Hi. The article went up with the time we started putting it into the backend - It updated soon after to show when it was actually published. You must've been quick to spot that ;-)
What was funny was some few days ago when my wife said something like: "Stop reading that damn BLUE site of yours...". This made me laugh cause i am with AT for years longer than with her ;). Now she noticed the blue color lol
"While the 2:6 and 2:8 memory ratios were satisfactory"
So does that mean that using those ratios you can clock the bclk and CPU higher and just not get the e-peen stretching superhigh memory speeds that mostly seem to help a few synthetic benchmarks? If those ratios are 'satisfactory' and the only purpose of high memory speeds is artifical benchmarks you could focus on getting the best overall overclock and not worry about maxing out the memory speed.
I do hope you tried clocking with those ratios, perhaps the various annoyances go away or are not as bad in that case. If not I'm a little disappointed if a lot of time was spent trying to max out memory speed rather than focusing on 'real world' performance as I expect from AT.
Was the PCI-Express slot operating at x1 speed a bug only with the i5 670, or is it something in all of the Clarkdale processors until the updated BIOS comes out?
I noticed they both include a bluetooth antenna. I'm guessing the BT module is the tiny green PCB next to the SATA ports. Is that standard on all of the boards? How was reception/performance? I like the idea of not having to have an external bluetooth dongle to connect keyboards, wireless headset, cell phone, etc.
While I only have the i7 870 and i5 670 to test against at the moment, this is likely to be common to the Clarkdale CPUs. Without testing, we can't say for certain though.
Yes, the Bluetooth module is next to the SATA ports and it comes with an antenna in the box - a wire with a sticky pad at the end.
The PCIe x1 issue is not a bug, it is because of the differences in the PCI controllers in the 2 families of CPUs. If you put in a Lynnfield and boot into the BIOS, it shows x16. If you then shut down and put in a Clarkdale and then boot into the BIOS, it shows x8. Then Save & Exit, reboot into the BIOS again and it is at x16 from then on.
I think you were booting into Windows with the Lynnfield and it was working fine, then shuting down swapping to a Clarkdale and then booting into Windows without going into the BIOS first. That was when you saw the error.
I'm afraid you're mistaken. This is a bug which happens all the time, i.e repeatable, and not a one-off.
I had tried what you suggested previously, but I have just tried it again, and it remains at 1x.
I also tried clearing the CMOS with the CPU removed, installing different nVidia WHQL and Beta drivers and even the Windows 7 WDDM show up in GPU-Z as 1x.
The only thing I am unable to try is using a different CPU as I only have one Clarkdale CPU.
Strange. I was using BIOS 4816 with a Clarkdale & Lynnfield with Windows 7 x64 in AHCI. I only saw the issue you were mentioning when I swapped CPUs. I had a EVGA Geforce 9500 512MB PCIe card as well. CPU-Z and GPU-Z always showed the correct speed.
It appears both boards have a USB port internally, between the rear port cluster and the MOSFETs. I haven't seen an explanation for this yet --does anyone know what Intel had in mind here?
Hi. Raja asked Intel about the internal USB a while ago but didn't get a direct response.
Off the top of my head, I'd suggest you could use it for a permanent Windows ReadyBoost with a USB Pen Drive? Or, IIRC, aren't there some 5.25" bay devices like fan controllers that hook up via USB connectors and normally route out through a PCI slot?
Sorry I can't give a definite answer - ReadyBoost seems the most logical.
There are some card readers and such that go on the front panel but connect through a USB port, not a header. But that location isn't where I would expect for that functionality
My experience with Intel motherboars cannot be worse.
(Only PCCHIPS do worst)
I had all kinds of issues: - Memories that don't work on Intel mothers, because they are "not registered", but work perfectly on ASUS/Gigabyte. And don't even try to mix different modules... - Hard disks that did not worked with Intel, but worked OK on ASUS/Gigabyte. - USB ports that did NOT worked at all under windows, but worked correctly under Linux. (D865GBF mobo), and Intel provided no drivers.
I had those problems frequently, and the only answer that Intel gave me was to download BIOS editors, to fix it myself. What??? 8-0
- The 4 slots for the triple channel X58, WHY?? - Non solid state capacitors today??? please. - Intel's are too expensive, and do not justify the price at all. - Very BAD BIOS design. Too poor. - Bad overclockers. - Bad driver support. Some drivers are unavailable on Intel web site, because they "are included in windows CD", altought they had bugs only available in same chipsets Asus/Gigabyte, and those bugs blocks installation of windows. So I needed to use gygabyte drivers, with text files hacking. - Had you tried to download drivers from Intel??? A trip to hell. Instead of having a list of links to click and download, you need to little-dog pet-jump along 3 or 4 pages for each driver, and the go back 2 or 4 pages to get the next driver download link. ASUS is also annoying, altought far less annoying. - Wrong SATA orientation (they fixed it on this article mobos). - Wrong spacing between memory sockets and video card.
