Motherboard can only have graphics cards in PCIE16x slots?!

[brxndxn]

Answer - 753731
Answer : The PCIE X16 slots are design for videocard based on this board not for other cards

Question - 753731
From : Brandon Johnson [ brxndxn@gmail.com ]
Sent : 5/1/2009 20:36
Question : I want to use a PCI E 8x Dell Perc5i SAS controller in the motherboard. It will not post with the SAS controller in the motherboard. However, I have tried disabling the onboard SATA controllers and it still will not post. I plugged it into the 2nd PCIX 16x slot.

Is there any way to force the motherboard to detect the SAS controller in the PCIX slot?

I read that motherboard manufacturers are not always conforming with PCIE 2.0 specification and instead making the slots compatible with graphics cards only. Does this motherboard conform to PCIE 2.0 specifications?

The Perc 5i works fine in my computer with an NVIDIA chipset - but it is an older motherboard.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model Name : GA-MA790FXT-UD5P(rev. 1.0)
--------------------------
M/B Rev : 1.0
BIOS Ver : F3L
Serial No. :
Purchase Dealer : Newegg
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VGA Brand : ATi Model : Radeon 4870 1gb
CPU Brand : AMD Model : 955 Speed : 3.2ghz
Operation System : Win XP 64-bit SP :
Memory Brand : OCZ Type : ddr3
Memory Size : 4gb Speed : 1600mhz
Power Supply : 610 W

It would've been nice if they told me BEFORE I bought the motherboard!


EDIT:

From their own website:

Expansion Slots 2 x PCI Express x16 slots, running at x16 (The PCIEX16_1 and PCIEX16_2 slots support ATI CrossFireX technology, and conform to PCI Express 2.0 standard.)
3 x PCI Express x1 slots
2 x PCI slots

specs

EDIT (UPDATE):

I'm sending them my Perc5i controller so they can test it for possible compatibility.. How awesome is that?! I'm much less pissed off now.. actually, I'm excited.. Maybe we'll see a bios update with 'added RAID controller compatibility'. Though.. I had to sign a waiver saying I might not get the card back.. oh well.. hopefully I will.

 

[Rifter]

Thats insane i would flip out if that happened to me.

 

[Rifter]

BTW thanks for letting me know i was going to buy a cheap gigabyte board for my file server and use a PCI-e RAID card, guess ill stick with Asus. BTW it does say on there own site that it has Pci-e 2.0 slots i would go mental on them, because if they really were Pci-e 2.0 slots your card would work.

 

[tcsenter]

Whether they are PCI-E 2.0 or not is irrelevant.

 

[brxndxn]

Originally posted by: tcsenter
Whether they are PCI-E 2.0 or not is irrelevant.

Care to elaborate or do you normally abbrev?

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

That sucks.

 

[tcsenter]

Originally posted by: brxndxn

Originally posted by: tcsenter
Whether they are PCI-E 2.0 or not is irrelevant.

Care to elaborate or do you normally abbrev?

Elaborate on what? Whether its PCI-E 1.0, 1.1, or 2.0 has no relevance to this discussion at all. Clear enough?

 

[brxndxn]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Originally posted by: brxndxn

Originally posted by: tcsenter
Whether they are PCI-E 2.0 or not is irrelevant.

Care to elaborate or do you normally abbrev?

Elaborate on what? Whether its PCI-E 1.0, 1.1, or 2.0 has no relevance to this discussion at all. Clear enough?

No.. I started the thread.

Gigabyte advertises the motherboard as PCI-E 2.0 compliant.. but then tells me in tech support that it only supports graphics cards.. What if I want to use a PCI-E raid controller.. or sound card.. or network card.. or fibre channel card, etc?

Is it still PCI-E 2.0 compliant if it only supports graphics cards? Is that what you're saying?

 

[tcsenter]

Originally posted by: brxndxn
Is it still PCI-E 2.0 compliant if it only supports graphics cards?

Of course, why would it not? There is no requirement that all PCI-E slots support all devices that should ever be marketed.

 

[brxndxn]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Originally posted by: brxndxn
Is it still PCI-E 2.0 compliant if it only supports graphics cards?

Of course, why would it not? There is no requirement that all PCI-E slots support all devices that should ever be marketed.

Then, how the fuck am I supposed to know the motherboard PCIE 16x slots are for graphics cards only before I buy it?

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Originally posted by: brxndxn

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Originally posted by: brxndxn
Is it still PCI-E 2.0 compliant if it only supports graphics cards?

Of course, why would it not? There is no requirement that all PCI-E slots support all devices that should ever be marketed.

Then, how the fuck am I supposed to know the motherboard PCIE 16x slots are for graphics cards only before I buy it?

If both the card and the mobo are PCI-e (not even 2.0) compliant, the card should work. That's why it's called "compliance".

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Originally posted by: brxndxn
Is it still PCI-E 2.0 compliant if it only supports graphics cards?

Of course, why would it not? There is no requirement that all PCI-E slots support all devices that should ever be marketed.

That's like saying that mobos with PCI slots, could be designed so that they only supported SoundBlaster sound cards, and not NICs, video cards, TV tuners, or anything else.

Do you honestly believe that that is an acceptable solution? I think it's complete bullshit, and reason enough to boycott Gigabyte again. They have sub-standard BIOS support. (S3 suspend/resume problems over 333FSB, etc.)

 

[Rifter]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Originally posted by: brxndxn
Is it still PCI-E 2.0 compliant if it only supports graphics cards?

Of course, why would it not? There is no requirement that all PCI-E slots support all devices that should ever be marketed.

That's like saying that mobos with PCI slots, could be designed so that they only supported SoundBlaster sound cards, and not NICs, video cards, TV tuners, or anything else.

Do you honestly believe that that is an acceptable solution? I think it's complete bullshit, and reason enough to boycott Gigabyte again. They have sub-standard BIOS support. (S3 suspend/resume problems over 333FSB, etc.)

I agree with this 100% there is no reason a PCI or PCIe slot should not work with all cards. i mean they made it the standard (PCI , PCIe) for a reason and if all components(board and cards) meet it there is no reason that it should not work. Gigabyte does not know how to program there bios i wonder if you could hack it to work of if it is a hardware limitation of the physical slot itself. Im hopeing for a bios problem as at least that is fixable.

 

[brxndxn]

Originally posted by: Rifterut

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Originally posted by: brxndxn
Is it still PCI-E 2.0 compliant if it only supports graphics cards?

Of course, why would it not? There is no requirement that all PCI-E slots support all devices that should ever be marketed.

That's like saying that mobos with PCI slots, could be designed so that they only supported SoundBlaster sound cards, and not NICs, video cards, TV tuners, or anything else.

Do you honestly believe that that is an acceptable solution? I think it's complete bullshit, and reason enough to boycott Gigabyte again. They have sub-standard BIOS support. (S3 suspend/resume problems over 333FSB, etc.)

I agree with this 100% there is no reason a PCI or PCIe slot should not work with all cards. i mean they made it the standard (PCI , PCIe) for a reason and if all components(board and cards) meet it there is no reason that it should not work. Gigabyte does not know how to program there bios i wonder if you could hack it to work of if it is a hardware limitation of the physical slot itself. Im hopeing for a bios problem as at least that is fixable.

I am almost certain that the limitation is merely a bios programming problem. I got the Perc5i to work for a while! To make it recognize the Perc5i, I reset the cmos, set 'fail-safe' options, unplugged the graphics card, and booted the computer with everything but the graphics card.. Then, I turned off the computer and booted with the graphics card also installed.. The Perc5i worked great until I turned off the power at the power supply. It worked fine through multiple reboots - and I even installed Windows XP 64bit on it..

I have not been able to get it to work since.. Every time I get the computer to make the POST beep, I still get no video..

 

[tcsenter]

Originally posted by: brxndxn
Then, how the fuck am I supposed to know the motherboard PCIE 16x slots are for graphics cards only before I buy it?

That's a disclosure issue, not a compliance issue. Do you understand the difference?

Besides, you purchased a gaming motherboard for an enterprise/server class RAID card. Start buying the right tools, and you won't have to worry about compatibility between gaming motherboards and server components.

 

[brxndxn]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Originally posted by: brxndxn
Then, how the fuck am I supposed to know the motherboard PCIE 16x slots are for graphics cards only before I buy it?

That's a disclosure issue, not a compliance issue. Do you understand the difference?

Besides, you purchased a gaming motherboard for an enterprise/server class RAID card. Start buying the right tools, and you won't have to worry about compatibility between gaming motherboards and server components.

That's like saying "You can't tow a boat without a diesel truck."

