Unlocking AMD CPU Cores Safe Say Mobo Makers
While browsing through motherboards at Computex, several manufacturers were quick to tell us some details about the recently released dual-core Phenom II CPUs from AMD.
Two motherboard makers told us at the show that AMD's new processors are safe when unlocking disabled cores. In fact, one motherboard maker even told us that when you unlock the disabled cores, they run at slower frequencies than the normal cores.
This is of course all incorrect, and it is indeed not a safe guarantee when you unlock the disabled cores. The reason for this is that the disabled cores are turned off for a reason: they failed factory tests. Cores can fail for any number of reasons, including defects in the silicon, problems running at full frequency, or a bug introduced during manufacturing.
Both AMD and Intel disable CPU cores for this very reason.
When you unlock the disabled cores, they will run at full processor frequency, since you cannot run each core at different speeds. While you may see initial gains and benefits from turning a dual-core CPU into a quad-core CPU, you may introduce instability into your system. Things may corrupt, calculate incorrectly or even crash.
Despite what we were told, we still recommend that if you're going to unlock disabled cores, do so with caution in mind--there is always a risk that something will go wrong.
- Windows 7 Build 7201 Leaks Onto P2P Networks
- OCZ Endeavors to Bring Affordable SSDs
- Intel Launching Live Software Network TV
- EVGA Displays P55, Classified and New GTX 295
- Silicon Power Shows Off USB/eSATA USB Stick
- The Ladies of Computex, Episode Three
- Panel Makers Show Off Win 7 Friendly Multitouch
- ECS Shows Atom Mobo With PCI-e x16 Slot
- QOTD: Are You Considering the Palm Pre?
- • IBM to Compete in World Curling Competition
- • 5 Ridiculous Foreign Sci-Fi Remakes
- • Steve Jobs to Attend WWDC 2009
- • Crickets Chirping at Bing Launch
- QOTD: What Do You Think of Our Weekend Comedy?
- AMD Blocks Unlock; Gigabyte Fights Back
- Modular Power Supplies Less Efficient Say Makers
- What Your RAM Goes Through: the Die-hard Tester
- More Pics of SilverStone's Kickass Raven Case
Wait what, I had no idea there were disabled (extra) cores in cpu's.
All of the Phenom II's are identical designs, the best ones end up as 955s and the defective ones end up as 8xx X4s, 7xx X3s, and 5xx X2s. So you only have disabled cores if you bought a phenom. I dont know which Intels have disabled cores.
All of the Phenom II's are identical designs, the best ones end up as 955s and the defective ones end up as 8xx X4s, 7xx X3s, and 5xx X2s. So you only have disabled cores if you bought a phenom. I dont know which Intels have disabled cores.
very interesting, thanks.
Wait what, I had no idea there were disabled (extra) cores in cpu's.
there are in some tri and dual core chips since they are often rebinned quads that failed QA testing. tho i think AMD doesn't put out many if any dual cores that were once quads since they use a real dual core/single die unlike wot intel did with core2.
I'd like to know where those representatives got their "facts".
AMD disables cores and sells them in a lower segment because it's more financially sound than just tossing them out.
I've never heard of Intel disabling cores, but I wouldn't be surprised if some of the dual-core CPUs were like that.
What Intel does is use dual core chips that have a defective core as single core celerons. Also in the case of core solo chips (Core 2 Solo chips I'm not sure about) they were dual core with one core disabled.
I can't see why intel wouldn't. It makes perfect business sense. To simply disable the faulty cores, when the others are perfectly fine.
is that why clients that got quad cores got random BSOD for no reasons....
Intel and AMD still has to straiten things out on thoses quads
Intel wouldn't because they do not use a true quad core chip. It's actually two dual core chips. They couldn't disable a core from one dual core set and disable another core from the other dual core set because it wouldn't make sense from a performance standpoint.
If they disabled both cores from one dual core side I guess that would work, but would be horribly inefficient, unless they only used this for one specific model and made the rest regular dual cores.
Anand said this loophole will close fast (BIOS updates, clearing of inventory with stable 3rd and 4th cores), so you have to get a Phenom II X2 very soon and make sure you have a mobo with a BIOS that can still unlock. Even then it's not guaranteed to be stable, but I say go for it if you can pull the trigger now and know you're getting the right mobo.
I'll unlock it for a few months while it's my gaming rig
When it goes outdated, I'll give it to my parents and lock the cores again 
Doing ANYTHING to a CPU outside the rated specs can potentially damage it, and will definitely void your warranty.
How do you think the cores were turned off in the first place? They were fused. One can never perfectly undo something with software (i.e. BIOS settings) that was PHYSICALLY altered to start with.
Just buy a quad-core if you want a quad-core. Save yourself the headache, risk, and uncertainty.
Also, cores are not turned off simply for binning purposes or because they "failed factory tests." This is completely untrue. Do some dual- and triple-core processors actually have faulty cores that are turned off? Yes. Do all of them? No. Especially as wafer manufacturing processes improve, you end up with a lot of good dies all with 4 cores perfect.
AMD intentionally disables even good cores simply so they can have product lines in a different market segment. Why build an entirely new architecture of 45nm chips for dual cores when you can just fuse 2 perfectly good cores, slap it in a box, and put a $75 price tag on it? Some people just do not need a Phenom II 955 but would love a Phenom II 550.
Tom's needs to do their homework before committing pen to paper.
Anand said this loophole will close fast (BIOS updates, clearing of inventory with stable 3rd and 4th cores), so you have to get a Phenom II X2 very soon and make sure you have a mobo with a BIOS that can still unlock. Even then it's not guaranteed to be stable, but I say go for it if you can pull the trigger now and know you're getting the right mobo.
