When Is Anandtech Going To Expose Gigabyte's Failure To Support Its Products?

[chriskwarren]

Originally posted by: TheBeagle
Good Afternoon Everyone.

Today I posted a short Thread over at TweakTown Forums which linked to Gary's superb article on Anandtech. The folks at TT promptly closed the Thread, but at last view, at least they didn't remove it. Very interesting. They must be VERY afraid of Gigabyte's wrath at TT. That real a shame.

Best regards to everyone. Have a nice Sunday afternoon. TheBeagle :beer:

Lol Mr. Beagle you are not too popular over there with Mr. Tweak are ya? How many more threads can you help get closed?

Keep up the good work!

 

[Sterman]

Wow... I've been working on installing Ubuntu on my laptop and doing a reload of XP on my wifes old P4 2.66 ghz at the same time so haven't checked the site until just now... Imagine my surprise to have that article waiting for me very well done. You only have to read one of my posts to see that I couldn't say it half as well, but Gary managed to capture my exact thoughts and express them most eloquently regarding the n680 board of course. Lucky for me I had better luck this weekend with my "tinkering" and haven't popped any boards 780g or otherwise ;=)

Thank you AT,

Sterman

Ps whatever happened to soyo motherboards... I used to love them

 

[avi85]

Originally posted by: chriskwarren

Originally posted by: avi85

Originally posted by: chriskwarren
Posted here:
http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=3279
Titled "Post Cards from the Edge - AMD 780G, NVIDIA 790i, Gigabyte 680i"

This sux, I just ordered a gigabyte GA-MA78GM-S2H and a 6400+ and according to this article I may have serious problems, should I return it? and If so what mobo should I get?

I wouldn't risk it, although a quick check at Newegg and a few other sites reports people successfully using your combo. I haven't been in the market for the new AMD chipsets yet but I would look at a 790FX board as it will most likely handle a 125w cpu better. The board you bought is around $100 so the 790FX board will run you a little more than that.

using a 790 would run me more than you think, cause I was planning on using the 780's onboard graphics...

 

[kenofstephen]

the US site - "Service unavailable"

however, the answer is right here:

http://www.gigabyte.com.tw/Sup...el.aspx?ProductID=2553

Vender Model FSB
Intel Core? 2 Extreme QX9770(3.2GHz,12 MB) 1600 N/A
Intel Core? 2 Extreme QX9650(3.0GHz,12MB) 1333 N/A
Intel Core? 2 Quad Q9550(2.83GHz,12MB) 1333 N/A
Intel Core? 2 Quad Q9450(2.66GHz,12MB) 1333 N/A
Intel Core? 2 Quad Q9300(2.50GHz,6MB) 1333 N/A
Intel Core? 2 Duo E8500(3.16GHz,6MB) 1333 N/A
Intel Core? 2 Duo E8400(3GHz,6MB) 1333 N/A
Intel Core? 2 Duo E8200(2.66GHz,6MB) 1333 N/A
Intel Core? 2 Duo E8190(2.66GHz,6MB) 1333 N/A
Intel Core? 2 Extreme QX6850(3.0GHz,8MB) 1333 N/A

N/A!

 

[jaggerwild]

Good morning all!

Mr. kenofstephen,
Here's the box that states differently,

Text


Regards!

 

[Fallen Kell]

Yes, kenofstephen, the site says that now, but when most of us purchased this board, the box, and websites and vendor info, and Nvidia chipset maker, and all other 680i motherboard makers were touting that the chipset was capable of doing 1333, and Gigabyte themselves advertised and SOLD boards claiming they would work with 1333 quad cores when they came out. Problem is, once they came out, they didn't work.... and thus we are in the mess we are in now. I personally would not have purchased this board if it didn't claim 1333 quad core support. While I didn't buy a quad core originally to use on the board, I knew I would be upgrading it when the massive price cuts that Intel was showing in their roadmap occurred that I would pickup a quad.... I have yet to do so because they won't work with this board as you have clearly shown. What you forget is that the CPU compatibility page you have shown didn't have 1333 Quads listed on there when we purchased because they were not available yet. But that didn't keep Gigabyte from printing on their box, and on their website "Supports 1333 Extreme Quad Core Intel CPU", and selling the product as such...

