Frage flashing bios rx6700 xt asic B to asic A

[Reinsei]

I have been trying to flash the asus rx6700xt dual to the rx6700xt dual OC, the 2 are identical externally and internally the dual has a limit of 2800mhz and the dual oc 2950mhz

well, I tried with amdvbflash 4.71 in linux the command -unlockrom and the command -s and both were completed correctly

But when entering windows the adrenalin software blocked the frequency of the gpu at 500mhz, I cleaned the drivers with ddu and it did not work either ...

It is assumed that they are the same model only that one is artificially limited by bios, then the blocking is because it is a different chip?

Why have they taken the trouble to rename the chip internally and not just limit themselves to offering different bios?

it is unfortunate that amd removes the possibility of unlocking a chip of the same range to the maximum potential by any means ...

 

[meilodasreh]

If you are sure that everything considering the BIOS flash itself went correct, then the issue is most likely just bad luck at the chip lottery.
What I mean:
There are no two absolutely identical chips on the world.
Of course they are the same brand and type, but even within those "identical" parts there are lots of small differences that are unavoidable during production process, so that in the end every single chip is a bit different considering its - lets call it speed capabilities.
One chip can be overclocked more and stays stable, the next one barely reaches its specs, with absolutely no way to get it faster.

The manufacturer selects the "better" chips (yes, they are all tested individually during/after production) and so can sell them with faster clock speed because he knows they will work, and there will be no problem with the customer claiming it doesn't work.
The chips that don't have these capabilities are still used on the standard specified boards, because they are not "bad" or "disfunctional". They do what they are designed for within their standard specification.

So when you ask "why do they sell identical chips and limit some by soft/-firmware?", then this question is based on a wrong assumtion.
The chips are indeed different.
It's not that the slower ones are limited, but the faster ones are "hand-picked" and can go beyond their original specs.
What you call limited is the stardard, not below-standard or bad in any way.

If you want to go faster, pay the price for a factory-tested, and you know it will work.

If you "unlock" a standard-spec chip, that individual piece you have there can be overclocked to whatever frequency its capable of, and beyond that it will become unstable or just stops working, eventually even die in a nice little grey fume cloud.

In your case, the +150MHz might be just or way too much more than it can handle, and the card goes to "fail-safe" settings.

Going from 2800MHz to 2950MHz is a big step you know.
Maybe such a BIOS flash is a fast and easy way to tune things up, but as I explained there's no guarantee it works.

You could try to take much more much smaller steps upwards from the standard clock to see where's the limit of your individual piece.
Just don't be too disappointed when it's plain below your wished 2950MHz.

 

[ApolloX]

Why did you want to flash it?
For mining? Ok, not my business.
Fpr OC-ing and gaming? Then it was unnecessary, because for this at least in Windows it's absolutely not necessary.

 

[Reinsei]

If you are sure that everything considering the BIOS flash itself went correct, then the issue is most likely just bad luck at the chip lottery.
What I mean:
There are no two absolutely identical chips on the world.
Of course they are the same brand and type, but even within those "identical" parts there are lots of small differences that are unavoidable during production process, so that in the end every single chip is a bit different considering its - lets call it speed capabilities.
One chip can be overclocked more and stays stable, the next one barely reaches its specs, with absolutely no way to get it faster.

The manufacturer selects the "better" chips (yes, they are all tested individually during/after production) and so can sell them with faster clock speed because he knows they will work, and there will be no problem with the customer claiming it doesn't work.
The chips that don't have these capabilities are still used on the standard specified boards, because they are not "bad" or "disfunctional". They do what they are designed for within their standard specification.

So when you ask "why do they sell identical chips and limit some by soft/-firmware?", then this question is based on a wrong assumtion.
The chips are indeed different.
It's not that the slower ones are limited, but the faster ones are "hand-picked" and can go beyond their original specs.
What you call limited is the stardard, not below-standard or bad in any way.

If you want to go faster, pay the price for a factory-tested, and you know it will work.

If you "unlock" a standard-spec chip, that individual piece you have there can be overclocked to whatever frequency its capable of, and beyond that it will become unstable or just stops working, eventually even die in a nice little grey fume cloud.

In your case, the +150MHz might be just or way too much more than it can handle, and the card goes to "fail-safe" settings.

Going from 2800MHz to 2950MHz is a big step you know.
Maybe such a BIOS flash is a fast and easy way to tune things up, but as I explained there's no guarantee it works.

You could try to take much more much smaller steps upwards from the standard clock to see where's the limit of your individual piece.
Just don't be too disappointed when it's plain below your wished 2950MHz.

I know there are chip selection processes

and I understand that they want to limit stock speeds

what if it fucks is that they limit the ability to overclock

That is, I have this chip blocked that I can easily overclock it to 2800mhz and I could take it higher but it turns out that they have limited their maximum frequencies and not even with new bios I can unlock it and that seems quite low I think it is the first time I see this on chips of the same range ...