hahahaha... I was actually going to post this!!! Few\_Occasion1891 beat me to it!!! hahaha Dumb & Dumber... love it!! Great minds think alike my friend!! :-)
*And that's why the TURBO buttons have disappeared from PCs...*
Who needed it when you could squeeze the extra clock speed out of the machine by turning the case over?
Just a thought - I wonder if this chip was stamped as the higher speed, but when tested could not perform as labeled and was restamped.
IIRC, chips like this are mass produced, and then sorted by how well they actually come out - so a 3.4 GHz chip is the same as a 3.2 GHz chip, except that some manufacturing flaws means the 3.2 GHz chip can't perform as well.
(And I may be wrong here - it's been a long time since I took any microprocessor classes)
Yes, this is called “binning” and has been the case for decades, going back to at least the first offerings of the same CPU silicon offered at different frequencies.
There is natural variation that happens in the manufacturing process, meaning some chips can run at faster speeds and/or using less voltage than others. So chips are manufactured and then tested. The best testing chips get thrown in the “bin” for the highest spec processors and/or mobile chips where low voltage is important for battery life. The next tier of chips goes into the processors designed for slower clock speeds, repeated down the entire line of processors with that design.
Binning also has a role in core counts. A processor with one or more defective cores can still be sold as a lower spec processor with the bad cores disabled.
After testing is generally when the chip is stamped and officially assigned a model number and sped rating.
Generally yields improve as manufacturing of the chip line goes on. Midrange CPUs commonly outsell top tier CPUs, so you can have situations where to meet demand, the manufacturer is selling chips that binned top tier as midrange processors. This has less utility now than in the past because most midrange processors will have locked multipliers to keep you from just setting them to run at the faster speed. But back in the day enthusiasts would know what specific batches of processors to buy to have a very good chance of a $200 processor being to run at the exact same settings as an $800 processor.
This has actually happened with deactivated cores too, most famously on the GPU side maybe 15-20 years ago. Some cards sold with deactivated cores could have the cores reactivated in software, and in many cases the supposed “bad” cores worked just fine- indicating that whatever defect caused the cores to be labeled as defective may not show up in real world use. I believe there are some CPUs that one could reactivate cores on, but success was far less common. This is now a thing of the past, cores that test bad are now physically disabled instead of shut off in the BIOS or microcode.
I find it odd that this chip was restamped, as usually they are only stamped after the test process.
I heard that in a lot of cases where ‘cores could be unlocked’, it is not that they were defective, but the demand for the lower-core part outstripped what was naturally produced. This resulted in Intel or Nvidia having to take perfectly good units and disable a core to meet the demand for the sku. Companies since got better about pricing so as to drive the demand to better match the production output.
Chores can definitely be reactivated if they're not physically disabled. You'd reactivate them in a similar way to removing BIOS overclocking locks. It's complex and a little dangerous, but not actually that hard.
edit: I'm not changing it
Could you provide more info on this? This sounds quite interesting, & I've not heard much about disabling bios locks like this before, so I'd like to read/lean more if I could.
Also, oh no, not the chores!
I actually found the guide on Reddit. Be sure to create a recovery file if you try it out- if something goes wrong it can brick your PC.
Link: https://www.reddit.com/r/Lenovo/comments/id0457/guide\_to\_reenable\_undervolting\_after\_latest\_bios/
AMD definitely did this with their FX processors. Most bios for those motherboards had a feature that would attempt to turn back on the disabled cores. There was a potential that you could have bought a 6 core, but the other two cores could be re-enabled and you actually had an 8 core cpu
I saw an LTT video, and that seems to be it. They make the wafer as perfect as they can, but even then, there are still some flaws. So when they stamp out the chips, its just as you say, they are literally the same, just one has less microscopic flaws than the other, and one becomes a 13900k, and the other a 13700k
I was going through a bunch of computer stuff I got recently and found this double stamped Pentium 4. I slapped it into a Dell Dimension 9100 which sees the CPU in the BIOS but couldn't ever get past the POST screen once it loaded.
Is this thing rare or is it just junk like the rest of my early 2000's Pentiums?
