Anyone who doesn't feel the need for Killer's NIC or Creative's on-board X-Fi components can get more of just about everything for a lot less money in Gigabyte’s X79-UD5. The I/O panel, for example, adds FireWire without losing its OC button, BIOS switch, or semi-hidden CLR_CMOS button.
X79-UD5 buyers also get twice as many memory slots, two more internal SATA 6Gb/s ports, and power and reset buttons compared to the scantly-clad G1.Assassin2, along with nearly twice as many voltage regulator phases. Gigabyte even switches its X79-UD5 voltage regulator to the solid capacitors so heavily favored by one of its competitors, helping to clean up the space around the CPU interface.
On the other hand, the lack of a Killer NIC to get in the way leaves us disappointed not to find a PCIe x1 slot at the top of the X79-UD5. That’s because Gigabyte includes the same Wi-Fi/Bluetooth combo card found in its other bundle, with the same problem of graphics cards potentially covering up all of the board's PCI Express slots.
Most users who don’t need three-way CrossFireX or SLI will find the X79-UD5’s layout nearly perfect, though a front-panel audio header placed far into the lower-rear corner is out of reach for the somewhat-short cables of some ATX enclosures.

While the other Gigabyte board was meant to be a bit Spartan in its cable kit, we were a little bummed to find only four SATA cables included with the more broadly-featured X79-UD5. We do, however, find the same CrossFire, SLI, and three-way SLI bridges, along with Gigabyte’s Wi-Fi/Bluetooth solution and a USB 3.0 bay adapter.
- Sandy Bridge-E And X79: The Best Intel Has To Offer
- ASRock X79 Extreme9
- X79 Extreme9 Firmware
- Asus P9X79 Deluxe
- Asus P9X79 WS
- Asus’ UEFI
- Gigabyte G1.Assassin2
- Gigabyte GA-X79-UD5
- Gigabyte’s UEFI
- Test Settings
- Benchmark Results: 3D Games
- Benchmark Results: Audio And Video Encoding
- Benchmark Results: Productivity
- Power, Heat, And Efficiency
- X79 Overclocking
- Which High-End X79 Motherboard Is Best?


You might want re check the facts.
Thanks.
How could that happen? ASRock has repeatedly removed previous BIOS versions from its website and labeled the replacement as the initial release.
This review was published after many hours of collaboration with ASRock, and some of the problems with this specific CPU are further detailed in the overclocking section. ASRock acknowledged the problem exists with a portion of the C1 CPU supply and has begun issuing patched BIOS to fix the multiplier issue, according to ASRock engineer William Yu.
Not to mention that they didnt say they couldnt hit 4.4ghz, they just stated they didnt get that high without going beyond 1.35v
Kinda wish we got to see a MAX overclock for air before temps got out of control =P
But then you get various coolers involved... yada yada... but PLEASE anyway
I had to comment on something. I can't really comment on the hardware as its so enthusiast and SB-E is well beyond my needs. I can't comment too much on the bios because I still barely understand mine, but I am seeing the trend that it might be best to stick with what you know, or risk having to translate the various names/definitions of settings across different products. I'm not that smart nor that patient. I liked the comment on the 6.00...lol... %! I never would have thought. I think that just deciphered half of my bios options, thanks. /wink
Just sayin'
Question does tht little fan on the motherboard get loud? If it does that would be a deal breaker for me
On a side note I would love to see how these boards look assembled
I am running 4.4GHz on 1.2V Revision C1 ASRock Extreme4 Bios 1.50. At 1.4V i can run 5.0Ghz but i don't have good enough cooler so i reverted back to 4.4.
I was wondering the same thing. I was about to purchase the rampage iv extreme then I saw this story. I was hoping to see it compaired with these boards. But, maybe it's in a league of its own.
It uses the same chipset and Asus doesn't differentiate integrated components on a per board testing basis. It will almost assuredly perform at the same level the other boards do, it just has a brand name unscaled cost and different tweak software.
In general, the entire x79 platform seems poorly executed to me. For having over twice the transistor count of a Sandy Bridge chip, the E line does not have performance to match that much of a die size increase, coupled with the base TDP being as high as it is, I would expect many more cores or much higher clocks out of them, especially considering they don't waste die space on integrated graphics.
That and the motherboards to go with the platform are all extremely overpriced. It is understandable that a new socket type has a lot of manufacturing overhead, and 4 channel RAM is magnitudes more complicated circuitry than dual channel, and having the PCI lanes support almost three times the bandwidth and channels is costly. But it isn't triple the price of a reasonable z68 motherboard costly.
The CPU is worse; for a total buy-in of $920+ (adds the cost of an i7-3930K) you can build a very nice system indeed, as the $1K SBM articles clearly show.
In today's economic climate, X79 may make sense for only a very few people. I'm not one of them, and while there's certainly no harm in reading about it, I doubt many regular Tom's readers are either.
Suckers!! haha
Which makes me wonder. If a 2600K can normally hit 4.8GHz on modest air cooling, and an i7 3960X is going to typically max out at around 4.4GHz with the same Vcore and cooling.... that's a 10% higher clock speed on the 2600K. The 3960X should perform about 20% faster at the same speed.... meaning... the difference is going to be what? 10% in favor of the 3960X.
So, 10% more performance for about 3 times the cost.
For anything but professional workstations, it seems that X79 doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
Next year i'm getting a new LGA 2011 mobo and an "old" 2600K and spare some cash for a better GPU.
Greedy bastards...