Re: GIGABYTE Latest Beta BIOS
See my 2 cents on that matter here:
http://forums.tweaktown.com/gigabyte...tml#post470423
Some problems were simply ridiculous. On top of what I wrote there, it's plain sad that there were these issues with peripheral chips that had been used on the previous boards with socket 115x, like Intel LAN and Marvell 88EE9172 SATA. Why can't they get that right from the start? Sorry, my tolerance ends there. Period. But also that the iRSTe mode caused BSODs and Intel taking THREE MAJOR builds of their LAN drivers (V14 to 17) to get performance right.
Sorry for venting...
By the way, as I am thinking over this post... "They must have fired their engineers"...maybe not but maybe they were narrowtracked BIOS folks for Award/AMI. UEFI came up then and that's where it went downhill. And admittedly UEFI is a PRETTY different matter altogether.
Originally posted by zerowing
View Post
http://forums.tweaktown.com/gigabyte...tml#post470423
Some problems were simply ridiculous. On top of what I wrote there, it's plain sad that there were these issues with peripheral chips that had been used on the previous boards with socket 115x, like Intel LAN and Marvell 88EE9172 SATA. Why can't they get that right from the start? Sorry, my tolerance ends there. Period. But also that the iRSTe mode caused BSODs and Intel taking THREE MAJOR builds of their LAN drivers (V14 to 17) to get performance right.
Sorry for venting...
By the way, as I am thinking over this post... "They must have fired their engineers"...maybe not but maybe they were narrowtracked BIOS folks for Award/AMI. UEFI came up then and that's where it went downhill. And admittedly UEFI is a PRETTY different matter altogether.
Comment