Solved Planning my next upgrade with IVY bridge, mobos and memory

[TanyaC]

I'm sure many of us are watching for information about the release of the new IVY bridge CPUs and supporting hardware like Mobo's and memory.

I'm wondering if in their travels anyone has come across an ASROCK or GIGABYTE motherboard that does NOT have onboard graphics.


Specifically, I'm looking to

• Upgrade my 8gb ram to 16GB @ 2133 MHZ (actually running at 2133, not 1600, like what the Gigabyte seems to want to do). Probably will use G.Skill memory.
• Add a IB 3770K CPU
• Add a Z77 chipset mobo with all the new features, UEFI and so on.
• With NO onboard graphics.
• Maybe upgrade my GTX 460 to a GTX 580 (depending on funds)

Will not touch ASUS mobo;s. Had 7 of them, all died within first 12 months. ASUS refused to repair or replace 2 of them. Also wont touch rubbish like MSI.

Not asking anyone to go and do the research for me, I can do that for myself, but just wondering if anyone is already aware of a graphics-less mobo.

 

[DavidE]

Isn't the graphics built into the CPU and not the motherboard?

 

[M1GU31]

Isn't the graphics built into the CPU and not the motherboard?

the onboard graphics are integrated onto the mobo not the cpu

 

[DavidE]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but search for GPU in these

Intel Ivy Bridge CPU Names and Features Revealed - Softpedia

AnandTech - Intel's Ivy Bridge Architecture Exposed

Ivy Bridge (microarchitecture) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[TVeblen]

It looks like the 3770 series i7's have graphics on the CPU.

The 3960, 3930, and 3820 do not have graphics on the CPU.

 

[TanyaC]

It's not the graphics on the CPU I'm concerned about. It's the graphics integrated onto the motherboard.

My concern is the shared and dedicated system memory that is used for graphics, and when you have a discreet graphics card, as would must enthusiasts, grahpics professionals and gamers, then onboard graphics is undesirable.

Some motherboards "appropriate" system memory, the worst I've seen being an ASUS which appropriated 640mb of system memory that you just could not get back. The XP system that it ran suddenly went from 4gb to 3.2gb (because of 32 bit limitations), then to 2.5gb because of the dedicated grapihcs memory.

Typically motherboards will appropriate as much as almost 2gb of system memory (albeit, shared), even when onboard graphics is disabled on the motherboard.

Of the 25 or so asrock and gigabyte boards I've checked out all of them have onboard graphics..

 

[cyclic]

What is your specific objection to onboard graphics ?
Sure you have a dedicated graphics card, so it's not doing anything apart from possibly providing a fall back position in case your card goes west, at least you can use the onboard for surfin' and such until you get a repair or replace.

 

[TanyaC]

1. Paying for technology I don't want or need. I will be upgrading at least 6 machines, so whatever the price incrememnt is for graphics on board is multiplied by 6.

2. Losing a percentage of my system memory and not being able to get it back. If I buy and pay for 16gb of RAM, then I don't want my motherboard taking part of that away, regardless of whether you use the "memory is cheap" point of view.

I always have a spare graphics card on hand. I have never had to fall back to using onboard graphics. Actually, I think I have 4 spare graphics cards, but that's just because I'm a tinkerer and I've always had spares of everything lying around.

It's disappointing that motherboard manufacturers have gone this way. I believe there are many, many people who don't want or need on board graphics, and like MIcrosoft, these companies have stopped listening to their customers, and in many ways have a adopted a "one size fits all" approach, possibly for purely economic reasons, and to hell with customers satisfaction.

Anyway, we are getting off topic. It appears that "graphics-less" motherboards have gone the same way as IDE connectors on motherboards... they just don't exist.

So, now it looks like it's going to be a matter of what motherboard will steal zero mb of system RAM when onboard grahics is disabled. That is; I should be rephrasing my original question.

"What Gigabyte or ASrock motherboard allows the onboard graphics to be disabled and gives back all the system memory it would have otherwise appropriated when it is disabled?"

 

[bobkn]

It may be early to ask about that series of boards, as they haven't become available yet.

AnandTech - A Brief Look at Some Upcoming 7-Series Motherboards

Looks like all of the chipsets will support CPU graphics. I guess you should be complaining about Intel, rather than the motherboard makers.

I suppose that Intel may make some IB CPUs that do not include the graphics circuitry (as they did for SB), but that may not be soon, and it may not include the high end CPUs.

 

[TanyaC]

It may be early to ask about that series of boards, as they haven't become available yet.

Yes, perhaps you're right.

AnandTech - A Brief Look at Some Upcoming 7-Series Motherboards

Thanks for the link. I've spent a couple of months now reading reviews, and product specifications on the various manufacturers website. They are of course, notoriously vague on features and behaviours of boards, in favour of pushing their new technoloigies.

Looks like all of the chipsets will support CPU graphics. I guess you should be complaining about Intel, rather than the motherboard makers.

With all due respect, I disagree. Motherboards with graphics ports have been around for many years. Way longer than the graphics integration with the CPUs. The requirement for dedicated and shared memory has been a requirement of the motherboards - NOT the CPUs. It has little or nothing to do with the CPUs.

Also, I apologise if I come accross as complaining. I was actually asking if anyone was aware of a motherboard in the Z77 chipset that didn't have graphics ports.

I suppose that Intel may make some IB CPUs that do not include the graphics circuitry (as they did for SB), but that may not be soon, and it may not include the high end CPUs.

Whether or not they make Graphics-less CPUs is largely irrelevant. It's not the integrated graphics on the CPU that I'm concerned about. It's the motherboard requirement for dedicated and shared system memory that's a pain.

In 10 years this wont be an issue, because (maybe) the onboard graphics will be as good as that as a discrete card (although, I remain skeptical). Lol, I can hear ATI and nVidia groan...

 

[bobkn]

Looks like all of the chipsets will support CPU graphics. I guess you should be complaining about Intel, rather than the motherboard makers.

With all due respect, I disagree. Motherboards with graphics ports have been around for many years. Way longer than the graphics integration with the CPUs. The requirement for dedicated and shared memory has been a requirement of the motherboards - NOT the CPUs. It has little or nothing to do with the CPUs.

Er, what?

Onboard graphics with SB require a suitable motherboard chipset and a CPU that includes the GPU function. If you use a CPU that lacks the GPU components, there is no onboard graphics. I know of no pre-SB precedent for that. I suppose that the motherboard could reserve some system RAM for the nonfunctional graphics, but that'd be poor design.

This is mostly irrelevant, though. A motherboard with a proper BIOS should permit the onboard graphics to be disabled, so you wouldn't lose a bit of your 16GB of RAM. My Asus P8Z68-V Pro had such a BIOS (UEFI, really). I find it hard to believe that your preferred brands would do worse. You may have to wait until the systems come into the hands of users, if you wish to be absolutely sure.

 

[DavidE]

Hi Tanya, and take this post with a grain of salt

From what i know, memory is not an issue with Win7 64 bit OS.
Are you planning to use these PC's with a 32 bit OS?

Now that you have explained things more i understand where you're coming from.
What you can do is send an email to the MB manufacturers and ask if they will produce something with your requirements.
Yup, you already know about the vague "specs"...so will they answer??...
I have seen this "vague" problem with other manufacturers and software vendors.

You could also post questions on hardware review sites that might know and answer for sure...
I expect they won't answer before the official release.

It sounds like you are an enthusiast, so you have different needs than the "Mass Market".
I'm more of an HTPC user, so I have the same problem, but from a different point of view.
If they build things based on your needs, it might cost me more.
I won't like that, should i complain?...:sarc:

We are both in some specialty/niche market and have to pay for that choice.

Every motherboard i have ever used has features and ports that i don't want or need.
Yet, i have had to pay for these...
Or, did the MB cost less to produce because of Mass Production efficiencies, and it really saved me money?

Maybe this issue goes back to where the assembly line and mass production started?
I have heard "You can have any color you want as long as it's black"...

