Wednesday, December 28th 2011

Gigabyte Gives Lifetime Warranty to X79 Board Corrective BIOS Users, Isolates Problem

On Tuesday, a major problem associated with Gigabyte's X79-UD3, X79-UD5, and G1.Assassin 2 motherboards came to light after a Gigabyte press-release, where enthusiasts subjecting their boards to voltage-assisted overclocking with stress-testing, ended up with burnt CPU VRM. Till that press-release, the scale of the problem was not known. Gigabyte announced remedies to existing owners, which included either updating their motherboards' BIOS to the latest "F7" version posted on the company website, or sending their boards dead or alive for free replacements.

We're getting to know now that to all those who opt to keep their boards and update their BIOS, Gigabyte is offering a lifetime product warranty, an extension of the limited warranties their products come with. Gigabyte's own version of what went wrong with these motherboards is that it shipped several of its motherboards with bad BIOS firmware that did not have "overclocking limits", which motherboards by other manufacturers did. This claim means that "japan0827", the overclocker from XFastest community who ended up with a burned X79-UD3 that he posted on YouTube, would have been running his setup way off spec, electrically.

Source: DigiTimes
Add your own comment

38 Comments on Gigabyte Gives Lifetime Warranty to X79 Board Corrective BIOS Users, Isolates Problem

#1
EarthDog
What the hell is that board with LCD displays (PCI/e slot) in the first picture?
Posted on Reply
#2
cadaveca
My name is Dave
PCI POST CODE display.
Posted on Reply
#3
EarthDog
Thats what I thought, but I did not know you could buy those! Cool.
Posted on Reply
#4
HTC
cadaveca said:
:laugh: whoops.

here's the right one.

http://www.overclockingstation.de/photoplog/images/3/1_HiCookie.JPG



http://www.overclockingstation.de/newsmeldungen/13066-gigabyte-x79-ud3-motherboard-with-new-f7-bios-smashes-intel-x79-world-records.html
So: not only it fixed the problem but increased performance as well.

With this part of the problem out of the way, does anyone know what will Gigabyte do (if anything) about the damaged / destroyed components that were affected by the boards because of the original problem such as CPUs?

Say dude A had a 3960X in his rig when this problem occurred and caused his CPU to fry (no idea if this can even happen due to this): will Gigabyte refund dude A with the CPU value? Is this sort of thing covered in Gigabyte's board's warranty?
Posted on Reply
#5
cadaveca
My name is Dave
To me, from a legal stand-point, because all warranties are void when overclocking, Gigabyte isn't responsible for any problems caused when overclocking. Neither is any other hardware company.

To me, from a consumer-realtions stand-point, it would make sense to contact all registered users of the affected products, advise them to update the BIOS, and to issue a release advising unregistered users or prospective buyers that they need to be sure to use the F7 BIOS or future subsequent BIOSes. They have already done the second part, and are taking steps to ensure that boards in teh retail space ahve teh F7 BIOS or newer on them.

Again, non-issue. But it is still good to get the info out as a precaution, and I gotta commend Gigabyte for taking such steps as they already have, rather than ignoring the problem.
Posted on Reply
#6
HTC
HTC said:
So they're putting the blame on the overclocker despite admitting they're @ fault: figures ...

I thought there were cases where the user who got his board fried wasn't OCing: am i mistaken in this?
qwerty_lesh said:
multiple instances of this happening yep, and on the UD7's.. the model which wasnt mentioned in the CN press release at all even tho every GB x79 got F7 bioses to "fix" this problem.. :nutkick:
cadaveca said:
To me, from a legal stand-point, because all warranties are void when overclocking, Gigabyte isn't responsible for any problems caused when overclocking. Neither is any other hardware company.

To me, from a consumer-realtions stand-point, it would make sense to contact all registered users of the affected products, advise them to update the BIOS, and to issue a release advising unregistered users or prospective buyers that they need to be sure to use the F7 BIOS or future subsequent BIOSes. They have already done the second part, and are taking steps to ensure that boards in teh retail space ahve teh F7 BIOS or newer on them.

Again, non-issue. But it is still good to get the info out as a precaution, and I gotta commend Gigabyte for taking such steps as they already have, rather than ignoring the problem.
OK: this means those that OCed are screwed (how can Gigabyte be sure the CPU was OCed??), but what about those that weren't OCing @ all?
Posted on Reply
#7
cadaveca
My name is Dave
If not overclocking, there shouldn't be any issues with the earlier BIOSes. Any failures at stock would fall into the normal percentile of parts that fail that any manufacturer is subject to.

That said, it's ultimately critical to provide proper cooling for your components regardless of the platform or OEM who produced the parts. I've mentioned that this is even more critical with the Intel X79 Express paltform when overclocking many times already, and will continue to do so.

That said, I personally haven't seen many users reporting failure in person, but a whole bunch claiming to have seen such. I pushed my own GA-X79-UD5 pretty hard, and did not encounter any problems, my CPU didn't die, and my board is fine. I do know of a few other others without any issues too, so again, I see all of this as a non-issue. Any parts that fail at stock will be covered by standard warranties.

