Page 1 of 62 1 2 11 51 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 1236
  1. #1

    c(π*199780) Senior Member
    c627627's Avatar
    10 Year Badge
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Kansas
    Author Profile

    Exclamation 2003 week last unlocked Barton was manufactured

    EDIT: Dec 19, 2003, It's finally official: ""...we now have a policy to lock down the frequency of all the products so there’s one product that will continue to be open and it’s the FX product line."
    Henri Richard, AMD Senior Vice President of Worldwide Sales and Marketing


    For those of you that haven't heard, new Bartons, Thoroughbreds and Durons are factory multiplier locked, (not even wire tricks work with them.)

    No motherboard can unlock these CPUs and there is nothing that can be done to bridges or pins that can change the locked multiplier because they are not connected to the circuitry.

    We're starting a data base of locked & unlocked chips:


    locked: All week 43 (0343) to 46 Bartons and Thoroughbreds and most (but not all) post week 46 Bartons and Durons and:

    AQZFA 0335 MPMW
    AQZEA 0338

    AQXCA 0340

    AQXEA 0341 MPMW and VPMW

    AQXFA 0339
    AQXFA 0340 MPMW

    AQYFA 0340 TPMW and UPAW and WPAW
    AQYFA 0341 TPMW
    AQYFA 0342

    AQZEA 0341 TPMW and RPMW and RPDW

    AQZFA 0339 UPMW and TPMW
    AQZFA 0340 XPMW
    AQZFA 0341 TPMW and SPMW and XPMW
    AQZFA 0342 TPMW and UPMW (multiple confirmations of both locked and unlocked chips)
    AQZFA 0341 VPMW

    AQZFA 0347 XPMW
    PQZFA 0347 MPMW

    Thoroughbred JIXIB 0339
    Thoroughbred AIXHB 0340 UPMW
    Thoroughbred AIXHB 0341 SPMW

    unlocked: Most made before week 35 and:

    AQXFA 0340 MPMW and TPMW and UPMW and VPMW
    AQYFA 0340 UPAW
    AQZEA 0339 UPMW
    AQZFA 0339 VMPW
    AQZFA 0339 UMPW
    AQZFA 0340 UPMW and SPMW and MPMW

    AQZFA 0342 TPMW and UPMW (multiple confirmations of both locked and unlocked chips)


    You see there is no stepping or week pattern, the only way to increase your chances is to try to get a pre week 35 Barton...

    There is no visible physical difference between locked and unlocked chips because it appears changes were made inside the CPU core itself.

    EDIT:
    Originally posted by c627627
    You can't tell the difference between locked and unlocked new chips with a naked eye or through codes.

    The best we have is:

    • 2003 week 46 and later Bartons and Thoroughbreds are locked.

    • Some weeks 35 to 43 are locked, some are not, and that includes Thoroughbreds, Thortons and Durons.

    • There are rare cases of post 2003 week 46 unlocked Bartons and Durons.

    EDIT: There are no hidden pins, + Hoot took one for the team, if anyone can help him out, read about his sacrifice at the end of this post 1.

    EDIT: Multiple reports now of Thoroughbreds weeks 39 and 40 being locked just like new Bartons.

    EDIT: L1 and L3 bridges are closed on both locked and unlocked Bartons. However, on the locked Bartons, they do not connect to the core points which lead to the Internal Multiplier Control.

    No motherboard can unlock these Bartons and there is nothing that can be done to bridges or pins that can change the locked Barton multiplier because they are not connected to the circuitry.


    UPDATE: If it's not a permanent electronic fuse we're dealing with: * a hidden control pin may exist * Details of how to look for one are below. Thank you hitechjb1 for spelling it all out. EDIT: It does not exist.

    EDIT: November 9, 2003: Official AMD Forums moderator: "...this is business and AMD can't afford to keep shelling out unlocked 2500+s while losing $300 on each chip."

    EDIT: 2500+ Bartons were the first to be reported locked but Singapore is now first to report a 2600+ Barton lock, no word yet on locked 2800+ and up Bartons.