Also, whether it's a disclosure issue or a compliance issue does not matter.. either way, it's an issue - and I am pissed off about it.

I would argue that a reasonable computer enthusiast would expect a PCIE 8x raid card to work in a PCIE 16x slot since the PCIE specification generally states that any card can be plugged into any slot - provided the slot is equal or greater in speed than the card. (and even vise-versa, albeit slower speeds)

And, further, only the AGP interface was created as a standard to be graphics-only. ISA, PCI, PCI-X, PCIE were all created as a standard to be as compatible as possible. How about serial, parallel, usb, etc?

You're acting like only an idiot would attempt to put a RAID card in this motherboard - which is insulting.

 

[Rifter]

I agree with brxndxn, it does not matter if it is a gaming board or a full blown server board, if they both have PCIe slots then both should work with PCIe cards thats what the standard was invented for, compatability. And that fact that you seem to think that raid cards are only for servers is insulting, look at how many people run raid on there everyday PCs its not as rare as it used to be its common nowdays.

 

[tcsenter]

Originally posted by: brxndxn
That's like saying "You can't tow a boat without a diesel truck."

Uh...no, its like saying you can't tow a boat without a trailer hitch, because it wasn't one of the options offered on your CORVETTE. There is nothing in the PCI-E spec that prevents a manufacturer from offering PCI-E slots as "PEG" slots supporting only graphics, period.

I would argue that a reasonable computer enthusiast would expect a PCIE 8x raid card to work in a PCIE 16x slot since the PCIE specification generally states that any card can be plugged into any slot - provided the slot is equal or greater in speed than the card. (and even vise-versa, albeit slower speeds)

A reasonably uninformed computer enthusiast who doesn't understand the market, I agree. We see it all the time, and self-proclaimed "enthusiasts" are often the worst.

There is now and has always been segmentation between consumer and enterprise hardware. I'm not asking you to agree with it, nobody cares what you "think".

Try to find drivers for NVIDIA NForce consumer products under Windows Server 2003 and 2008. Don't exist. Try to find drivers for ATI/AMD consumer chipsets and Radeon graphics under Server 2003 and 2008. Don't exist. Intel offers Server 2003 drivers for some older chipsets but does not support any consumer chipsets under Server 2008.

The fact that you are ignorant of this age-old segmentation doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Come back when you graduate high school or have gotten past your 3rd system build. Then we can talk about all the things you only thought you knew and have a good laugh about it. We've all been there. kthxbai

• You have been here long enough to be aware ToS of AnandTech Forums - Personal attacks are not allowed. Consider yourself be warned.
  
  AnandTech Moderator
  lopri

 

[brxndxn]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Originally posted by: brxndxn
That's like saying "You can't tow a boat without a diesel truck."

Uh...no, its like saying you can't tow a boat without a trailer hitch, because it wasn't one of the options offered on your CORVETTE. There is nothing in the PCI-E spec that prevents a manufacturer from offering PCI-E slots as "PEG" slots supporting only graphics, period.

I would argue that a reasonable computer enthusiast would expect a PCIE 8x raid card to work in a PCIE 16x slot since the PCIE specification generally states that any card can be plugged into any slot - provided the slot is equal or greater in speed than the card. (and even vise-versa, albeit slower speeds)

A reasonably uninformed computer enthusiast who doesn't understand the market, I agree. We see it all the time, and self-proclaimed "enthusiasts" are often the worst.

There is now and has always been segmentation between consumer and enterprise hardware. I'm not asking you to agree with it, nobody cares what you "think".

Try to find drivers for NVIDIA NForce consumer products under Windows Server 2003 and 2008. Don't exist. Try to find drivers for ATI/AMD consumer chipsets and Radeon graphics under Server 2003 and 2008. Don't exist. Intel offers Server 2003 drivers for some older chipsets but does not support any consumer chipsets under Server 2008.

The fact that you are ignorant of this age-old segmentation doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Come back when you graduate high school or have gotten past your 3rd system build. Then we can talk about all the things you only thought you knew and have a good laugh about it. We've all been there. kthxbai

• You have been here long enough to be aware ToS of AnandTech Forums - Personal attacks are not allowed. Consider yourself be warned.
  
  AnandTech Moderator
  lopri

I design and program distributed industrial control systems at an engineering fim.. where I am also the IT manager in control of all IT-related purchases both in-house and for customers (who happen to be Fortune 100 companies).. I ordered more than $100,000 worth of Dell equipment last year.. and then I go home and play with computers.

I am an enthusiast. Don't attack me.. attack my argument..

 

[SilentRunning]

You say it won't post. Have you tried setting the intial display in the bios. From the manual it looks like you can identify the inital display slot as:

Init Display First
Specifies the first initiation of the monitor display from the installed PCI graphics card or PCI Express graphics card.

PCI Slot Sets the PCI graphics card as the first display. (Default)
PEG Sets the PCI Express graphics card on the PCIEX16_1 slot as the first display.
PEG1 Sets the PCI Express graphics card on the PCIEX16_2 slot as the first display

I am just making a guess that the SAS card intializes before the graphics card and confuses the bios.

 

[brxndxn]

Originally posted by: SilentRunning
You say it won't post. Have you tried setting the intial display in the bios. From the manual it looks like you can identify the inital display slot as:

Init Display First
Specifies the first initiation of the monitor display from the installed PCI graphics card or PCI Express graphics card.

PCI Slot Sets the PCI graphics card as the first display. (Default)
PEG Sets the PCI Express graphics card on the PCIEX16_1 slot as the first display.
PEG1 Sets the PCI Express graphics card on the PCIEX16_2 slot as the first display

I am just making a guess that the SAS card intializes before the graphics card and confuses the bios.

Yes.. I tried all three settings.. each with the graphics card in slot 1, raid in slot 2 and vise-versa..

The only setting that did post (with a lot of other tweaking) was 'pci'

 

[Woofmeister]

Originally posted by: brxndxn

Answer - 753731
Answer : The PCIE X16 slots are design for videocard based on this board not for other cards

Question - 753731
From : Brandon Johnson [ brxndxn@gmail.com ]
Sent : 5/1/2009 20:36
Question : I want to use a PCI E 8x Dell Perc5i SAS controller in the motherboard. It will not post with the SAS controller in the motherboard. However, I have tried disabling the onboard SATA controllers and it still will not post. I plugged it into the 2nd PCIX 16x slot.

Is there any way to force the motherboard to detect the SAS controller in the PCIX slot?

I read that motherboard manufacturers are not always conforming with PCIE 2.0 specification and instead making the slots compatible with graphics cards only. Does this motherboard conform to PCIE 2.0 specifications?

The Perc 5i works fine in my computer with an NVIDIA chipset - but it is an older motherboard.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model Name : GA-MA790FXT-UD5P(rev. 1.0)
--------------------------
M/B Rev : 1.0
BIOS Ver : F3L
Serial No. :
Purchase Dealer : Newegg
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VGA Brand : ATi Model : Radeon 4870 1gb
CPU Brand : AMD Model : 955 Speed : 3.2ghz
Operation System : Win XP 64-bit SP :
Memory Brand : OCZ Type : ddr3
Memory Size : 4gb Speed : 1600mhz
Power Supply : 610 W

It would've been nice if they told me BEFORE I bought the motherboard!


EDIT:

From their own website:

Expansion Slots 2 x PCI Express x16 slots, running at x16 (The PCIEX16_1 and PCIEX16_2 slots support ATI CrossFireX technology, and conform to PCI Express 2.0 standard.)
3 x PCI Express x1 slots
2 x PCI slots

specs

EDIT (UPDATE):

I'm sending them my Perc5i controller so they can test it for possible compatibility.. How awesome is that?! I'm much less pissed off now.. actually, I'm excited.. Maybe we'll see a bios update with 'added RAID controller compatibility'. Though.. I had to sign a waiver saying I might not get the card back.. oh well.. hopefully I will.

Sounds to me like Gigabyte committed a fraud: PCI Express 2.0 Standard.

 

[tcsenter]

Originally posted by: brxndxn
I design and program distributed industrial control systems at an engineering fim.. where I am also the IT manager in control of all IT-related purchases both in-house and for customers (who happen to be Fortune 100 companies).. I ordered more than $100,000 worth of Dell equipment last year.. and then I go home and play with computers.

Sure, doesn't everyone on the internet? Your argument betrays otherwise.

Don't me.. attack my argument..

Been there, done that. You didn't get the message. Nothing in PCI Express spec that is violated here. So let us count thy errors:

- Don't understand relevant hardware/interface specifications
- Don't understand long-standing product segmentation in computer hardware

Nuff said.