Let me quote from the box:

On the front top box in large font:
"Supports Intel Core 2 Exteme Quad-Core Processors"

Lower on the front of the box near the bottom:
"Quad Core Optimized"

On the inside flip cover at the top large font:
"Supports Intel Core 2 Extreme Quad-Core Processors"

First sentence of first paragraph on the flip cover in smaller text:
"Designed for enthusiasts with extreme over-clocking and blistering gaming performance in mind, the GIGABYTE GA-N680SLI-DQ6 features several next generation technologies including FSB1333 support for the record-setting Intel Core 2 Extreme Quad Core processors and NVIDIA SLI-memory technology. "

On the side of the box in large font at the top (actually on every side of the box, so all 6 sides):
"Supports Intel Core 2 Extreme Quad-Core Processors"

On the side of the box under "Features and Benefits" section:
"Supports new generation Intel Core 2 Extreme Quad-Core Processors" (aside, note the "new generation" as opposed to the "old" generation Intel Core 2 Extreme Quad-Core Processors, with the old generation being the original Extreme Quad Core QX6700)

On the back of the box, under the "Processor" section:
"Intel Core 2 Extreme Quad-Core Processor
Supports 1333/1066/800/533 FSB"


So don't tell me or any of us reading the information on the box that they were not advertising this as supporting the Intel Core 2 Extreme Quad-Core processors with 1333FSB support as well. Everywhere on the box that you look you see something to that effect, and in the small print as well, which is supposed to have all the details of exactly what is and isn't supported. The real damming statement is the first sentence of the first paragraph on the flip side cover. You can't read that sentence any way but to believe that 1333 FSB Extreme Quad-Cores worked on this board, period, case closed, end of ANY ambiguity.

 

[TheBeagle]

Give'm Hell Kell. Atta Boy!

 

[chriskwarren]

Originally posted by: kenofstephen
the US site - "Service unavailable"

however, the answer is right here:

http://www.gigabyte.com.tw/Sup...el.aspx?ProductID=2553

Vender Model FSB
Intel Core? 2 Extreme QX9770(3.2GHz,12 MB) 1600 N/A
Intel Core? 2 Extreme QX9650(3.0GHz,12MB) 1333 N/A
Intel Core? 2 Quad Q9550(2.83GHz,12MB) 1333 N/A
Intel Core? 2 Quad Q9450(2.66GHz,12MB) 1333 N/A
Intel Core? 2 Quad Q9300(2.50GHz,6MB) 1333 N/A
Intel Core? 2 Duo E8500(3.16GHz,6MB) 1333 N/A
Intel Core? 2 Duo E8400(3GHz,6MB) 1333 N/A
Intel Core? 2 Duo E8200(2.66GHz,6MB) 1333 N/A
Intel Core? 2 Duo E8190(2.66GHz,6MB) 1333 N/A
Intel Core? 2 Extreme QX6850(3.0GHz,8MB) 1333 N/A

N/A!

Like a few others have noted, the websites have since been updated but back when people bought their boards people were led to believe (as the motherboard makers believed at the time) that the quad 45nm cpus would be supported:
http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2..._dont_support_penryn/1

Looks like nVidia got screwed by Intel, which in turn meant that the 680i board makers got screwed too if they followed specs.

The main difference here is that other makers (ie. evga) have allowed people to trade in their boards to get ones that will do what they paid for, and Gigabyte will not. Gigabyte got screwed by nVidia/Intel and they are passing on the poor luck to the 680i purchasers.

Pity really, as this is a great opportunity to win over some enthusiasts for life here. I'm not a 680i owner myself but I follow this stuff closely in order to make the best purchasing decisions for me and my clients...

 

[GigabyteColin]

Hi Guys,

Sorry about my post last week. I was under the impression that the US RMA fully understood the policy, but I seemed to have jumped the gun. Yesterday we were able to better coordinate all local RMAs, so we have come up with the following solution. For those wanting resolution, please send an email to the contact windows at the bottom of my post according to your region. In the email header, please state: GA-680SLI-DQ6 1333 FSB Core 2 Extreme Support Issue. Also, please include your contact details, and most importantly your phone number. That contact person will call you personally within 1-2 days. They are fully aware of the situation and of our policy, and will help to solve this issue for each of you.
Again, we are sorry for taking so long to resolve this matter, but we really do want to make the situation right for you guys.

