Athlon 64 3000+ with 11x multiplier

Printable View

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

07-29-2005, 11:58 PM
MaxxxRacer

pretty wierd. looks like AMD messed up on one of the chips. was most likely supposed to be a 3500 but it was named a 3000 on accident.
07-30-2005, 12:03 AM
don_vercetti

possibly, but the whole process is automated.
So unless the workers have been overclocking the assembly line, and making them glitch, i doubt that is the reason.

Maybe AMD have just decided to make life easier for overclockers!
07-30-2005, 12:23 AM
formyfaith

What a nice lookin CPU. I want one, too. :D
BTW I don't think it's fake, but still wondering how anything like this have happened at all. Never seen anything like this for sure. :confused:
07-30-2005, 12:55 PM
s7e9h3n

Quote:

Originally Posted by don_vercetti

isn't it possible to alter some code so you can make the CPU say it is whatever you like? As in if you could get an athlon fx to 15x200, you could rename it as an athlon fx 61 and it would look plausible?

Yes it is possible, but not by us. AMD's the only one that can hard-code the cpuid string of a cpu. Here's my "FX56" :p: It boots @ default FX55 speeds (13x200), but it's cpuid was coded by AMD's Design Verification team as a FX57 to be used for bios testing before the release of the cpu. There's more info in the link in my sig :) :
http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/4202/fx8mh.jpg
http://img167.imageshack.us/img167/4749/579ob.jpg
http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/8...lidated5su.jpg

Quote:

Originally Posted by Perc

i think its real. i just think it got by without getting locked thats all no big deal. all the cpu's amd makes i sure there are more then just one lucky fool who gets an unlocked cpu thats not an FX chip.....

That's impossible. If it was truly unlocked, multipliers above 11x would be available. And there's also no way an FX die would be produced alongside a venice ;)
07-30-2005, 01:12 PM
don_vercetti

you don't need to hard code it. The guy's hardly handing the chip round saying test it. As long as it's in his computer, he can make it look like whatever he wants.
07-30-2005, 01:21 PM
MRBIGSHOT

you never know, but its not somthing i will scream to the heavens.
07-30-2005, 01:23 PM
s7e9h3n

Quote:

Originally Posted by don_vercetti

you don't need to hard code it. The guy's hardly handing the chip round saying test it. As long as it's in his computer, he can make it look like whatever he wants.

I'm not too sure what you mean, but ok...
07-30-2005, 01:28 PM
don_vercetti

ok. The guy above said that it is possible to change what the CPU claims to be, i.e. a 3500+ could say it is a 3000+ in CPU-Z, by changing the registry?
That is true, yes?
07-30-2005, 01:45 PM
s7e9h3n

Quote:

Originally Posted by don_vercetti

ok. The guy above said that it is possible to change what the CPU claims to be, i.e. a 3500+ could say it is a 3000+ in CPU-Z, by changing the registry?
That is true, yes?

No ;) Take a look at my cpu-z submission. While the cpu-spec name can be altered (FX25), you can't change the hard coded cpu-name (FX57)
07-30-2005, 01:48 PM
don_vercetti

oh rite lol i didn't notice that fx-25 bit. puts a downer on that theory, thanks for clearing it up. Personally, i think it is genuine, there must be some reason for it (ES maybe?)
07-30-2005, 05:12 PM
i found nemo

Quote:

Originally Posted by IvanAndreevich

i found nemo
I remember that thread. Wasn't it a Gigabyte bios glitch?

yes ivan, i'm pretty sure it was
07-30-2005, 08:05 PM
EvlUndrWareNome

oh give it a rest. AMD makes millions of chips per year and omg like 1/1000000 chips cant have accidently got higher multis.. :slap:
07-30-2005, 09:56 PM
_stAnz_

i reckon the adv of a multiplier of 11x cos u prob wont b able the reach the highest fsb u can achieve on 9x anyways. gd luck. pls update on results. :)
07-31-2005, 04:56 AM
VVJ

Hey, guys! Look at this http://www.hardforum.com/showthread....2&page=1&pp=20 THE SAME STORY And even dated on 06-09-2005 :)
07-31-2005, 05:24 AM
Zanr Zij

any overclock with 11 multi ?
07-31-2005, 07:29 AM
MadOverTolik

I think, that one way to find out what core that CPU has is to remove the heatspreader and then to measure the DIE square.
07-31-2005, 07:32 AM
Daemon

I think this is not fake. This CPU has very interesting cpu id - F30h. It seems to me that we have remarked Athlon64 X2(maybe one of two core was damaged).
07-31-2005, 09:07 AM
PoL

I think it's just something that guys from AMD do in porpouse. They knew this would become a known thing, so they made some 3000+ to be unlocked up to 11x, as a 3500+, just to see what would happen.
07-31-2005, 09:21 AM
seldomsean

Quote:

Originally Posted by PoL

I think it's just something that guys from AMD do in porpouse. They knew this would become a known thing, so they made some 3000+ to be unlocked up to 11x, as a 3500+, just to see what would happen.

Would it not be more plausable to say that it was a 3500+ that didn't
meet spec and they accidently left the multi at default (11) ???
07-31-2005, 09:27 AM
[XC] leviathan18

i think maybe is an ES

they should make this mistake more frecuently
07-31-2005, 09:29 AM
PoL

@seldomsean

I don't think so, cuz you gotta think how exact all those processes are, so there is no place for such a mistake. If that could happen to one chip, that would happen to all chips, mainly to those with the same stepping. :rolleyes:
07-31-2005, 09:44 AM
seldomsean

Quote:

Originally Posted by PoL

@seldomsean

I don't think so, cuz you gotta think how exact all those processes are, so there is no place for such a mistake. If that could happen to one chip, that would happen to all chips, mainly to those with the same stepping. :rolleyes:

I agree with you to there..But were all human and DO make mistakes ;)

I am also thinking this might (Could be) correct...

Quote:

I think this is not fake. This CPU has very interesting cpu id - F30h. It seems to me that we have remarked Athlon64 X2(maybe one of two core was damaged).
07-31-2005, 09:51 AM
PoL

That could be also... but don't really know... Cuz there are not Venice X2... :rolleyes:
07-31-2005, 09:55 AM
cadaveca

or a 3500+ clawhammer with 512k L2?

i have same proc., except mine says cpaw. not unlocked to 11 multi. must find mopre fpaw's.

and who's got that gigabyte bios?
07-31-2005, 10:06 AM
seldomsean

Quote:

Originally Posted by PoL

That could be also... but don't really know... Cuz there are not Venice X2... :rolleyes:

No but they are both 939's Correct?

Noone really knows what AMD does with the "Failed" proc's
except mark them down to a lower grade proc...

Ohh and BTW here ya go..( :rolleyes: ) lol

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page