• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Conroe Cache Unlock?

BlueAura

BlueAura

BlueAura

Permabanned
Joined
15 Jun 2004
Posts
77
I've been reading around and apparently all E6xxx so far are the same chip including the extreme version just they are clocked at different speeds and have cache disabled at the later manufacturing stages. Is this right?

Has anyone figued out how to unlock them or if it is even possible?

This would be a very interesting find if so.
 
Intel are extremely proficient in disabling 'locked out' hardware. Prime example, every P4 ever made includes full hardware support for Hyperthreading, but it was first enabled in the 3.06Ghz.

Nobody ever managed to 'activate' it. Likewise every Prescott CPU includes EM64T, but disabled, again nobody has ever managed to unlock it.

Its true that some chipset features (like PAT on 865 motherboards) can be enabled by a bit of sleight of hand by the motherboard makers, but thats about as far as it goes.

Still, if you find a way to do it, im sure everyone here would love to hear how :)
 
Corasik said:
Still, if you find a way to do it, im sure everyone here would love to hear how :)
Click to expand...

I am sure they would, don't think it will be me giving out the good news though :(

Any idea how intel locks their chips, physically or programatically?
 
Psycho Sonny said:
all intels can have their multipliers unlocked, its all in my threas in the general section
Click to expand...

I know what you're saying but I think the point here is about cache. I really don't think cache has ever been unlocked so it's unlikely it ever will be.
 
Psycho Sonny said:
all intels can have their multipliers unlocked, its all in my threas in the general section
Click to expand...

Your thread in the general section claimed E6300's could now be unlocked up to x12. They are x7 and x6 only.
 
NathanE said:
They use a laser to actually burn away the (or some of the) transistors. The process is irreversible.
Click to expand...


Thank you for beating me to this explanation, you did it far more succinctly than I would have though :D

clock multi's are completely seperate to something like cache, its not that surprising why one is able to be "fooled" and one is physically burnt away

I do however think its helarious that the "cost" of fast cache etc is blamed for relatively high price of the top CPU's etc when in fact without the burning process they are identical - ie even the 6300 / 6400 have the cache onboard its just not usable, so in one sense Intel are actually throwing money away

Of course it would cost more to manufacture physically different cpu's etc but you get y gist i hope
 
FrankJH said:
even the 6300 / 6400 have the cache onboard its just not usable, so in one sense Intel are actually throwing money away

Of course it would cost more to manufacture physically different cpu's etc but you get y gist i hope
Click to expand...

There was a program on tv the other day that said as much, overall they make more money so it makes sense to them.

The same was true of 486 dx/sx chips I think though I thought at the time the coprocessor was faulty

Their main cost is always R&D
 
Yea the coprocessor was disabled and it cost more to make the SX than the DX but market demand being what it is, its prolly made intel more money by far than the DX :D Sometimes this works to our advantage, bud of mine has a 30 cap failed Gallatin EE in the 3.4C flavour that got to 4.1Ghz on air :D
 
Last edited:
FrankJH said:
even the 6300 / 6400 have the cache onboard its just not usable, so in one sense Intel are actually throwing money away
Click to expand...

Not true. Its far better to have a plant running one single design. A plant running more than 2 processes when they can simply modify the chip would be madness. Just manufacture the highest grade chip and send the chips to different parts to be burnt, modified and stamped. Keeps the costs down massively.
 
Edinho said:
Not true. Its far better to have a plant running one single design. A plant running more than 2 processes when they can simply modify the chip would be madness. Just manufacture the highest grade chip and send the chips to different parts to be burnt, modified and stamped. Keeps the costs down massively.
Click to expand...

Please read my whole post

".....Of course it would cost more to manufacture physically different cpu's etc"

Also who says Intel couldnt devote one fab plant to the high end 4mb chips and another fab the 2mb chips, after all that would cancel out any additional fab costs, and also the 2nd plant producing the 2mb chips would have less production problems associated ........ potentially
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom