# Sempron 140 Unlocks to Athlon II X2



## btarunr (Aug 11, 2009)

It has been done over and over again, and each time new AMD processors successfully unlock disabled cores (dubbed "defective"), it only makes us wonder if it is a deliberate attempt by the company to make buying its cheaper processors potentially rewarding. It has been discovered that AMD's recently announced Sempron 140 single-core processor can be transformed into a dual-core Athlon II X2 series processor with a simple, well-known trick. This comes as no surprise, as the "Sargas" core the processor is based on, is made by disabling one core on the Regor dual-core die. 

The trick requires a motherboard with AMD SB710 or SB750 southbridge that supports the Advanced Clock Calibration feature. Not all motherboards, however, support this mod. By simply enabling the feature in the BIOS setup program, the system will be able to address both processor cores, with the complete feature-set of Athlon II X2. The staff behind the feat over at Thai techsite VModTech tested for the unlocked core's stability with much success. At 3.71 GHz (13.5 x 275 MHz @ 1.536 V), the processor stood SuperPi, WPrime, and WinRAR bandwidth tests. Validation can be found here. At around $40, here's the cheapest ticket to a dual-core processor that looks $80 Intel processors in the eye.



 

 



*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## DanishDevil (Aug 11, 2009)

I think they're doing what they're doing with ATi. They're flooding the market with news on purpose so they get all the hype compared to Intel. It very well may work. Still pretty frickin' cool that you can get a dualie for $40 with the right board.


----------



## Mussels (Aug 11, 2009)

niiiice.

we were discussing this in another thread here on TPU, and it made me all sad that my media PC's board only has SB700


----------



## btarunr (Aug 11, 2009)

DanishDevil said:


> I think they're doing what they're doing with ATi. They're flooding the market with news on purpose so they get all the hype compared to Intel. It very well may work. Still pretty frickin' cool that you can get a dualie for $40 with the right board.



Looking at the past 2 months, Intel is news-whoring more.


----------



## DanishDevil (Aug 11, 2009)

But then again they're about to release a wholly revamped processor class and a brand new one. I do agree though, they have been quite prominent, and I think AMD got jealous. Just my completely irrational guess


----------



## Easo (Aug 11, 2009)

I doubt they will use laser to make it imposible to unlock cores, it just gives them more sales. There is reasn why those cores are locked, even if the flaw is minimal. But who cares, it if works.


----------



## iStink (Aug 11, 2009)

I love little stories like this.


----------



## MilkyWay (Aug 11, 2009)

lol every AMD CPU transforms into another one its "more than meets the eye..."

for basic stuff this would be good is is guaranteed an unlock tho?


----------



## suraswami (Aug 11, 2009)

so what batch does this belong to?

Have an Phenom II X2 BE + Biostar 790GX board unopened sitting on my desk.  Not sure if the BE will unlock to 4 cores, what batch should it belong to?

may be I should try this sempron lol.


----------



## Cheeseball (Aug 11, 2009)

Mussels said:


> niiiice.
> 
> we were discussing this in another thread here on TPU, and it made me all sad that my media PC's board only has SB700



LOL, yeah, I brought it up in the othe thread in General Hardware.  I think I'm gonna go buy one just to test.


----------



## ShadowFold (Aug 11, 2009)

MilkyWay said:


> lol every AMD CPU transforms into another one its "more than meets the eye..."
> 
> for basic stuff this would be good is is guaranteed an unlock tho?



No CPU is guaranteed an unlock. It's nice to see that these unlock, tho. I bet this stuff is really helping AMD sales too.


----------



## phanbuey (Aug 11, 2009)

Lol... Intel is news whoring by releasing a confusing amount of chips and boards, and AMD is releasing unlock-able ones.

hmm... I think I might be going AMD next time around .


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Aug 11, 2009)

1.536v just to get to 3.7Ghz seem a little high - isnt that also above the 45nm 'safety' levels? it just shows how inefficient at handling voltage the processor is.


----------



## a_ump (Aug 11, 2009)

just curious, does ACC actually have any other purpose besides unlocking cores? i built my friend's PC with an Athlon II 250. the mobo is Biostar 790GX which has ACC as i looked at his bios yesterday. I thought regor was actually a true dual-core chip, it can't be unlocked to 3 or 4 cores can it?