Asia Pacific (including Australia and South Africa): Alex Huang (alex.huang@gigabyte.com.tw)
China: Zhang XueJun (sonysy.zhang@gigabyte.com.cn)
Europe: Alex Huang (alex.huang@gigabyte.com.tw)
Taiwan: Jimmy Lin (jimmy.lin@gigabyte.com.tw)
US: Leo Wang (leowang@gigabyte-usa.com)

 

[Fallen Kell]

Thanks Colin. I will be contacting them when I get home from work (and have all my info on my board).

 

[jaggerwild]

Originally posted by: TheBeagle
Give'm Hell Kell. Atta Boy!

Sorry Mr. Kell, thought you were a women, my bad!
Regards!

 

[Fallen Kell]

Originally posted by: jaggerwild

Originally posted by: TheBeagle
Give'm Hell Kell. Atta Boy!

Sorry Mr. Kell, thought you were a women, my bad!
Regards!

hahahaa... well, considering I never knew what you thought (until now), no problem

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: GigabyteColin
Hi Guys,

Sorry about my post last week. I was under the impression that the US RMA fully understood the policy, but I seemed to have jumped the gun. Yesterday we were able to better coordinate all local RMAs, so we have come up with the following solution. For those wanting resolution, please send an email to the contact windows at the bottom of my post according to your region. In the email header, please state: GA-680SLI-DQ6 1333 FSB Core 2 Extreme Support Issue. Also, please include your contact details, and most importantly your phone number. That contact person will call you personally within 1-2 days. They are fully aware of the situation and of our policy, and will help to solve this issue for each of you.
Again, we are sorry for taking so long to resolve this matter, but we really do want to make the situation right for you guys.

Asia Pacific (including Australia and South Africa): Alex Huang (alex.huang@gigabyte.com.tw)
China: Zhang XueJun (sonysy.zhang@gigabyte.com.cn)
Europe: Alex Huang (alex.huang@gigabyte.com.tw)
Taiwan: Jimmy Lin (jimmy.lin@gigabyte.com.tw)
US: Leo Wang (leowang@gigabyte-usa.com)

That's good to hear GigabyteColin, because there are many many of us watching from the sidelines how Gigabyte is going to make this situation right for customers like us. We can understand how stuff like this happens, but we for d@mn sure expect it to be made right when it does...especially considering how little (comparitively) these boards in reality cost Gigabyte to make.

Chuck

 

[chriskwarren]

It would be great for those of us "from the sidelines" if the people who contact Gigabyte for a resolution to this are able to tell us how successful they are with this.

 

[MeSh1]

My beff is something ive seen across many forums, but has no solution and its seems pretty basic. I think im going as far as RMAing my DS3L.
I set all my OC settings and reboot, POST shows stock upon boot, i go back into the bios to investigate, but my OC settings are still there. So even though the OC settings are saved in the BIOS when thy system goes through POST it shows stock. I do not have any external devices connected.... I only have basics kb/mouse (usb), dvi, network, power. I have not tried disabling legacy usb detection, but i will when i get back.

 

[loco21]

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: GigabyteColin
Hi Guys,

Sorry about my post last week. I was under the impression that the US RMA fully understood the policy, but I seemed to have jumped the gun. Yesterday we were able to better coordinate all local RMAs, so we have come up with the following solution. For those wanting resolution, please send an email to the contact windows at the bottom of my post according to your region. In the email header, please state: GA-680SLI-DQ6 1333 FSB Core 2 Extreme Support Issue. Also, please include your contact details, and most importantly your phone number. That contact person will call you personally within 1-2 days. They are fully aware of the situation and of our policy, and will help to solve this issue for each of you.
Again, we are sorry for taking so long to resolve this matter, but we really do want to make the situation right for you guys.

Asia Pacific (including Australia and South Africa): Alex Huang (alex.huang@gigabyte.com.tw)
China: Zhang XueJun (sonysy.zhang@gigabyte.com.cn)
Europe: Alex Huang (alex.huang@gigabyte.com.tw)
Taiwan: Jimmy Lin (jimmy.lin@gigabyte.com.tw)
US: Leo Wang (leowang@gigabyte-usa.com)

That's good to hear GigabyteColin, because there are many many of us watching from the sidelines how Gigabyte is going to make this situation right for customers like us. We can understand how stuff like this happens, but we for d@mn sure expect it to be made right when it does...especially considering how little (comparitively) these boards in reality cost Gigabyte to make.

Chuck

Count me on that too, we all are watching!! and waiting to see result

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: jaggerwild
Good morning all!

Mr. kenofstephen,
Here's the box that states differently,


[*]http://pic80.picturetrail.com/VOL2072/10257158/19023331/310379984.jpg


Regards!

It only says supports 1333fsb. nothing regarding Quadcore @ 1333fsb.

The words physically does not state supports Quadcore @ 1333FSB, or Yorkfield.


Also the 680i chipset is absolute crap. I would shoot nvidia more then gigabyte. If anything gigabyte is getting pitted in the middle because nvidia probably isnt working with them.

Also if your this mad, have the people who own gigabyte boards pm you.
Try to get in contact with an attorney and talk to him to see if he can work a class action law suit.

But let me just say this, if i had to pick gigabyte vs abit id still pick gigabyte.
And if i had to chose the P35-DQ6 against ANY P35 board minus the DFI LT P35, i would still pick that gigabyte.

They have great serivce on there intel line, but your talking about a failed Nvidia line. the 680i is not a "successfull" chipset. Also Nvidia has screwed us harder then gigabyte ever will by secretly replacing that south bridge from a 590, to a 570 without letting people know. Also in the belief that it was a quadcore optimised board.

I still think the AR is a better board in OCing non quads tho, then the A1.

Silly Nvidia, trix are for kids.

 

[eklock2000]

Originally posted by: aigomorla

Originally posted by: jaggerwild
Good morning all!

Mr. kenofstephen,
Here's the box that states differently,


[*]http://pic80.picturetrail.com/VOL2072/10257158/19023331/310379984.jpg


Regards!

It only says supports 1333fsb. nothing regarding Quadcore @ 1333fsb.

The words physically does not state supports Quadcore @ 1333FSB, or Yorkfield.


Also the 680i chipset is absolute crap. I would shoot nvidia more then gigabyte. If anything gigabyte is getting pitted in the middle because nvidia probably isnt working with them.

Also if your this mad, have the people who own gigabyte boards pm you.
Try to get in contact with an attorney and talk to him to see if he can work a class action law suit.

But let me just say this, if i had to pick gigabyte vs abit id still pick gigabyte.
And if i had to chose the P35-DQ6 against ANY P35 board minus the DFI LT P35, i would still pick that gigabyte.

They have great serivce on there intel line, but your talking about a failed Nvidia line. the 680i is not a "successfull" chipset. Also Nvidia has screwed us harder then gigabyte ever will by secretly replacing that south bridge from a 590, to a 570 without letting people know. Also in the belief that it was a quadcore optimised board.

I still think the AR is a better board in OCing non quads tho, then the A1.

Silly Nvidia, trix are for kids.

It does state "FSB1333 support for the record-setting Intel Core 2 Extreme Quad Core procs" in multiple places on the box, this one in particular...

<a href="http://s162.photobucket.com/al...urrent=InsideCover.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i162.photobucket.com/al...ck2000/InsideCover.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

I agree that Nvidia is to blame, but this is for them to resolve with Gigabyte, not us.

EK2K

 

[TheBeagle]

Good Evening Mr. Aigomorla & Everyone.

To Mr. Aigomorla: What is it about the words "Supports Intel Core 2 Extreme Quad-Core Processors" coupled with the other wording on the box that Mr. EKlock so eloquently pointed out, that you don't understand? To my knowledge, that wording only has one meaning, namely, a QX6850 processor. Do you know of something else that fits that description? Additionally, early on, the Gigabyte web site indicated that the Quad-Core 1333FSB processor would be "supported." That turned out to be false.

Many buyers of the N680i board were led to believe that this board would have significant future upgradability, via a Quad-Core 1333FSB processor. That was likewise a false promise and advertisement. We can all opine and surmise who and what entities may have been responsible for all of this. However, at the end of the day, Gigabyte built and sold that failed N680i board.

One of the greatest American Presidents, Harry S. Truman, had a simple saying that he lived by. In fact, he had an engraved wooden plaque on his desk in the Oval Office which displayed that saying. The words are both simple and powerful, and read: "The Buck Stops Here." Heretofore, Gigabyte apparently never grasped those words or their intrinsic meaning of accountability.

That leaves me now questioning whether or not your true sympathies and loyalties lie with Gigabyte, and not with your fellow board members who have, at least so far, been shafted by Gigabyte. Of course you have the right to support whomever you chose in this conflict. But if you're really a Fifth Columnist for Gigabyte, then at least have the decency and courage to declare yourself as such. Best personal regards.

Best regards to everyone. Have a nice evening. TheBeagle :beer:

 

[Fallen Kell]

aigomorla, did you even read my post on the previous page? Photos are linked above by eklock2000, to show exactly the words I quoted in my post on the previous page... Yes, they DID STATE SPECIFICALLY 1333 and Extreme Quad Core. This is why most of us have been amazed that it has taken this long for any kind of resolution to this problem and why we have been starting to really raze hell about it. If it hadn't SPECIFCALLY STATED IT, and only implied in advertisements that it might support it with a future BIOS update, well, yes, we could understand if it didn't ever happen. But part of the reason so many of us were willing to pay upwards of $350 for a motherboard (a single socket one at that), was the fact that it specifically stated that it WOULD support 1333 FSB Quad Core, because by the time this motherboard actually started shipping, Intel was already just about ready to release those CPU's, and we all knew they were the future. We also knew since they used the same socket, we should be ok, as long as the motherboard supported 1333 FSB and quad cores as well... That is why we have been getting more and more upset, and more and more unpleasant about how the issue was being handled. We all waited in the order of 9+ months on the hope that the BIOS release was coming to fix the issue and add the proper support we were all promised we would have from the beginning. But no BIOS ever came. And then when the CPU was finally changed status to N/A for support on the website, well, that is when we started to really raise some hell here and elsewhere, since we weren't given a product that met the specifications which we agreed to purchase (i.e. we agreed to give $350+ to a retailer for a Gigabyte motherboard that would support 1333 FSB Intel Extreme Quad Core processors, as well as Nvidia SLI, etc., etc., but we didn't get a board in return that met those things).

Hell, if my work did that to our customers we would be heavily fined, as well as have many people fired, and some even possibly go to jail if we lied about the support being there and it in fact wasn't... I am an engineer too, and know what specifications mean. They are there for a reason, and if you don't meet spec, well, you go notify the customer and start making it right by either replace/fix or refund, partial or whole depending on how important the spec missed is overall in terms of the usefulness of the product. For a motherboard, well, CPU spec is quite possibly the most important of them all. It is a fundamental function of what the motherboard is suppose to do, and as such is a large part of everyone's purchasing decision on what motherboard to get. This is why the first thing we ask anyone when they are building a custom computer to do is figure out what CPU they are planning on using, and that decision along with what video card (SLI or Crossfire or neither), sets what motherboard they get, but the first question is for now and has been, what CPU do you want to use before you pick the motherboard...

 

[jaggerwild]

Good evening all!
Wow,

Mr. Editor maybe look really close at the words on the box here?

Text

"supports Intel Core 2 Extreme Quad-core processors", Nobody ever stated 1333FSB Quads, I assume you have an ajenda being here?

1333 FSB sticker

Well I just got a call from Mr. Wong from gigabyte US, he asked me what CPU I had and what CPU I plained on getting. I told him I have a quad 6600 1066 FSB and I want to get the 45nm QX9650, he said they would take the board back to rework it for the 65nm
QX6850?
Why, cause that was the chip that was out then? I was like OK what ever, also told him my board isn't working now either he said OK. So now I'm getting a reworked mainboard, SWEET!
Regards all!

 

[dlbetz]

Just Got off the phone with Leo. At 1130pm he called me. (A Little rude) But anyways He asked me first what proc I am using then said what proc I would like to use. I said the Quad core 6850. He said well what he can do is get me to send them my mobo and they will put some capacitors on it to make it work with this proc. I said no this is my only pc you just can?t send me one. He said he would ask headquarters and get back to me. Then stated back to me that I am requesting them to send me a repaired mobo then send them mine. I said no what I am requesting is a refund. He said but we can make yours work. I said but you EOL this board a month after it was out and the support is not there. He says well is that your only request. I said I don?t want the same chip set anymore it has failed and now there is a 790 and 48x I would like an Asus board can you do that. He said NO... But can put second request as an upgrade to 790 or 48x. So he said he is going to talk to headquarters and check on a refund or upgrade and call me back hopefully tomorrow. If he calls back and offers an upgrade only I will have that guy?s case # handy from AU getting his refund? Well what do you all think we should do?

 

[chucky2]

To Gigabyte (I'm sure you're reading this thread, and others):

After reading the two posts above this one, and Gary's article about 780G boards frying because of underengineerd (or what is more likely undermanagement-decision), I have to wonder: Do you seriously know WTF you're doing here?