I think manufacturers have to build based on the "Mass Market" to decrease costs.
With that, i understand the specialty "One Off" builds (if possible) will cost more.

Food for thought,
David

 

[Dave76]

All systems have a 'Reserved' or 'Hardware Reserved' RAM, this is for misc hardware, more is used for mobo or CPU graphics.

Check your current system 'Task Manager' and/or 'Resource Monitor'.
My system 'Hardware Reserved' is 8.8MB, there is no onboard graphics, mobo or CPU.

If you disable CPU graphics in EFI you should not have any RAM reserved for it.

I understand your position on this but there is not going to be much loss percentage wise with 16GB RAM.
The 1155 socket Z77 chipset mobos are designed for on CPU graphics whether the CPU has them or not.
CPUs above the 3770K don't have on board graphics, which won't matter since the motherboard will be set up for it.

Since the info is not completely released for these mobo/chipsets and I haven't seen any mobo manuals published yet, we won't know the details until they are released.

Edit: Just found this mobo, it's not a Z77 chipset but may work for you.
You can check the Gigabyte GA-P75-D3, it appears not to have any back panel graphics connections.
This may be what you are looking for.

 

[TanyaC]

Thanks all for your kind assistance.

I like to get ahead of things and be ready to go when technologies are released. (and I often get hit with the bugs, like the B2 bug). I've spent the last couple of days reading and it looks like the best option is to wait at least 2 months, but probably more likely next year, to upgrade. Staying current, to be honest, has been a preference not a neccessity. This is going to he soooo hard...

I've contacted the manufacturers of ASUS, Gigabyte and ASROCK regarding their motherboards and asked which don't have graphics on board, and if there are none, are they able to be configured so as to not use any dedicated or shared memory.

I agree that this is becoming less of a problem with memory costs dropping (relatively speaking), and no I won't be putting down any 32 bit OS's. That would not serve my purposes at all, limiting me to 3.25GB of memory.

8.8mb or 16mb I can live with. 640mb or 1760mb of appropriated memory I cannot.

There seems to be a lot of confusion though about CPU integrated graphics and motherboard Integrated graphics.. Graphics WAS implemented on motherboads long before it was integrated onto the CPUs.

Dave76: Thanks for the info on the P75. WIll look into it.

Here is an extract from Wikipedia.. (The full article is here: Graphics processing unit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Integrated graphics solutions
Integrated graphics solutions, shared graphics solutions, or Integrated graphics processors (IGP) utilize a portion of a computer's system RAM rather than dedicated graphics memory. They are integrated into the motherboard. Exceptions are AMD's IGPs that use dedicated sideport memory on certain motherboards, and APUs, where they are integrated with the CPU die. Computers with integrated graphics account for 90% of all PC shipments.[14] These solutions are less costly to implement than dedicated graphics solutions, but tend to be less capable. Historically, integrated solutions were often considered unfit to play 3D games or run graphically intensive programs but could run less intensive programs such as Adobe Flash. Examples of such IGPs would be offerings from SiS and VIA circa 2004.[15] However, modern integrated graphics processors such as AMD's Fusion IGPs and Intel's HD Graphics are more than capable of handling 2D graphics from Adobe Flash or low stress 3D graphics, but struggle with the latest games like Battlefield 3. IGPs like the Intel's HD Graphics 3000 and AMD's Fusion IGPs have improved performance that may match cheap dedicated graphic cards, but still lag behind the more expensive dedicated graphics cards. While older platforms had the IGP integrated onto the motherboard, newer platforms (Intel Core i series and AMD Fusion) integrate the GPU right onto the CPU die.
As a GPU is extremely memory intensive, an integrated solution may find itself competing for the already relatively slow system RAM with the CPU, as it has minimal or no dedicated video memory. IGPs can have up to 29.856 GB/s of memory bandwidth from system RAM, however graphics cards can enjoy up to 16GB/s of bandwidth over PCIe 3.0. Older integrated graphics chipsets lacked hardware transform and lighting, but newer ones include it.[16]

 

[Dave76]

There are new benefits to on CPU graphics like transcoding, may be useful if you need this.

Intel Quick Sync Video