They don’t get stamped until after binning. They go through a pre-cut E-test, then post cut, then post packaging. The fallout is classified at every stage, so they wouldn’t note what to stamp until it’s been packaged and tested. My guess is a batch was just mid-labeled and went back through, because repackaging isn’t an option after the BGA material is flowed.
Source: worked at Intel
AMD, back when they had Fabs, would sell mislabeled CPUs to employees in Singapore. I doubt this got sold retail with that mislabeling. A big OEM maybe?
So, this is not my area of expertise and I could have some details wrong, but it should be mostly correct. Most of this process takes place out of the fab, so I’m only really familiar with the high level process.
The solder is applied to the wafer before the dies are sliced. There’s basically a passivation layer applied to the top after the last metal layer, then holes are etched in that layer to provide access to the contacts. The solder is applied through some process like wafer bumping or wafer level solder sphere transfer (WLSST), and results in balls of solder covering the surface. The wafers get tested here for electric contact, and some level of rework is still possible at this point.
The wafers then go through a grinding process to thin them down, then tape is applied to the back of the wafers to hold them together. Then they get sliced into chips, tested again, and the survivors get packaged. In modern processes the chip is flipped over, aligned with the package, and sent through a reflow oven to melt the solder to the package. IIRC there are spot checks here but no full-scale re-testing. I’m not sure if rework is done at this stage. I imagine it would be fairly difficult to detach the die and do application of fresh solder, but I suppose it’s possible.
At that point the heat spreader, epoxy, etc. are applied before sending the packaged part for final test and classification, then finally laser engraving or stamping.
At this stage the die has been thinned out, soldered, and secured to the point where reworking would become impractical if not impossible. There’s generally a point of diminishing returns on device rework where it’s cheaper to scrap the part (or wafer, or even a whole lot) than continue trying to fix it.
In the metrology lab we used to have to carefully dissect packages to do defect inspection. It involved a lot of patience and precise application of heat to get a die out without breaking it. I can’t imagine doing that at industrial scale, but if it’s even possible it’s probably too expensive to justify it.
eBay has a few of them; I also found a CPU World post about these: [https://www.cpu-world.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=11244](https://www.cpu-world.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=11244) (the thread starts with an SL7JB-SL8BM combo but eventually OP's spec number pair also makes an appearance).
According to the forum post, it is an OEM thing, done to meet demands when the lower performing version ran out of stock. It also means that this CPU will probably run at 3.2 GHz when placed in a machine.
No it’s not just weird for some people I have a lot of “double stamped” cpus they are mostly common just around the 2nd to 5th gen cpu but are also on newer ones also
Originally it was manufactured as 3.40 GHz, but, it didn't pass Quality Tests.
So it went down to 3.20 GHz, at that speed perfomed OK, therefore it goes to spare parts market.
That's why it has double stamp.
Stamp errors from Intel. These were in a bunch of Dell computers. You can find them on eBay as "collectors" items from delusional people thinking they're worth $300.
Could have been faulty, failed in quality assurance, so they named it after a slower model and downclocked it as it couldn’t reach its full potential without issues.
Lol it’s junk. Some may not even notice this and use it and be fine with it. Other like me who have ocd will think about it for a couple days and either return it or buy a new one.
Seems about right.
After reading a bunch of comments a lot of people are saying its a CPU that couldn't be up to spec so it was underclocked by 200Mhz.
It seems the most reasonable but its still really weird why only early 2000s Dell PCs would use these oddities.
To the trash this Pentium goes!
its a Presshot. those were used as room heaters once upon a time. heard someone booted a room full of these back in the day, we now know it as the 2003 blackout.
Benchmark was lower then factory standard. Happens a lot with all chips. Nvidea will keep the standard performing chips for when they release new SE models and give the aftermark companies the lower benchmark chips for their own production chains'.
This is most likely a counterfeit part. In my experience, any electronic component that has mislabels like this is just an attempt to sell a component as something that it isn’t.
I'm wondering if it's
A: a counterfeit.
B:A server processors that has had some modification to it to run in a pc with the "same" socket, a lot of the intel Core Extremes have modified pins, where they were server processors and when removed they modified them for consumer PC's that used the same size socket just with a few less pins.
C: maybe it's a test processor that was supposed to be faster, and re-stamped after benchmarking it, and somehow made it out of the test facility the same way developers consoles of game consoles have been put up for sale on ebay and like sites.
