GIGABYTE GA-965GM-S2 is on Newegg

satchi

Weaksauce
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
68
Won't be any worthy 'conroe' mATX board till mid next year. . . give up the wait.
 

Dillusion

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 21, 2003
Messages
5,465
The board is crap, just like every other gigabyte mATX S2 series motherboard. I could have told you that the minute it was put on the website.
 

Prism

n00b
Joined
Sep 26, 2006
Messages
9
A BIOS without overclocking options is crap in every way imo.
Using a Windows tool to overclock sucks ass.
What's the point on overclocking then!? I want BIOS options, not some crappy piece of software. That won't work when I run Linux.
 

nray

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 20, 2006
Messages
316
You guys know you can access advanced voltage/timing in Gigabyte's BIOSes if you press Alt-F2 at the main BIOS screen, right?
 

sleepeeg3

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 4, 2004
Messages
5,112
It's CTRL-F1. Sure it's a possibility they are hiding the FSB control, PCI-E frequency, PCI-E voltage, VCORE, VDIMM, VMCH, VFSB, CPU multi, timings, etc, but I doubt it. Basically the only thing they hid on the DS3 was the timings.

Maybe we will get lucky and ASUS will lock the PCI bus on the P5B-VM in a future bios. I think that's why you guys are saying the G965 sucks. Should just be the same chip with onboard vid. It's the bios that sucks!
 

Dillusion

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 21, 2003
Messages
5,465
sleepeeg3 said:
It's CTRL-F1. Sure it's a possibility they are hiding the FSB control, PCI-E frequency, PCI-E voltage, VCORE, VDIMM, VMCH, VFSB, CPU multi, timings, etc, but I doubt it. Basically the only thing they hid on the DS3 was the timings.

Maybe we will get lucky and ASUS will lock the PCI bus on the P5B-VM in a future bios. I think that's why you guys are saying the G965 sucks. Should just be the same chip with onboard vid. It's the bios that sucks!

Its not hiding.
 

bernz

n00b
Joined
Sep 29, 2006
Messages
29
Being totally honest, I've read the AnAnd boards and Gary Key [apparently he's one of the admins?] says that its a physical CHIPSET limitation that the G965 cannot be pushed anywhere above 350FSB with any SATA devices attached (and this is a theoretical limit, the highest people have gotten is somewhere around 330, 340, using SATA hard drives). The reason is that, apparently, Intel put a hardware lock on the chipset to prevent 'damage to the X3000 graphics adapter'. They also say that 400FSB is the theoretical maximum for G965 using IDE devices. Whether this is true or not, I don't know.
 

Prism

n00b
Joined
Sep 26, 2006
Messages
9
Must have missed that part.
Wouldn't using a seperate SATA controller in the PCI-e slot be a work around?
I have tried this, but the BIOS of the P5B-VM doesn't support booting from other devices.

I haven't done any overclocking since I first wanted a system doing what it should, then overlock. I haven't passed phase 1, and ditched the motherboard.

Looking at other boards currently, they are all crap in one way or the other.
I am back too normal ATX, and bought a Gigabyte DQ6. Gonna have fun with that now.
 

sleepeeg3

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 4, 2004
Messages
5,112
Prism that is a very good question, because the PCI-E is its own bus. I always wondered about that... I can't believe the board doesn't support booting from other devices!

On an AMD board without a PCI lock, overclock would be limited to 220-230. That's 36-38MHz on the stock 33MHz bus. So if people are getting 340fsb, then that would be as high as 42.5MHz. Maybe it is not the PCI bus or maybe you can get higher on an intel chipset. I don't know.

However, when this "PCI lock" issue first came mainstream, some manufacturers were able to cure the PCI lock on nForce 150 boards with a bios update on some boards.

intel's onboard video no doubt increases the heat of the already smoldering northbridge and probably creates screen corruption at high overclocks. Same thing happened on nForce2 boards with onboard. So instead of dealing with the complaints, they disable the feature altogether by dropping the lock, which would be typical for anti-overclocking intel. By default the 965G probably have no PCI lock.

Someone could probably test this by flashing to a non “G” bios on a “P” board and see if they run into an early fsb wall.
 

Prism

n00b
Joined
Sep 26, 2006
Messages
9
Well, not me any more :D

I used too overclock the old Celeron's with a PCI bus of 40MHz ish. All ran fine in my case.
But, those were the old days.
 
Top