Gigabyte Z170X G1: Bad performance

[sub-80]

Good Day;

Looking at the reviews the motherboard it is disturbing seeing the performance of the 473 usd motherboard beaten or most of time equally performed by a 200 usd motherboard.

Reviews:

• https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Gigabyte/Z170-GAMING_G1/11.html
• http://hothardware.com/reviews/gigabyte-z170x-gaming-g1-review-features-galore?page=5
• http://www.hardocp.com/article/2015/10/14/gigabyte_z170x_gaming_g1_motherboard_review/6#.VmG-nb-zePU
• http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/72...-g1-intel-z170-motherboard-review/index8.html
• http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/gigabyte_z170x_gaming_g1_review,16.html

What is your opinion?


Regards;


Regards;

 

[Burpo]

It's a set price premium board & they made it pretty. If you want pretty you'll pay the price.
Otherwise the cheaper boards make more sense.

 

[sub-80]

Beside pretty your paying for a better performance, but at most test Asus z170-A beats it or achieves similar score.

 

[bradly1101]

I've been happy with my older X79 Gigabyte and X58 MSI boards, and I've had two Asus boards die on me. Sometimes a little performance is the cost of stability and reliability. I'd pay that cost every time.

 

[vailr]

Looking at the reviews the motherboard it is disturbing seeing the performance of the 473 usd motherboard beaten or most of time equally performed by a 200 usd motherboard.

How can it be "disturbing", if you haven't yet invested the money to buy one?
Or: if you already did buy one, then it might more accurately be called a "disappointing" purchase, but not a "disturbing" one.

 

[DigDog]

the G1 series is supposed to be good. and Gigabyte was considered a premium brand, so yeah, it's disturbing.
now, to actually read the benchmarks. because beaten OR equal means nothing; it's normal for 2 boards to have similar performance, it's 2015 and we know how to build motherboards now.

exactly: https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Gigabyte/Z170-GAMING_G1/11.html
not "beaten", rather "same performance as every other board in its range".

 

[sub-80]

How can it be "disturbing", if you haven't yet invested the money to buy one?
Or: if you already did buy one, then it might more accurately be called a "disappointing" purchase, but not a "disturbing" one.

G1 defeated by extreme/performance motherboard is disappointing. G1 defeated by a motherboard 40% its price is disturbing.

One thing I hate about PC companies is that they dont advertise as per feature or performance. One brand would have five categorizes of a component with three to four deviations and have ultimate performance written on them.

 

[sub-80]

the G1 series is supposed to be good. and Gigabyte was considered a premium brand, so yeah, it's disturbing.
now, to actually read the benchmarks. because beaten OR equal means nothing; it's normal for 2 boards to have similar performance, it's 2015 and we know how to build motherboards now.

exactly: https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Gigabyte/Z170-GAMING_G1/11.html
not "beaten", rather "same performance as every other board in its range".

I know in some or a majority of tests the difference between the top and bottom is 1.5%. Being the second most expensive (not the reason I thought of choosing it) it would be at the top 4 for most the type tests not in the bottom 4. A bit of a let down.

 

[DigDog]

and in some other tests it does better than the competition. so the complaint is about cheaper models performing neraly as well as the more expensive models. to which i replies, it's 2015, we know how to build mobos that perform 100%.

ofc if you want better audio codec chips, bigger chipset coolers, higher quality capacitors, and a swag color scheme (all things which have value for the right user, but do not affect performance) then you pay extra.

the quality of a mobo does not stop at benchmarks.

 

[OP06D]

ofc if you want better audio codec chips, bigger chipset coolers, higher quality capacitors, and a swag color scheme (all things which have value for the right user, but do not affect performance) then you pay extra.

You're 100% correct. I do and I did. I waited till this board hit the market and bought one as soon as I could. I couldn't be happier and its very stable with the F7d beta bios at 4400 MHz and 3200 XMP memory. This board does everything I want it to do and then some. I've been building systems since the 80's and it was a joy to put this thing together. For me price is not really an object. Could I have gotten by with less? Probably, but why? All my other components are top notch as well. My last system was based around a Z77X-UP7 another great Gigabyte board. I say if you want one, go buy one. You won't disappointed.

 

[DrMrLordX]

The real question we ought to be asking is: how does a motherboard change performance for a processor running at stock speeds in 2016?

 

[StrangerGuy]

No real surprise if some newbie out there got fleeced into buying an expensive flashy mobo they don't need, since every mobo vendor and tech site for the past few years has tried their darndest to pretend their low end line doesn't exist, even though they are perfectly adequate for most and the days of mobo/chipsets affecting general performance is long long gone. It ain't fooling long time builders like me for sure though.

 

[ShintaiDK]

The real question we ought to be asking is: how does a motherboard change performance for a processor running at stock speeds in 2016?

We all know how. Autooverclocking. :\

 

[DrMrLordX]

We all know how. Autooverclocking. :\

Ding ding ding! Winnar. If you have a Z170 board and you're going to hand-tune your chip's overclock (k part) then motherboard benchmarks are mostly meaningless, even if such-and-such motherboard gets 30 more fps in some game than some other board that costs twice as much.

'cuz, by that point, the autooverclocking is off the table.