    EDIT: AQZFA week 42, UMPW is being reported as unlocked in Australia. There were conflicting reports of other same stepping and week 2500+s being locked and unlocked but now the entire CPU markings AQZFA 0342 UMPW match for both locked and unlocked 2500+ Bartons.

    If this is true, game's over as far us trying to figure out steppings & codes for locked Bartons, AMD locked whatever they got their hands on that happened to be in stock.

    Majority of the locks were done to post week 39 CPUs. Some appear to have shipped out before they were locked.

    Since Thortons are Bartons with 1/2 the cache, they're 2000+, 2200+, 2400+ see table here: http://www.c627627.com/AMD/AthlonXP/), there's a good chance all lower rated Athlon XPs week 43 and later are locked and many of the week 39 through 42 are as well.

    Also see the CODES thread for info on how to tell a Thorton from a Thoroughbred:
    http://forum.oc-forums.com/vb/showth...hreadid=222237

    * * *

    Note that you may have to save & exit a second time in BIOS to get Abit NF7 to accept the new multiplier if you have an unlocked CPU.


    Edit:

    Originally posted by ol' man
    AMD is locking them because this summer someone was remarking them after locking them at a higher multi and then reselling them.

    Same reason intel started locking them too back in the late 90's. Some one was buying the 233 chips and remarking them as 266 and 300MHz chips. I mean they did it too alot of them. Supposedly this summer resellers where getting whole shipments in with some of the CPUs being remarked.

    EDIT: The so called Super unlock:

    Basically, the method involves modding of the locked chips.

    'PowerNow' feature allows voltage and multiplier changes in order to preserve battery life.

    So if you have motherboard/chipset/BIOS support for PowerNow which not all boards do, nForce2 does not, you can use this feature on locked desktop CPUs.

    You also need to boot into Windows with your locked multiplier and the FSB with which you can boot into Windows but you cannot change the FSB inside Windows, only the multiplier. Ironically, you can change the FSB too inside Windows with nForce2s but they have no PowerNow feature so it's of no use with super locked chips.



    So with this so called super unlock method, remembering that MHz Speed = [FSB] x multiplier

    FSB can be changed only before you boot into Windows but
    multiplier can only be changed after you boot into Windows.

    ...with limited success so far.

    It's not a real unlock at all.


    Originally posted by stamasd
    1. closed L5, 2nd bridge from the right with pencil

    2. cut L8 for 1.5V according to the mobile chart (same as L11 for 1.6V), i.e. C:C:C (see notation on Fab51's page); actually I may have cut the first (from the top) bridge on L8 as well, because CPUMSR shows a default volytage of 1.45V instead.

    3. cut L6 for a max multiplier of 19x. Why 19x? It's high enough that you actually never get to use it, and it's very easy to do, the highest multiplier which can be set with just 2 cuts :CCC: - in other words, cut the top and the bottom bridges on L6.

    That's it. It just works, on a A7V600 mobo. It's simple enough that I will probably mod the same my other CPU, an unlocked XP2500+. I've began to like changing multis from within the OS, and I don't see any downside to it. For use on the A7V600 I'll probably even leave out the L8 cuts altogether, since I set the Vcore manually in the bios anyway, and the "default" Vcore means nothing. *NOTE* the L8 cuts may be required on other motherboards, if they read it - you don't want to accidentally push 2V in your chip. Also note that cutting bridges on L8 will not change the voltages needed to run the CPU - if before the mod it needed 1.8V to reach 2200 MHz, it will still need the same 1.8V after the mod for the same speed.

    For a locked Barton? I dunno, probably the same. The only thing that may be different is the location of the L8 cuts, if you want to set a different default Vcore. IMHO there's no need to do all 5 cuts for L6, I can't imagine a setup where you'd want to use a multiplier higher than 19X on these chips. Unless you push the FSB down to 100MHz of course.

    EDIT:

    Originally posted by hitechjb1: Are there any hidden multiplier pins from the NC, VCC, VSS pins?


