Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I skimmed the thread and I don't think anyone pointed this out. One the first page of the article the MSI 990FXA-GD80 is linked to an ASUS P8P67.
That was a place holder. MSI hadn't had the board on their site when I wrote this article.
Understandable. How are the other 990FX boards going for testing? Still showing bios issues? I was going to get one for Sata 3 and USB 3.0. Though I dont want to pay for one that's still beta testing.
Zarathustra[H];1037343601 said:Seeing that you guys suspect the MSI 990FXA-GD80 is suffering from a premature BIOS, should we expect review updates once a new BIOS is released?
Zarathustra[H];1037407131 said:I received mine from Newegg last week, and built up my right with a Phenom II X6 1090T (to hold me over until BD) yesterday.
Thus far no problems at all.
Worth noting, the current bios revision is 11.0 (as opposed to 11.0B18 beta in the review). The hardware revision appears the same as in the article.
I haven't had any issues what so ever with it yet, but thus far I've only taken it to the "stable at stock clocks" baseline level. Overclocking is next.
Have you tried BIOS 11.1? The MSI website just mentions that it "update CPU module" and "update USB module" and it was released on June 9, 2011.
I became interested in this board when I noticed that it had the exact PCIe slot spacing that I want (and can't seem to find elsewhere on any of the Sandy Bridge or 990FX boards), which is this:
But after reading the [H] review I'm not so enthusiastic...but it's still the only mobo that has what I want PCIe-wise.
We won't be revisiting this board until Bulldozer launches. Plain and simple. As for the benchmarks, well board benchmarks don't really mean a whole hell of a lot and truly, I have rarely if ever seen a BIOS update correct performance issues. Typically such issues were created in the old BIOS by user error. I'm not saying that was the case here, but I tend to take benchmarks with a grain of salt.
As long as the numbers are roughly where they should be (and ours were) I'm not typically concerned.