You used to be able to unlock cores. They'd sell you a dual core or a tri core CPU and then you could unlock the fourth core.

i vaguely remember that era but everything ran so fucking hot, every part idled at 68C

You just to have a cpu that listed its specified speed on the box, then you find out you can get a 30-50% boost... For free!

>>105604905
Simply ZALMAN

>>105604886 (OP)
i remember some ryzen 1600 came with 8 cores instead of 6

>>105604886 (OP)
how would this core unlocker physical DRM bullshit even work on linux

>>105604949
it used to be stored on the motherboard, it only worked with some specific chipset as well
afaik the unlocker software or whatever it was called was windows-only though

>>105604949
It was done in the BIOS. The mobo had to support it. I believe you're thinking of the Intel thing. I dunno how that was supposed to work.

>>105604949
there was a physical toggle switch on the board you would switch. you got your tricore, hit the switch, and booted into bios hoping it would show extra cores. if it did you tested for stability

>>105604925
you paid extra for k

>>105606253
>boosts BLCK

Nothing personnel.

One time I overclocked a core 2 duo with a small wire between two pins on the cpu.

>>105606545
2500K only has like 3 MHz of BCLK headroom before the SATA ports stop working though.

Ancient as fuck but still rocking one today.

>>105606636
>still rocking one today
As a main?

>>105606636
i loved my 1055t back in the day

>>105606775
Yep. it still does what I need it to do. I don't game much and the stuff I do on it for my income is only process intensive in small bursts over the month. A job I only run two or three times a month is fine if it takes a couple of hours to complete.
The shit I do play is stuff like mini-golf simulator. My old RX570 handles that just fine.

Literally stealing from AMD by pirating cores. A good person wouldn't do that.

Was this because they had more reject dies?

>>105604905
Phenom IIs got unstable over 55

>>105604886 (OP)
Some quad cores could also unlock cores up to an X6. My 960T unlocked a single extra core so I had an unique 5 core Phenom II. It didn't require any high end mobos or anything, the support depended on the Bios and manufacturers added the feature even to lower end mobos as a selling point.

>>105608404
You needed a 710 southbridge

>>105606857
Phenom II was a shit CPU for gaming even ten years ago.
Not because of performance necessarily, but because it lacks the newer instructions that later versions of Visual C++ shoves into executable by default.
I specifically remember Metal Gear Solid V The Phantom Pain ended up getting a Phenom II patch that removed the need for newer instruction sets, though it's far from the only game to do so

>>105606636
i changed it recently to a fx8300 bc i nedeed fucking avx instructions... not really pleased with the change

>>105608594
>not really pleased with the change
Have you noticed slower desktop performance?

>>105608494
Yeah Phenom II was too little too late, it's what the original Phenom should have been but wasn't due do delays and various issues. It was basically what killed AMD cpus until Ryzen. Not Bulldozer - 'dozer's concept was actually pretty good, but due cost cutting and delays they shipped the Abomination and then patched it across years up to the Excavator. If Excavator released when Bulldozer did, it'd actually be pretty decent CPUs.

>>105608599
it doesnt really feel like an improvement and some things feels off, but it may be me being a little disapointed
i mean i was already happy with the phenom, i was hopping too to be able to get faster ram, but its not stable, it may be the sticks tho

>>105608626
also before i had clear bottlenecks, now i have shit struggling and nothing is at 100% usage, so its weird. it may be that weirdness of two cores sharing one whatever
(it is slightly faster than before on those tasks, but disappointing nevertheless)

>>105608697
Set your cpu-nb to 2400 and ram to 1866 minimum
Set the cores to 4 GHz @ about 1.25V

>>105604905
Not really, you just didn't undervolt and own >>105604929
this motherfucker, which I recently recycled a few months ago, was in a box with some stuff from when I moved home 15 years ago.
>>105606636
based but have you considered an Athlon 64 X2 3800+ You little zoomer fuck.
>>105608626
Sad consequence of using older tech if you don't have known good products already. DDR3 is already slipping into that zone in terms of kits because people just throw out or recycle everything rather than selling it for pennies.
DDR4 too, getting a kit of decent DDR4 at 32GB at lower frequencies like 2133MHz for skylake is a bit of a challenge as people were poorfags who didn't use 32/64GB capacities.

>>105608709
ram only supports 1600, only managed to get to like 1700something
it crashes with that config
i was thinking into getting better ram, but i am falling hard in the sunk cost fallacy here

>>105604886 (OP)
my 1055t negro edition was running at 4.2ghz stable lol

>>105609551
my 960t was also stable at 4.2 on all 6 cores
shit was amazing

>Ranjeep shuts down 80% of your cores because you did a racism online

>>105608304
i'm pretty sure they disable them in a way that's irreversable and this thread is a joke.

>>105610193
No

They used to disable potentially unstable cores in software (firmware/BIOS) if they couldn't run stable at default voltage/frequency. You could SOMETIMES unlock the cores and they would work, sometimes they would need an overvolt to be stable at stock speeds, sometimes they were stable enough at stock voltage. It wasn't some "jewish trick" you fucking mongrels, the cores just didn't work properly.
Nowadays, the cores are just laser'd off so they can't be unlocked, if they're THAT bad, but in reality the stock levels just got way more conservative, and they allow you to push them further. this is how curve optimizer works.
The sell a CPU with a conservative "stable" clock and you can push the voltage curve down, sometimes by a lot, sometimes just a little.

>>105608746
>Not really
yes really you dipshit, a midrange pc was idling around 100W
when haswell came along you could browse the web with just a heatsink no fan

where is the heat difference? in your mum's cunt?

>>105609541
you need to loosen some timings to hit higher clocks
But the ram will be fine at 1600 cl 9, cpu-nb is more important

I have an am3 system laying around, which boards supported that? And which cpus could have their cores unlocked? I want to fuck around a bit

>>105610277
You are forgetting that the tricores sold so well that amd was locking a core on perfectly functional quadcores and shipping those to meet demand

>>105610872
That's how binning works anon

>>105610541
i used c2d as a server for some time and with an inefficient psu and a mechanical drive the whole system was using 19-25w
intel in that era was fine, amd only improved with ryzen
i don't know about the gpu's tho

>>105610634
i wasnt trying to push more than 1600 this time,
will try later the timings, why is more important cpu-nb?
i guess is the freq on the north bridge but why is a bottleneck here? the cache speeds?
default is 2200
i do actually want to understand

>>105612344
cpu nb is the L3 cache and the memory controller
it is the major bottleneck on these chips
2400 is easy, 2600 is harder. 2500 needs messing with bclk (htt)

>>105604905
you are vaguely remembering wrong

>>105612241
Not only was Intel fine but AMD were fine too.
Phenom II was initially 65W > 125W depending on how many cores, same as intel. They could idle fine, you could undervolt, same as intel.

Really if you can criticise anything about the AMD platform at the time it was that their idle clocks were slightly higher along with chipset power consumption. but you're just not going to find anyone better than intel for low power consumption on chipset and their lower idle power consumption stemmed from where the architecture came from but they weren't hotboxes.
The cnps9900 max that was posted above that the other post mentioned, that could handle a 95W early i7 cranked to the limit and still not go over 65c.
Back then I don't even recall Zalman recommending TDP suitability but even now the 9900 max is listed for 300W

They're someone who either didn't undervolt, overclock or they were a casual "enthusiast" at the time. They likely weren't even subscribed to a good hardware magazine like micro-mart either.
It's unfortunate but I find most people discussing hardware nowadays really don't seem to remember much from before sandy bridge or Nehalem. Don't see nearly as much discussion regarding all the revisions and stepping we used to get.

>>105604886 (OP)
You can get 6 and 8 core and 10/12/endless core processors now. What exactly are you whining about?

>>105609541
>i was thinking into getting better ram, but i am falling hard in the sunk cost fallacy here
I know how you feel with that. I have a skylake server at the minute that I don't use nearly enough, yet I have an ivy bridge system with a dead motherboard around. My eye's drawn to refurb skylake systems, motherboards for the ivy bridge and RAM for skylake and it's that question of "this isn't worth it, I'm buying ewaste I'll barely use".
Need a better use case to justify it.

>>105609541
No don't bother. Get a cheap alder lake setup and use bdie with it.

>>105604886 (OP)
Stfu you nostaligafag subhuman. Everything is much better now stfu.

>>105606857
I believe it. I'm still using Ivy Bridge-E which can still run everything today. Including Split Fiction, Switch Emulators, all UE5 games, etc. The only demanding thing is most unity games like MTGA and Discord. But that's their own fault.

>>105604886 (OP)
The original DLC on disc.

Humiliation ritual through lottery. I want the cores that I brought it.

>>105608209
dlc
downloadable cores

>>105612484
thanks will experiment tomorrow
>>105612913
yeah man, i got an am3+ mobo bc the other died, then i got the fx procesor bc of the avx thing, now i may want better ram, feels bullshit
>>105613120
that is way more than expending 15 bucks in ram

you can still unlock cores but you need a laser fuser