    The main idea is to see

    1. Whether there are some VCC or VSS pins, measured from VSS, have large resistance, say, > 100 ohm. Normal VCC to VSS should be much smaller, and of course normal VSS to VSS should be zero.

    2. Whether there are some NC pins, measured from VSS, have relatively small resistance, say, < 10 M ohm.

    3. All resistance measured from VSS is sufficient, at least for the first trial.

    4. In principle, ONLY measuring VCC, VSS and NC pins from VSS is sufficient. But if one can find someone to help, may well just measuring every pins and put the resistance number from VSS in the pin layout map and analyse them after the measurement.


    AMD pin layout map, on Page 55
    http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/cont...docs/26237.PDF

    If suspecting there are some hidden pins (not specified in data sheet) among the
    - NC pin group, or
    - VCC pin group, or
    - VSS pin group,
    one can make a resistance map or table of each pin to VSS, and look for difference.

    With a probe of a DMM connected to VSS, measure the resistance of each pin to VSS, and make a table. Then compare the resistance table to the pin table. One may want to measure each pin twice with the polarity reversed.

    It should not be too difficult to do, especially if one can find a helper to write down the numbers while doing the measurement.

    If a pin can be measured in 4 sec, a single pass of 478 pins would take about 32 minutes. Two pass would be about an hour.

    If there is/are multiplier controlling pin(s) hidden among these NC, VCC, VSS pins, the resistance of that pin(s) would stand out differently from the other regular NC, VCC, VSS pins.
    - If a pin is not a VCC pin or a VSS pin, and if it goes to the input of logic gates, or FET terminals, even if there is pullup or pulldown impedance, would be >> 10 ohm.
    - If a NC pin turned out to be not NC, then the resistance would be much smaller than 10M ohm.


    Have to set the DMM resistance to x1 or the lowest setting, and keep it that way, so that the setting and biasing point from the DMM to the pins remains as constant as possible.

    I checked a few NC, VSS, VCC pins using a 1800+.
    - The resistance from VCC to VSS should be very low, of the order of 10 ohm or less (exact number depending on the DMM) and polarity. It should be similar for locked and unlocked Barton.
    - Also the NC pins, if indeed is NC, should have very high impedance (>> 10M ohm).

    Originally posted by Hoot
    Okay, here's the scoop on the possible existence of a second set of pins. I have spent the past three evenings ohming the 5 known BP_FID pins on my unlocked Barton to all the other pins on the bottom and sadly, though not unexpectedly, I must report that none of the other pins, regardless of claimed function, be that Vss, Vcc, N/C, etc, are connected to them.

    Now, here's where it gets "creepy". I eventually snapped and did something I never dreamed I would do. On the Locked Barton, I heated the core with a micro hydrogen flame torch, to keep the heat locallized to the core until the sealant around the edge softened, as well as all the solder dots, be they bismuth, indium, or whatever low temperature metal AMD uses, melted. I then lifted the core off the carrier.

    Yes, we're talking CPUicide here. Following the traces from the L3 bridges to their destination solder dots in the array on top of the carrier, beneath where the core sits and the dots leading inside it touch, I discovered they were actually connected to the core's corresponding dots just like all the other traces.

    That shoots down my theory about the paths leading to the multiplier control circuitry having been etched back, cut, or whatever, before the core was mounted onto the carrier.

    So where does that lead us, other than recommending me for committment to an appropriate institution? Either, as some of you have proposed, they gave those circuit inputs a lethal shot of current or there may be some microcode embedded inside the core which can be programmed to ignore the input logic levels to the multiplier control circuitry. I seriously doubt the cores themselves are different, though I'm certainly not going to trash my remaining unlocked Barton to compare them. I'm already having enough difficulty dealing with my self-loathing, not to mention the $90 price tag to satisfy my curiousity.

    Score: AMD 1, OC'ers 0

    I'm bushed after three nights of late hours and am off to the refuge from my deed, known as sleep.

    Just in case anyone who both appreciates the sacrifice and has a real job want to help out, I'm not too proud to accept contributions.

    Hoot the Horrible
    Last edited by c627627; 01-26-05 at 10:58 PM.

