, Data compression, CPU image manipulation (compression/decompression/resize), Audio transcoding,Video transcoding,Text editing,Web page rendering, Windows Mail, Windows Contacts, and CPU game test.

Photoshop CS4

For the image editing portion of this review, we will use Photoshop CS4 in coordination with Driver Heaven’s Photoshop Benchmark V3, which is an excellent test of CPU power and memory bandwidth. This is a scripted benchmark that individually applies 15 different filters to a 109MB JPEG, and uses Photoshop’s built-in timing feature to provide a result at each test stage. Then it’s simply a matter of adding up the 15 results to reach the final figure.

Lame Front End

Lame Front End v1.0 is a single-threaded application, which means that it only utilizes a single processor core. This will obviously limit performance but it will allow us to see the benefits of Lynnfield aggressive Turbo Boost with single-threaded loads. We will be encoding a WAV rip of Santana’s Supernatural album and converting it to MP3 using the highest fidelity VBR 0 quality preset.

x264 HD Benchmark

x264 HD Benchmark v1.0
Test: MPEG-2 HD 720P Video Clip Conversion to x264
DVD Video Length: 30 Seconds
Comparison: FPS of Second Pass

x264 is quickly becoming the new codec of choice for encoding a growing number of H.264/MPEG-4 AVC videos. Think of it as the new Divx of HD and you can understand why we felt it critical to include. Tech Arp's recent development of the x264 HD Benchmark takes a 30 second HD video clip and encodes it into the x264 codec with the intention of little to no quality loss. The test is measured using the average frames per second achieved during encoding, which scales with processor speed and efficiency. The benchmark also allows the use of multi-core processors so it gives a very accurate depiction of what to expect when using encoding application on a typical full length video.

WinRAR

WinRAR 3.8.0
Test: Compression of 1GB of Assorted Files
Comparison: Time to Finish

One of the most popular file compression/decompresion tools, we use WinRAR to compress a 1GB batch of files and archive them, timing the task until completion.

 

[MAC]

I/O Benchmarks

I/O Benchmarks

A first here at Hardware Canucks, we have finally included some basic I/O benchmarks. We love to hear your thoughts and ideas about what to implement and whether we should expand to include LAN and audio tests, so let us know on the forums.

HD Tach 3.0.4 - SATA

For this benchmark, HDTach was used. It shows the potential read speed which you are likely to experience with an Intel X-25M 80GB G1 solid state drive (SSD) on this motherboard. The long test was run to give a slightly more accurate picture. The test was run three times with the results averaged out.

We don’t put much stock in Burst speed readings and this goes double for SSDs; the more important number is the Average Speed number. This number will tell you what to expect from a given drive in normal, day to day operations. The higher the average the faster your entire system will seem.

We also test CPU utilization in order to make sure that there isn't a problem needlessly wasting CPU cycles. Lastly, we have also included the random access time, just as another barometer of overall storage sub-system performance. In both cases, the lower the better.

Interestingly, our X-25M consistently achieved a higher average read speed on the X58A-UD7 than on the Rampage II Extreme. In fact, although both boards posted the same burst speeds, the RIIE never even broke the 180MB/s mark in average speed during our repeated testing.

Both models achieved identical CPU utilization at 2%, and super 0.1ms access times courtesy of the Intel X25-M G1 SSD.

HD Tach 3.0.4 - USB

For this benchmark, HDTach was used. It shows the potential read speed which you are likely to experience from this motherboard's USB 2.0 ports. In this test, we connected an external 2.5" 5400RPM hard drive to a USB port, ran the test three times and averaged the results. The long test was run to give a slightly more accurate picture.

We don’t put much stock in Burst speed readings; the more important number is the Average Speed number. This number will tell you what to expect from a given drive in normal, day to day operations. The higher the average the faster your entire system will seem.

We also test CPU utilization in order to make sure that there isn't a problem needlessly wasting CPU cycles. Lastly, we have also included the random access time, just as another barometer of overall storage sub-system performance. In both cases, the lower the better.

USB read speeds are very much identical across the board.

Once again, the results are pretty much identical, with any differences attributable to normal benchmark variance.

HD Tach 3.0.4 - eSATA

For this benchmark, HDTach was used. It shows the potential read speed which you are likely to experience from this motherboard's eSATA port with an Intel X-25M G1 80GB solid state drive. with these hard drives. The long test was run to give a slightly more accurate picture. The test was run three times with the results averaged out.

We don’t put much stock in Burst speed readings and this goes double for SSDs; the more important number is the Average Speed number. This number will tell you what to expect from a given drive in normal, day to day operations. The higher the average the faster your entire system will seem.

