Precisely my point. Give or take $10 to $20 dollars there are plenty of X48 boards that are available out there for the same money that have more features and FAR better overclocking ability than the DX48BT2 does. If they dropped the price by $50 or $60 I'd be able to recommend them for certain applications. As it stands $250 is just too much for it.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Intel DX48BT2 @ [H]
- Thread starter FrgMstr
- Start date
Precisely my point. Give or take $10 to $20 dollars there are plenty of X48 boards that are available out there for the same money that have more features and FAR better overclocking ability than the DX48BT2 does. If they dropped the price by $50 or $60 I'd be able to recommend them for certain applications. As it stands $250 is just too much for it.
I bought this board really before any real reviews were out. I've never owned an Intel mobo in the past, and for some reason this board stuck out to me. The price should be lower and it's no where perfect but I still have to disagree with people saying this just isn't a great board. So many people appear to have problems so I guess I'm lucky.
I haven't ran Prime95 over 24 hours yet at my current timings. I don't really plan to unless it becomes unstable.
btw, BIOS 1814 was just released. A lot more fixes over 1782.
I haven't ran Prime95 over 24 hours yet at my current timings. I don't really plan to unless it becomes unstable.
btw, BIOS 1814 was just released. A lot more fixes over 1782.
At stock speeds it is a great board. No doubts there. I'm using two of them in my house (though not one in my main gaming rig) and I think they are great. I've had absolutely zero problems but given the mediocre feature set, high price and poor overclocking I just can't recommend it to anyone. Your FSB scores don't hardly break 400MHz either.
I thought the D5400XS was pathetic at FSB overclocking. I was able to reach 405MHz which is something I haven't been able to do on the DX48BT2. That's just SAD.
Yes, my fsb may not break 400mhz, I was just happy at where it's at. I am able to clock my fsb past 400 without any problems.. So far.
I'm not really comfortable enough to go past 3.8. My computer is in a hot room and I only have 6 120 mm fans (including psu fan) cooling it.. I'm also no over clocking expert.
Maybe try the new bios that just came out... May bring some luck, who knows.
matrix563
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2006
- Messages
- 19,136
i would say place ur pc in a cooler room
Yes, my fsb may not break 400mhz, I was just happy at where it's at. I am able to clock my fsb past 400 without any problems.. So far.
I'm not really comfortable enough to go past 3.8. My computer is in a hot room and I only have 6 120 mm fans (including psu fan) cooling it.. I'm also no over clocking expert.
Maybe try the new bios that just came out... May bring some luck, who knows.
I'd like to hear more about your boards' settings. I've never even been able to get mine to POST at anything above 403MHz.
i would say place ur pc in a cooler room
Can't do that right now
Eventually it will be. Or maybe I'll upgrade to water cooling.Instead of typing everything I just took pics with my cell phone.
If any of my voltage looks odd, forgive me. Like I said, I'm not an expert at doing this. However, when I wasn't stable I upped the voltage a bit and here's what I'm at. I haven't tested multiple settings. I usually guess at what it should be at.
My bios settings:
http://img114.imageshack.us/img114/7372/dx481ry6.jpg
http://img118.imageshack.us/img118/126/dx482fl7.jpg
http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/1382/dx483hb7.jpg
http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/1943/dx484od5.jpg
Everything else that doesn't matter is pretty much set to default.
Instead of typing everything I just took pics with my cell phone.
If any of my voltage looks odd, forgive me. Like I said, I'm not an expert at doing this. However, when I wasn't stable I upped the voltage a bit and here's what I'm at. I haven't tested multiple settings. I usually guess at what it should be at.
My bios settings:
http://img114.imageshack.us/img114/7372/dx481ry6.jpg
http://img118.imageshack.us/img118/126/dx482fl7.jpg
http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/1382/dx483hb7.jpg
http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/1943/dx484od5.jpg
Everything else that doesn't matter is pretty much set to default.
I appreciate it. I've tried those exact same settings. Your board is just a better overclocker than mine. Its' really that simple. 424MHz FSB isn't exactly earth shattering but its' certainly sufficient to get decent overclocks out of anything with a high enough multiplier.
That's too bad. I had hoped you could get something more. I wonder if you have an older board?
It's possible that both the boards I have are older. Neither one of them has ever made it past 400MHz FSB. I tried for two days on this thing and didn't get anywhere past 400MHz on the second board. The first one I spent more time than that triyng to get more out of it. Granted I worked with that one prior to the 1782 BIOS which clearly helps quite a bit.
Do you see any revision markings on the board? Perhaps demonx and I can also see if we can find any distinguishing marks to compare.
It would be interesting to see if there are different revisions shown or not. Then we could let anyone possibly considering this board that they really need to confirm the revision is the right one before they purchase.
Similar to how lot numbers may possibly indicate a possibly decent VID for a Q6600 and so on.
It really doesn't have any revision markings that I can find. It does have a tag that says CPU-DX48BT2(B) and near that is a 2 inside an octagon. Those are the only possible markings that might be interpreted as revision markings. Both of my boards are identical in this regard.
Shoot, I also cannot find any real distinguishing marks to indicate a different revision.
Dan, any chance you've tried the brand new 1814 BIOS? ON the XS thread, more are finding more issues fixed, curious if this has had any impact for you and the setup you have.
Dan, any chance you've tried the brand new 1814 BIOS? ON the XS thread, more are finding more issues fixed, curious if this has had any impact for you and the setup you have.
I have not tried the 1814 BIOS yet. I may give it a shot later. I have to say though until a BIOS is released that allows me to reach 500MHz FSB I'm not going to change my views on the motherboard in question. There are boards with more features available for about the same money that overclock better.
OK. I'm now not feeling as much balance between the two recent reviews. As a suggestion, processor tests during overlocking should be equivalent.
Take a look at the conclusion page for the Gigabyte X48T-DQ6 here: http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTUyMCw2LCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==
Note this particular quote.
Then despite Morry's concerns and Kyle's mention that some may have an issue with the $310.00 cost, it's still awarded "Gold". Where's the "Epic Fail" here? After all, I've gone back and scanned the Intel review again, and the only CPU I see mentioned for Overclocking testing is the E6300 with actual results. The same processor that failed to overclock for the Gigabyte. In fact, it actually did better than the Gigabyte in that it did 325Mhz FSB. Now for the Gigabyte, an E8500 was eventually used and did the trick, but I see no mention of this provided for the Intel.
Let's put this into perspective, based on the testing methodology I see in the Intel review and apply it to the Gigabyte.
The performance at stock is mentioned in the Gigabyte review and likely contributed to it's "Gold Award", yet stock performance, albiet slightly better in my opinion, doesn't impact the "Epic Fail" in the Intel board. What happens if you take that same exact E8500 CPU and place it on the Intel board. And in consideration that you used the F5 bios over the F4, what happens when you use the latest Intel BIOS release in combination with the E8500.
Does the results and the stability in combination with the stock performance results help to improve the score from "Epic Fail"? Consistancy is king, and I suspect that if you'd not thrown the E8500 at the Gigabyte, the inability to go beyond 300MHz FSB and the $310 pricing would have resulted in a likewise "Epic Fail" or am I missing something here?
Take a look at the conclusion page for the Gigabyte X48T-DQ6 here: http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTUyMCw2LCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==
Note this particular quote.
HardOCP X48T-DQ6 reivew said:
Then despite Morry's concerns and Kyle's mention that some may have an issue with the $310.00 cost, it's still awarded "Gold". Where's the "Epic Fail" here? After all, I've gone back and scanned the Intel review again, and the only CPU I see mentioned for Overclocking testing is the E6300 with actual results. The same processor that failed to overclock for the Gigabyte. In fact, it actually did better than the Gigabyte in that it did 325Mhz FSB. Now for the Gigabyte, an E8500 was eventually used and did the trick, but I see no mention of this provided for the Intel.
Let's put this into perspective, based on the testing methodology I see in the Intel review and apply it to the Gigabyte.
- E6300 can't do 300Mhz FSB on Gigabyte (forget the other procs, they are not mentioned on the overclocking conclusion on the Intel).
- E6300 can do 325Mhz FSB on Intel.