Based on the info I have, this problem was only encountered in specific load scenarios, so Gigabyte would have an easy way to tell what caused the problem. Really, with them having gone this far with this, they obviously replicated the problem using other parts, and implemented a fix. That fix, as explained, means that any failures caused by this problem are either do to OC, or improper system cooling.
Posted on Reply
#8
HTC
cadaveca said:
If not overclocking, there shouldn't be any issues with the earlier BIOSes. Any failures at stock would fall into the normal percentile of parts that fail that any manufacturer is subject to.

That said, it's ultimately critical to provide proper cooling for your components regardless of the platform or OEM who produced the parts. I've mentioned that this is even more critical with the Intel X79 Express paltform when overclocking many times already, and will continue to do so.

That said, I personally haven't seen many users reporting failure in person, but a whole bunch claiming to have seen such. I pushed my own GA-X79-UD5 pretty hard, and did not encounter any problems, my CPU didn't die, and my board is fine. I do know of a few other others without any issues too, so again, I see all of this as a non-issue. Any parts that fail at stock will be covered by standard warranties.
The only way out of this is if someone affected by this comes here and posts in this topic, sharing his / her experience on the subject.

As for the warranty, does it cover any damages to other system components or just the board?

When a board suffers this kind of "accident" while running @ stock, it usually isn't the only "casualty of war" and, since the problem lies with the BIOS the board comes with, it's the manufacturer's fault. As such, what compensation can a user affected expect: just a replacement board?

EDIT

You edited while i was replying.

cadaveca said:
Based on the info I have, this problem was only encountered in specific load scenarios, so Gigabyte would have an easy way to tell what caused the problem. Really, with them having gone this far with this, they obviously replicated the problem using other parts, and implemented a fix. That fix, as explained, means that any failures caused by this problem are either do to OC, or improper system cooling.
I see. If those 2 causes are the only possible ones then it's either the user's fault or the PC's assembler's fault: an affected system may not have been assembled by the user but by the store where it was bought or by someone else entirely.
Posted on Reply
#9
cadaveca
My name is Dave
Please see my edit.


Of course, I don't work for Gigabyte is any way, or any other hardware company, for that matter, so I really have no idea. On a personal level, I don't really see the BIOS(es) as a problem except in specific circumstances. Like I said earlier, I have one of the affected boards. I personally tested every release BIOS, from stock to the maximum overclock my CPU and cooling allows, and experienced no failure. I got my board before the launch and it shipped with a BIOS that never made it public, and I tried quite a few beta BIOSes as well.

That's why I'm confident in saying this is a non-issue. At the same time though, I do run fairly modest clocks, as I pay close attention to system and individual pweor consumption when testing for reviews. When the CPU I'm using costs a fairly hefty chuck of change, I can't exactly afford to replace it, but at the same time, I do purposely push a bit further than I maybe should, so that if there are issues like this, I encounter them. I ALWAYS push my CPUs to the throttle point. ALWAYS.
Posted on Reply
#10
HTC
cadaveca said:
Please see my edit.


Of course, I don't work for Gigabyte is any way, or any other hardware company, for that matter, so I really have no idea. On a personal level, I don't really see the BIOS(es) as a problem except in specific circumstances. Like I said earlier, I have one of the affected boards. I personally tested every release BIOS, from stock to the maximum overclock my CPU and cooling allows, and experienced no failure. I got my board ebfore the launch and it shipped with a BIOS that never made it public, and I tried quite a few beta BIOSes as well.
I see your edit and raise you another ...

So you went the extra mile and tested several BIOSes: commendable, IMO.

cadaveca said:
That's why I'm confident in saying this is a non-issue. At the same time though, I do run fairly modest clocks, as I pay close attention to system and individual pweor consumption when testing for reviews. When the CPU I'm using costs a fairly hefty chuck of change, I can't exactly afford to replace it, but at the same time, I do purposely push a bit further than I maybe should, so that if there are issues like this, I encounter them. I ALWAYS push my CPUs to the throttle point. ALWAYS.
And you edited again ... are we playing poker or something?
Posted on Reply
#11
ensabrenoir
Wow.....make a product designed for overclocking , highlighting these features, and then void the warrenty when overclocked...sweet ....not:cool:
Posted on Reply
#12
HTC
ensabrenoir said:
Wow.....make a product designed for overclocking , highlighting these features, and then void the warrenty when overclocked...sweet ....not:cool:
Strikes me as odd that this sort of thing isn't illegal ... :twitch:
Posted on Reply
#13
cadaveca
My name is Dave
HTC said:
I see your edit and raise you another ...

So you went the extra mile and tested several BIOSes: commendable, IMO.
I always do, with every product. It's "policy" to update to the most recent public BIOS available, but I like to try the beta BIOSes that are given to the extreme clockers too, to compare differences.

It's no big deal, really, just what I see as neccesary. For a memory review, I used 3 different boards with every BIOS available for each, and a few others with long-standing "good" BIOSes,nevermind swapping other parts in too. I wouldn't feel confident in the results I give if I didn't explore every possible angle.
And you edited again ... are we playing poker or something?
:laugh:, sorry, dude. As I said earlier, I am working on a review of the UD5, so I'm dealing with all of this just as you are. Considering that I had already completed my testing, I'm pretty shocked by the whole situation. Now I've got to do a bit more testing, which I don't mind, becuase situations like this are ones that as a reviewer, I cannot ignore.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment