why have Gigabyte not adopted UEFI?

snadge

snadge

snadge

Associate
Joined
11 Oct 2010
Posts
551
...and is there any real performance gains for the home user (someone who doesnt have tons of drives attached and only has 1-3 second BIOS POST's)

at a recent Microsoft Windows 8 seminar a Microsoft employee who was pluggin windows 8 said he was told that windows and applications ran 40% faster in windows 7 under UEFI.... i think this is total ****-and-bull and that he has been misled.


thanks
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Extensible_Firmware_Interface

its a replacement for the current BIOS standard which limits hard-drive capacitys to 2Tb and takes longer to POST if you have many, many drives or pieces of hardware attached
UEFI is supposed to be more secure too...

it was originally plugged as making systems faster but it was said out of context...but I want to know if anyone actually has an ASrock or MSI board with UEFI and if it makes the 40% differences qouted by MS employee
 
There are a bunch of underlying improvements, most of which are aimed at ease of development, but the main things for "us" is the ability to boot bigger drives and for the board to initiate the board and its connected drives/cards faster, letting it run the bootloader sooner. In reality I don't think it saves you that many seconds, haven't had time to test my Sabertooth yet.

What I can say is that I really like having a GUI, strangely enough. Thought I'd prefer the old style, but I'm loving the interface on my Sabertooth.
 
i have one, and i guess its enabled (i also installed a driver off the cd for drivers larger than 2TB) but must admit, i havent noticed it load any quicker than it did before. but then its all completly new hardware so i never had anything to guage it on.
 
like I say it only has performance gains for the likes of business's that have hundreds of drives attached etc - startup will be quicker... UEFI is likely only to save the home user 1-2 seconds on boot - but should be adopted anyway as its the new standard

i just wanted to know if anyone thinks windows and programs are FORTY PERCENT (lol) faster under UEFI than BIOS
 
snadge said:
like I say it only has performance gains for the likes of business's that have hundreds of drives attached etc - startup will be quicker... UEFI is likely only to save the home user 1-2 seconds on boot - but should be adopted anyway as its the new standard

i just wanted to know if anyone thinks windows and programs are FORTY PERCENT (lol) faster under UEFI than BIOS
Click to expand...

i have all my sata ports (6) full and always have. if its 40% faster being turned on, then my new system must be about 35-39% slower than my old one as there is nothing noticably quicker.
 
paradisiac said:
i have all my sata ports (6) full and always have. if its 40% faster being turned on, then my new system must be about 35-39% slower than my old one as there is nothing noticably quicker.
Click to expand...

the MS rep said 40% faster IN windows.. apps and windows itself was 40% faster he said lol....
 
my windows is about as fast as i would expect with the upgrade in components, so i would say 40% for this feature is a tad exagerated, but someone else might disagree.
 
snadge said:
do they ? just I couldnt find any boards with UEFI on...maybe I aint looking hard enough
Click to expand...
Their 990X/FX board have what they themselves refer to as "Hybrid EFI", which is basically BIOS with 2TB+ boot drive support from what I can tell.

A graphical user interface isn't what UEFI is, it's just part of what it allows.
 
SeeKified said:
Their 990X/FX board have what they themselves refer to as "Hybrid EFI", which is basically BIOS with 2TB+ boot drive support from what I can tell.

A graphical user interface isn't what UEFI is, it's just part of what it allows.
Click to expand...

from a previous post, i think he is after a 1155 skt mobo.
 
SeeKified said:
Their 990X/FX board have what they themselves refer to as "Hybrid EFI", which is basically BIOS with 2TB+ boot drive support from what I can tell.
Click to expand...

Ah you are right its just their standard BIOS but with the larger drive support from EFI http://gigabytedaily.blogspot.com/2011/01/gigabyte-hybrid-efi-technology.html.

TBH fair play to Gigabyte for holding back till they get something that will work and has been thoroughly tested rather than having to rush bug fixes etc (Case in point: Asus).
 
gropingmantis said:
Ah you are right its just their standard BIOS but with the larger drive support from EFI http://gigabytedaily.blogspot.com/2011/01/gigabyte-hybrid-efi-technology.html.

TBH fair play to Gigabyte for holding back till they get something that will work and has been thoroughly tested rather than having to rush bug fixes etc (Case in point: Asus).
Click to expand...
To be fair their current AM3+ lineup seems quite rushed to me anyway, blocked PCI-E slots and self-aware VCore and all, but you do have a point. :D
 
iam after a P67 board...

so theres no 'real' performance increase here for the home user (who has a standard setup) so the BBC and Microsoft are wrong to label it as so...

whats wrong with ASUS?

I think we may just go with Gigabyte's Dual-Bios... they are very reliable boards and you have a back up BIOS too , I like the sound of the thicker copper etc and how its longer lasting and all that sheeyite
 
There is no way that apps and windows will run 40% or even 5% faster just from the UEFI bios. A 32Mb chip hard coded. Once it has booted the computer into the OS most of the instructions are in ram which is much quicker.

I also think that the EFI hybrid is UEFI without the mouse driven interface.
 
ok got home and looked at my bios, couldnt see anything obvious for this, but there was something about EFI ROM, so i enabled that and must say, its made no difference to anything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom