Motherboard revisions are nothing new. Companies will often revise their own components for various reasons, including fixing defects, upgrading components, or in this case, to scale down on the premium components used.

Said company’s Revision 1 motherboard received positive reviews when it initially came out, but soon after, they came out with a Revision 2, which saw quite a number of noticeable changes on the motherboard, some of which are not reflected on the company’s website.

Now typically this wouldn’t be a big problem, but one of the things that the company did not mention is that a lot of the components such as capacitors and transistors used in Revision 1 have been dialled down in Revision 2.

The two motherboards are from same models, but different revisions. See if you can spot the differences.

The two motherboards are from same models, but different revisions. See if you can spot the differences.

Revisions like this happen quite often, undoubtedly, but one of the biggest problems here lies with the company is that they did not change the European Article Number (EAN) for the motherboard when the revision was made. In many cases, this is considered illegal as even new revisions require a new EAN number so that both suppliers and customers can know that they are technically two different products, and even more so with this fiasco as the Revision 2 motherboard features a significant reduction in both feature set and performance.

The biggest problem here lies with users who currently own the Revision 1 motherboard, as it is likely that the motherboard, which is now in Revision 3 will not be able to trade it in for another Revision 1 board when under warranty, as the company does not manufacture them anymore.

The EAN numbers for the two motherboards are the same, despite one revision being quite different from the other

The EAN numbers for the two motherboards are the same, despite one revision being quite different from the other

This does not look good for hardware manufacturers as well, as the case comes in some time after another company that has been caught red handed for swapping the internals of their new storage devices with inferior parts. A number of websites have done tests on both models and have seen noticeable reduction in performance. This has serious repercussions on the company’s standing as a leading figure in the PC memory and storage industry.

Retailers also need to be up to snuff about these sudden changes in components as more often than not, customers will go to the store that they bought these components and will want to know about these issues, especially if they’re sending the components in for repairs. The last thing they want is an RMA’d product that not only performs worse than what they originally bought, but looks completely different as well, despite having the same model.