[SOLVED] Do Intel -F Series Chips Physically Lack the iGPU?

[Skalavesky]

As the title implies, is the iGPU physically absent from the silicon die or is it still there, but defective (failed QA testing for example) and therefore disabled?

 

[InvalidError]

No, it is merely disabled for some reason, be it a defect, failure to meet specs or just perfectly good parts getting lasered off to fulfill orders.

 

[Skalavesky]

No, it is merely disabled for some reason, be it a defect, failure to meet specs or just perfectly good parts getting lasered off to fulfill orders.

I wonder if one could come up with a firmware patch to enable the "hidden" UHD 630...
Remember ASUS' Core Unlocker? Which would enable extra cores on certain AMD processors?

Wonder if a similar thing could be done for disabled iGPUs.

 

[InvalidError]

I wonder if one could come up with a firmware patch to enable the "hidden" UHD 630...

Highly unlikely. You can only unlock features if a design or manufacturing omission leaves them enabled. Each time manufacturers fail to properly lock down features that weren't intended to be user-unlockable, they triple-down on checks to make sure it does not happen again. That's why such "miracle unlocks" are so few and far between.

Chip features are controlled by one-time-programmable fuses. Once fuses have been blown, there is no coming back.

 

[Flamebrander]

I wonder if one could come up with a firmware patch to enable the "hidden" UHD 630...
Remember ASUS' Core Unlocker? Which would enable extra cores on certain AMD processors?

Wonder if a similar thing could be done for disabled iGPUs.

It doesn't work like that. Just like how you can't overclock a non-k sku of CPU, Intel has disabled these things for reasons. Its not software on the motherboard, its baked in to the transistors of the CPU

 

[hotaru.hino]

I wonder if one could come up with a firmware patch to enable the "hidden" UHD 630...
Remember ASUS' Core Unlocker? Which would enable extra cores on certain AMD processors?

Wonder if a similar thing could be done for disabled iGPUs.

The lines going to the disabled sections are etched off and physically disconnected. The incident with the Phenom X3's was just a one-off and AMD learned their lesson real fast, considering the 6-core Ryzens are actually the 8-cores models with two cores disconnected

 

[Flamebrander]

The lines going to the disabled sections are etched off and physically disconnected. The incident with the Phenom X3's was just a one-off and AMD learned their lesson real fast, considering the 6-core Ryzens are actually the 8-cores models with two cores disconnected

really? Huh I never knew that about ryzen. Is it like a budget thing so its cheaper to produce, or is there another reason?

 

[hotaru.hino]

really? Huh I never knew that about ryzen. Is it like a budget thing so its cheaper to produce, or is there another reason?

It's because the part that the manufacturer wanted to sell has defects that prevents it working at 100% spec, but maybe it works like 90% or 80%. And rather than throw away the entire part, they physically disable the parts that don't work and sell it as a lower performance tier.

For some other examples, the 3080 is really just a 3090 with a lot of SMs disabled. The RX 5600 XT is an RX 5700XT with CUs disabled. This happens everywhere. With the exception of Intel for some reason.

 

[InvalidError]

For some other examples, the 3080 is really just a 3090 with a lot of SMs disabled. The RX 5600 XT is an RX 5700XT with CUs disabled. This happens everywhere. With the exception of Intel for some reason.

How so? Intel has 20+ SKUs based on the same die, many of which differentiated by as little as 100MHz in base/boost clocks or IGP on/off. It is the poster child of micro-binning.

If you meant that Intel isn't binning its CPUs based on IGP, don't forget about Intel's laptop CPUs, multiple IGP bins there. On the desktop side, it isn't as much of an issue since IGP-less CPUs are perfectly viable on their own, so Intel is simply choosing to scrap the IGP altogether instead of bothering with even more SKUs than the ridiculous number it already has and has been doing so ever since CPU-integrated graphics became a thing back on LGA1156.

 

[hotaru.hino]

How so? Intel has 20+ SKUs based on the same die, many of which differentiated by as little as 100MHz in base/boost clocks or IGP on/off. It is the poster child of micro-binning.

If you meant that Intel isn't binning its CPUs based on IGP, don't forget about Intel's laptop CPUs, multiple IGP bins there. On the desktop side, it isn't as much of an issue since IGP-less CPUs are perfectly viable on their own, so Intel is simply choosing to scrap the IGP altogether instead of bothering with even more SKUs than the ridiculous number it already has and has been doing so ever since CPU-integrated graphics became a thing back on LGA1156.

I was only looking at the recent mainstream processors, which their n-core processors are n-core processors, not n+something core where the something cores were disabled. Though I forgot we were talking about the F processors having the IGPUs disabled.

Also I'm referring to the specific act of having a product then cutting off the core components if they don't make the cut.

 

[InvalidError]

I was only looking at the recent mainstream processors, which their n-core processors are n-core processors, not n+something core where the something cores were disabled.

Sort of.

The 10700 and 10800/10900 share the same 10c die with two cores disabled for the i7 and some people who have de-lidded 10600kf also discovered 10c die under the IHS instead of the expected 6c design. So, although Intel may have die designs intended to fit each SKU tier to make the most out of its over-burdened fabs, dies are still being harvested downward through the product stack to some extent. The same likely applies to i3 and below being carved out of sub-par 6c dies instead of 4c.

 

[PrinceTexasLoaf]

The lines going to the disabled sections are etched off and physically disconnected. The incident with the Phenom X3's was just a one-off and AMD learned their lesson real fast, considering the 6-core Ryzens are actually the 8-cores models with two cores disconnected

WAIIIIT my Ryzen 5 2600 has 2 hidden cores that are physically impossible to unlock !?!?!??!? : DDDD

thats AweeesomEEE