Originally Posted by Viper8
All three processors have similarly sized codes. :rolleyes:
You can verify it by measuring the characters and/or drawing some lines in Photoshop.
It would be easier if we had a close-up pic of the code like the other two.
Response:
All three have similarly sized? Poster #2 and #9 before me at post #12 and posters #16, 18, 20 and 21 after seemed to disagree with you. You may be right, but then again you may be wrong and have shown no proof, just your opinion...which is all we did.
First you say the code on the IHS doesn't look right (basically meaning you think the code has been edited).
Then you say the IHS has been changed.
Why would they edit the code if they change the IHS? :rolleyes:
Response:
That point is valid if you go with the notion that I said both where done at the same time, a switch and an edit. I only indicated that the suggestion made by the guy before me was plausible, that the sink was changed or alternatively that it was altered...never said both. Once again, the original suggestion was first made my someone else but yet you choose to attempt to ridicule me with your response. Please note the key word here being "attempt".
Which leads me back to your first comment...if the letters and numbers are correctly sized, as you've asserted, then the "switched IHS" is still a valid explanation. Do you know the guy that has the cpu and have you inspected it personally? If not, then you are strictly speculating...just like I'm openly speculating. I'm just as entitled to that speculation as you are. If you have inspected the cpu and are trained in this area, having removed and re-intalled many IHS on A64s then your opinion gains validity, but without that training and experience don't hold yourself out to be the expert, especially when simply looking at pictures.
Did anyone say that the default multiplier was 11? :rolleyes:
Response:
That point is valid, no one stated it was a default multi and therefore that one comment of mine should be ignored, however, if you continue to "rolleyes" on every post they are going to roll back into your head and you'll be able to see even less than you do now.
Instead of choosing to give your opinion, you've chosen to attack mine, like I'm some kind of ignorant arse. Keep the comments on topic and factual (or identified as an opinion) and I won't have any problems...start making them personal and the mods will deal with it.
I don't really give a cat's behind whether or not you agree with me and I make no apologies for not being in "awe" the minute someone posts a picture of an oddity in this age of Photoshop and other digital masteries.
I remain skeptical but certainly would love to be wrong and find that there are in fact unlocked Venice 3000s out there.
To quote myself:
"I don't really care one way or another, but just making an observation about the "3000" in question.
AMD's only known unlocked cpu is the very high end FX. The thought of AMD making this option available on a few of its entry level 3000 cpus just doesn't seem very likely, does it?
I'm sure stranger things have occurred, but again, I just find it unlikely that its true and more likely that its someone playing around."
Nothing that you've presented in your post changes my opinion, as stated above.