It was supposed to have closed a long time ago. That isn't stopping motherboard vendors from dragging their feet on BIOS updates, and end-users aren't forced to flash their BIOSes, essentially disabling the capability. So long as AMD doesn't disable this at a processor-level, people will continue trying it and, in some cases, succeeding.
I think anyone who has any of these CPU's should give it a try. If they find it to be unstable then they can just change it back and they have lost nothing. If it works then its pure gain.
... and the L3 cache comes handy...
Doing ANYTHING to a CPU outside the rated specs can potentially damage it, and will definitely void your warranty.How do you think the cores were turned off in the first place? They were fused. One can never perfectly undo something with software (i.e. BIOS settings) that was PHYSICALLY altered to start with.Just buy a quad-core if you want a quad-core. Save yourself the headache, risk, and uncertainty.Also, cores are not turned off simply for binning purposes or because they "failed factory tests." This is completely untrue. Do some dual- and triple-core processors actually have faulty cores that are turned off? Yes. Do all of them? No. Especially as wafer manufacturing processes improve, you end up with a lot of good dies all with 4 cores perfect.AMD intentionally disables even good cores simply so they can have product lines in a different market segment. Why build an entirely new architecture of 45nm chips for dual cores when you can just fuse 2 perfectly good cores, slap it in a box, and put a $75 price tag on it? Some people just do not need a Phenom II 955 but would love a Phenom II 550.Tom's needs to do their homework before committing pen to paper.
A true parental lock...
I'll unlock it for a few months while it's my gaming rig When it goes outdated, I'll give it to my parents and lock the cores again
A true parental lock...
THIS ARTICLE IS INCORRECT.
On all Phenom II processors you can adjust the frequency of each core individually using AMD overdrive. This is well known to anyone who overclocks AMD cpus.
And it is safe to unlock extra cores in the context that it 'will not damage your hardware'. Instability is always an issue when running outside manufactures specs. So the only valid point this article has is.. 'warning unlocked cores might not be 100% stable'.. Thanks, but we already knew that.
I'd like to know where those representatives got their "facts".AMD disables cores and sells them in a lower segment because it's more financially sound than just tossing them out.I've never heard of Intel disabling cores, but I wouldn't be surprised if some of the dual-core CPUs were like that.
A bunch of single-core Core 2-based Celerons are dual-core chips with one core turned off. Core Solos were Core Duos with a turned-off die. The Xeon E5502 is a dual-core made from a quad-core die.
Yes intel does the same thing, they all do. Why trash a 90% good processor when you can just disable 10% and sell it at a lower price point. You get $0 throwing it away.
These companies also disable perfectly good chips to meet demand of lower priced parts.
If you make 1000 processors and 900 of them bin at the top speed grade, what do you do, sell 1 processor to the person who can afford it and the 100 cheap ones to entry level buyers. Or do you stamp a lower speed grade on the other 899 top bins and sell them to mid range buyers at a lower price and a hihdered speed rating.
It makes perfect business sense to sell perfectly good chips with parts disabled to meet lower price segments.
Thus NOT ALL of them will have bad parts, some of them will be 100% functional. And also NOT ALL of them will be perfectly good parts, some will have bad parts disabled.
So as with any overclocking of parts, you run them out of spec at your own risk. A lot of the time you will be perfectly fine, sometimes you wont.
I wonder if AMD would disable "good" cores if they needed to fill demand for triple cores?
eg: They have a good batch, and are short on IIx3s so, they disable some good chips to meet demand and they are safely unlocked.
I think this just about settles it. Tuan knows jack shit nothing.
I wouldn't mind getting a dual/tri core and enabling it to a quad core. I don't think I'd overclock it heavely if I was enabling extra cores though.
I wonder if AMD would disable "good" cores if they needed to fill demand for triple cores?eg: They have a good batch, and are short on IIx3s so, they disable some good chips to meet demand and they are safely unlocked.
Likely.
I think this just about settles it. Tuan knows jack shit nothing.
I'm not sure if you proved that you know better than him.
Intel wouldn't because they do not use a true quad core chip. It's actually two dual core chips. They couldn't disable a core from one dual core set and disable another core from the other dual core set because it wouldn't make sense from a performance standpoint.If they disabled both cores from one dual core side I guess that would work, but would be horribly inefficient, unless they only used this for one specific model and made the rest regular dual cores.
you're right about Core 2 quads, but i7s are "true" quad cores.
What's next? Will you tell us that overclocking isn't "safe" as well?
This article = FAIL
After reading it, I was thinking it was May Day, with all the may this and may that. Listen to MuEngineer, set clocks at at which speed for which core you chose.
One of these days, someone at Toms may actually get a AMD cpu, and know how they function, and then maybe, just maybe, we will get good advice
scuse, I meant zonker
THIS ARTICLE IS INCORRECT.On all Phenom II processors you can adjust the frequency of each core individually using AMD overdrive.
If you can't boot the system with the cores unlocked how do you propose to use Overdrive?
Well, technically speaking you're really not supposed to overclock your processor because you may encounter bugs, crashes, instability or decreased processor life. I guess I don't see where unlocking a core is any more dangerous than overclocking, which most enthusiasts have no problem with accepting that kind of risk, we've been doing it for years.
It may be more commonplace in the months to come. It may also become (or already is) a feature that manufacturers allow to ship out, like an unlocked multi. Ya know, "here's a cpu with an unlocked multiplier, just don't overclock it, ok?" (wink, wink, nudge nudge)
And you already own that song your downloading, right? rriiiiggghht.
This is a VERY old trick. IBM used to do the same thing. The really bad ones ended up in teddy Ruspin (or how ever its spelled) Old SX chips were DX's that had a bad math CoProcessor. Man I guess I date my self when im going all the way back to 486's