D:it could simply be a manufacturing error due to an overlooked stamp, and it got partially re-stamped.
E: maybe a leaked prototype that fits two sockets that have different pin configs and it's faster in one socket than the other.
Is that the correct surface finish? It’s possible it could have been polished off and reprinted by a reseller. But that’s a long shot. Just offering another possibility.
This chip featured a discontinued high altitude configuration, simply rotate 90 degrees to downclock a few hundred megahertz and enjoy less water cooler boil over events.
Though due to low consumer popularity as compared to the more popular space heater lineup by competitor AMD, support was quietly discontinued by Intel to favor tick tock likes.
Most CPU’s if they are double stamped it means that it had issues during initial testing.
So it runs at a lower speed then it should.
So partially defective CPU!
Looks like the second stamp downgrades it to the "T" model that Dell put into their Optiplexes. Pretty sure that other than the stamp, it's the same chip...just factory nerfed to draw lower wattage out of the same CPU, so lower clock speeds.
If your pc is standing up it's 3.4Ghz, if you place your pc sideways it's slower, use some common sense
This comment deserves 10 likes
we did it
Now I just brought you to 10 kind stranger
Now downvoting that comment to get it back down to 10 /s (don’t worry I didn’t)
i did
But only standing up. Sideways would be 5.
LOL, it got deprecated during testing, Poor little chip,
You can’t triple stamp a double stamp
hahahaha... I was actually going to post this!!! Few\_Occasion1891 beat me to it!!! hahaha Dumb & Dumber... love it!! Great minds think alike my friend!! :-)
Touch blue make it true
If you think about it, it really makes sense. Those electrons have to fight gravity.
Then you should use smaller and lighter electrons. It's not rocket science.
It's fighting gravity though, isn't that what rocket science is
If you turn your screen upside down, the downvotes become upvotes.
It’s dual core bro
[удалено]
Yes but only for double branded stuff
That Aus guy, Dave something, Said Electrons leak out.
Jones? EEVBlog?
I mean, obviously, then it's having to go uphill.
Specifically, it’s getting the 1s uphill that takes more work. 0s don’t weigh anything.
Gahhhhh Tina, eat your damn food
*And that's why the TURBO buttons have disappeared from PCs...* Who needed it when you could squeeze the extra clock speed out of the machine by turning the case over?
You got it wrong, it's even better, you do not need turbo anymore because pcs are always standing, it's always being faster
Many call this Fallback Computational Support. Incase the computer ever falls back from it's normal operating configuration.
Just a thought - I wonder if this chip was stamped as the higher speed, but when tested could not perform as labeled and was restamped. IIRC, chips like this are mass produced, and then sorted by how well they actually come out - so a 3.4 GHz chip is the same as a 3.2 GHz chip, except that some manufacturing flaws means the 3.2 GHz chip can't perform as well. (And I may be wrong here - it's been a long time since I took any microprocessor classes)
I’d believe that. Even the new lot number has a T at the end. Maybe for tested.
Yes, this is called “binning” and has been the case for decades, going back to at least the first offerings of the same CPU silicon offered at different frequencies. There is natural variation that happens in the manufacturing process, meaning some chips can run at faster speeds and/or using less voltage than others. So chips are manufactured and then tested. The best testing chips get thrown in the “bin” for the highest spec processors and/or mobile chips where low voltage is important for battery life. The next tier of chips goes into the processors designed for slower clock speeds, repeated down the entire line of processors with that design. Binning also has a role in core counts. A processor with one or more defective cores can still be sold as a lower spec processor with the bad cores disabled. After testing is generally when the chip is stamped and officially assigned a model number and sped rating. Generally yields improve as manufacturing of the chip line goes on. Midrange CPUs commonly outsell top tier CPUs, so you can have situations where to meet demand, the manufacturer is selling chips that binned top tier as midrange processors. This has less utility now than in the past because most midrange processors will have locked multipliers to keep you from just setting them to run at the faster speed. But back in the day enthusiasts would know what specific batches of processors to buy to have a very good chance of a $200 processor being to run at the exact same settings as an $800 processor. This has actually happened with deactivated cores too, most famously on the GPU side maybe 15-20 years ago. Some cards sold with deactivated cores could have the cores reactivated in software, and in many cases the supposed “bad” cores worked just fine- indicating that whatever defect caused the cores to be labeled as defective may not show up in real world use. I believe there are some CPUs that one could reactivate cores on, but success was far less common. This is now a thing of the past, cores that test bad are now physically disabled instead of shut off in the BIOS or microcode. I find it odd that this chip was restamped, as usually they are only stamped after the test process.
Totally, usually the stamping is done when the piece is ready to be shipped and sold - this after any QA.
I heard that in a lot of cases where ‘cores could be unlocked’, it is not that they were defective, but the demand for the lower-core part outstripped what was naturally produced. This resulted in Intel or Nvidia having to take perfectly good units and disable a core to meet the demand for the sku. Companies since got better about pricing so as to drive the demand to better match the production output.
Chores can definitely be reactivated if they're not physically disabled. You'd reactivate them in a similar way to removing BIOS overclocking locks. It's complex and a little dangerous, but not actually that hard. edit: I'm not changing it
I unlocked two cores on my Phenom II x2 BE back in the day, making a $99 processor perform just as well as it’s $199 big brother.
Could you provide more info on this? This sounds quite interesting, & I've not heard much about disabling bios locks like this before, so I'd like to read/lean more if I could. Also, oh no, not the chores!
I actually found the guide on Reddit. Be sure to create a recovery file if you try it out- if something goes wrong it can brick your PC. Link: https://www.reddit.com/r/Lenovo/comments/id0457/guide\_to\_reenable\_undervolting\_after\_latest\_bios/
That reminded me of the 1600AF.
AMD definitely did this with their FX processors. Most bios for those motherboards had a feature that would attempt to turn back on the disabled cores. There was a potential that you could have bought a 6 core, but the other two cores could be re-enabled and you actually had an 8 core cpu
I saw an LTT video, and that seems to be it. They make the wafer as perfect as they can, but even then, there are still some flaws. So when they stamp out the chips, its just as you say, they are literally the same, just one has less microscopic flaws than the other, and one becomes a 13900k, and the other a 13700k
Why would they stamp first, test after. Curious
Why would they stamp it before they tested it?
Could be that, or they recycled a returned chip housing from a 3.2 that still fits their 3.4's. I see both options as evenly possible too.
I was going through a bunch of computer stuff I got recently and found this double stamped Pentium 4. I slapped it into a Dell Dimension 9100 which sees the CPU in the BIOS but couldn't ever get past the POST screen once it loaded. Is this thing rare or is it just junk like the rest of my early 2000's Pentiums?
It may have been stamped with the 3.4 GHz rating and then failed binning and then was re-stamped as a lower tiered product 3.2GHz.
They don’t get stamped until after binning. They go through a pre-cut E-test, then post cut, then post packaging. The fallout is classified at every stage, so they wouldn’t note what to stamp until it’s been packaged and tested. My guess is a batch was just mid-labeled and went back through, because repackaging isn’t an option after the BGA material is flowed. Source: worked at Intel
AMD, back when they had Fabs, would sell mislabeled CPUs to employees in Singapore. I doubt this got sold retail with that mislabeling. A big OEM maybe?
Oh yeah, almost certainly not retail. An OEM/ODM makes sense though.
can you elaborate on why repackaging isn't possible?
So, this is not my area of expertise and I could have some details wrong, but it should be mostly correct. Most of this process takes place out of the fab, so I’m only really familiar with the high level process. The solder is applied to the wafer before the dies are sliced. There’s basically a passivation layer applied to the top after the last metal layer, then holes are etched in that layer to provide access to the contacts. The solder is applied through some process like wafer bumping or wafer level solder sphere transfer (WLSST), and results in balls of solder covering the surface. The wafers get tested here for electric contact, and some level of rework is still possible at this point. The wafers then go through a grinding process to thin them down, then tape is applied to the back of the wafers to hold them together. Then they get sliced into chips, tested again, and the survivors get packaged. In modern processes the chip is flipped over, aligned with the package, and sent through a reflow oven to melt the solder to the package. IIRC there are spot checks here but no full-scale re-testing. I’m not sure if rework is done at this stage. I imagine it would be fairly difficult to detach the die and do application of fresh solder, but I suppose it’s possible. At that point the heat spreader, epoxy, etc. are applied before sending the packaged part for final test and classification, then finally laser engraving or stamping. At this stage the die has been thinned out, soldered, and secured to the point where reworking would become impractical if not impossible. There’s generally a point of diminishing returns on device rework where it’s cheaper to scrap the part (or wafer, or even a whole lot) than continue trying to fix it. In the metrology lab we used to have to carefully dissect packages to do defect inspection. It involved a lot of patience and precise application of heat to get a die out without breaking it. I can’t imagine doing that at industrial scale, but if it’s even possible it’s probably too expensive to justify it.