FreedomEclipse said:


> 1.536v just to get to 3.7Ghz seem a little high - isnt that also above the 45nm 'safety' levels? it just shows how inefficient at handling voltage the processor is.



very true, the build that i put together for my buddy yesterday has his athlon II 250 running 1.31v i think at stock...i was like


----------



## Cheeseball (Aug 11, 2009)

Regor is a true dual-core, but Sargas (Sempron X1) is a halved Regor.


----------



## ShadowFold (Aug 11, 2009)

FreedomEclipse said:


> 1.536v just to get to 3.7Ghz seem a little high - isnt that also above the 45nm 'safety' levels? it just shows how inefficient at handling voltage the processor is.



AMD's 45nm can do 1.55v safely. These aren't really built for overclocking tho, pretty sure it's just a modified Athlon X2 core. AMD's handle voltages a lot differently than Intel's stuff.


----------



## thezorro (Aug 11, 2009)

wow intel is being left behind.


----------



## btarunr (Aug 11, 2009)

suraswami said:


> so what batch does this belong to?
> 
> Have an Phenom II X2 BE + Biostar 790GX board unopened sitting on my desk.  Not sure if the BE will unlock to 4 cores, what batch should it belong to?
> 
> may be I should try this sempron lol.



Phenom II X2 BE does unlock to 4 cores in some cases.


----------



## jamesrt2004 (Aug 11, 2009)

suraswami said:


> so what batch does this belong to?
> 
> Have an Phenom II X2 BE + Biostar 790GX board unopened sitting on my desk.  Not sure if the BE will unlock to 4 cores, what batch should it belong to?
> 
> may be I should try this sempron lol.



http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=227004

here = a good list of batches, and people successes and failures with unlocking boards/chips/batch


----------



## BobBarr (Aug 11, 2009)

oh wth screw it i just ordered one  

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103698&Tpk=Sempron 140


----------



## suraswami (Aug 11, 2009)

btarunr said:


> Phenom II X2 BE does unlock to 4 cores in some cases.



but which batch/date?


----------



## btarunr (Aug 11, 2009)

suraswami said:


> but which batch/date?



No specifics, it unlocks to four cores when it does.


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 11, 2009)

ShadowFold said:


> AMD's 45nm can do 1.55v safely. These aren't really built for overclocking tho, pretty sure it's just a modified Athlon X2 core. AMD's handle voltages a lot differently than Intel's stuff.



Modified Phenom II core.  Regor is a Deneb with two cores and the L3 Cache removed, and the L2 cache on the remaining two cores increased to 1MB each.


----------



## mdm-adph (Aug 11, 2009)

This is hilarious.  That is all.


----------



## largon (Aug 11, 2009)

I want one that unlocks to a 32nm Orochi Bulldozer.


----------



## btarunr (Aug 11, 2009)

largon said:


> I want one that unlocks to a 32nm Orochi Bulldozer.



Steal the keys to RnD of AMD Sunnyvale at night. Cheap security won't look.


----------



## mtosev (Aug 11, 2009)

btarunr said:


> Steal the keys to RnD of AMD Sunnyvale at night. Cheap security won't look.



no dont do that. if you do we will be reading: Intel sabotaged AMD,... etc


----------



## allen337 (Aug 11, 2009)

Be glad when Intel unlocks my e6600 to a 8 core I7


----------



## mtosev (Aug 11, 2009)

its utter stupidity selling single core cpus now when OSes support multi core cpus. i dont wanna see the performance of Vista or 7 on a single core cpu.


----------



## aj28 (Aug 11, 2009)

mtosev said:


> its utter stupidity selling single core cpus now when OSes support multi core cpus. i dont wanna see the performance of Vista or 7 on a single core cpu.



Actually, it's not that bad. Both Intel and AMD are churning out single core CPUs and pairing them with this type of software... HP sells the Neo with Vista and, hell, Sony ships the Atom with Vista as well! Are they great solutions? For a lot of purposes, no. However, when you need either cheap and/or low-power, they serve a very important roll in the market.

Besides, if they're just defective Regor cores, what the hell else are they gonna do with 'em? Better to make $40 than nothing at all.


----------



## mtosev (Aug 11, 2009)

if you multi task then a single core is not for you. Atoms are found in netbooks which are generally for web browsing and simple tasks.


----------



## btarunr (Aug 11, 2009)

People have multi-tasked for decades before dual-cores came to be. An internet machine doesn't need dual-core.


----------



## mtosev (Aug 12, 2009)

Vista and 7 are optimized for dual cores and can use them better then any older MS OS to date

i remember trying to browse the internet on a Celeon 1.7GHz, 128Mb ram with Firefox and i coudnt browse the internet on that thing. Firefox worked so slowly that you could take a 3minute brake and than come back and resume browsing. i know that the problem was that the pc had only 128Mb of ram but the pc could even handle browsing the net. that was in 2005 and FF ver 2 if i recall correctlly.

the OS was XP.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Aug 12, 2009)

I just think it's funny some people will go buy
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103698 this chip $40
and this board http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128397 $90
to try to get the same performance as 
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103688 this chip for $61
and this board http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813130228 $80
$130 for a hope or $141 guaranteed lol my bad the second 2 have combo deal at $136 shipped


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 12, 2009)

btarunr said:


> People have multi-tasked for decades before dual-cores came to be. An internet machine doesn't need dual-core.



Exactly, I multi-task just fine on my single core Atom, my single core P4 based Celeron does the same...



mtosev said:


> Vista and 7 are optimized for dual cores and can use them better then any older MS OS to date
> 
> i remember trying to browse the internet on a Celeon 1.7GHz, 128Mb ram with Firefox and i coudnt browse the internet on that thing. Firefox worked so slowly that you could take a 3minute brake and than come back and resume browsing. i know that the problem was that the pc had only 128Mb of ram but the pc could even handle browsing the net. that was in 2005 and FF ver 2 if i recall correctlly.
> 
> the OS was XP.



128MB of RAM...and you think the single core processor is the problem?  I have a 1GHz Pentium III with 256MB of RAM that browses the internet perfectly running XP...the machine originally came with 98SE!


----------



## Zubasa (Aug 12, 2009)

a_ump said:


> just curious, does ACC actually have any other purpose besides unlocking cores? i built my friend's PC with an Athlon II 250. the mobo is Biostar 790GX which has ACC as i looked at his bios yesterday. I thought regor was actually a true dual-core chip, it can't be unlocked to 3 or 4 cores can it?


ACC was originally introduced to aid Overclocking


----------



## Scrizz (Aug 12, 2009)

newtekie1 said:


> Exactly, I multi-task just fine on my single core Atom, my single core P4 based Celeron does the same...
> 
> 
> 
> 128MB of RAM...and you think the single core processor is the problem?  I have a 1GHz Pentium III with 256MB of RAM that browses the internet perfectly running XP...the machine originally came with 98SE!



that's nothing i have my PII 400MHz w/512MB of ram, and it runs XP like a champ


----------



## PCpraiser100 (Aug 12, 2009)

AMD Hax FTW!


----------



## laszlo (Aug 12, 2009)

Harry Potter and the CPU's from AMD  

AAC wand and we have x2 or x4


----------



## mtosev (Aug 12, 2009)

newtekie1 said:


> Exactly, I multi-task just fine on my single core Atom, my single core P4 based Celeron does the same...
> 
> 
> 
> 128MB of RAM...and you think the single core processor is the problem?  I have a 1GHz Pentium III with 256MB of RAM that browses the internet perfectly running XP...the machine originally came with 98SE!



no. im saying that putting the cheapest stuff into pcs cripples them. i really dont get how a company sold a pc with 128mb ram and windows Xp on it 

if you would you build a pc with this Sempron and put it 512mb ram and then installed Vista on it. you would have the same effect that i saw on that Celeron.


----------



## Mussels (Aug 12, 2009)

no you wouldnt, my mums PC runs fine in windows 7 with 512MB of ram (and ran fine in vista with 1GB) on a slower celeron.


CPU means nothing! its all ram for vista and 7.


----------



## mtosev (Aug 12, 2009)

I installed fresh Vista  Basic SP1 on a DELL Vorsto A860: 1Gb ram, T2410, X3100 GFX and it was extremly slow. i think Vista didnt like < 1GB of ram.


i forgot to turn off Vista's indexing function. that would maybe help. but i did turn everything else off. i turned off all the visual effects, also changed the UI to Windows Classic.
Vista index for the pc was 2.6-2.8.


----------



## Mussels (Aug 12, 2009)

vista runs like a dog for the first day or two on a fresh install, unless you disable system restore, indexing, and the hiberation file.

if you leave them be (and leave the system on for a while) it sorts itself out and works fine. How fast it sorts itself out is dependant on the HDD speed.


----------



## Zubasa (Aug 12, 2009)

Mussels said:


> vista runs like a dog for the first day or two on a fresh install, unless you disable system restore, indexing, and the hiberation file.
> 
> if you leave them be (and leave the system on for a while) it sorts itself out and works fine. How fast it sorts itself out is dependant on the HDD speed.


Shutting down UAC and Windows Defender also provides great boost in speed, as long as you don't need that extra security. 

And for those guys with less than 1GB ram, why in the world you need windows for an internet machine? Just grab a copy of Ubuntu and install it.


----------



## Mussels (Aug 12, 2009)

i always forget to disable windows defender!

good tip too.


----------



## mtosev (Aug 12, 2009)

Mussels said:


> vista runs like a dog for the first day or two on a fresh install, unless you disable system restore, indexing, and the hiberation file.
> 
> if you leave them be (and leave the system on for a while) it sorts itself out and works fine. How fast it sorts itself out is dependant on the HDD speed.



after 3 days it was still slow.

i dindt install BitDefender on than pc as i found it was slowing the pc when more. so i installed Avast instead.


----------



## Zubasa (Aug 12, 2009)

mtosev said:


> after 3 days it was still slow.
> 
> i dindt install BitDefender on than pc as i found it was slowing the pc when more. so i installed Avast instead.


Do you actually know what Windows Defender is?
It is the anti-malware program from M$
Vista comes pre-install with it BTW.
Also it will be a great idea to upgrade to SP2.


----------



## mtosev (Aug 12, 2009)

Zubasa said:


> Do you actually know what Windows Defender is?
> It is the anti-malware program from M$
> Vista comes pre-install with it BTW.
> Also it will be a great idea to upgrade to SP2.



Defender isnt an Antivirus only anti spyware.

Sp2 wasnt available in January 2009.


----------



## Black Hades (Aug 12, 2009)

Nice strategy... People love gambling. It's like one of those "Get a Capt. Crunch action figure. now one in every 10 boxes has one!"


----------



## Zubasa (Aug 12, 2009)

The procs are well priced regardless of the unlock.
Now the question is just why not get one?


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 12, 2009)

mtosev said:


> no. im saying that putting the cheapest stuff into pcs cripples them. i really dont get how a company sold a pc with 128mb ram and windows Xp on it
> 
> if you would you build a pc with this Sempron and put it 512mb ram and then installed Vista on it. you would have the same effect that i saw on that Celeron.



You arguments up until now had nothing to do with the cheapest stuff going into PCs, it was about the usefulness of single core processors like this Sempron.

And while 512MB might be the cheapest, the difference between 512MB and 1GB is something like $4, so you would be an idiot to build a computer with only 512MB of RAM.  I wouldn't do it regardless of what OS I was putting on the system.  Hell, I make it a policy to never build a machine with less than 2GB actually...  But now you are going on about RAM, in a thread about processors, where you started arguing that single core processors aren't good for people who "multitask" because "Vista and 7 are optimized for dual cores", then you start talking about RAM...

We all know if you stick an idioticly small amount of RAM in a machine, it will perform like crap.  That has nothing to do with the topic, and certainly adds nothing to back up your original statements about single core processor being too weak for multi-tasking and modern OSes.

The fact of the matter is that single core processor are still good enough for probably 75% of computer users.  Most people surf the internet, check email, use Office, listen to music, sometime rip a CD, burn CDs, watch videos/movies/DVDs and thats about it.  And they usually are not doing all that at the same time.  None of that, even when done together, requires anything more than a single core processor.

Now would I build a machine using this processor?  Under the right circumstances, yes.  But it would have to be an extreme budget situation, because with the E1500 only $15 more, and the x2 240 only $20 more, it would be hard not to take a step up to those.


----------



## Paintface (Aug 12, 2009)

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131376

i am wondering if the unlock works on this mainboard, its one of the cheapest with onboard video and the needed SB710

also the differences between 760g and 780g chipset only really matter if you using any sort of 3D apps right?

trying to come up with the best bang for the buck for folks to build


----------



## Zubasa (Aug 12, 2009)

Paintface said:


> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131376
> 
> i am wondering if the unlock works on this mainboard, its one of the cheapest with onboard video and the needed SB710
> 
> ...


Honest, if you do not use onboard graphics the 770 is usually the better choice 
But it looks like most 770s are ATX.

Well, the price difference on a 780G and a 760G isn't much anyways, I will always go 780G just for the sake of it.


----------



## WarEagleAU (Aug 12, 2009)

I think it is brilliant to do what they are doing. By now, it is well known about unlocking cores, unless they feel other products in their lineup cannot be done this way or just oblivious to the obvious. I look for Intel to do something similar soon.


----------



## kenkickr (Aug 12, 2009)

WarEagleAU said:


> I think it is brilliant to do what they are doing. By now, it is well known about unlocking cores, unless they feel other products in their lineup cannot be done this way or just oblivious to the obvious. I look for Intel to do something similar soon.



Not an unlockable core Core 2 dual core but a unlocked multi, http://www.techpowerup.com/101136/Intel_Responds_to_Phenom_II_X2_BE_with_Pentium_E6500K.html


----------



## mtosev (Aug 12, 2009)

newtekie1 said:


> You arguments up until now had nothing to do with the cheapest stuff going into PCs, it was about the usefulness of single core processors like this Sempron.
> 
> And while 512MB might be the cheapest, the difference between 512MB and 1GB is something like $4, so you would be an idiot to build a computer with only 512MB of RAM.  I wouldn't do it regardless of what OS I was putting on the system.  Hell, I make it a policy to never build a machine with less than 2GB actually...  But now you are going on about RAM, in a thread about processors, where you started arguing that single core processors aren't good for people who "multitask" because "Vista and 7 are optimized for dual cores", then you start talking about RAM...
> 
> ...



10-15 running apps and you have cpu usage at 60%. on my T7500 when my antivirus is scanning for viruses and running a few apps the usage goes to 20%.


----------



## hat (Aug 12, 2009)

So what if it's at 60%... you still have 40% more to go


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 13, 2009)

mtosev said:


> 10-15 running apps and you have cpu usage at 60%. on my T7500 when my antivirus is scanning for viruses and running a few apps the usage goes to 20%.



Yeah, and the Anti-Virus is probably using all 20%, with a low priority that gives up the CPU time as soon as a more important program comes along.

You could probably add in watching a DVD and not see over 25% CPU usage.

That is the beauty of the way computers work, they are able to prioritize foreground processes over background processes, so single core processor are able to function.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Aug 13, 2009)

newtekie1 said:


> You arguments up until now had nothing to do with the cheapest stuff going into PCs, it was about the usefulness of single core processors like this Sempron.
> 
> And while 512MB might be the cheapest, the difference between 512MB and 1GB is something like $4, so you would be an idiot to build a computer with only 512MB of RAM.  I wouldn't do it regardless of what OS I was putting on the system.  Hell, I make it a policy to never build a machine with less than 2GB actually...  But now you are going on about RAM, in a thread about processors, where you started arguing that single core processors aren't good for people who "multitask" because "Vista and 7 are optimized for dual cores", then you start talking about RAM...
> 
> ...


LOL not even $20 if you buy the combo deals $7 so yeah that would be an extreme budget limitation


----------



## Hayder_Master (Aug 17, 2009)

sorry what is the original chips
phenom II x3 720 ------ unlock to phenom II 920
athelon II x2 --------- unlock to 4 cores too , and become like phenom
and now sempron 140 ------ Unlocks to Athlon II X2
so which chips AMD made and disable them cores , and how much real cost for this cpu's to make AMD disable them cores and sell it in less price


----------



## Frick (Aug 17, 2009)

hayder.master said:


> athelon II x2 --------- unlock to 4 cores too , and become like phenom



Actually, you unlock the multiplier, making it a Black Edition.