We also test CPU utilization in order to make sure that there isn't a problem needlessly wasting CPU cycles. Lastly, we have also included the random access time, just as another barometer of overall storage sub-system performance. In both cases, the lower the better.

The X58A-UD7 and Rampage II Extreme both utilize the same JMicron JMB362 controller for eSATA support, and as such they achieve nearly performance levels.

Despite using the same controller, the Gigabyte board consistently had much higher CPU utilization than the ASUS when benchmarking the eSATA interface.

 

[MAC]

Gaming Benchmarks

Gaming Benchmarks

Futuremark 3DMark06

3DMark06 v1.1.0
Graphic Settings: Default
Resolution: 1280X1024

Test: Specific CPU Score and Full Run 3Dmarks
Comparison: Generated Score

The Futuremark 3DMark series has been a part of the backbone in computer and hardware reviews since its conception. The trend continues today as 3DMark06 provides consumers with a solid synthetic benchmark geared for performance and comparison in the 3D gaming realm. This remains one of the most sought after statistics, as well as an excellent tool for accurate CPU comparison, and it will undoubtedly be used for years to come.

Futuremark 3DMark Vantage

3DMark Vantage v1.0.1
Graphic Settings: Performance Preset
Resolution: 1280X1024

Test: Specific CPU Score and Full Run 3Dmarks
Comparison: Generated Score

3DMark Vantage is the follow-up to the highly successful 3DMark06. It uses DirectX 10 exclusively so if you are running Windows XP, you can forget about this benchmark. Along with being a very capable graphics card testing application, it also has very heavily multi-threaded CPU tests, such Physics Simulation and Artificial Intelligence (AI), which makes it a good all-around gaming benchmark.

Crysis

Crysis v1.21
Resolution: 1680x1050
Anti Aliasing: 0
Quality Settings: High
Global Settings: DX10 / 64-Bit

Test 1: Ice benchmark_CPU2 demo
Comparison: FPS (Frames per Second)

Still one of the most hardware intensive game on the market today, Crysis has been chosen for its obvious ability to be able to showcase the differences between platforms and to showcase just how far one will need to go in the quest for maximum performance. The game also features the renowned CryEngine, the power behind the incredible graphics, which is expected to be foundation of future titles.

Far Cry 2

Far Cry 2 1.02
Resolution: 1680x1050
Anti Aliasing: 0
Quality Settings: Very High
Global Settings: DX10 Enabled

Test 1: Ranch Long Demo
Comparison: FPS (Frames per Second)

Far Cry 2 is the hot new new first-person shooter from Ubisoft's Montreal studio, and the first game to utilize the new visually stunning Dunia Engine, which will undoubtedly be used by numerous future games. Using the included Benchmarking Tool, we ran the Long Ranch demo in DX10 mode at 1680x1050 with all settings set to very high.

Street Fighter 4

Street Fighter 4 Demo
Resolution: 1680x1050
Anti-Aliasing: 0X
Graphic Settings: High
Test 1: Built-in Timedemo
Comparison: FPS (Frames per Second)

Street Fighter IV is a 2008 arcade game produced by famous developer Capcom, that has finally been released on the PC platform. This game has not been 'ported' since the Street Fighter IV arcade machines actually have PC internals, with circa 2005 components. As a result, the version of the game released on the PC is considered the definitive version. With a fully multi-threaded engine and an astounding hybrid 2D/3D graphics style, this game is sure to please all fans of the Street Fighter series.

World in Conflict

World in Conflict v1.010
Resolution: 1680x1050
Anti-Aliasing: 4X
Anisotropic Filtering: 4X
Graphic Settings: Very High
Test 1: Built-in Benchmark
Comparison: FPS (Frames per Second)

One of the most visually stunning real-time strategy games in recent history, World in Conflict can really push systems to the brink, which is what we attempt by running the game in DirectX 10 mode at 1680x1050 with all settings maxed out. For this test we used the in-game benchmarking tool.

 

[MAC]

SLI Gaming Benchmarks

SLI Gaming Benchmarks

As most of you know, there was a huge amount of excitement surrounding X58 motherboards being the first Intel chipset-based motherboards to officially support NVIDIA's SLI multi-GPU technology. The SLI support is not native to the X58 chipset though, motherboard manufacturers have to pay NVIDIA to obtain a 'bios key' to unlock SLI on whichever motherboard they decide the implement the feature on. The Gigabyte X58A-UD7 obviously supports SLI, as does the Rampage II Extreme that we have been comparing it to.

For this test, we are using two EVGA GeForce GTX 280 1GB (01G-P3-1280-AR) graphics cards, which are referenced clocked parts. To really take full advantage of SLI we overclocked our processor to 4.0Ghz (20x200) on both motherboards, which should help minimize the CPU bottleneck and really give the GTX 280's room to stretch their legs.

Futuremark 3DMark Vantage

3DMark Vantage v1.0.1
Graphic Settings: Performance Preset
Resolution: 1280X1024

Test: Specific CPU Score and Full Run 3Dmarks
Comparison: Generated Score

3DMark Vantage is the follow-up to the highly successful 3DMark06. It uses DirectX 10 exclusively so if you are running Windows XP, you can forget about this benchmark. Along with being a very capable graphics card testing application, it also has very heavily multi-threaded CPU tests, such Physics Simulation and Artificial Intelligence (AI), which makes it a good all-around gaming benchmark.

Crysis

Crysis v1.21
Resolution: 1680x1050
Anti Aliasing: 0
Quality Settings: High
Global Settings: DX10 / 64-Bit

Test 1: Ice benchmark_CPU2 demo
Comparison: FPS (Frames per Second)

Still one of the most hardware intensive game on the market today, Crysis has been chosen for its obvious ability to be able to showcase the differences between platforms and to showcase just how far one will need to go in the quest for maximum performance. The game also features the renowned CryEngine, the power behind the incredible graphics, which is expected to be foundation of future titles.

Far Cry 2

Far Cry 2 1.02
Resolution: 1680x1050
Anti Aliasing: 0
Quality Settings: Ultra High
Global Settings: DX10 Enabled

Test 1: Ranch Long Demo
Comparison: FPS (Frames per Second)

Far Cry 2 is the hot new new first-person shooter from Ubisoft's Montreal studio, and the first game to utilize the new visually stunning Dunia Engine, which will undoubtedly be used by numerous future games. Using the included Benchmarking Tool, we ran the Long Ranch demo in DX10 mode at 1680x1050 with all settings set to very high.

World in Conflict

World in Conflict v1.010
Resolution: 1680x1050
Anti-Aliasing: 4X
Anisotropic Filtering: 4X
Graphic Settings: Very High
Test 1: Built-in Benchmark
Comparison: FPS (Frames per Second)

One of the most visually stunning real-time strategy games in recent history, World in Conflict can really push systems to the brink, which is what we attempt by running the game in DirectX 10 mode at 1680x1050 with all settings maxed out. For this test we used the in-game benchmarking tool.

 

[MAC]

Voltage Regulation / Power Consumption

Voltage Regulation / Power Consumption

Our voltage regulation testing will focus on the various voltages and the differences encountered between what is selected in the BIOS, what is reported by EasyTune6 (when available), and what is reported by a digital multi-meter (DMM). We have found eight voltage read points on the motherboard so the vCore, CPU PLL, QPI/VTT, QPI PLL, IOH Core, ICH Core, PCIE, and DRAM will be recorded with our DMM. The ground point used for all readings were a screw hole. Here are a few images showing the various read points used.

Click on image to enlarge​

Now that we have established where the read points are, let’s have a look at the results. These measurements were taken at stock system speeds and with C1E, C-STATE, SpeedStep, Turbo Boost, and Thermal Monitor disabled in the BIOS. Just to clarify, the vCore (LLC) section is the vCore results with Load-Line Calibration Level 2 enabled. Here are our extensive findings:

Taken as a whole, the X58A-UD7 has very good voltage output. There is very little variance between what you select in the BIOS and what the board actually outputs. The CPU PLL, QPI PLL, IOH Core, ICH Core, PCI-E, and DRAM voltages are effectively perfect, showing no variance between idle and load states. The QPI/VTT has a certainly level of droopage, but it's quite minimal. Those of you manually setting the memory speeds above DDR3-1333 will want to manually set the voltage as well, since as you can see the auto voltages for QPI/VTT and DRAM get very high at DDR3-1600.

With LLC disabled, the output of the vCore is a little lower than we would like, but at least the line droop (vDroop) is fairly minimal at approximately 2%, well within the vDroop spec. When LLC is enabled, the vDroop is effectively neutralized and the output is also improved. Given how critical the vCore is, let's take a closer look at its characteristics under full load with two one-hour OCCT runs. For both runs our processor will be running at 4.0Ghz with 1.32Vcore, once with LLC disabled, once with it enabled and set to Level 2:

With Load-Line Calibration disabled, the vCore line droops by a little over 2.5% under heavy load, which is perfectly fine. We do wish that there weren't any spikes during the test though, but they are quite minor.

With Load-Line Calibration enabled, we see that once the LLC takes effect the vDroop is eliminated, and the vCore stays within the 1.25-1.25V range line is absolutely perfect. Absolutely we would prefer to see a perfectly straight vCore line, but this result is nevertheless very good.

Power Consumption

All motherboard manufacturers boast that their products have the lowest power consumption and feature the latest new development in energy efficiency. Well that is what we are here to find out. For this test, every BIOS option was reset to its stock setting and the Windows Vista power plan was changed from High Performance to Balanced.

