backtop


Print 60 comment(s) - last by dare2savefreed.. on Oct 3 at 12:54 PM


An original, first generation GA-P35-DS3 shipped to vendors in June, 2007.  (Source: toukatu.blogzine.jp)

In the chart above, the red line represents the field strength limit against frequency. On a six frequency sample, this particular motherboard demonstrated a field almost 7dBuV above the EU directive.  (Source: Taiwan Eletronics Testing Center)
Motherboard manufacturers will do anything to save a buck, and they'll do it at the expense of your electronics

Ever wonder what that big FCC logo on your computer means? Most people would tell you the U.S. Federal Communications Commission operates like an all-seeing, all-knowing electronic shield; protecting America from harmful radiation and interference.

The reality, of course, is quite different.  To better illustrate this, we've traveled the history of one motherboard.  This motherboard, while rather unimportant in the scope of all things silicon, became rather important when a few engineers started asking the right question.

EMI, or electromagnetic interference, is a broad term that encompasses any type of interference that can disrupt, obstruct or simply degrade electronic transmissions.  Some forms of propagated radiation are intentional, such as radios; in other cases propagated radiation is completely unintentional. When unwanted electromagnetic radiation is received by an electronic device that doesn't have sufficient shielding, electromagnetic fields can disrupt the intended fields. 

The Gigabyte GA-P35-DS3 started just like almost any other motherboard.  A reference design was sent from Intel to Gigabyte's design center in Taiwan.  The test boards were wave-soldered outside of Taipei and production boards were shipped to channels as soon as physically possible to snag some of those "first-to-market" sales.

Even though the motherboard boldly wears CE and FCC markings, this device became one more component that slipped through the cracks.  It was later discovered that not only did this motherboard fail European and U.S. electromagnetic interference regulations, but that tens of thousands of the motherboards shipped months ago.

A Taiwanese motherboard engineer, who wished to remain anonymous, claims the world of EMI certification runs more lax than consumers would believe.  "If we claim to pass FCC and in actuality we do not, it's just a conscience problem." 

The engineer continues, "Some manufacturers put the FCC logo on their product even though they don't send in to any lab.  If they are lucky, they go by. If they are unlucky, they get fined by the government or in some serious case, issue a product recall." 

Conversations with other representatives reveal even in the instances of serious violation, vendors receive little official recourse. 

The most expensive Taipei-based testing facility costs approximately 2,000 USD for full electromagnetic compliance testing. 

The European Union dictates the acceptable EMI levels for products distributed in Europe.  Manufacturers that pass the European Union's EMI directive may brand the CE marking on their products. The U.S. Federal Communications Commission has a separate set of EMI standards that devices must pass in order to brand the FCC logo.

In the U.S., the Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) mandates the FCC EMI limits. Title 47, Part 15 of the Code of Federal Regulations details the acceptable EMI limits for electronic devices in the United States as follows:

30~88MHz     30dBuV
88~216MHz    33.5dBuV
216~960MHz   36dBuV
>960MHz      44dBuV  
The European counterpart directive follows slightly different limit ranges:
125~175MHz  30dBuV
250~625MHz  37dBuV
For example, all electronic devices sold in the U.S. cannot produce an electrical field with strength of more than 33.5 dB microvolts per meter at 90 MHz.  Since fields are measured in decibel units, an increase of 3 dB means the field strength has approximately doubled.

Even after sitting on store shelves the better part of three months, someone eventually noticed the Gigabyte GA-P35-DS3 acted a tad noisy -- electronically.  The FCC reserves the right to test devices at the expense of the vendor, though it rarely independently tests devices unless a complaint has been filed.

Unfortunately for the GA-P35-DS3, several complaints were filed.  The Electronics Testing Center, Taiwan, began an electromagnetic compliance test; three Gigabyte GA-P35-DS3 motherboards were hand-submitted to the lab.  Three out of three test results failed to stay "in bounds" for Taiwanese and EU regulation (PDF); two out of three failed to stay within U.S. FCC regulation.

That apparently has not enticed the Taiwanese government to order a recall or reparations.  One engineer close to the product's development states, "At least the board was tested."

So what's special about the GA-P35-DS3?  Nothing, it would seem, other than the fact that it carries markings from both the FCC and European Union claiming it does pass regulation.  Some would argue even this particular trait does not lend itself to individuality.

Gigabyte spokesperson Colin Brix denies all claims that the GA-P35-DS3 fails to meet EMC standards.  "The tests conducted at ETC are not complete," he states.  As proof, Brix shared the results of similar EMC testing conducted by QuieTek (PDF), another Taiwan-based laboratory.  All motherboard tests in this round of testing were done with the motherboard in a chasis.

Ransom Cheng, a former employee at a large motherboard vendor, explains, "The testing in Taiwan is very poor.  Only a few sample ranges are taken and the benefit of [the] doubt is always given to the vendor."  Cheng concludes, "It's not good for anyone to waste boards."

At one time, the GA-P35-DS3 was available at U.S. and European merchants, but today is no longer available in North America.  Gigabyte public relations manager Angela Lan claims the GA-P35-DS3 was removed from American markets due to its lack of RAID functionality.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: So what does this mean for the consumer?
By mdogs444 on 9/26/2007 8:36:21 AM , Rating: 2
Those are good questions, and I'd like to see them as well.

But the fact is that we really do need to see the test, or at least whoever is observing these tests need to provide conclusive results.

Either way, its a shame that everyone thinks there is always some sort of conspiracy theory....whether it be the US Govt, the police, some major company, or in this case, someone just "out to get" another motherboard manufacturer.

This whole ordeal may just be a "rumor", but lets not forget that rumors usually gets started from some sort of "truth". In this case, it may be that the EMI was not much higher than the limits, but they still could be higher none the less.


RE: So what does this mean for the consumer?
By TomZ on 9/26/2007 9:31:17 AM , Rating: 2
I don't see any conspiracy theory being stated. This is just a case of shoddy quality with poor government oversight, that's all. In most cases EMI problems are going to be pretty harmless, so that's how they can get away with it.


RE: So what does this mean for the consumer?
By mdogs444 on 9/26/2007 9:36:52 AM , Rating: 2
Im referring to two of the posts above mine referring to the entire article as "false advertising".


By porkpie on 9/26/2007 11:00:13 AM , Rating: 2
False advertising is not any sort of "conspiracy theory". Stop being overly dramatic.


By GreenyMP on 9/26/2007 12:11:39 PM , Rating: 2
I think that he was stating that Gigabyte is guilty of false advertising. Not the the article was falsely slandering Gigabyte.

I doubt that the inappropriate FCC label on the board affected his purchasing decision. (But the stray microwaves will likely grow a third arm out the side of his head) :Þ


RE: So what does this mean for the consumer?
By gigazilla on 9/26/2007 12:02:07 PM , Rating: 2
the local regulator in Taiwan, BSMI, actually has a budget to buy samples from shops. In the case of our motherboards, they call us to get THEIR sample installed in our chassis and set up as in the original test report. And they test it in their own chamber.

The conspiracy theory is coming the fact Government regulators do not send test data to the Media first but contact the manufacturer for explanation / product recall order.

The question is: HOW COME did the data appeared at Dailytech's desks?

any clarification from Dailytech?


RE: So what does this mean for the consumer?
By gigazilla on 9/26/2007 12:31:38 PM , Rating: 2
Gigabyte customers can check in their User's Manual who has signed the FCC Declaration of Conformity (there is a FCC logo on that page). That company is responsible and is the entity FCC should have contacted in case of any wronf doing.

Believe me, that company is not Dailytech.
So the PDF file Dailytech has mysteriously received on their desk is certainly NOT from the FCC.


By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 9/26/2007 1:50:39 PM , Rating: 2
Users can solicit government regulatory committees to see if devices that carry the FCC or CE logos actually passed those requirements for markings. Not being able to do so would sort of defeat the purpose of such a regulatory body in the first place.


"There is a single light of science, and to brighten it anywhere is to brighten it everywhere." -- Isaac Asimov

Related Articles
Gigabyte United Preps DDR3 Motherboards
April 30, 2007, 8:49 PM



Latest Headlines
4/21/2014 Hardware Reviews
April 21, 2014, 12:46 PM
4/16/2014 Hardware Reviews
April 16, 2014, 9:01 AM
4/15/2014 Hardware Reviews
April 15, 2014, 11:30 AM
4/11/2014 Hardware Reviews
April 11, 2014, 11:03 AM










botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki