Searching \ for '[OT] [IT] I'd like to fudge CPU speed' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=
Search entire site for: '[IT] I'd like to fudge CPU speed'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT] [IT] I'd like to fudge CPU speed'
2009\03\15@213137 by gavin-egan.com

flavicon
face
Hey guys, I'm fairly certain this can be done, but I can't seem to find a
piece of software to do it



Basically I have a child that wants to run some software that needs 2.2 or
2.4 ghz processor. He has a athlon or semperon or something of that ilk
running 'essentially' 2.8ghz but the processor is only 1.6 or 1.8Gnz off
top-of-my-head.



The Software recognizes this and refuses to install because the pc doesn't
reach min spec.



Is there a way to fudge the os into thinking the CPU cycles are far higher ?
I'm assuming a registry tweek.



Please bear in mind I am not trying to overclock the processor, just let the
software 'think' there is a higher speed processor fitted.





Cheers



Chris

2009\03\15@215737 by cdb

flavicon
face


:: but the processor is only 1.6 or 1.8Gnz

Is that a special frequency unit just for New Zealand PC's?

I suspect Windows gets it's info from the BIOS or queries the CPU
directly. However even if there is software that will alias the speed,
I'm not sure that the software would work satisfactorily, or at all.

Is the AMD CPU a 2.8GHz or actually a 1.8GHz? As far as the software
is concerned, the problem may not be so much the processor speed, but
the front side bus speed needed to talk to the memory - which has some
proportionality to CPU speed.

Colin
--
cdb, spam_OUTcolinTakeThisOuTspambtech-online.co.uk on 16/03/2009

Web presence: http://www.btech-online.co.uk  

Hosted by:  http://www.1and1.co.uk/?k_id=7988359







2009\03\15@220806 by Michael Algernon

flavicon
face
Is that 1.8Goz ?
{Quote hidden}

2009\03\15@221126 by pic

flavicon
face
I actually can't remember, it was a motherboard and chip/memory that I
pulled out of a machine whilst upgrading at work. As usual with AMD stuff
their actual chip speed isn't the sold speed (ie 1.8Ghz is a 2800+) Up to
this point I've actually been quite happy with AMD since about 1996 with the
old 300mhz things...LOL Plus the stuff is not with me presently.

Maybe a cycle is a cycle is a cycle and I should start looking at P4's with
actual cycles as opposed to phantom ones ! lol..



{Original Message removed}

2009\03\15@221735 by pic
flavicon
face
Yeah um sozz about the Gnz (just wondering if it is an open source chip ?)

-----Original Message-----
From: piclist-bouncesspamKILLspammit.edu [.....piclist-bouncesKILLspamspam.....mit.edu] On Behalf Of
Michael Algernon
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 2:08 PM
To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
Subject: Re: [OT] [IT] I'd like to fudge CPU speed

Is that 1.8Goz ?
{Quote hidden}

2009\03\15@222401 by Jake Anderson

flavicon
face
cdb wrote:
> :: but the processor is only 1.6 or 1.8Gnz
>
> Is that a special frequency unit just for New Zealand PC's?
>
> I suspect Windows gets it's info from the BIOS or queries the CPU
> directly. However even if there is software that will alias the speed,
> I'm not sure that the software would work satisfactorily, or at all.
>
> Is the AMD CPU a 2.8GHz or actually a 1.8GHz? As far as the software
> is concerned, the problem may not be so much the processor speed, but
> the front side bus speed needed to talk to the memory - which has some
> proportionality to CPU speed.
>
> Colin
>  
AMD use model numbers rather than clock speeds  so an "AMD 2800+" might
well be running at 1.8Ghz
They are meant to be equivalent numbers to intel P4 clock speeds (and
typically they are actually)

As far as faking out the software i'm not aware of anything that will do
that, the game has to be asking some pretty personal questions of
windows to get that.

Your best bet is to hack the installer somehow. It'll probably be
documented somewhere online, what's the "program" ;->

2009\03\15@223224 by Adam Field

flavicon
face
> The Software recognizes this and refuses to install because the pc doesn't
> reach min spec.


