Unlocking 960T

[insidejob]

Just wondering if I could get some advice to try and unlock my 2 potential cores in my 960T on my MSI 970A-G46 mainboard. No luck so far with the steps I've read online hoping I can get some help here as Ive heard lots of good stuff and read good reviews from here

 

[egilbe]

Not all of them can be successfully unlocked. Sometimes you can only unlock one or the other core, but not both. It has to be done through BIOS and I don't see where that board has ACC on it.

 

[cmi86]

Activate MSI OC Genie II. This is the core unlocking utility on your motherboard. If this does not work try disabling CnQ, C1E and Turbo, maybe even up the volts a tad. Don't give up hope, Mine unlocks perfectly fine and even OC's to around 3.8Ghz !

 

[Brett928S2]

Hi

Some UNLOCK some DONT....

ITS AROUND 50% AT BEST....

All the best Brett

 

[insidejob]

Im assuming mine doesn't. I've followed all steps here and everywhere else and no luck Im happy with x4 for gaming anyways, I've been getting some good clocks

 

[amuffin]

Because it doesn't unlock, that probably is the reason why the cores were locked.

 

[cmi86]

Pay attention to the NB frequency and you will get some killer clocks out of that 960T.

 

[nekulturny]

This might be slightly shady, but you might try to return it where you bought it for another chip (tell em it was DOA), get you another shot. Like Brett said, 50/50. I like those odds.

 

[cmi86]

This might be slightly shady, but you might try to return it where you bought it for another chip (tell em it was DOA), get you another shot. Like Brett said, 50/50. I like those odds.

Actually a source I have with AMD (an old highschool friend) tells me that the unlock rate on 960T's is about 80%. He explained the reason for this is AMD realized that bulldozer was a flop and still wanted to offer a recognized and accepted quad core in the Phenom II line, so most 960T's are nothing more than 1090T/1100T's with 2 locked cores simply to fill a market slot and hopefully regain some lost profits on FX with the well known Phenom name. I agree with your logic, if on the odd chance it doesn't unlock try again lol, just though you might like the info.

 

[nekulturny]

Very good info. I like my 975 Deneb, but when I built this rig I very briefly considered the 1100T, and at the time they were still available, I gave it a pass. If I could do it again, I would have gone with the 6 banger.

I honestly think they should have kept that architecture, surely they could have improved upon it. Whether the Intel guys like it or not, the 1100T can indeed step right up to the Sandy Bridge i5 outside of synthetic benchmarks. There was mileage left on that vehicle.

For the record, I hope nobody comes in here and starts showing me a bunch of pictures of games framerates. I didn't mention games in my post. I'm not disputing the gaming framerates are better with the i5, games are not the only things computers do for Pete's sakes. [/preemptive strike]

 

[wr6133]

Try unlocking the cores individually sometimes you can get a 5th core active. Even as a quad its good it will take a hefty OC just requires a little more work to get up there than a Deneb for 3.8-4GHZ you will be looking at raising your NB around the 2600mhz mark and then overclocking the CPU off the multiplier. Leave the FSB and volts alone unless the NB and multi combo wont go stable decent chips will OC high on stock voltage.

He explained the reason for this is AMD realized that bulldozer was a flop and still wanted to offer a recognized and accepted quad core in the Phenom II line, so most 960T's are nothing more than 1090T/1100T's with 2 locked cores simply to fill a market slot and hopefully regain some lost profits on FX with the well known Phenom name

I think your friend is 50% right there. There was a point when FX released and was selling out so the production lines moved to FX and Llano with the exception of 960T which was still produced for a limited time even though the hex core thubans weren't.... i.e. all the thubans were made to Zosma for a limited time so the chances of a solid 6 core rose for a time by a large factor. This was done shortly after release when FX was selling out as fast as they could make it though so I dont think it was done to claw back FX related losses more likely to ship a budget SKU and get rid of old parts (at the time 960T was selling cheaper than FX 4100) and to not muddy the market on higher end FX chips with high end Phenom II parts.

 

[cmi86]

Very good info. I like my 975 Deneb, but when I built this rig I very briefly considered the 1100T, and at the time they were still available, I gave it a pass. If I could do it again, I would have gone with the 6 banger.

I honestly think they should have kept that architecture, surely they could have improved upon it. Whether the Intel guys like it or not, the 1100T can indeed step right up to the Sandy Bridge i5 outside of synthetic benchmarks. There was mileage left on that vehicle.

For the record, I hope nobody comes in here and starts showing me a bunch of pictures of games framerates. I didn't mention games in my post. I'm not disputing the gaming framerates are better with the i5, games are not the only things computers do for Pete's sakes. [/preemptive strike]

Well unfortunately even slightly considering the fact that a computer could be... used for something other than gaming... (oh my god he said it..) to some people is just complete blasphemy and a screaming toddler tantrum is soon to follow. Like there are threads where someone is looking to build a solid general use machine and do a little gaming as well. You get these kids in here telling the poster the i3 2100 is the second coming of Christ because it get XX FPS in whatever game... however they fail to mention that comparably priced AMD quad/hex down right smokes the 2100 as basically everything other than single player gaming and will be noticeably faster in daily usage. Oh no no but if you tell them this let the chart chucking, FPS quoting, Intel fanboi BS flow like a river... Anyhow back on topic yes I totally agree the Thuban architecture had alot of miles left on it. I'm not sure why AMD decided it's successor would be the FX when they full well knew it was a slower less capable CPU. Whats done is done and we can't really go back. I guess we just hope AMD is being very conservative with PD's anticipated performance and drops something in a couple years that just blows intel out of the water (like they did with the REAL FX's) However unlikely I will hope for the best.

 

[cmi86]

Try unlocking the cores individually sometimes you can get a 5th core active. Even as a quad its good it will take a hefty OC just requires a little more work to get up there than a Deneb for 3.8-4GHZ you will be looking at raising your NB around the 2600mhz mark and then overclocking the CPU off the multiplier. Leave the FSB and volts alone unless the NB and multi combo wont go stable decent chips will OC high on stock voltage.

He explained the reason for this is AMD realized that bulldozer was a flop and still wanted to offer a recognized and accepted quad core in the Phenom II line, so most 960T's are nothing more than 1090T/1100T's with 2 locked cores simply to fill a market slot and hopefully regain some lost profits on FX with the well known Phenom name

I think your friend is 50% right there. There was a point when FX released and was selling out so the production lines moved to FX and Llano with the exception of 960T which was still produced for a limited time even though the hex core thubans weren't.... i.e. all the thubans were made to Zosma for a limited time so the chances of a solid 6 core rose for a time by a large factor. This was done shortly after release when FX was selling out as fast as they could make it though so I dont think it was done to claw back FX related losses more likely to ship a budget SKU and get rid of old parts (at the time 960T was selling cheaper than FX 4100) and to not muddy the market on higher end FX chips with high end Phenom II parts.

That's a very good theory aswell, I'm sure probably quite true aswell. I would have to think somewhere along the line the fact AMD knew BD wasn't all that had to come into play in one form or another. Like I was saying to nekulturny, Idk why AMD released the FX's as Phenom II's successor knowing the FX's were slower and less capable CPU's.

 

[nekulturny]

That's a very good theory aswell, I'm sure probably quite true aswell. I would have to think somewhere along the line the fact AMD knew BD wasn't all that had to come into play in one form or another. Like I was saying to nekulturny, Idk why AMD released the FX's as Phenom II's successor knowing the FX's were slower and less capable CPU's.

I wonder that too. I can think of 2 possible reasons,

1. Maybe they had already committed so much money into it that by the time they realized it wasnt going to work out as well as they hoped, they didn't have a choice.

2. They assumed that Microsoft would altar their coding around in order to use their architecture. Now that goes a little bit beyond my understanding as a 1st year student, but it seems from what I've read, Bulldozer isn't a bad foundation, its just it needs a combination of fine-tuning as well as operating systems that can effectively use it. Now this isn't good since in my opinion if you're AMD and you're being outsold by your main competitor 5 to 1 and you have to design your products in a way that it will work with the a monopoly's op system (microsoft), you mind your P's and Q's and make darn sure your product works with theirs and not the other way around.