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    What goes through their heads when they decide to lock processors?
    http://www.heatware.com/eval.php?id=22418

    Intel C2D E8400@3.7GHZ (412x9) w/ 1.40v | Zalman 9500 | Gigabyte P35 DS3L v2
    2x1GB Crucial Ballistix 4-4-4-12 @ 824 w/ 1.8v | BFG GTX 260 OC @ 680-1425-1325
    WD RaptorX 10K RPM 150GB | Samsung 1TB | X-Fi XtremeGamer
    Samsung 245BW 24" LCD | Antec Neo HE650 Blue | Antec P180 Case

  3. #3

    c(π*199780) Senior Member
    c627627's Avatar
    10 Year Badge
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Kansas
    Author Profile

    Smile

    Bartons work with PC2700 RAM whose default is 166.

    You can increase the FSB. However, with 2500+ multiplier locked at 11, you're looking at 11 x
    (for example)
    [175] = 1925
    [180] = 1980
    [190] = 2090

    That's still below the above 2.3 GHz 2500+ can do.

    If you want a higher overclock with PC2700, they want you to buy the 2800+ with its 12.5 multiplier.

    newegg today:
    2500+ $85
    2800+ $136.00

    That's 60% more.

    Yes, PC3200 will get you a higher FSB and closer to Barton chip's limits but most people use PC2700 (and PC2100) RAM.

    ...although there's still an option of running async, overall performance is best insync...
    Last edited by c627627; 11-14-03 at 12:20 AM.

  4. #4
    Member filip04's Avatar
    10 Year Badge
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Vancouver Canada
    Folding Profile Heatware Profile
    when everything seems fine, WHY does amd have to pull this off???
    i7 2600k @ 4600mhz

  5. #5

    c(π*199780) Senior Member
    c627627's Avatar
    10 Year Badge
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Kansas
    Author Profile
    ..."when everything seems fine"?
    They haven't made a profit since the middle ages.

    When quarterly report comes out in a few months, it very well may be the first one which will not involve posting a loss since.... when was the last time they posted profits, I can't even remember.

    They give us CPUs that cost two or three or more times less then Intel chips and what do we do, we give them like 16% of the market (to Intel's 83%).

  6. #6
    Member Homer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Springfield
    aww man i was planning too build an AMD system based upon this chip. were do u think i can get a barton thats not locked?
    :drool:

  7. #7
    Member blazer99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Vancouver Island, Canada

    Thumbs up

    Excellent posting!

    Wish this had been here a couple of days ago when i started looking for a 2500...found a week 39...it was locked.

    now i've found a week 32 (AQZEA) & a 34(AQXEA).
    Which one would you choose?

    Thanx again!
    Last edited by blazer99; 11-06-03 at 06:53 PM.

  8. #8
    Member Valk's Avatar
    10 Year Badge
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Chocobo Alley, Aht Urgan Whitegate
    bleh. i already took appart the amd heatsink to note its crappiness. not sure if i can exchange my chip as that retail package is like... well i think everyone knows about them... bugger.
    Yurisa - Desktop, first upgrade in 6 years lol
    Intel Core i5 4670k@4.5ghz 1.25v - Gigabyte GA-Z87X-UD3H - 8GB Kingston HyperX 1600 Grey - AMD Radeon 5850 1gb - Crucial C300 64gb SSD - HP LP2475W sips/HP f2105 sips - Custom liquid cooling; Raystorm/d5/apogee1u on gpu - Windows 7 Home Premium : still to come; finish rebuilding case, black ice SR1-360, Samsung 740 evo, new storage drive


    My Other Stuff
    Heat - Watercooled Lian Li PC-V600 - HIME, Watercooled SFF - RCtech.net; Sanwa/VBCRacing/HobbywingUSA/TeamOrcaUSA

  9. #9
    Member shiyan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    behind the wheel
    so even when people set a specific multiplier, and not try that 12.5x and below multiplier unlock, the chip still boots with the default multiplier?

    Sonny pointed this out: could it be that below the new packaging the L1 bridges are simply not joined? Could this problem be solved if the L1 bridges were connected if that was the case?