I hate when retail vendors try to sell me Intel motherboars, (they like it because are more profitable), by pretending that they are "better", and are completely incapable of answering WHY they "are better".
I have been using Intel Media Series motherboards for nearly 10 years and have been satisfied. For mainstream usage, the offer stable rocks solid performance. They are well designed and well made to last. Intel uses high quality components where they are actually needed. I would note there are polymer capacitors around the power supply, memory and northbridge where loading and heating are the highest. For less demanding locations, alumimum electrolytic capacitors are used. However, my experience is these will be high quality Nichelson or Rubicon capacitors.
Intel boards are generally finicky with memory. You need memory operating at standard timings, latencies and voltages to work. What works will work very well.
BIOS support is also very good. Intel will find and correct all defects given time.
The DP55KG costs too much money for the features and performance it offers. For a little less money and more performance I would purchase the GIGABYTE GA-P55A-UD4P which is an excellent overclocker.
I am one of many to appreciate the inclusion of the DPC tests. However, To make them mean anything, you must test them under two scenarios:
1. Heavy Disk IO, especially writing. 2. Software Video Playback with at least 5.1 Audio. 3. Heavy Onboard NIC Network Usage
Building Pro Workstations for the last 13 years, These are the 3 most common cases I have always seen the DPC raise it's ugly head more then any other scenario.
Almost any motherboard will show the numbers you posted when idle, (In fact your results are not that great for an idle board), but the DPC problem can arise under these scenarios even when idle there appears to be no sign of it.
Look Here for a report on the biggest DPC Issue of our time, one that is silenced by the manufacturer, & probably an excellent article subject for Anandtech.
With out PS2 die hard Clicky Keyboard Lovers like myself will be forced to boycott intel motherboards and support manufacturers like Gigabyte and ASUS. Intel, do all of us a favor and preserve the PS2 port, USB converter solutions just don't work very well.
I too have issues with this latest generation of Intel Motherboards of not providing support for legacy devices.
Lack of floopy and PS/2 support is not an issue because these devices are truly obsolete. Most new mice and keyboards available for the last six years with USB.
Lack of IDE support for Optical Drives is a significant issue for many users because they have high performance IDE Optical Drives they paid over $100 that they still want to use. And they are very much aware there is no significant benefit buying a SATA drive for much less.
The DP55KG is too much money for the features and performance at ($210). I would have bought the lower cost DP55WG ($140) except that it does not have IDE support for my optical drives. So the candidate worth buying for the money is the GIGABYTE GA-P55A-UD3P ($140)
I am using the DP55KG for a while in combination with a Pentium G6950 (Clarkdale). I changed my Graphic Card and discovered that I have the PCIe x1-Bug that was described in the review. I have the newest BIOS and tried a bunch of things, but wasn't able to solve the problem. Even contacted Intel via Support-Chat, but they were no help.
Have anyone here a solution for this annoying bug (besides changing Mainboard/CPU, of course)?
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
26 Comments
Back to Article
vol7ron - Tuesday, April 6, 2010 - link
If you're doing a giveaway with this... it is my birthday coming up :)vol7ron - Tuesday, April 6, 2010 - link
Is that right (8:48 4/5)? I'm not sure where it is that you're 36 hours behind me?Richard Pawley - Tuesday, April 6, 2010 - link
Hi. The article went up with the time we started putting it into the backend - It updated soon after to show when it was actually published. You must've been quick to spot that ;-)Regards,
Richard
vol7ron - Tuesday, April 6, 2010 - link
i browse AT like it's my wifeAnand Lal Shimpi - Wednesday, April 7, 2010 - link
HA! best, quote, ever.silverblue - Wednesday, April 7, 2010 - link
And here's me thinking that would mean "rarely, and only when I'm on my best behaviour"...AstroGuardian - Wednesday, April 7, 2010 - link
Welcome to the club mate ;-)What was funny was some few days ago when my wife said something like: "Stop reading that damn BLUE site of yours...". This made me laugh cause i am with AT for years longer than with her ;). Now she noticed the blue color lol
SunLord - Tuesday, April 6, 2010 - link
I love how the micro atx board literally looks like they just cut off the bottom part of the ATX board kind of coolMadMan007 - Tuesday, April 6, 2010 - link
"While the 2:6 and 2:8 memory ratios were satisfactory"So does that mean that using those ratios you can clock the bclk and CPU higher and just not get the e-peen stretching superhigh memory speeds that mostly seem to help a few synthetic benchmarks? If those ratios are 'satisfactory' and the only purpose of high memory speeds is artifical benchmarks you could focus on getting the best overall overclock and not worry about maxing out the memory speed.