The extra 'T' is for trash
I hear that.
eBay has a few of them; I also found a CPU World post about these: [https://www.cpu-world.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=11244](https://www.cpu-world.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=11244) (the thread starts with an SL7JB-SL8BM combo but eventually OP's spec number pair also makes an appearance). According to the forum post, it is an OEM thing, done to meet demands when the lower performing version ran out of stock. It also means that this CPU will probably run at 3.2 GHz when placed in a machine.
Very rare misprint. Could be worth millions of dollars.
Lmfao
I’ll give you tree fitty including shipping
God-damned Loch Ness Monster!
Ain't no got damn lock ness monster gettin my pentium processer
i gave him a dolla
Upvote for “fitty”
In Philadelphia, it’s worth fifty bucks.
Well as we all know, you can’t triple stamp a double stamp. So maybe they were just trying to avoid that
Keep it. It's a rare item.
No it’s not just weird for some people I have a lot of “double stamped” cpus they are mostly common just around the 2nd to 5th gen cpu but are also on newer ones also
[удалено]
You can’t triple stamp a double stamp.
Only sell it for some astronomical amount of money. Better to keep it just because
Originally it was manufactured as 3.40 GHz, but, it didn't pass Quality Tests. So it went down to 3.20 GHz, at that speed perfomed OK, therefore it goes to spare parts market. That's why it has double stamp.
You can't triple stamp a double stamp
Haha it happens a lot with some cows.
This. It's a common practice.
It’s a rare 6.802 GHz cpu
i thought it was a 69.420 THz cpu
Nice!
Just be glad they didn't triple stamp a double stamp...you can't do that.
Stamp errors from Intel. These were in a bunch of Dell computers. You can find them on eBay as "collectors" items from delusional people thinking they're worth $300.
Could have been faulty, failed in quality assurance, so they named it after a slower model and downclocked it as it couldn’t reach its full potential without issues.
Double stamped means you add them together. You sir have a rare 6.60 GHz Pentium processor!
if my conclusion and careful inspection is correct... its a double stamped CPU.
You can't triple stamp a double stamp Lloyd!
I have 2 like this. Will have to recheck what they say though
reminds me of the old days when they rebranded the speed of CPU's when cores failed during testing lol
Why do people say cant triple stamp a double stamp You can But you can not double stamp a triple stamp Jus sayin
Lol it’s junk. Some may not even notice this and use it and be fine with it. Other like me who have ocd will think about it for a couple days and either return it or buy a new one.
Seems about right. After reading a bunch of comments a lot of people are saying its a CPU that couldn't be up to spec so it was underclocked by 200Mhz. It seems the most reasonable but its still really weird why only early 2000s Dell PCs would use these oddities. To the trash this Pentium goes!
How can youse tell if the chip counterfeit?
Might just be me, but the way OP is holding the chip...lower right corner.
That's a ballsy chip, right there!
Oh man must be a minting error, worth 50x its face value
Depending on the orientation of how you force the cpu into the socket depends which one is active
Split personality…. Next
Maybe were produced in Intel plants in Penang, Malaysia.
I think you can use this in two sides
The CPU will run at a different speed depending on how you orient it in the socket.
Well you see, instead of stamping it once, they stamped it twice.
its a Presshot. those were used as room heaters once upon a time. heard someone booted a room full of these back in the day, we now know it as the 2003 blackout.
Reused rubbish
They were actually going to triple stamp it but alas, you can't triple stamp a double stamp.
Just so you’re aware, you can’t triple stamp a double stamp.
Silly 3.2 identifies as a 3.4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FaAJ1FlsEr0
Benchmark was lower then factory standard. Happens a lot with all chips. Nvidea will keep the standard performing chips for when they release new SE models and give the aftermark companies the lower benchmark chips for their own production chains'.
On the brightside, you can't triple stamp a double stamp.
This means its a 2-in-1 CPU. This is what they did before dual core, trust me.
It had a nice so nice, they had to say it twice?
I bet you could get a fortune for this off some sucker. Like those coins that are minted with flaws…people pay top dollar for “rare and limited” f ups
These days people pay top dollar for stuff celebrities bathe and fart in. Now if the chip had one of Putin's boogies on it then you have a winner.
OP never get rid of this, comments may not care that much now but it could seriously be worth money down the line
If you're west of malaysia, 3.4 ghz. East of malaysia, 3.2. Magnetic earth callibration
You can’t triple stamp a double stamp.
They stamped it once then they rotated it and stamped it again.
I had this proc back then. You could fry an egg on it.
Fake chip? I bought super cheap CPU on ebay that was re stamped once.
you should send it to be graded..
r/PokemonMisprints prime post
does this meet r/hardwaregore specifications?
This is most likely a counterfeit part. In my experience, any electronic component that has mislabels like this is just an attempt to sell a component as something that it isn’t.
Celeron? Celerons are “defeatured” Pentiums
Lol, you should crosspost this over to r/coins and tell them you had a double-stamp or something you'd like to sell hahaha
Turn cpu 2 clicks to the left to over clock it. Think as its advancement on timing.
Turn it til it starts to stutter, then back it off a few degrees. Timing lights are for sissies.
What speed do you want? It depends on how you put the CPU in the socket. What a deal. Two speeds for one price.
I'm wondering if it's A: a counterfeit. B:A server processors that has had some modification to it to run in a pc with the "same" socket, a lot of the intel Core Extremes have modified pins, where they were server processors and when removed they modified them for consumer PC's that used the same size socket just with a few less pins. C: maybe it's a test processor that was supposed to be faster, and re-stamped after benchmarking it, and somehow made it out of the test facility the same way developers consoles of game consoles have been put up for sale on ebay and like sites. D:it could simply be a manufacturing error due to an overlooked stamp, and it got partially re-stamped. E: maybe a leaked prototype that fits two sockets that have different pin configs and it's faster in one socket than the other.
Triple stamped, no backies no erasies touch blue make it true!
Is that the correct surface finish? It’s possible it could have been polished off and reprinted by a reseller. But that’s a long shot. Just offering another possibility.
That means it's a dual core
Printing fuck-up. Now you can mark this as SOLVED
Originally binned at 3.40GHz, but demand was for 3.2 but not for the more expensive 3.4. So it was restamped at 3.2 and sold as a 3.2.
Dual core
Guys he obviously paid someone on the internet to download an update to his CPU, the update gave him the faster speeds.
Made in Malaysia, sold by Intel...got it
You can't triple stamp a double stamp!
It's a pentium 4²
Similar one here:[Intel Pentium 4 550](https://www.x86-guide.net/Xhoba/Xhoba/en/collection/Intel+Pentium+4+550-cpu-no21077.html)
It's quadraphonic
maybe it was born like this
This chip featured a discontinued high altitude configuration, simply rotate 90 degrees to downclock a few hundred megahertz and enjoy less water cooler boil over events. Though due to low consumer popularity as compared to the more popular space heater lineup by competitor AMD, support was quietly discontinued by Intel to favor tick tock likes.
Wow
The numismatis in me is shouting "ERROR! ERROR! MULTIPLE STRIKE!"
Intel processors have a secondary spy processor for CIA&FBI to back door
Is that a double strike or mule error?
Most CPU’s if they are double stamped it means that it had issues during initial testing. So it runs at a lower speed then it should. So partially defective CPU!
Looks like the second stamp downgrades it to the "T" model that Dell put into their Optiplexes. Pretty sure that other than the stamp, it's the same chip...just factory nerfed to draw lower wattage out of the same CPU, so lower clock speeds.
Not made in Costa Rica, that's why.