What's new
  • Please do not post any links until you have 3 posts as they will automatically be rejected to prevent SPAM. Many words are also blocked due to being used in SPAM Messages. Thanks!

GIGABYTE X58A-OC LGA1366 Motherboard Review

Status
Not open for further replies.

MAC

Associate Review Editor
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
1,086
Location
Montreal
Test Setups & Methodology

Test Setups & Methodology



For this review, we have prepared four different test setups, representing all the popular platforms at the moment, as well as most of the best-selling processors. As much as possible, the four test setups feature identical components, memory timings, drivers, etc. Aside from manually selecting memory frequencies and timings, every option in the BIOS was at its default setting.


Intel Core i7 LGA1366 Test Setup​
x58aoc_129.jpg
Although Windows Vista SP1 was our principal OS for the majority of benchmarks, we did use Windows 7 (with all the latest updates) when benchmarking AIDA64.

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

C)To ensure consistent results, a few tweaks were applied to Windows Vista and the NVIDIA control panel:
  • Sidebar – Disabled
  • UAC – Disabled
  • System Protection/Restore – Disabled
  • Problem & Error Reporting – Disabled
  • Remote Desktop/Assistance - Disabled
  • Windows Security Center Alerts – Disabled
  • Windows Defender – Disabled
  • Screensaver – Disabled
  • Power Plan - High Performance
  • NVIDIA PhysX – Disabled
  • V-Sync – Off

D) Programs and games are then installed & updated followed by another defragment.

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

F) Benchmarks are each run three times after a clean reboot, then the results are averaged. If they are any clearly anomalous results, the benchmark was run 3 times again. If they remained, we make mention of it in the individual benchmark write-up.

Here is a full list of the applications that we utilized in our benchmarking suite:
  • AIDA64 Extreme Edition v1.50.1200
  • ScienceMark 2.0 32-bit
  • MaxxMEM2 Preview
  • wPrime Benchmark v2.03
  • HyperPI 0.99b
  • PCMark Vantage Advanced 64-bit Edition (1.0.2.0)
  • Cinebench R10 64-bit
  • Cinebench R11.5.2.9 64-bit
  • WinRAR 3.94 x64
  • Photoshop CS4 64-bit
  • Lame Front-End 1.0
  • X264 Benchmark HD (2nd pass)
  • 7-Zip 9.20 x64
  • POV-Ray v3.7 beta 40
  • Deep Fritz 12
  • 3DMark06 v1.2.0
  • 3DMark Vantage v1.0.2
  • Crysis v1.21
  • Far Cry 2 1.02
  • Left 4 Dead
  • Valve Particle Simulation Benchmark
  • Word in Conflict v1.0.0.0
  • Resident Evil 5 1.0.0.129
  • X3: Terran Conflict 1.2.0.0

That is about all you need to know methodology wise, so let's get to the good stuff!
 

MAC

Associate Review Editor
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
1,086
Location
Montreal
Synthetic Benchmarks

Synthetic Benchmarks: AIDA64 / MaxxMEM




AIDA64 Extreme Edition 1.50 - CPU & FPU Benchmarks


x58aoc_130.jpg

x58aoc_131.jpg


AIDA64 Extreme Edition 1.50 - Cache Benchmark


x58aoc_132.jpg


AIDA64 Extreme Edition 1.50 - Memory Benchmarks


x58aoc_133.jpg

x58aoc_134.jpg


MaxxMEM² - Memory Benchmarks


x58aoc_135.jpg

x58aoc_136.jpg
 

MAC

Associate Review Editor
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
1,086
Location
Montreal
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.

x58aoc_137.jpg


wPRIME 2.03


wPrime is a leading multithreaded benchmark for x86 processors that tests your processor performance by calculating square roots with a recursive call of Newton's method for estimating functions, with f(x)=x2-k, where k is the number we're sqrting, until Sgn(f(x)/f'(x)) does not equal that of the previous iteration, starting with an estimation of k/2. It then uses an iterative calling of the estimation method a set amount of times to increase the accuracy of the results. It then confirms that n(k)2=k to ensure the calculation was correct. It repeats this for all numbers from 1 to the requested maximum. This is a highly multi-threaded workload.

