News AMD removed core unlocking fearing for reputation

I don't get why anyone would be mad at any company for disabling core unlocking or features like it. As others have said at the end of the day you are only entitled to the performance that you purchased.

Intel has also done something somewhat similar already. Look at Extreme Editions with unlocked multipliers. The technology is obviously possible, so how come my cheaper CPU can't change the multiplier? Same reasons why AMD is disabling core unlocking. A mix of enforcing a product line and not leaving themselves liable for complaints when things go wrong.

 

The latter, as always

 

Here we go again, the AMD fangirls bringin a knife to a gun fight.

Whats the point of offering an unlocked CPU if the market place wont support it?

Why then do they remove it when they realise it's not that stable and not that beneficial unless your other component has the upto date bios work round. That's even if they have a supporting bios, which by the look of things not that many have.

So my original statement is accurate, truthful and correct. More white noise from a typical deflated AMD!

Just because you own one girls, it doesn't mean we have to listen to your whining when it doesn't cut the mustard!

 

I go for Troll

Nice to see you're getting along in there Bindi, you're justifying your paycheck =P

Although I'm a not a fan of buying triple core and try to unlock the extra one - I prefer buying the real deal - I can understand the success and reputation of this cpu's. Sad to see the "Complaint Way" so present in today's life, they're ruining something great for enthusiasts by making AMD scared of losing rep.

 

"Just because you own one girls, it doesn't mean we have to listen to your whining when it doesn't cut the mustard!"

 

Surely anyone who knows enough to get a triple core processor and attempt to unlock a forth core, knows that its a gamble. Not to mention against warranty.

It's no different to all the people who borked their GPU's trying to unlock more pixel pipelines. It's a user's error not the manufacturer's. They should have left it alone IMO.

 

The point of offering was that it had the potential to be unlocked, they never said it was a 100% guarantee that it would work. It's a good marketing gimmick, plus it sells chips.

The reason they decided to "remove" it was that some people complained it didn't work, AMD never guaranteed that it would, it's just that it's better for their reputation that they don't officially condone it.

It's not really white noise as unlocking cores was quite a good way to get free performance but as with all overclocking things, it was a "your mileage will vary" and people should've known before hand.

And I think we've all been there with the 9700/9800 series pipeline unlocking..or that X8xx unlocking? Or that 7800/7900 Series, unlocking? It's not a matter of it being supported or not, Overclocking was never condoned by any sane manufacturer.

 

It would be rather like Intel removing the ability to overclock the CPU at all - they'd be well within their rights, after all, it isn't performance you have paid for, it can cause instability etc etc.

Seems that regardless of what AMD do these days, people just go "aww, there's a shame", whereas their rivals get 10 page threads about how they are the spawn of satan.

 

How is that a similar comparison? They are not removing the ability to overclock the CPU, as far as i understand it. Just the ability to unlock cores that you haven't actually paid for? (and are not guaranteed to be stable).

This was from the original review of the Phenom II X3 on bit-tech:

AMD's Overclocking Guru, Sami Mäkinen, has a specific technique for testing the overclockability of Phenom II CPUs. By setting the Advanced Clock Calibration (ACC) to zero percent initially, then overclocking to the maximum stable all cores will accept, before checking each core individually with the latest AMD OverDrive.

Unlike the original Pheno's which benefited from a negative two to six percent ACC, Sami explained that with 45nm Phenom IIs it can be used to boost "weaker" CPU cores to higher speeds by using positive ACC. If there is one (or several), applying two percent ACC to that core(s), while leaving the rest at zero percent can eke out a few extra MHz. However he was also keen to point out it may or may not provide additional MHz over leaving ACC disabled - it's entirely down to the quality of the CPU and its synergy with the motherboard and BIOS.

No mention of core unlocking was made in the article and it was only in the comments section that mention was made of the possibility of unlocking a 4th core with some motherboards and some CPU's.

Not a guaranteed feature at all...

 

Why are the cores locked, are they un-stable or just locked because its easier for them to makes lots of quads and lock than have a loads of different factory lines?

To me a 550BE/545/555 seems pointless for unlocking abit, im stuck between buying a 550be or athlon x4 which games just as good as phenom x4's in benchmarks anyway, l3 cache really isnt that usefull in gaming full stop.

Less power consumtion, less heat and clocks fairl comfortable normally.

 

As I gave for an example, Intel already limit the ability to overclock their CPUs. It's largely an artificial limitation since the Extreme Editions are capable of it. No one's ripping at them for it.

A little closer of an example would be the way that not all motherboards allow overclocking anyway. It's not something that Intel has included as a feature in any way, just something that other manufacturers are letting you do at your own risk by including BIOS settings that alow it. I have an Intel board laying around that has no options in the BIOS to allow overclocking because, quite simply, it isn't something Intel is trying to do. Much the same way AMD is now leaving core unlocking as something which must be entirely handled by third parties at their own risk. Unless I misread, AMD is not forcing manufacturers to stop working around it.

 

I run an i7 920 overclocked to 4.2GHz, so sorry to disappoint.

The reason why cores were locked was because they were either damaged or were just disabled. They didn't design them to be like that, they just decided not to laser-cut the cores out, as ATI and nVidia have been doing, and left features in that allowed it. It's like leaving overclocking in on the chips - they know that it will make the cheaper chips better sellers and so will boost sales, whilst still allowing them to sell their damaged chips for cheap.

It's a perfect reason that AMD were getting bad press because people were trying to do it and it failed. It was a feature they left in because they weren't sure it would work, so removing it because it was getting them bad publicity is the reasonable option if parts of the market won't appreciate it.

Alternatively, the cynical side of me reckons that it's because they've got their yields high enough that the vast majority can be unlocked in this way, so they've removed it so that people buy their more expensive processors.

 

In addition it's also supply and demand. All the CPUs of say the phenomII cost the same to make. Say you make 100 working quad core cpus but there is only demand for 30 of them due to their higher price. What AMD will do is block off two of the cores in 60 of them and sell them as dual cores at a cheaper price selling more cpu's in total and making more $£€.

 

Well, I have to say thats pretty lame that it is "unsupported" via AMD, but Gigabyte and Asus are still enabling it. Good to hear that much. As long as they keep making and shipping triple-cores and dual-cores that unlock to quads, I'll be a happy camper.

 

How about quad that unlock to hex?

 

Unlikely, as it is impossible. The board unlocks the CPU. Without the board adjusted in the BIOS to do so, its still whatever it left the factory as.

 

Sorry, didn't get around to answering this. In both cases you are using bios settings to increase performance of a product that goes beyond the capabilities of the shipped product. Whether it is a rated clock speed for that chip or the number of functioning cores, it makes no difference - you are getting extra performance you haven't paid for. If Intel decided to lock the bus speed to a maximum value for a particular chip after previously allowing overclocking, there would be hell to pay.

 

So AMD hasn't blocked unlocking cores. You can still unlock extra cores with the right motherboard?

 

AMD seem to be far behind Intel at the moment. Hopefully things will pickup and they will start to challenge Intel again. They something to rival the i7's performance