----------



## Hayder_Master (Aug 18, 2009)

Frick said:


> Actually, you unlock the multiplier, making it a Black Edition.



ops  , but it still same idea


----------



## vagxtr (Nov 12, 2009)

FreedomEclipse said:


> 1.536v just to get to 3.7Ghz seem a little high - isnt that also above the 45nm 'safety' levels? it just shows how inefficient at handling voltage the processor is.



They just didnt bother for 35$ SKU  And what is the worse thing most of these 45nm CPUs easily hit 3.2GHz @1.200V and then scale well up to 1.350V (~3.6GHz) but simply don't give much beyond that, not even that real Sempys _officially misdubbed_ as Athlon II X2 250 BE. An BE which has locked multi  Niiiice.

Only thing worth some money and bragging rights are X3/X4 Athlons cause they're really cheap and sometime with just as little as 15% price up over some X2 240 you can get X3 425 and possibility to unlock the fourth core (or even in rare cases some PII X4). Well at least you get extra core and same ~3.6G OC for virtually same price.




ShadowFold said:


> AMD's 45nm can do 1.55v safely. These aren't really built for overclocking tho, pretty sure it's just a modified Athlon X2 core. AMD's handle voltages a lot differently than Intel's stuff.



Unfortunatly these are not an old Athlon64 nor have anything to do withthem even old Athlon64 6500(B2)/7750/7850 were based on first generation Phenomsand latr two were just released after nobodyeven wanted 65nm Phenom after 45nm 920/940 and in fact to populate Am2 borads when AM3 was released. And many of them easily unlocks to X4 Phenoms.

And for the sake of today AthlonII line theyrre based on same C2 revision as current PhenomII just lacking that huge L3 on die, and AII X2 have fused two inactive cores and their working L2 cache has been given to active ones (2x512MB per core) so any dormant core unlock is impossible. While Semprons 140 are same thing as AII X2 hat just didnt pass some other core QC.

While some rare bigger bro X3/X4 Athlons are even based on full Deneb core with possible L3 unlock, and AII X3 based on Denebs most certainly unlocks 4th core but AII X3 based on Propus (original AthlonII core w/o L3 on die) dont unlock dead core for now (AII cores have much thorough binning procedures as you might see cause demand is greater for cheaper Athlon chips), and probably wont cause C2 and Athlon II line is going to be disband in Q1 in favor of C3 and even that will only be in limited X4 965/975, Thuban and X4 820 series while all other available will be based on old binning while stock lasts

As for voltage goes. I think even these insane 1.55V are safe for these 45nm chips. The weirdest thing is that all Athlon64 could handle such a high voltges ever since F2&F3 @90nm which were real 140W burners to these 45nm chips. It's strange for me too but this is something that K8/K8L architecture on SOI easily handles and after they uncore NB they can scale a hellawa better than before cause NB runs below 3Ghz and cores can easily reach 4GHz and beyond on air and even reducing number of active cores doesnt hep OCing much just reduces power consumption and that's so unfairly non-linear for 2-3 cores with L3 cache which is huge power consumer and doesn't _support some of PowerNow for itself._


----------



## AsRock (Nov 12, 2009)

MilkyWay said:


> lol every AMD CPU transforms into another one its "more than meets the eye..."
> 
> for basic stuff this would be good is is guaranteed an unlock tho?



HEHE, why buy 1 (Intel) when you can buy 2 in 1.


----------



## vagxtr (Nov 12, 2009)

kenkickr said:


> Not an unlockable core Core 2 dual core but a unlocked multi, http://www.techpowerup.com/101136/Intel_Responds_to_Phenom_II_X2_BE_with_Pentium_E6500K.html



Yep only available in China, and in Limited Edition. Right stuff to brag about budget enthusiast cpu available in it shop next door.


----------



## CyborgCop (Sep 23, 2010)

FreedomEclipse said:


> 1.536v just to get to 3.7Ghz seem a little high - isnt that also above the 45nm 'safety' levels? it just shows how inefficient at handling voltage the processor is.



I can't unlock mine.  But I've got mine at that level and a little higher.  And I'm just at 1.376.  Wonder if I should be pushing mine harder.  I've stuck to what the bios considered safe voltage.


----------

