What the article stresses upon is that manufacturers should highlight the changes and make the revision changes more apparent or even reflect it in model number clearly.
Spot the differences: Gigabyte motherboard revisions present markedly different test results | Hardware.Info United States
“Preliminary conclusion
First things first: at Hardware.Info we are no fans at all of significant product changes that are not reflected in a change in product codes and preferably product names. Even when products improve, as happens frequently with PSU manufacturers, this simply should not happen.
If Gigabyte had provided a different product and EAN code for the Rev 2.0 and Rev 3.0 boards, as well as updated product photos to the shops, there would not be much of a problem as far as we're concerned. In that case it would be clear to everyone that these are new, different products where the specifications and test results of earlier revisions do not necessarily apply to the newer revisions.
Now however a shop or end user can order a board based on reviews of the original and receive a product that is clearly different and, as we illustrated in this test, potentially inferior. And that is very questionable indeed.
The analysis of the B85M-D2V is shocking as Gigabyte has removed a feature from the original list of specifications, i.e. Dual BIOS. It's like ordering a car from a catalogue and discovering a missing right hand side mirror on delivery: not acceptable.
With the B85M-HD3 at least on paper there seems to be less of an issue: all the original Rev 1.0 specs are present in Rev 2.0. To play devil's advocate: Gigabyte doesn't promise anywhere that the board comes with a 4-phase power supply. Still, even if it passes muster legally, this is hardly the way to do business. Our test results moreover show that the Rev 2.0 has a potentially lower lifespan thanks to its lower number of mosfets and without any doubt will deliver lower performance than the first version in normal consumer applications (such as video encoding).
Reaction Gigabyte
Some days ago we approached Gigabyte to comment on our test results and respond to several specific questions. So far we have not received an answer, but once we do, we will publish this response in an update to this article.”
Several models have similar changes, reduction in specs and features in subsequent revisions but let me take the example of B85M-D3H since its available locally and get recommended very often.
It was the rev. 1.0 that is a very good mobo and many are using one and recommend it. But the rev. 2.0 visibly looks different, maybe cheaper.
3-phase VRM with lesser components is not the same as a 4-phase VRM with the same or similar type of components.(a three wheeled car will not run as efficient as a four wheeler,isnt it?)
Now check the comparison on the website and I see no difference except for PCB size maybe.
GIGABYTE- I found some useful information and would like to share with you
Would one still want to recommend rev. 2.0 knowing it has lower specs and maybe lower quality and reliability?
Most of us recommend B85M-D3H as we have used the rev. 1.0. But many might be ignorant of the changes in subsequent revisions. And obviously local dealers will be even more ignorant unless the manufacturers themselves have made the revision change noticeable to all.
Every manufacturer should highlight revision changes and differences clearly and why would they not?
Also, those who have rev. 1.0 mobos, in case they have to rma will get the cheaper new revision in all likelihood. It’s like getting a lower model in replacement.
Just as in RMA we expect equivalent or better replacement, I do not think it is unfair to expect subsequent revisions in products to be similar at least if not better. If significant components from the VRM are reduced, it is going to affect the reliability and stability of the product irrespective of which processor is used.
P.S.
As you said, even I wouldn’t recommend anyone to pair an i7 or even i5 maybe with cheap mobos. I usually stick to building and recommending high-end rigs only. The author of the article mostly wanted to show that if a manufacturer puts the i7-4770k (and i7-4790K) in the CPU support list of all revisions, they should be ok to use but the subsequent revisions are not ok as the article shows.
GIGABYTE - Motherboard - Socket 1150 - GA-B85M-HD3 (rev. 1.x)
GIGABYTE - Motherboard - Socket 1150 - GA-B85M-HD3 (rev. 2.0)
GIGABYTE - Motherboard - Socket 1150 - GA-B85M-HD3 (rev. 3.0)
Also, someone please correct me if I am wrong but won’t an i7-4770K/i5-4670K behave like an i7-4770/i5-4670 in any mobo that is not Z87/Z97?