I do hope you tried clocking with those ratios, perhaps the various annoyances go away or are not as bad in that case. If not I'm a little disappointed if a lot of time was spent trying to max out memory speed rather than focusing on 'real world' performance as I expect from AT.
deruberhanyok - Wednesday, April 7, 2010 - link
Thanks for the writeup! quick questions:Was the PCI-Express slot operating at x1 speed a bug only with the i5 670, or is it something in all of the Clarkdale processors until the updated BIOS comes out?
I noticed they both include a bluetooth antenna. I'm guessing the BT module is the tiny green PCB next to the SATA ports. Is that standard on all of the boards? How was reception/performance? I like the idea of not having to have an external bluetooth dongle to connect keyboards, wireless headset, cell phone, etc.
Richard Pawley - Wednesday, April 7, 2010 - link
Hi,While I only have the i7 870 and i5 670 to test against at the moment, this is likely to be common to the Clarkdale CPUs. Without testing, we can't say for certain though.
Yes, the Bluetooth module is next to the SATA ports and it comes with an antenna in the box - a wire with a sticky pad at the end.
Regards,
Richard
mrmitch9 - Friday, April 9, 2010 - link
The PCIe x1 issue is not a bug, it is because of the differences in the PCI controllers in the 2 families of CPUs. If you put in a Lynnfield and boot into the BIOS, it shows x16. If you then shut down and put in a Clarkdale and then boot into the BIOS, it shows x8. Then Save & Exit, reboot into the BIOS again and it is at x16 from then on.I think you were booting into Windows with the Lynnfield and it was working fine, then shuting down swapping to a Clarkdale and then booting into Windows without going into the BIOS first. That was when you saw the error.
Richard Pawley - Saturday, April 10, 2010 - link
Hi,I'm afraid you're mistaken. This is a bug which happens all the time, i.e repeatable, and not a one-off.
I had tried what you suggested previously, but I have just tried it again, and it remains at 1x.
I also tried clearing the CMOS with the CPU removed, installing different nVidia WHQL and Beta drivers and even the Windows 7 WDDM show up in GPU-Z as 1x.
The only thing I am unable to try is using a different CPU as I only have one Clarkdale CPU.
Regards,
Richard
mrmitch9 - Tuesday, April 13, 2010 - link
Strange. I was using BIOS 4816 with a Clarkdale & Lynnfield with Windows 7 x64 in AHCI. I only saw the issue you were mentioning when I swapped CPUs. I had a EVGA Geforce 9500 512MB PCIe card as well. CPU-Z and GPU-Z always showed the correct speed.LoneWolf15 - Wednesday, April 7, 2010 - link
It appears both boards have a USB port internally, between the rear port cluster and the MOSFETs. I haven't seen an explanation for this yet --does anyone know what Intel had in mind here?Richard Pawley - Wednesday, April 7, 2010 - link
Hi. Raja asked Intel about the internal USB a while ago but didn't get a direct response.Off the top of my head, I'd suggest you could use it for a permanent Windows ReadyBoost with a USB Pen Drive? Or, IIRC, aren't there some 5.25" bay devices like fan controllers that hook up via USB connectors and normally route out through a PCI slot?
Sorry I can't give a definite answer - ReadyBoost seems the most logical.
Regards,
Richard
strikeback03 - Thursday, April 8, 2010 - link
There are some card readers and such that go on the front panel but connect through a USB port, not a header. But that location isn't where I would expect for that functionalitymarraco - Wednesday, April 7, 2010 - link
My experience with Intel motherboars cannot be worse.(Only PCCHIPS do worst)
I had all kinds of issues:
- Memories that don't work on Intel mothers, because they are "not registered", but work perfectly on ASUS/Gigabyte. And don't even try to mix different modules...
- Hard disks that did not worked with Intel, but worked OK on ASUS/Gigabyte.
- USB ports that did NOT worked at all under windows, but worked correctly under Linux. (D865GBF mobo), and Intel provided no drivers.
I had those problems frequently, and the only answer that Intel gave me was to download BIOS editors, to fix it myself. What??? 8-0
- The 4 slots for the triple channel X58, WHY??
- Non solid state capacitors today??? please.
- Intel's are too expensive, and do not justify the price at all.
- Very BAD BIOS design. Too poor.
- Bad overclockers.
- Bad driver support. Some drivers are unavailable on Intel web site, because they "are included in windows CD", altought they had bugs only available in same chipsets Asus/Gigabyte, and those bugs blocks installation of windows. So I needed to use gygabyte drivers, with text files hacking.
- Had you tried to download drivers from Intel??? A trip to hell. Instead of having a list of links to click and download, you need to little-dog pet-jump along 3 or 4 pages for each driver, and the go back 2 or 4 pages to get the next driver download link. ASUS is also annoying, altought far less annoying.
- Wrong SATA orientation (they fixed it on this article mobos).
- Wrong spacing between memory sockets and video card.
I hate when retail vendors try to sell me Intel motherboars, (they like it because are more profitable), by pretending that they are "better", and are completely incapable of answering WHY they "are better".
ClagMaster - Wednesday, April 7, 2010 - link
Sorry you are so bitter about Intel motherboards.I have been using Intel Media Series motherboards for nearly 10 years and have been satisfied. For mainstream usage, the offer stable rocks solid performance. They are well designed and well made to last. Intel uses high quality components where they are actually needed. I would note there are polymer capacitors around the power supply, memory and northbridge where loading and heating are the highest. For less demanding locations, alumimum electrolytic capacitors are used. However, my experience is these will be high quality Nichelson or Rubicon capacitors.
Intel boards are generally finicky with memory. You need memory operating at standard timings, latencies and voltages to work. What works will work very well.
BIOS support is also very good. Intel will find and correct all defects given time.
The DP55KG costs too much money for the features and performance it offers. For a little less money and more performance I would purchase the GIGABYTE GA-P55A-UD4P which is an excellent overclocker.
PR3ACH3R - Wednesday, April 7, 2010 - link
I am one of many to appreciate the inclusion of the DPC tests.However, To make them mean anything, you must test them under two scenarios:
1. Heavy Disk IO, especially writing.
2. Software Video Playback with at least 5.1 Audio.
3. Heavy Onboard NIC Network Usage
Building Pro Workstations for the last 13 years,
These are the 3 most common cases I have always seen the DPC raise it's ugly head more then any other scenario.
Almost any motherboard will show the numbers you posted when idle,
(In fact your results are not that great for an idle board),
but the DPC problem can arise under these scenarios even when idle there appears to be no sign of it.
Thank you.
Richard Pawley - Wednesday, April 7, 2010 - link
Thanks PR3ACH3R, this is good feedback. We will look into this and update the review once we've carried out some more tests.Regards,
Richard
PR3ACH3R - Thursday, April 8, 2010 - link
Look Here for a report on the biggest DPC Issue of our time,one that is silenced by the manufacturer, & probably an excellent article subject for Anandtech.
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=18...
Googer - Thursday, April 8, 2010 - link
With out PS2 die hard Clicky Keyboard Lovers like myself will be forced to boycott intel motherboards and support manufacturers like Gigabyte and ASUS. Intel, do all of us a favor and preserve the PS2 port, USB converter solutions just don't work very well.ClagMaster - Saturday, April 10, 2010 - link
I too have issues with this latest generation of Intel Motherboards of not providing support for legacy devices.Lack of floopy and PS/2 support is not an issue because these devices are truly obsolete. Most new mice and keyboards available for the last six years with USB.
Lack of IDE support for Optical Drives is a significant issue for many users because they have high performance IDE Optical Drives they paid over $100 that they still want to use. And they are very much aware there is no significant benefit buying a SATA drive for much less.
The DP55KG is too much money for the features and performance at ($210). I would have bought the lower cost DP55WG ($140) except that it does not have IDE support for my optical drives. So the candidate worth buying for the money is the GIGABYTE GA-P55A-UD3P ($140)
iamkyle - Monday, April 19, 2010 - link
...at least Intel programs its own BIOS program, unlike every other mobo manufacturer that has it programmed in Taiwan, then poorly translates it.Nowhere in an Intel BIOS will you find things like "It the system power is be reset it will cause the malfunction!!!"
Redphil - Sunday, November 28, 2010 - link
I am using the DP55KG for a while in combination with a Pentium G6950 (Clarkdale).I changed my Graphic Card and discovered that I have the PCIe x1-Bug that was described in the review. I have the newest BIOS and tried a bunch of things, but wasn't able to solve the problem. Even contacted Intel via Support-Chat, but they were no help.
Have anyone here a solution for this annoying bug (besides changing Mainboard/CPU, of course)?