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Benton City, WA
    I don't really understand why they would do this when you can still OC by pushing up the FSB. How does this help them make more money?

  11. #11

    c(π*199780) Senior Member
    c627627's Avatar
    10 Year Badge
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Kansas
    Author Profile
    We have yet to see visible physical difference which not one person has noticed thus far despite posting pics of L1 bridges, etc.

    bk94si, post 3 in this thread describes some of the resulting overclocks with PC2700, the most widely used RAM with 2500+ Barton out there: well below the chip's 2.3 or even 2.4 GHz limits.

    With locked 2800+ you get the 12.5 x multiplier instead of 11 x, do the math by multiplying the FSB your RAM can do with 12.5 x instead of 11 x.

  12. #12
    Disabled
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Banned Camp
    Originally posted by bk94si
    I don't really understand why they would do this when you can still OC by pushing up the FSB. How does this help them make more money?
    People have to buy faster more expensive chips.

    I got mine tho.

  13. #13
    Member Trent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    MD
    i have a week 31 aqxea that i just got from newegg, so if you want an unlocked i would try there.
    Q9650@4ghz
    EVGA GTX 570 @ 940/2100
    4gb G.Skill PC8500

    Heat

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    MD
    wtf???? AMD chips are now locked? i was about to order a 2500+ next week,

  15. #15
    Member Bobby's Avatar
    10 Year Badge
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    New Jersey
    I just ordered 2 Barton 2500 from Newegg this week for a pair of computers I'm building for my bro-in-law. They should be delivered tomorrow. I'll let you guys know what week they are.

    -Bobby
    Asus Z87-A | Intel i5 4670k @ 4.0ghz | CM Hyper 212 Evo | Corsair vx550w
    4 x 4gb Kingston HyperX | Asus HD6950 DCUII 2gb | Asus 27" Widescreen | MS Windows 7 Ultimate
    2 x 128gb OCZ Agility3 SSD Raid0 | 2TB Seagate | 1TB Seagate | LiteOn DVD 16x | Toshiba 16x/48x DVD
    Corsair 300r | LogiTech Z-640 | LogiTech G700s |


    Heatware

  16. #16
    Senior Benchmark Addict
    10 Year Badge
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Hillsboro, OR
    Sure, we're all outraged, but understand that this is the logical thing for AMD to do. However, note that AMD is still leaving die-hard overclockers an escape path; the FX-5x. You now have to pay dearly to enjoy the luxury of an unlocked multiplier, but it is an open option. With people buying their cheapest processor en masse, they need to take some kind of action. Its good business, and in the long run, we'll be glad that they did, as they'll still be around, hopefully for a while.
    El<(')>Maxi: I still have your board...and I'm afraid I lost your address so I can't send it back...and my pm box is broken...and I can't remember where the PO is anyway

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    MD
    well couldnt they have done it after i ordered in a week?

  18. #18

    c(π*199780) Senior Member
    c627627's Avatar
    10 Year Badge
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Kansas
    Author Profile
    No, because they've been waiting for two years.

    AMD Net losses for the past two years, check out how Q4 2002 ended for them:

    Q3 2001: -$98m (Athlon XP launched)
    Q4 2001: -$16m
    Q1 2002: -$16m
    Q2 2002: -$185m
    Q3 2002: -$254m
    Q4 2002: -$855m
    Q1 2003: -$146m
    Q2 2003: -$140m
    Q3 2003: -$31m


    Originally posted by ^wargod
    well couldnt they have done it after i ordered in a week?
    Last edited by c627627; 11-07-03 at 02:38 AM.

  19. #19
    Member shiyan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    behind the wheel
    looking at those numbers it's pretty amazing that AMD did not die off at the beginning of 2003.

    now it looks like they might bounce back. I sure hope they do!

    I kind of hope Intel really ****s up on Prescott, and can't actually bring a product out. Just so that AMD gets some profits and marketshare back.

  20. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    MD
    so does it look like there is no possible way to unlock the new chips?

Page 1 of 62 1 2 11 51 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •