I have a doubt. I have this mobo and I have updated it with the BIOS # 0028.
So... if I use it with 2600k i7 processor, I should not worry about any future possible problems?
THank you in advance.
I wouldn't update to the new BIOS if it ever comes out. Not until I see what others in these forums say about it anyway.
Any news about the bios update???? I have a DZ68BC, band new, and not working well, ins not detecting all the memory I have, dont have any software compatible with the wireless adapter, normally comes on installation CD. The 1394 don`t comes with a proper driver, and I don`t find the driver in donwload center. Intel, please fix this!!!!
Hello, I will not upgrade to the BIOS # 35, I only upgraded to # 28. So I can rest easy with this BIOS using 2600k i7 processor?
Yes, running an i7 2600K here.
Well, I have good news and bad news. The good news is that
it worked….for about half an hour.
I’ve installed the new i5 3570k processor, booted up and the
board recognized it. So far so good, but, of course, we are talking about the
DZ68BC here – under the section “Performance” you will find no option for
overclock. Nothing at all, not even the TurboBoost option, absolutely nothing.
And when you think that this is an “Extreme” board…. I left everything the way
it was and booted up into Windows.
CPU-Z recognized the processor, so did the Intel Desktop
Utilities. Unfortunately, the Intel Extreme Tuning Utility didn’t. I’ve got a
message that I tried to run it on unsupported (!!!) hardware and turned off.
Well, there goes the overclocking options.
Started Prime 95 to see what the temperatures were and it
was OK, maximum 58 at 3,6 GHz. I don’t know
why the frequency was 3.6, the i5 3570k runs at 3,4 default and 3,8 with
TurboBoost….so I went to Intel BIOS support page and they said that, in my case
(change the BIOS in order to add support for new type of processors) I need to
re-install the BIOS after the installation of the processor in order to fully
OK, that make sense, I thought, so I re-installed the 0035
BIOS using the F7 option and an USB stick.
The board booted up, but immediately gave me three beeps and
restarted. Again, three beeps and restart. And again…..It also posted the 46
error code, that it’s something related to the processor.
I couldn’t do anything to start the computer, I’ve tried the
usual – the back-to-bios button, removing jumper and battery……nothing. So,
right now, I don’t have a working computer.
I’m tired to see how Intel it’s mocking us and we do nothing
about it. I am going to make an official complain to the Customer Protection
Agency. It is unacceptable from them to release a non-working BIOS, for none of
their processors. If the board it’s not capable to coup with the new Ivy
Bridge, they should have left it the way it was, supporting only the Sandy
Bridge processors. They claim that the board
supports just about every processor they have; I can prove otherwise. They are
promoting this board as an “Extreme” series – I dare them to prove that it is,
because I couldn’t make this board to work stable, with any BIOS, except with
the default settings. And for that I didn’t need to spend $270 for this board.
So, because they are selling a product that it’s not even close to what it’s
advertised, and thus misleading the customers to buy it, I am going to notify
the Customer Protection Agency.
Yeah this board sucks. It might be stable with SB and 0028 but it is by no means EXTREME. I already said it but lesson learned, back to ASUS or Gigabyte for me from now on. This is the second time I've bought a board despite my reservations and the second time I've been left disappointed. I saw yesterday that there was a new BIOS for a P55 board (that's an ancient chipset by comparison to the Z68). Seems like every other day there is a new BIOS update for Z77 boards too. Intel needs to get a company representative with a spine to answer some questions in this topic. I see Intel_Name in other posts but they are completely skipping all posts related to the DZ68BC board. That alone tells me they know the board is FUBAR and don't want to get involved trying to defend a broken product.
Here's the most aggravating thing about all this (see pics). All of these computers are currently in use on a daily basis minus my Eee PC. I have 4 or 5 sitting in a closet but they aren't being used. Can you spot what they all have in common?
@Stefan .."Unfortunately, the Intel Extreme Tuning Utility didn’t. I’ve got a message that I tried to run it on unsupported (!!!) hardware and turned off."...
The XTU on the DZ68BC download page seems to be an old one. This seems to be the current one and installs correctly.
Shock: 0036 just came out. No way I'm trying it first.
BIOS Version 0036 - BCZ6810H.86A.0036.2012.0605.1116
About This Release:
• Date: June 5, 2012
• ME Firmware: 18.104.22.1681, 22.214.171.1244
• Integrated Graphics Option ROM: Build 2132 PC 14.34
• SATA RAID Option ROM: v126.96.36.1993
• LAN Option ROM: v1395 PXE 2.1 Build 091
• Updated Intel® ME firmware to versions 188.8.131.521, 184.108.40.2064.
• Updated processor support.
• Updated LAN Option ROM to version 1.3.95 PXE 2.1 Build 091.
• Updated VBIOS to version 2132.
• Updated SATA RAID Option ROM to version 220.127.116.113.
• Fixed issue where overclocking does not work as expected after BIOS update.
• Fixed issue where turbo boost does not work.
• Fixed issue where F7 update fails after changing the settings of Processor Overrides page.
• Fixed issue where L2 Cache is incorrect.
• Fix issue with Wake up system from S5 setting.
• Fixed issue where actual calculated CPU frequency does not match the speed displayed in BIOS Setup.
• Fixed issue where computer halts at system welcome logo when certain processor is installed.
• Fixed yellow bang issue in Device Manager.
• Fixed issue where Overridden Processor Turbo Speed always shows in BIOS.
• Fixed issue where CPU Turbo Boost function cannot be disabled in the operating system.
@rseiler - ......"Shock: 0036 just came out. No way I'm trying it first".....
Prepare yourself for another shock.......
I've updated 035->036 and my system took the update OK and has has booted successfully (I'm typing this post on it).
It will be a week or two before I can form an opinion as to whether it had resolved my issue.... Fingers crossed!
Note: I'm not attempting to overclock at the mo - just trying to get a reliable system.
All you brave souls let the rest of us know how it's working.
The new BIOS came out?! O M G, I can not believe that.
The intel released the new BIOS? LOL, is it true? Well, I hope it works well.
June 5th?!! So we are all in the future? ;P
I am sooooooooo worried to use it. I don't know what to do...
Yeah, what's up with the backdating? Intel commonly does it, and not just for BIOS's, but I don't recall any that dated back 5 weeks. I understand that there's testing involved, but 5 weeks is more than other BIOS's that I've noticed. I'm not sure what's worse to ponder: that they forgot to post it or that it needed a LOT of testing.
In any case, when they post something, the date on the download page should be the current date (the date in the ZIP should be the date it was created, of course). Confusion reigns otherwise, since you have no idea generally speaking when something was posted. In a month, who's going to remember that this came out in July? Silly Intel.
@Edde Cavalcanti ....."I am sooooooooo worried to use it. I don't know what to do..."......
It depends on your situation - If you have a stable system but am missing some desired enhancement feature (Overclocking?) then wait. If you have a pressing issue with instability or or an inaccessible system, then try it. My system was "intermittently inaccessible" so I tried the update and do not believe that I am worse off..
@rseiler.... I think that it is correct that the date on the download page is the June date as that would be when the build was done. As that is the landmark date in the evolution of the product, it should be the date that the release is labelled with.
However I had subscribed to the RSS feed for the mobo and the RSS message also has the June date which meant that it buried itself a couple of messages down the list. That message should have had the news item date, (ie yesterday).
I hope that the month between build and release was necessary for the QA process and that it was not just held in a testing queue somewhere......
Afterthought..... And anyway - would you admit to releasing a product on Friday the 13th.....
(Friday the 13th's are regarded as unlucky days in the UK)