Let me try and explain something that may have slipped past your managers making these RMA decisions: Word travels very fast on the internet, and bad reputations are made quickly and last longly.

VIA: Initially had goodwill with the MVP3 chipset back in the K6-2 days but it quickly became apperant that it at best was marginally stable/compatible. Subsequent chipset releases for the first few Athlon's proved over and over again that VIA just could not deliver. Once nVidia came out with their nForce and then nForce2 chipsets, everyone all but flocked to them. Now anyone that went through that past era (and there are still many many of us around) won't touch VIA with a 10' pole. Lesson: We are not going to get screwed by them when there are alternatives that don't make us scrub twice after using.

Creative: I don't think I need to expound on their less than optimal support...I think it's all safe to say we're familiar with stagnant drivers and fixes that never get fixed. Lesson: We do not need to largely buy their products anymore as onboard solutions rival their products, and actually get driver updates/don't F stuff up.

OCZ: While now they enjoy a good name, that was not always so (it in the past was not looked on with a trustable light). OCZ had to consistently deliver when they got back into the game to get to the trust level they are now. Lesson: Once you get a bad name, it takes lots of work to get back in good graces.

I'm sure many more people could name off many more tech companies that have betrayed our trust and therefore not earned repeat purchases...I for one will never buy Enlight anything anymore after their power supplies were blowing up MVP3 based boards, and they never took responsibility for it. Shame, because at the price point they're at, they could have made a lot of money off me.

So Gigabyte....you charged these people $350 dollars for a product that probably cost you maby $100 to make, if that. The product clearly doesn't support what you advertized. You also have a 780G product that looks to be a POS out of the gate....seriously, who's going to buy and AM2+ motherboard if they know (and now we do courtesy of Gary) that it can't handle 125W loads? No one.

At this point, I'm postponing a few dozen builds I was going to be using your 780G mATX board in...until I can wait no longer. If someone doesn't post back that Gigabyte is stopping this BS 'What CPU do you use so I can do a Gotcha! and not take care of you' crap, then there is abso F'ing lutely no way I'll be rewarding your company any further with purchases for client builds.

If people have problems with my stuff I take care of them first, then worry about how/if we'll even up...that's why friends/neighbors/small local businesses come to me instead of some other schmoe - they know I'll make it right.

You're Gigabyte, not VIA, not Creative, not the OCZ of the past....if you don't get that you need to make this right - really right - then honestly there is going to be no long term hope for you as a top company. Standing by your product, and making the customer feel right, is a mindset, not a balance sheet row.

Frankly, I expected far more from you all on this and 780G...this is starting to remind me of the California Graphics USA incident with the Photon 100 HC back in the day...

Chuck

 

[Blazer7]

Well it seems that GB decided to work with each one of us separately instead of launching a trade up program for all, or give us a couple of std choices (refund, trade up to an intel based mobo, trade up to a 790 mobo when it becomes available, etc). The thing that they have offered a ?rework? is not what I expected.

The notion of a reworked motherboard gives me the shivers. And what about warranty? Are they willing to extend the warranty for that ?reworked? product? A rework probably means altered by hand, is this the case here? I don?t think I can trust this. The rest of my stuff are pretty expensive and just the notion of having everything on top of a ?reworked? mobo is making me feel insecure and nervous. I don?t think that a ?rework? can cut it for me nor do I think that this is the proper way for a company like GB to address this issue. Hell, I?ve never ever came across a situation where a mobo maker would go ahead and offer a repair on their product.

 

[jaggerwild]

Good Morning all!
This is like the never ending story, yeah A bios will not fix it but Joe engineer is gonna? And I'm gonna go buy a $1000 dollar chip to see if it works too?

Seriously I laughed when the guy told me what he was gonna do, plus shipping both ways come on.
On the bright side, I think this is the end of the road here as they just don't get it. And if they don't now then the future is not gonna be any better either I'm afraid. Send me some bubble gum I'll stick it on see if it helps?

That's good to hear GigabyteColin, because there are many many of us watching from the sidelines how Gigabyte is going to make this situation right for customers like us. We can understand how stuff like this happens, but we for d@mn sure expect it to be made right when it does...especially considering how little (comparitively) these boards in reality cost Gigabyte to make.

That about sums it up!


Regards all!