Razer BIOS Mods - Potential to Unlock All Hidden Options

Discussion in 'Razer' started by stranula, Nov 10, 2019.

  1. highlanderx

    highlanderx Newbie

    Reputations:
    0
    Messages:
    5
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    5
    no.. that was not what was needed... didn't need the programmer after all
     
  2. pdudas

    pdudas Notebook Consultant

    Reputations:
    2
    Messages:
    113
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    31
    Thank you!

    Upgraded yesterday.
    However it seems my result of -400mV on Core and -110mV on Cache is not real. At least the Core is wrong as it seems the system handles them together.

    I see the numbers at the HW monitors (set in TS, see in Hwinfo or XTU) - but I think -400mV on an 10875H cannot be true.
    Made several tests - there is no significant difference between the undervolted values. Did test on stock, -150, -250 -400mV.

    Stock Voltage, Optimus disabled. No UV.
    3Dmark11
    [link] [link]
    P23809 Graphics 28498, Physics 16319 Combined 15406

    Geekbench 5 [link] [link]
    1231/7497
    81W maximum CPU TDP.

    Time Spy [link] [link]
    8005 Graphics 7769, CPU 9679
    GPU Power 108,98W CPU power 84,113W

    CBR20 [link] [link]
    3273
    CPU Package power:89,064W
    _______________________________________________________
    Reboot at 18:30 with -150 Core and -110 Cache Undervolt
    3Dmark11
    [link] [link]
    P23622 Graphics 28196, Physics 16113 Combined 15569

    Geekbench 5 [link] [link]
    1247/7792
    72,07W maximum CPU TDP.

    Time Spy [link] [link]
    7988 Graphics 7735, CPU 9814
    GPU Power 108,577W CPU power 67,88W

    CBR20 [link] [link]
    3861
    CPU Package power:84,862W
    _______________________________________________________
    Reboot at 18:58 with -250 Core and -110 Cache Undervolt
    3Dmark11
    [link] [link]
    P23537 Graphics 28047, Physics 16002 Combined 15695

    Geekbench 5 [link] [link]
    1242/7856
    72,155W maximum CPU TDP.

    Time Spy [link] [link]
    7991 Graphics 7735, CPU 9840
    GPU Power 108,207W CPU power 67,559W

    CBR20 [link] [link]
    3931
    CPU Package power:82,74W
    _______________________________________________________
    Reboot at 19:23 with -400 Core and -110 Cache Undervolt
    3Dmark11
    [link] [link]
    P23470 Graphics 27780, Physics 16375 Combined 15509

    Geekbench 5 [link] [link]
    1199/7557
    71,7W maximum CPU TDP.

    Time Spy [link] [link]
    7945 Graphics 7677, CPU 9914
    GPU Power 102,815W CPU power 68,222W

    CBR20 [link] [link]
    3946
    CPU Package power:83,019W


    So it seems the Cache and Core undervolted together, no matter what I set it TS. Cache counts.
     
  3. pdudas

    pdudas Notebook Consultant

    Reputations:
    2
    Messages:
    113
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    31
    Do you know where is the Bios Lock in 1.06 bios? It is not under the Chipset.

    Started the Bios update tool, then canceled.

    I think it is possible to modify the c:\Program Files (x86)\Razer\Update Tool\Charlotte5_0106.bin before the update - so all the necessary changes can be done in advance, so no HW programmer needed anymore.

    This could be an ultimate solution for all users (if the updater does not check the checksum of the bios image).

    So ideally new Razer users could download the bios update tool, start it, then cancel.
    And then modify the c:\Program Files (x86)\Razer\Update Tool\Charlotte5_0106.bin with Amibcp5 and then do the flash.
    This would lead to open Bios which is writable as my previous post.
    So CH341a is not even needed to have an open and user configurable bios (in case the user flashing from an earlier bios).

    Edit:
    found it:
    Setup -> Chipset -> PCH-IO Configuration -> Security Configuration ->BIOS Lock

    Made the changes, then did the bios update. Successfully flashed - have it on video.
    And then it stayed on 1.04.

    Tried several times - flashing successful, reboot, then it is still on 1.04.

    Have no clue why.
     
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2021
    pau1ow likes this.
  4. unclewebb

    unclewebb ThrottleStop Author

    Reputations:
    7,446
    Messages:
    6,197
    Likes Received:
    6,083
    Trophy Points:
    681
    Setting the core offset to a larger value compared to the cache offset is a trick that tells the CPU to use less voltage when running AVX instructions. The maximum difference between these two voltages should be approximately 100 mV. If you set the cache to an offset of -110 mV then there is no point in setting the core much higher than -210 mV. If you set the core to -300 mV or -400 mV or -1000 mV, the CPU will ignore any excess. Your testing shows this.

    Cinebench R20 uses lots of AVX instructions so I like using it when requesting different voltages.
    https://www.techpowerup.com/download/maxon-cinebench/

    For a baseline, start with the core and cache set equally at -110 mV. After that, start increasing only the core in steps of -25 mV. Most people get their best results with the core offset approximately 100 mV beyond the cache offset. This is the point where Cinebench results will level out. You will not see any improvement if you keep increasing only the core to -300 mV, -400 mV, or beyond.

    Here is a link to some Cinebench R20 user testing.
    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1B2HZjwlS6B5vO-m6HrkYMuiu8yVh3LvY/view?usp=sharing

    Intel XTU forces the core and cache offset registers to the same value. For the 8th and 9th Gen mobile CPUs, you seem to get better performance when you set the core offset request higher than the cache. I believe the 10th Gen CPUs are the same.

    Two tests, one at an offset of -110 mV for both voltages and a second test with the core at -210 mV and the cache at -110 mV should prove if this is true for 10th Gen CPUs too. Your results above seem to show this.
     
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2021
    pau1ow likes this.
  5. pdudas

    pdudas Notebook Consultant

    Reputations:
    2
    Messages:
    113
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    31
    Thank you for the detailed explanation!

    I'll do the test tomorrow and will link the results here.
    I also concluded that the difference in the core values are approximately 200mV, that's why I doubted the -400mV as Core UV.
     
    pau1ow likes this.
  6. phusho

    phusho Notebook Enthusiast

    Reputations:
    0
    Messages:
    47
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Mine was Samsung too
     
Loading...

Share This Page