Liquid3D
04-14-2003, 08:17 AM
I started this thread to investigate the validity of the following program from Bloodys.com; http://mp3.zonebg.com/cpu/cpu.php
Of course this in itself wouldn't warrant such a thread, and it was my subsequent reading of the following articles from two sites I hold in high esteem which then motivated me to post; http://lowyat.isentral.com/guides/athlonxp/ and; http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/di...0322034857.html
This pertains to recent to .13 micron core's in Tbred-B's bearing a PR at or below model XP 2100, and more specifically XP 1700's. Whether or not the 8th and 9th numbers in the 2nd line of code actually denote the original model from which your CPU (or any relabled lower speed TBred) was downgraded from, is thought to be a fallacy. There may be those who wish to quash this system of AMD code interpretation, claiming it's completely baseless, and simply "rumored" to be true.
Where I became slightly confounded is in the accuracy of the data. The pure number of exceptional overclock's prima facie corroborate the theory? Emprical evidence is but the first step in any sound argument. So I shall begin with a Hypothetical Syllogism;
Premise A) If 1700 TBred-B, then high overclock.
Premise B) If high overclock, then 8th, 9th places in 2nd line of code are 26 or greater.
Conclusion) If 1700 TBred-B, then 8th, 9th places in 2nd line of code are 26 or greater.
The argument is valid, whether the premise's are true will most likely wring out this thread. Onto the rest of the ID process.
The first letter of the stepping (which is the first place in the 3rd line of code) supposedly denotes the proximity of the core to the wafer center, A being the closest, then J, K, and R being the furthest from center (highlighted below).
AXDA2100DUT3C 9397647280017 AIUHB0301SP1W 1999 AMD Recently TBred-B's have either been A or J. And certainly one would concur the 3rd alphabetic (or number 1-9) also in the third line of code (following the date) has validity. A being the first production batch, for that production run, B being second, until C, and M denoting combined batches. If there is a number in that place 1-9 then this denotes re-combined batches which have falied Q&C, and been re-processed, as in the example above.
I've yet to see a Tbred-B 1700, or 2100 with an A, B, or C in the third alphabetic (following the date) of the third line of code. My 2400 has a B in that position, and my friend's 2600 has an A there. Most lower speed's TBred lately have M denoting a combined batch. In so far as the 2nd line of code, the last four digits (following the magic 8, 9th) are indicative of the CPU number in the batch, lower being better. Such that in the example above, the processor is 17th from that re-processed, re-combined, production batch. Perhaps 90% of this "code" is true except the significance of the 8th, and 9th places in the second line of code? However...
Over at ExcaliperPC they sell TBred-B's based on stepping, and date, and have included the following disclaimer; "please also do not ask us to look for 27 or 28 in the last 5 digits. We see that is just a rumor and we don't support it" regardless they got it wrong. It's the last six digits, but that's beside the point. This can stir more suspicion, then it deters. If they said nothing it be one thing, but any opportunity to sell a chip a vendor can take advantage of, they usually do. Perhaps AMD released an internal memo, requiring reseller's not to release, or advertise based on this "code"? Most of these relabled TBred's 8th, and 9th numbers are 26,27,28, even 29, and 30. So why not read the dang numbers? It may be as simple as time, althoug to estimate the stepping, you would have to read most. Anyone buying a Tbred-B 1700 or 2100 is going to consider a 2600 a great find? And I'm sure many will agree, the reason these 1700 JIUHB etc. are all reaching 2.3GHz to 2.7GHz is because they are in fact relabled from the wafer slated for higher speed TBred production. I don't need to iterate here it's common practice, and cost effective (given certain conditions) to relabel.
I would think it's logical for the person whom originally released this "inside info" to retract their statement. Because just as these relabled Tbred's are going to be short lived, so is that person's career. It's not that AMD would fear everyone rushing to buy TBred-B 1700's instead of $300 2800's or better, because the overclocker market is so miniscule perhaps 1% of total revenue. And I don't belive it's AMD's fear, unscrupulous dealers will "remark" the CPU's selling them as 2600's (although it's feasable). I purport the cost to AMD would come in the guise of Industrial Psychology. The Lion's share of AMD sales comes from OEM vendors, and such. A market where security, dependability, and reliability are the attributes which are most sought after. And businesses will pay more for it, ss is evident in Intel's earnings. And with Intel putting into place yet another security feature (patent 6,535,988 detects FSB overclocking, slowing the processor) they become even more attractive.
So if anyone has anything they would like add I'd be grateful, and I'd be especially appreciative if any TBred owners of late (past four months) could submit their entire code no matter the model. Thank you.
Of course this in itself wouldn't warrant such a thread, and it was my subsequent reading of the following articles from two sites I hold in high esteem which then motivated me to post; http://lowyat.isentral.com/guides/athlonxp/ and; http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/di...0322034857.html
This pertains to recent to .13 micron core's in Tbred-B's bearing a PR at or below model XP 2100, and more specifically XP 1700's. Whether or not the 8th and 9th numbers in the 2nd line of code actually denote the original model from which your CPU (or any relabled lower speed TBred) was downgraded from, is thought to be a fallacy. There may be those who wish to quash this system of AMD code interpretation, claiming it's completely baseless, and simply "rumored" to be true.
Where I became slightly confounded is in the accuracy of the data. The pure number of exceptional overclock's prima facie corroborate the theory? Emprical evidence is but the first step in any sound argument. So I shall begin with a Hypothetical Syllogism;
Premise A) If 1700 TBred-B, then high overclock.
Premise B) If high overclock, then 8th, 9th places in 2nd line of code are 26 or greater.
Conclusion) If 1700 TBred-B, then 8th, 9th places in 2nd line of code are 26 or greater.
The argument is valid, whether the premise's are true will most likely wring out this thread. Onto the rest of the ID process.
The first letter of the stepping (which is the first place in the 3rd line of code) supposedly denotes the proximity of the core to the wafer center, A being the closest, then J, K, and R being the furthest from center (highlighted below).
AXDA2100DUT3C 9397647280017 AIUHB0301SP1W 1999 AMD Recently TBred-B's have either been A or J. And certainly one would concur the 3rd alphabetic (or number 1-9) also in the third line of code (following the date) has validity. A being the first production batch, for that production run, B being second, until C, and M denoting combined batches. If there is a number in that place 1-9 then this denotes re-combined batches which have falied Q&C, and been re-processed, as in the example above.
I've yet to see a Tbred-B 1700, or 2100 with an A, B, or C in the third alphabetic (following the date) of the third line of code. My 2400 has a B in that position, and my friend's 2600 has an A there. Most lower speed's TBred lately have M denoting a combined batch. In so far as the 2nd line of code, the last four digits (following the magic 8, 9th) are indicative of the CPU number in the batch, lower being better. Such that in the example above, the processor is 17th from that re-processed, re-combined, production batch. Perhaps 90% of this "code" is true except the significance of the 8th, and 9th places in the second line of code? However...
Over at ExcaliperPC they sell TBred-B's based on stepping, and date, and have included the following disclaimer; "please also do not ask us to look for 27 or 28 in the last 5 digits. We see that is just a rumor and we don't support it" regardless they got it wrong. It's the last six digits, but that's beside the point. This can stir more suspicion, then it deters. If they said nothing it be one thing, but any opportunity to sell a chip a vendor can take advantage of, they usually do. Perhaps AMD released an internal memo, requiring reseller's not to release, or advertise based on this "code"? Most of these relabled TBred's 8th, and 9th numbers are 26,27,28, even 29, and 30. So why not read the dang numbers? It may be as simple as time, althoug to estimate the stepping, you would have to read most. Anyone buying a Tbred-B 1700 or 2100 is going to consider a 2600 a great find? And I'm sure many will agree, the reason these 1700 JIUHB etc. are all reaching 2.3GHz to 2.7GHz is because they are in fact relabled from the wafer slated for higher speed TBred production. I don't need to iterate here it's common practice, and cost effective (given certain conditions) to relabel.
I would think it's logical for the person whom originally released this "inside info" to retract their statement. Because just as these relabled Tbred's are going to be short lived, so is that person's career. It's not that AMD would fear everyone rushing to buy TBred-B 1700's instead of $300 2800's or better, because the overclocker market is so miniscule perhaps 1% of total revenue. And I don't belive it's AMD's fear, unscrupulous dealers will "remark" the CPU's selling them as 2600's (although it's feasable). I purport the cost to AMD would come in the guise of Industrial Psychology. The Lion's share of AMD sales comes from OEM vendors, and such. A market where security, dependability, and reliability are the attributes which are most sought after. And businesses will pay more for it, ss is evident in Intel's earnings. And with Intel putting into place yet another security feature (patent 6,535,988 detects FSB overclocking, slowing the processor) they become even more attractive.
So if anyone has anything they would like add I'd be grateful, and I'd be especially appreciative if any TBred owners of late (past four months) could submit their entire code no matter the model. Thank you.