Where do you think the "multiplier lock" is?

F

fireball

New Member
#1
In Sander's latest article, he argued that the dreaded multiplier lock should be located at the CPU core instead of the PCB. He seemed pretty convinced of that. My question is, what do you guys think and if you're still not convinced, what will it take to convince you? Look forward to hear your feedback!

------------------
Tom Ko
MyDesktop / internet.com Corp
 
S

Sterling_Aug

Guest
#2
This is what a CPU looks like when it has had the original 3.0 multiplier lock changed to 4.5 multiplier lock. I got this re-marked PII-450 in February and found this spider under the hood. The store has since replaced it with a retail PII-450 which I am now overclocking to 558 MHz @ 2.1 volts.

voicenet.com/~sterl/PII_450.JPG

http://voicenet.com/~sterl/2PII-450.JPG Closeup view.

voicenet.com/~sterl/PII450TP.JPG Top view showing "1992" manufacturing date.

[This message has been edited by Sterling_Aug (edited 08-10-99).]
 
M

MadCat

New Member
#3
If you still have that spider, send it in to Sander Sassen (the one who wrote the multiplier lock article). Im certain he can figure out how it works.

------------------
This signature space FOR RENT
 
jjr512

jjr512

New Member
#4
If anyone has read his articles on supercooling, then you noticed how in the results page, he shows screenshots of a program reporting his multiplier, bus speed, and cpu speed. One of the multipliers is 8.5, and he also used 8. I've e-mailed him asking how he did this and have gotten no response. Now I read this article basically saying he doesn't know how to do it. Well, does he know or not? And how did he get the multiplier to 8?

------------------
jjr512 "The Terminator"
Justin J. Rebbert
[email protected]
 
D

Diogenes

New Member
#5
The multiplier is 'burned/programed'into the chip when it is manufactured... There are a few un-locked chips around, but they were made that way for testing purposes by Intel..

Remember, 'if it sounds too good to be true, it is'.. Why would a 'psychic' charge YOU $20 bucks for some 'winning' lottery numbers..

If it were possible to unlock intel chips, someone would be doing it, we would all know about it, and if it were me, I would be buying a lot of Intel chips and stock..

P.S.

jjr512, the multiplier you saw may have been one of those rare unlocked chips, or another explanation is, it would be relatively easy to doctor a screen shot of a 'CPUID' panel.. (A lot easier than unlocking the multiplier on an Intel chip...)


[This message has been edited by Diogenes (edited 09-30-99).]
 
jjr512

jjr512

New Member
#6
The multiplier is not burned into the chip, is is held there in what I assume is ROM-like memory. It is set by activating the chip
s RESET command, and while it is active, sending certain signals to the chip. The problem is, no one but Intel knows what those signals are or how to apply them.
As for it being a hoax, I don't think that's the case here. Sander Sassen works for Hardware Central and has a lot of articles here. The one I am referring to, Supercool to a Gigahertz, is featured prominently in the Tutorials section, but you can also click here: http://www.hardwarecentral.com/hardwarecentral/tutorials/718/1/ .
I asked him how he changed the multiplier, and his answer was, I admit, a little unbelievable. He said that the chips they used were PIII/500s, and there was a way to unlock the multiplier by drilling into the CPU core in a very specific place, and it was only possible with ultra-high tech (and expensive) drilling equipment. Now I realize how unbelievable this sounds. I mean, for a drill bit to go through the core casing, it would need to have a certain amount of strength that it couldn't be ultra-tiny, but even if it were a half-mm diameter, that would still go through thousands of transistors. And even if you did take it out, doesn't that circuitry need to be there for the chip to function? On the other hand, I can't think of any reason why he would lie about that. I mean, he is a respected contributor to this site. If he doesn't want people to know how to do it, it would have been easier to just say "I won't tell you".
And to Mr. Sassen, if you read this, could you please post some pictures of your drilled CPU's?
 
S

Sander Sassen

New Member
#7
jjr512 wrote:

Hello,In your articles about supercooling, it looks like you can adjust the multiplier in your CPU's. I think you've gone up to 8. How did you
do this? I thought they were locked. I've asked you this before, but haven't heard back. Please let me know!Thanks,
Justin J. Rebbert, Mall in Columbia


Hi Justin,

Sorry for not getting back before, but I gets tons of email everyday and I usually try to answer all of them, but yours must have
slipped through. The lock cannot be easily defeated, it requires drilling into the cpu-core with a specific batch of P3/500's. I
have not yet found an easy way of reproducing it, also it requires very techy equipment (with $$$K price tags).

Best regards,

Sander Sassen

Email : [email protected]
Siteleader at HardwareCentral
Visit us at : http://www.hardwarecentral.com
 
S

Sander Sassen

New Member
#8
Oh, and one more thing I would like to mention is that I'm VERY interested in obtaining any 'remarked' P2/3's which have circuitry added to the PCB.

Best regards,

Sander Sassen

Email : [email protected]
Siteleader at HardwareCentral
Visit us at : http://www.hardwarecentral.com
 
D

DrFoo

New Member
#9
While I tend to think the article itself is more or less accurate, I think he's having you on with the drilling comment. It's quite possible they managed to get hold of an unlocked PIII.

I would also not be surprised if there were in fact a way of defeating the lock without opening the core itself. This is the kind of information you might not want to publish though. First you might well get some negative attention from Intel, but perhaps more importantly you wouldn't really want to help out the remarkers would you? That's not good for any of us.

This is the way things have always been. A good hacker will at some point come to know certain things they might not in fact wish to share too freely...




------------------
-=DrFoo {Sysop} Third Wave BBS (941) 355-7136=-
http://dsl150-37.cftnet.com
 
jjr512

jjr512

New Member
#10
I'm just frustrated because I know that my particular P-III/500 is from the same batch that Intel used for some 600s, simply by changing the multiplier. So, but for that, I could easily have a 600. I can get 600 by overclocking the FSB, but then again, if I could change the multiplier to 6, then I could overclock to past 600, like maybe at least 672. But the point is, it didn't cost Intel any additional money to set the multiplier at 6 instead of 5 at the time of manufacturing, so I feel that I, as well as anyone else with the same batch of chips, should be able to 'upgrade' them, either for free, or I'd even be willing to pay a small fee for it (like $50).
Well, that's my 2¢.

------------------
jjr512 "The Terminator"
Justin J. Rebbert
[email protected]
 
D

Diogenes

New Member
#11
jjr512, I really respect your input to the posts here, you have brought up some very interesting points. I was being a bit simplistic when I used the term 'burned'.. I am not an engineer, but I agree the process is like setting up a PROM. I have heard of that referred to as 'burning', and I am reasonably sure the process is irreversible.. I have heard of the possibility of adding some wired logic to the P3 'card' to change the multiplier, but it probably is not worth the time and trouble. I still submit, if it were economicaly feasible to 'unlock' the multiplier, it would be done by now.. It's like, if you have enough money to turn a Yugo into a Ferrari, you just buy a Ferrari in the first place..
 
J

Justin Cox

New Member
#13
Why can't we just use the same "spider" pieces that remarkers use on their chips. That changes the clock multiplier doesn't it? Does anyone know were to get some?
 
M

MarkoTheSerb

New Member
#14
hey Diogenes, i can see that u are familiar with that piece of shit called Yugo. haha. that car sux bigtime.
Sorry for posting this here,i just had to
 
jjr512

jjr512

New Member
#15
There are some floor mounteds here in Maryland!

Anyway, how do you clip off a pin that's printed on the circuit board? Or did you mean from the actual CPU core? How did you here about this, and can you prove that it works? It's not that I don't believe you, I just want to know first.

------------------
jjr512 "The Terminator"
Justin J. Rebbert
[email protected]
 
D

DrFoo

New Member
#16
Well it looks like you're off the hook, TN, there is no such pin. The PPGA pins are labeled as a matrix (ie A3, B2, etc) and the numbers only go to 37.

On the SEPP (Slot-1) version, A43 and B43 are both data lines. No, not a good idea to disconnect those at all!


------------------
-=DrFoo {Sysop} Third Wave BBS (941) 355-7136=-
http://dsl150-37.cftnet.com
 
K

kflorek

New Member
#17
>This is the kind of information you might >not want to publish though. First you might >well get some negative attention from >Intel, but perhaps more importantly you >wouldn't really want to help out the >remarkers would you?

More likely though is that he has the info, but through a source that illegally disclosed proprietary information, and needs to have a legal source before he can disclose what he knows. To do otherwise would subject him to prosecution (or threats to prosecute), which Intel has been known to do. For instance, some fellow figured out some of the undocumented features of the Pentium processors and has been subjected to constant harassment since he put the info on a web site, on the grounds that that info could only be obtained from some one who had signed a non-disclose agreement.
 
X

xSiLeNtDx

New Member
#18
I have a radical solution!

Boycott Intel

go with AMD and their new Athelon chip!
there is no multiplier lock and it runs on a 200 FSB
eventually Intel will realise their mistake and unlock the multiplier!
 
R

racas

New Member
#19
Boycotting Intel won't do jack-sh*t. As long as they feel they can get away with it, they're going to do it. The Pentium name is too popular for the mass market to turn away from it because of the dissatisfaction of a few people the company doesn't like in the first place.

The ONLY thing that's going to change Intel's mind is to take legal action. I mean, it's practically fraud. They build something, and put it out for sale, then they make a little mark in it, and turn around and sell it at two, sometimes three hundred percent of the original price. And we KNOW that little mark does NOT cost that much to put in there!

(The "mark" is a metaphor for the multiplier lock, by the way)

Any legal experts out there have any idea what I'm talking about? There's gotta be some law that says a company can't do that.
 
J

jopey

New Member
#20
Racas...then thier should be a law that says a car should not have a govenor to limit it's top speed. If you start to think thier alot of things that have limiters on them.

And might I add they all suck!

------------------
WINDOWS HAS NOT DECTECTED A KEYBOARD PLEASE PRESS 'F1' TO CONTINUE OR 'F2' TO ABORT.
 

Associates