For our idle test, we let the system idle for 15 minutes and measured the peak wattage through our UPM EM100 power meter.

For our CPU load test, we ran Prime 95 In-place large FFTs on all available threads for 15 minutes, measuring the peak wattage via the UPM EM100 power meter.

For our overall system load test, we ran Prime 95 In-place large FFTs on all available threads for 15 minutes, while simultaneously loading the GPU with OCCT v3.1.0 GPU:OCCT stress test at 1680x1050@60Hz in fullscreen mode.

With its brand new 24-phase PWM and more modern MOSFETs, it is no surprise to see that the X58A-UD7 uses quite a bit less power at every stage than the venerable Rampage II Extreme. A fairer test will be when we compare this motherboard to one of ASUS' second-generation X58 motherboards, like the P6X58D Premium.

 

[MAC]

Conclusion

Conclusion

When we first saw a prototype of what was to become the X58A-UD7, it was hard not to be impressed since it had a massive 24-phase power design and support for SATA 6Gb/s and USB 3.0. When this model was finally revealed in retail form, we were glad to see that it hadn't lost any of what made it unique, and had actually gained an additional PCI-E x16 slot, which placed it among rarified company in the motherboard realm.

However, as we discussed in our Closer Look section, the additional PCI-E x16 slot is not quite the blessing we had hoped for, since it's really only usable if you're using single-slot graphics cards. This is obviously problematic since mid-to-high-end graphics cards simply aren't being manufactured in single-slot format anymore. By modifying the northbridge cooler, Gigabyte's engineers could have made this motherboard support four dual-slot graphics cards, which in our opinion would have opened it up to a whole new market.

Speaking of the northbridge cooler, Gigabyte really have to go back to the drawing board with it. We trashed its design on the EP45T-Extreme, and it has basically been carried over to this model. Using fins to transfer heat from the bottom layer to the top layer of a cooler is highly inefficient. There just isn't enough contact area to properly transfer the heat load to the top layer. As a result, adding a water block to the top is fairly pointless, as is attaching the huge Hybrid Silent-Pipe module. This is not to say that the heatsink doesn't do a good job at cooling the X58 chipset since it does, but it could be so much better.

Those are our two major gripes with the X58A-UD7 but otherwise this is a phenomenally good motherboard. This second-generation X58 board is fast, it is rock stable, and it's packed to the gills with features. SATA 6Gb/s and USB 3.0 are absolutely must-have features on any motherboard bought in 2010. Even if you don't see yourself using a SATA 6Gb/s hard drive or solid state drive (SSD) any time soon, any self-respecting power user is going to own at least one USB 3.0 device in 2010, there's no doubt it. The performance advantage over USB 2.0 is dramatic and it finally allows external enclosures to connect to the system at full speed, without the need for eSATA or FireWire, both of which will likely suffer a quick death due to this new interface.

With the new 24-phase power design and enhanced overclocking capabilities, this motherboard is just begging for a six-core 32nm Gulftown chip. While our overclocking results were limited by the capabilities of our CPU, they were still the best that we have achieved so far on an X58 motherboard. Even in the hands of your average joe, we have been seeing some eye-popping CPU and BCLK overclocks on various forums with the X58A-UD7. The memory overclocking capabilities need to be enhanced a little bit, but given the fact that we are only on the second version of the BIOS, we suspect that Gigabyte will be able to improve things on this front.

While the $360CDN pricetag will be off-putting to many, it is not at all unreasonable for a motherboard of this caliber. There's always a market for those who demand the very best, and there's not much better than the X58A-UD7.


Pros

- Solid performance.
- Convenient layout.
- 4 mechanical PCI-E x16 slots.
- 3-Way CrossFireX & 3-Way SLI capability (Quad CrossFireX also possible).
- Impressive overclocking capabilities.
- Next-generation 24-phase power design.
- Very good voltage regulation & output.
- Surprisingly power efficient.
- Supports SATA 6Gb/s & USB 3.0
- Easy to use, option-rich BIOS.
- Dual BIOS chips.
- Comprehensive software suite.
- Cooling systems works well, but...


Cons

-...the northbridge cooler is oddly designed and too big.
- Doesn't support four dual-slot graphics cards.
- No integrated bluetooth to take full advantage of the bluetooth-based software utilities.
- Memory overclocking could be a tiny bit better.
- No voltage read points.
- Not enough temperature and voltage readouts in the BIOS and EasyTune.
- Large CPU coolers + tall memory heatspreaders can cause installation annoyances.

Our thanks to Gigabyte for making this review possible!​

Gigabyte GA-X58A-UD7 LGA1366 Motherboard Review Comment Thread​