x58aoc_138.jpg


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

x58aoc_139.jpg


Cinebench R11.5


Cinebench R11.5 64-bit
Test1: CPU Image Render
Comparison: Generated Score


The latest benchmark from MAXON, Cinebench R11.5 makes use of all your system's processing power to render a photorealistic 3D scene using various different algorithms to stress all available processor cores. The test scene contains approximately 2,000 objects containing more than 300,000 total polygons and uses sharp and blurred reflections, area lights and shadows, procedural shaders, antialiasing, and much more. This particular benchmarking can measure systems with up to 64 processor threads. The result is given in points (pts). The higher the number, the faster your processor.

x58aoc_140.jpg


PCMark Vantage x64


PCMark Vantage Advanced 64-bit Edition (1.0.2.0)
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.


x58aoc_143.jpg


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.

x58aoc_144.jpg


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.

x58aoc_145.jpg


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.


x58aoc_146.jpg


WinRAR


WinRAR 3.94 x64
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.


x58aoc_147.jpg


7-Zip


9.20 x64
Test: Compression/Extraction of 1GB of Assorted Files, with AES-256 encryption
Comparison: Time to Finish


x58aoc_148.jpg

Here we ran into an I/O limitation when extracting. Our hard drive simply isn’t fast enough to write the data being extracted by highly clocked AES NI-capable chips (Sandy Bridge/Gulftown/Clarkdale).
 

MAC

Associate Review Editor
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
1,086
Location
Montreal
Gaming Benchmarks

Gaming Benchmarks



Futuremark 3DMark06


3DMark06 v1.2.0
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.


x58aoc_149.jpg


Futuremark 3DMark Vantage


3DMark Vantage v1.0.2
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.


x58aoc_150.jpg


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.


x58aoc_151.jpg


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.


x58aoc_152.jpg


X3: Terran Conflict


X3: Terran Conflict 1.2.0.0
Resolution: 1680x1050
Texture Quality: High
Shader Quality: High
Antialiasing 4X
Anisotropic Mode: None
Glow Enabled

Game Benchmark
Comparison: FPS (Frames per Second)


x58aoc_153.jpg


Left 4 Dead


Left 4 Dead (Latest Update)
Resolution: 1680x1050
Filtering: 4X MSAA / Anisotropic 8X
Graphic Settings: High
Shader Detail: Very High
Test 1: HWC Custom Timedemo
Comparison: FPS (Frames per Second)

Left 4 Dead is the latest disorienting, fast-paced zombie apocalypse mega-hit from Valve. L4D uses the latest version of the Source engine with enhancements such as multi-core processor support and physics-based animation. We test here at 1680x1050 with in-game details set to their highest levels, with MSAA 4X and AA 8X. For benching, we used a pre-recorded 20 minute timedemo taken on the No Mercy campaign during The Apartments mission.


x58aoc_154.jpg


Valve Particle Simulation Benchmark


Valve Particle Simulation Benchmark
Default
Comparison: Particle Performance Metric

Originally intended to demonstrate new processing effects added to Half Life 2: Episode 2 and future projects, the particle benchmark condenses what can be found throughout HL2:EP2 and combines it all into one small but deadly package. This test does not symbolize the performance scale for just Episode Two exclusively, but also for many other games and applications that utilize multi-core processing and particle effects. As you will see the benchmark does not score in FPS but rather in its own "Particle Performance Metric", which is useful for direct CPU comparisons.


x58aoc_155.jpg


Resident Evil 5


Resident Evil 5 1.0.0.129
Resolution: 1680x1050
Anti-Aliasing: Off
Motion Blur: Off
Shadow Detail: High
Texture Detail: High
Overall Quality: High
Test 1: Built-in Timedemo
Comparison: FPS (Frames per Second)


x58aoc_156.jpg


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.


x58aoc_157.jpg
 

MAC

Associate Review Editor
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
1,086
Location
Montreal
Voltage Regulation / Power Consumption

Voltage Regulation / Power Consumption



x58aoc_158.jpg

Our voltage regulation testing will focus on the various voltages and the differences encountered between what is selected in the BIOS and what is measured by a digital multi-meter (DMM). Thanks to the 'Onboard Voltage Measurement Module' we didn't have to go poking & prodding everywhere, since all the voltage read points are located in one convenient spot. Users can either take their measurements straight from the voltage read pads, or by attaching the DMM leads to the voltage headers via cables.

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, and Turbo Boost disabled in the BIOS. Just to clarify, the vCore (LLC) section is the vCore results with Load-Line Calibration enabled and set to Level 2. Here are our findings:

x58aoc_159.jpg

As you can see, the X58A-OC has very good voltage output across the board. The QPI/VTT and IOH Core voltages are a tiny bit higher than selected, and the DRAM voltage is a tiny bit lower than selected, but overall no glaring issues.

Let’s take a closer look at how the all-important vCore behaves with and without Load-Line Calibration (LLC) enabled. This was done with a one hour OCCT run, using all twelve threads, and with our Core i7-980X overclocked to 4.0Ghz at 1.35V (in the BIOS).

X58AOC_160th.gif

While the X58A-OC might not technically have Load-Line Calibration (LLC) enabled by default, the vCore line has very minimal vDroop and no spikes or variations to speak of. When you set LLC to Level 2, the most aggressive option, the voltage droop is totally eliminated and there is actually a slight increase in the vCore. Everything looks perfect here.

Power Consumption


For this section, every energy saving feature was enabled in the respective BIOSes 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 V26.3 64-bit 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 full screen mode.

x58aoc_161.jpg

Power consumption numbers are fairly meaningless to hardcore overclockers, and maximizing power efficiency was obviously not a priority when GIGABYTE was designing this motherboard. Having said that, it did achieve some very reasonable results.
 
Last edited:

MAC

Associate Review Editor
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
1,086
Location
Montreal
Overclocking Results

Overclocking Results


Overclocking the Bloomfield/LGA1366 platform is quite different than anything else on the market, even the Lynnfield/LGA1156 or Sandy Bridge/LGA1155. 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 take into consideration. If you have any questions regarding any type of overclocking, feel free to ask on our forum.


Click on image to check out the CPU-Z verification page

At the recent MicroBytes Armed and Dangerous LAN event (co-hosted by GIGABYTE) we had an opportunity to test the X58A-OC with liquid nitrogen (LN2), a first for this reviewer. Despite our inexperience we were able to achieve the 5th best CPU-Z result for a Xeon W3520 (ie: the Xeon variant of the i7-920). We are convinced that we could have easily achieved a 100-150MHz higher core clock, but we badly corrupted our SSD due to using high PCI-E frequencies, and booting took on average 10 minutes, which obviously greatly diminished the amount of time we had to do any actual overclocking. Clearly though, even in the hands of a relative novice, this motherboard can achieve some pretty impressive feats.

9.jpg
The following overclocks are obviously much less extreme since they were all done on air cooling, with strict voltage limits, and subject to rigorous stress tests. This is done so that we can see whether there are any actual overclocking differences between the various motherboard models that we review.


Highest Stable CPU Overclock



X58AOC_163th.jpg

Click on image to enlarge

Right out of the gate, the X58A-OC managed to ever so slightly surpass the CPU overclock that we achieved on the G1.Assassin, which itself is no slouch in the OC’ing department. 4453MHz vs. 4422MHz is obviously a not a huge improvement, it is a mere 1MHz BCLK higher to be exact, but every little bit helps in this hobby. At these frequencies and with these voltages we really aren't stressing either motherboard.


Highest Stable BCLK Overclock



X58AOC_164th.jpg

Click on image to enlarge

Now for the purpose of full disclosure, these results were actually achieved with a second review sample. Our first was a bit of a lemon in the BCLK department, hitting a brick wall at a disappointing 208MHz. However, after having played with a third and fourth party’s motherboards and having been able boot both of those retail samples at 235MHz, we knew that we had simply gotten unlucky with our first board. Luck is a huge part of overclocking, it’s a roll of the dice, but we knew that our first sample was not representative of most X58A-OC’s. So we requested another review sample, a retail sample, and as you can see we were able to achieve a 100% stable 230MHz BCLK....without setting the QPI clock ratio to Slow Mode. This is obviously impressive, it’s the best result we have ever had on a X58 motherboard, surpassing the 221MHz that was achieved on the G1.Assassin.

If you have your eyes set on a very high BCLK, just set the PCI-E frequency to between 110-114MHz (careful if you are using an SSD though – it might corrupt) and increase the IOH Core to 1.34V, while ensuring that the other system frequencies stay in check. Although we did not need it, some additional airflow on the northbridge heatsink would be recommended if you’re planning on using that IOH voltage 24/7.


Highest Stable Memory Overclock



X58AOC_165th.jpg

Click on image to enlarge

Since we were lacking a high-end triple-channel memory kit, we made due with a 4GB Corsair Dominator GT DDR3-2133 9-11-9-27 1.5V (CMT4GX3M2B2133C9) kit. Running in dual-channel mode puts less strain on the processor’s integrated memory controller (IMC), but really doesn’t make a difference to the motherboard. We were able to run the modules at a blistering DDR3-2288, which is impressive no matter how you look at it. We have no reason to doubt GIGABYTE’s claim that the X58A-OC can handle triple-channel DDR3-2200 and above.


Auto-Overclocking Results



X58AOC_166th.jpg

Now obviously some may shudder at the thought of an automatic overclocking feature on a motherboard that was explicitly designed for the most hardcore overclocker, but it is there and it does work very well. On the OC-Touch panel there is the 4G Ready Button which automatically overclocks the CPU to 4GHz on the next system boot up.

X58AOC_167th.jpg
X58AOC_168th.jpg

Click on image to enlarge

As you can see, no matter if it is a 32nm Gulftown or 45nm Bloomfield chip, this new auto-overclocking feature has no problems achieving its claimed 4Ghz mark. The voltages were reasonable, the memory frequency was very respectable, and the Uncore had a very nice overclock as well. You really couldn’t ask for a better implementation and execution.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

MAC

Associate Review Editor
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
1,086
Location
Montreal
Conclusion

Conclusion



First and foremost, it is pointless to try to evaluate this motherboard using our usual consumer-oriented focus since features and value really aren’t what this motherboard is about. This is a motherboard that was designed by elite overclockers for elite overclockers, and as we mentioned in the introduction this is a group that has very different needs than everyone else.

So is the X58A-OC the motherboard that people was expecting when word first leaked out those many months ago? Not quite. Is it as close to perfection as might have been reasonably expected for a first serious attempt? We think so. Yes, there are superfluous features like automatic overclocking, onboard audio, SATA 6Gb/s, and USB 3.0. Yes, it is late and $100 more expensive than it should be, largely because of how limited the production numbers are. Nobody is happy about these drawbacks, but people have to appreciate that creating this model required a massive concerted effort by a small group of devoted employees that fought tooth and nail to prevent this motherboard's essence from being truly diluted. The simple fact is the X58A-OC is aimed at a very small niche on the fringe of the hardware market, and thus was very hard to sneak past the mainstream-focused beancounters and PR unscathed. Having said that, this motherboard is still a huge step in the right direction, as anyone who is serious about high-level overclocking will agree.

x58aoc_169.jpg

What about the X58A-OC stood out for us? Well aesthetically it looks freaking awesome. Sure it will not match any of your other components, but it is still a sight to behold. This is the type of motherboard that should never see the inside of case, so the fact that it looks great on a test bench is definitely a plus. More substantially though, we were really impressed by the new OC-VRM design components, particularly the low-profile POScap tantalum electrolytic capacitors. This is the first X58 motherboard that completely does away with traditional solid capacitors, and that makes insulating the motherboard’s numerous nooks and crannies significantly easier.

The OC-Touch panel is a not new concept by any means, but this motherboard has definitely has the best implementation of it. Being able to manually adjust the CPU multiplier and BCLK in real-time is something that most high-level overclockers have already embraced, but thanks to the Gear button users can now select whether to change the BCLK by increments of 0.3MHz or 1MHz. This is a significant because when you’re using a high CPU multiplier a 1Mhz BCLK increase can boost the clock speed by 30-40Mhz. This alone could make all the difference in some benchmarks like SuperPI. It would be nice if the buttons were more tactile and perhaps clicked, but that is nitpicking. The eight voltage headers and voltage measurement pads are obviously indispensable for any overclocker, and they are very well positioned. Last but not least, the LED debug placement near the top-right of the motherboard is also noteworthy since it won’t be blocked even when four dual-slot graphics cards are installed. This is a common oversight on most other motherboards.

Ultimately though, it all comes down to whether this motherboard overclocks better than the next, and although our long-term experience was overwhelmingly positive and surpassed all our expectations, we are still just in the shallow waters when it comes to probing this motherboard’s overclocking capabilities. As such, we can’t truly give a definitive verdict on whether it is the 'best of the best' when it comes to elite level overclocking, but we do know that the X58A-OC is actively being used to break some tough world records.

Some will obviously bemoan the fact that this motherboard was designed around an aging socket, but while the tide is very slowly starting to turn, the LGA1366 platform remains the favourite among high-level overclockers, so it is not a surprise that GIGABYTE started with this platform first. Furthermore, this choice might actually end up being a positive in disguise, since it should ensure that as many X58A-OC’s as possible end up in the hands of those who can and will actually make proper use of it, instead of those who blindly buy the “latest and greatest”. In the end though, while the X58A-OC is somewhat late and quite pricey, none of that changes the fact that this is a very good motherboard and it is a no-brainer for those looking to continue pushing the LGA1366 platform to new heights. With this motherboard, GIGABYTE have further reinforced their deep roots in the overclocking community, and if they continue being this ambitious we can’t wait to see what they have in store for us with the X79A-OC.


Pros

- Overall great layout.
- Onboard power, reset, clear CMOS, switch BIOS buttons.
- OC-Touch: manual multiplier & BCLK adjustments + 8 voltage readouts.
- Dip switches for manual PWM frequency adjustments.
- Low-profile tantalum capacitors throughout the motherboard.
- 4-way CrossFireX & 3-way SLI support.
- Four mechanical PCI-E x16 slots, and room for four dual-slot graphics cards.
- SATA PEG power connectors instead of Molex.
- Top-notch overclocking capabilities with flawless auto-recovery.
- Very impressive 4GHz automatic overclocking feature.
- Dual BIOS chips.
- Full support for 3TB+ hard drives.
- 7 4-pin PWM Smart Fan headers.
- SATA 6Gb/s and USB 3.0 connectivity (a plus for your average user).


Cons

- SATA 6Gb/s and USB 3.0 connectivity (an unneeded feature for overclockers).
- Not enough temperature and voltage readouts in the BIOS.
- Dip switches and CLR CMOS button are in a bad location.
- Price.



x58aoc_171.jpg
x58aoc_170.jpg


Our thanks to GIGABYTE for making this review possible!



GIGABYTE X58A-OC LGA1366 Motherboard Review Comment Thread
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Top