Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

does america have the Gigabyte DS4?

Last response: in Motherboards
Share
December 23, 2006 4:53:43 PM

i only ask because everyone on here, when asked for a mo/bo recommendation i always see DS3 or S3 and never ever DS4 (or DQ6 now i think about it)

is it because DS4 is only here in europe ATM? or is it too expensive (only £100) or is it noticably worse?

i cant find a review of it, it looks just like a DQ6 but has a different name and is £20 cheaper.

More about : america gigabyte ds4

a b V Motherboard
December 23, 2006 9:39:19 PM

The DQ6 is available here, but there is no point in getting it.
Google the DS4 and you will see websites listed primarily in Europe.
Maybe that explains it.
December 24, 2006 4:48:48 AM

The US doesn't have the DS4 - for some reason Gigabyte USA chose not to offer it.
Related resources
December 24, 2006 4:33:48 PM

Quote:
The DQ6 is available here, but there is no point in getting it.
Google the DS4 and you will see websites listed primarily in Europe.
Maybe that explains it.


why not? DQ6 looks pretty cool:p 

bit-tech benchmarked it, cant remember how it did though.
a b V Motherboard
December 24, 2006 5:44:12 PM

P965 board with 2 PCI-E x16 slots with 16 lanes on the primary but only 4 on the secondary. Kludge.
It has good voltage regulation, lots of other features and is quiet with good connector placement though.
You can do better for less money...
December 24, 2006 6:14:16 PM

hmm, yeah thats true, i dont get why theres so few lanes on 965 chipsets:/

i heard 965 is better for e6300/400 and 975 is better for e6600..
a b V Motherboard
December 24, 2006 7:51:30 PM

6600 buyers have more money and will naturally gravitate towards 975 boards which cost more. People who drive BMWs tend to buy better clothes than Kia drivers. Same thing.
December 24, 2006 8:01:17 PM

hmm, so 975 is actually just better?

i think i remember someone saying 965 was better for lower-clocked e6300/400 processors...of course that was just one person and it may just be bollocks.

at least most 975 boards have two LAN ports built in.

if you dont mind, what are the pros and cons of 975 Vs 965 in sort of lay-mans terms...i've read some comparisons but none really hit home with any advantages of either (PCIe x16 functionality seems to be the only deciding factor in most boards)
a b V Motherboard
December 24, 2006 8:54:24 PM

Quote:
hmm, so 975 is actually just better?

i think i remember someone saying 965 was better for lower-clocked e6300/400 processors...of course that was just one person and it may just be bollocks.

at least most 975 boards have two LAN ports built in.

if you dont mind, what are the pros and cons of 975 Vs 965 in sort of lay-mans terms...i've read some comparisons but none really hit home with any advantages of either (PCIe x16 functionality seems to be the only deciding factor in most boards)
As far as the chipset goes, the main advantage of a 975 is the number of PCI-E lanes.
The motherboards based on the 975 are marketed as high-end. They have more features like multiple LAN ports, extensive passive chipset cooling using fancy heatpipes, high phase count voltage regulation, headers for off-board audio and wireless built in, not just 2 but 3 PCI-Ex16 slots ( 16,16,8 ), etc.
Both the 965 and 975 chipsets overclock very well. How well each motherboard containing these chips overclocks depends on the OEM and the BIOS development done to accomodate this.
Intel brand 965 boards do not have much to offer overclockers.
Intel's 975 BadAxe overclocks well but is not very user friendly to do so with.
Other brands of both 965 and 975s may overclock both well and easily.
December 24, 2006 9:09:13 PM

hmmm...thanks:D 
!