Recommended Posts

Early last year I bought an AMD x2 555BE 3.2ghz

I'd initially hoped to unlock an extra core or two but I never managed to do it. No matter what settings I chose, my pc simply didn't boot.

Just wondered if there's anything I'm missing, if I need to do anything extra like disable cool and quite, stuff like that?

I felt like giving it another go since it's been so long.

Thanks for the advice..

By the way, the mobo is a MSI 870a-g54

Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1122214-amd-core-unlocking/
Share on other sites

I guess the first thing to ask is do you have the latest BIOS?

Seems like quite a few people with that mobo have the same problem you're having. Some people are saying that if you increase the CPU voltage a little bit, it might work.

And then some others are saying that there is only a 70% success rate for unlocking, so you might just be in that unlucky 30%.

What would be a safe level to increase the CPU voltage to?

Not all CPUs can be unlocked successfully, they're generally disabled because they didn't make the X3 or X4 spec stability

I know this can be the case but from what I've seen, instability is generally the problem, my computer won't so much as reach POST

I honstely think the feature doesn't work on this board at all. If I enable Core Control and manually disable core 2 (only two cores show at this point), I get the exact same problem, all the fans just spin up :/

Give MSI a shout and ask them if there are any known issues using that feature with your board

Give MSI a shout and ask them if there are any known issues using that feature with your board

Thanks, I'll try that. I do have a feeling they will simply say that my CPU must not be unlockable though.

On a plus side, I managed to get a stable overclock to 3.9Gghz but I'm too scared to keep the voltages as high as they are!

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • The problem of course is simply that government does not always know best. My point is that agency is taken away from the EU consumer in these cases. I'm sorry, but I do not believe that governments (politicians) are inherently good, and "looking out for me." Primarily they look to themselves and their own personal desires first, foremost, and always. When the EU or the DOJ fines these companies, claiming to "represent the welfare of the consumer," how much of these billion-dollar judgments are handed to the consumers they claim to represent? Not even a dollar, as I've seen. Yet the EUC lawyers who are paid to sit around and dream up these suits make huge commissions on the fines the EUC adjudicates, which is an ironclad fact I hope everyone is aware of. It's also rank corruption, of course, but that's another topic. Last, when the EU inflicts these judgments, or the DOJ, take your pick, the costs are bundled right along in the cost of the goods and services these companies provide the consumers they are "looking out for." If you are someone who believes his government is his savior then you have my condolences. I think Apple is right here, because the whole scheme of consumer choice is that consumers pick and choose among the products companies offer. Microsoft Windows is more compatible with third party software and hardware than any desktop OS on Earth, which is my sole reason for choosing it. Just because the EUC forces companies do certain things it knows the companies do not want to do, "or else", has no bearing on consumer benefit. This Siri thing is almost idiotic it's so infantile. But this is what the EUC does when the EU in Brussels becomes cash-strapped and needs a big infusion of cash. Some people get upset by "big companies" but it's the opposite when governments dwarf the size and scope of these companies, which is so obvious it hurts.... I mean you can't honestly believe that forcing Apple to do things with Siri it has its own reasons to decline is something that "opens up" Apple, do you? Say it aint' so...
    • Looks like many years since the request was made, a directory tree view finally may be added. https://github.com/files-community/Files/pull/18537
    • There's this from last year https://gist.github.com/threat...364659a8887841aa43deca4efd9 but nothing about a buffer overflow that MS somehow can't code against. No matter what, it makes sense to take a "protected by default" approach.
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Month Later
      sjbousquet earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      sjbousquet earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • First Post
      DragonOfMercy earned a badge
      First Post
    • First Post
      bella52 earned a badge
      First Post
    • Reacting Well
      Techinmay earned a badge
      Reacting Well
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      501
    2. 2
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      214
    3. 3
      +Edouard
      156
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      84
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      72
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!