- Gigabyte is $310 on newegg.
- Intel is $250 as quoted in review.
- Stability is quoted on for Intel, but classified as "Extreme Fail" as the OC didn't meet expectations and that is what the board was hyped for at $250.00
- Going back to the subsystem performance benchmarks at stock. This has the same processor in the test as the Intel DX48BT2 but is not compared. I'll do that here:
Sisoft Sandra XII - Memory Bandwidth Buffered
.- Gigabyte X48T-DQ6 QX9770 DDR3 received 7960
- Intel DX48BT2 QX9770 DDR3 received 8390
Sisoft Sandra XII - CPU Drystone ALU
Here the Gigabyte won, but the differences are pretty close.
Next, both scored the exact same result of 14.5 for the Super Pi Mod 1.5 - 1M unit size test. So here it's a tie.
Finally the Prime95 results:
So in all the above tests, Intel only lost to the CPU drystone ALU. I didn't cover the IOmeter material, but when reviewing that to, you'll see a similar trend.- Gigabyte X48T-DQ6 QX9770 DDR3 received 52736
- Intel DX48BT2 QX9770 DDR3 received 52530
Here the Gigabyte won, but the differences are pretty close.
Next, both scored the exact same result of 14.5 for the Super Pi Mod 1.5 - 1M unit size test. So here it's a tie.
Finally the Prime95 results:
- Gigabyte X48T-DQ6 QX9770 DDR3 received 11.9
- Intel DX48BT2 QX9770 DDR3 received 12
The performance at stock is mentioned in the Gigabyte review and likely contributed to it's "Gold Award", yet stock performance, albiet slightly better in my opinion, doesn't impact the "Epic Fail" in the Intel board. What happens if you take that same exact E8500 CPU and place it on the Intel board. And in consideration that you used the F5 bios over the F4, what happens when you use the latest Intel BIOS release in combination with the E8500.
Does the results and the stability in combination with the stock performance results help to improve the score from "Epic Fail"? Consistancy is king, and I suspect that if you'd not thrown the E8500 at the Gigabyte, the inability to go beyond 300MHz FSB and the $310 pricing would have resulted in a likewise "Epic Fail" or am I missing something here?
katoman1932
n00b
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2008
- Messages
- 11
I am indebted to you for these comments. I have been torn between selecting either an ASUS or Gigabyte motherboard. That is no longer an issue with me. Based upon your rational and logical analysis of the merits of the two reviews of the latest ASUS and Gigabyte motherboards I will now select the Intel alternative.
Overclocking is not as important to me as is reliability and support in my second [and last] PC build. [I am 77 years old and this second build will last the rest of this old boy's life.]
Based upon your suggestion I visited the Intel website and was elated to see all of the detailed support available.
My next step is to Newegg to place my order.
I am indebted to you sir.
Overclocking is not as important to me as is reliability and support in my second [and last] PC build. [I am 77 years old and this second build will last the rest of this old boy's life.]
Based upon your suggestion I visited the Intel website and was elated to see all of the detailed support available.
My next step is to Newegg to place my order.
I am indebted to you sir.
katoman1932
n00b
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2008
- Messages
- 11
Is it possible that anyone can provided an update to the existing review posted on [H]?
The give and take on this forum concering the merits of this Intel product remind me of the current election coverage of MSN and Fox! I would deeply appreciate a 3rd party review!
Forgive me if this suggestion seems inappropriate. I simply seek a "fair and balanced" review of the product.
No disrespect intended to anyone.
The give and take on this forum concering the merits of this Intel product remind me of the current election coverage of MSN and Fox! I would deeply appreciate a 3rd party review!
Forgive me if this suggestion seems inappropriate. I simply seek a "fair and balanced" review of the product.
No disrespect intended to anyone.
I already added my two cents in this thread. I did indeed get better results in my testing with the new BIOS which wasn't even available when the article was written.
It still doesn't change the fact that most people can't break 425MHz FSB with a dual core processor. That's really kind of sad. That makes the board one of the worst overclockers I've seen in over a year. Combine that with the boards sub-par feature set and relatively high cost and I just can't recommend it.