The word "probably" implies that you have no idea what the statistics were on getting a perfectly good core were or why they disabled entire batches of cores based on an error from one.
You are just overdriving your point. If he doesn't want to enable updation of microcode, it won't hurt anything. If it was functioning fine before, it will also be fine without an update. There is nothing wrong with keeping the version of code that is stable for you. It isn't stupid, its a good rule of thumb. If it isn't broken, don't fix it. On Jan 17, 2011 4:15 PM, "Volker Armin Hemmann" <volkerar...@googlemail.com> wrote: > On Monday 17 January 2011 15:13:54 Jason Weisberger wrote: >> As he said in the previous message, there are almost never changelogs for >> microcode updates. >> >> I do, however, have to disagree with *never* disabling microcode updates. >> If I recall properly, the AMD Phenom II 720 was able to be unlocked to 4 >> cores via a misconfiguration that enabled it with ACC. AMD later corrected >> this issue with a microcode update. True, some motherboards worked around >> that fix a different way, but if you had a first gen board with ACC support >> you *had* to have the old microcode for it to work. The update killed your >> free core :) > > a 'free core' that is probably broken in mysterious and hard to find but > nonetheless very dangerous ways. Thanks. > >
