Streaking into first place with the most SFF boards on offer at launch, Gigabyte brings it’s breadth of options to the market. With so many options, surely there’s one here for everyone? Maybe?
Read more here.
SFF.Network Gigabyte’s 200-Series Range – Sizeable (In a Good Way)
- Thread starter jeshikat
- Start date
Wow, an H270 motherboard that's literally the exact same as the Z270 except for the chipset. And it will probably end up at a price point of $15 less than the Z270, making the point of a "budget" build almost moot.
Thanks Intel, I'm super excited about your market stratification. *Cough* waiting for Zen *cough*
Thanks Intel, I'm super excited about your market stratification. *Cough* waiting for Zen *cough*
The Gigabyte B85N(-Phoenix) that I have does it right and has the USB3.0 header on the front edge of the board. Incidentially, the B150N does the same, and it seems like there will be a B250N-Phoenix (which makes me happy), but I have no idea why they don't use that same layout on their other boards.
Now if only those motherboards were all black and didn't have that terrible orange theme.
The GA-B85N is available without the Phoenix suffix in all black. The B150N and B250N don't have non-Phoenix variants. No idea why, I guess the Phoenix just sold better. What's funny is that there are variants of these boards with H110, H170, Z170, H270 and Z270 chipsets with almost identical layouts, but those all have the USB3.0 header in that stupid position in the middle. Couldn't tell you why.
But I agree with @confusis, the colour scheme is great. Orange is the best colour of them all.
Would there be a reason to wait to purchase the Gigabyte H270N vs the now on sale H170N? The so close to each other and the H270 would be higher price.
Yes and no. In this case though, on the Gigabyte board they appear to be one in the same.
I've edited my previous post to reflect this.
USB 3.0 (introduced 2008) was capable of 5 gigabits per second (theoretical speed)
USB 3.1 (introduced 2013) is capable of 10 gigabits per second (theoretical speed, I bolded the "10" because it's important to note.)
To enhance marketing capability, USB 3.0 was simply renamed to USB 3.1 Gen 1. They did this because the official USB 3.1 specification absorbed the USB 3.0 specification.
USB 3.1 Gen 1 (or Rev1) is referred to as SuperSpeed USB.
USB 3.1 Gen 2 (or Rev2) is referred to as SuperSpeed USB 10Gbps, or “SuperSpeed +.”
Some companies, not all, use the correct label on their products to help to differentiate between generation 1 (top two logos) and generation 2 (bottom two logos).
To compound the issue, USB Type-C and 3.1 Gen 1/2 can be advertised and used interchangeably.
However, unlike USB 3.1 Gen 1, USB Type-C is capable of powering devices up to 100 watts and USB 3.1 Gen 2, like USB Type-C, is also capable of powering devices up to 100 watts .
It's a complete cluster of confusion that I honestly don't know how they could have messed it up so badly.
If I've typed up anything incorrectly due to this mess of a specification, please feel free to correct me.
(source)
I've edited my previous post to reflect this.
USB 3.0 (introduced 2008) was capable of 5 gigabits per second (theoretical speed)
USB 3.1 (introduced 2013) is capable of 10 gigabits per second (theoretical speed, I bolded the "10" because it's important to note.)
To enhance marketing capability, USB 3.0 was simply renamed to USB 3.1 Gen 1. They did this because the official USB 3.1 specification absorbed the USB 3.0 specification.
USB 3.1 Gen 1 (or Rev1) is referred to as SuperSpeed USB.
USB 3.1 Gen 2 (or Rev2) is referred to as SuperSpeed USB 10Gbps, or “SuperSpeed +.”
Some companies, not all, use the correct label on their products to help to differentiate between generation 1 (top two logos) and generation 2 (bottom two logos).
To compound the issue, USB Type-C and 3.1 Gen 1/2 can be advertised and used interchangeably.
However, unlike USB 3.1 Gen 1, USB Type-C is capable of powering devices up to 100 watts and USB 3.1 Gen 2, like USB Type-C, is also capable of powering devices up to 100 watts .
It's a complete cluster of confusion that I honestly don't know how they could have messed it up so badly.
If I've typed up anything incorrectly due to this mess of a specification, please feel free to correct me.
(source)
Thanks for the wealth of info and quick responses. For the most part that's what I understood but you clarified things for me.
The audio support upgrade is not important for me and DDR4 2400 isn't a huge boost over 2133. Seems to me the H170N is the way to go.
The audio support upgrade is not important for me and DDR4 2400 isn't a huge boost over 2133. Seems to me the H170N is the way to go.
Similar threads
-
- Article