You could install it on a machine that meets the "spec" and then copy
over the install folder plus all the related registry items. Using
Sysinternal's Process Monitor you can see everything the installer
did; which files it created and which registry entries were changed.

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb896645.aspx

It's pretty likely that it's only the installer that checks the
machine out and that it won't check at runtime. It's worth a shot.
Transplanting windows apps isn't too painful.

2009\03\15@230031 by pic

flavicon
face
I didn't realise procmon allowed you to watch registry changes too !??

Hmm I'll go back and take a looky.

Sounds like a perfectly feasible plan.

Thanks

Chris

{Original Message removed}

2009\03\16@014916 by William \Chops\ Westfield

face picon face

On Mar 15, 2009, at 7:22 PM, picspamspam_OUTgavin-egan.com wrote:

> As usual with AMD stuff their actual chip speed isn't the sold speed  
> (ie 1.8Ghz is a 2800+)
>
> Maybe a cycle is a cycle is a cycle and I should start looking at  
> P4's with actual cycles as opposed to phantom ones ! lol..

Yeah, for a while AMD had a more efficient microarchitecture, and  
lower clock speed, than the competing Intel CPUs.  That stopped with  
the the Pentium-M (more or less), and is no longer the case with any  
of the "Core 2" chips (AFAIK.)  That's why Intel CPUs recently had a  
DROP in clock rate (top clock speed used to be 3.6GHz, and dropped to  
something like 2.6 for the core2 cpus, but the new ones were still  
faster.)

I can't answer your original question, but you're more likely to get  
an answer on some gamer forum that discusses that particular game.  
Gamers are a very created sort, in a rather different way than PIC  
programmers...  Also watch out for malware.

BillW

2009\03\16@054331 by Tony Smith

flavicon
face
> Basically I have a child that wants to run some software that needs 2.2 or
> 2.4 ghz processor. He has a athlon or semperon or something of that ilk
> running 'essentially' 2.8ghz but the processor is only 1.6 or 1.8Gnz off
> top-of-my-head.
>
> Is there a way to fudge the os into thinking the CPU cycles are far higher
?
> I'm assuming a registry tweek.


Have a look under
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\HARDWARE\DESCRIPTION\System\CentralProcessor\

Most checks like this are lazy, this is probably what the software is
reading, specifically the ~Mhz setting.  I suppose the ~ means approximate.

Oddly, if you check Control Panel / System Properties after fiddling, the
description updates, but not the speed.  Change then check it perhaps?  I'm
not sure whether a reboot resets this.  

Some systems have a logo key so System Properties can have a nice picture of
your cat.

Tony

2009\03\16@060053 by cdb

flavicon
face


:: Oddly, if you check Control Panel / System Properties after
:: fiddling, the
:: description updates, but not the speed.  Change then check it
:: perhaps?  I'm
:: not sure whether a reboot resets this.

I think it wise to make a copy of registry before tinkering.  Do you
think it is just the string that gets checked or the  Identifier as
well?

Colin
--
cdb, @spam@colinKILLspamspambtech-online.co.uk on 16/03/2009

Web presence: http://www.btech-online.co.uk  

Hosted by:  http://www.1and1.co.uk/?k_id=7988359







2009\03\16@065528 by pic

flavicon
face
Fascinating -  will play and see what happens

Cheers

Chris

-----Original Message-----
From: KILLspampiclist-bouncesKILLspamspammit.edu [RemoveMEpiclist-bouncesTakeThisOuTspammit.edu] On Behalf Of
Tony Smith
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 9:43 PM
To: 'Microcontroller discussion list - Public.'
Subject: RE: [OT] [IT] I'd like to fudge CPU speed

> Basically I have a child that wants to run some software that needs 2.2 or
> 2.4 ghz processor. He has a athlon or semperon or something of that ilk
> running 'essentially' 2.8ghz but the processor is only 1.6 or 1.8Gnz off
> top-of-my-head.
>
> Is there a way to fudge the os into thinking the CPU cycles are far higher
?
> I'm assuming a registry tweek.


Have a look under
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\HARDWARE\DESCRIPTION\System\CentralProcessor\

Most checks like this are lazy, this is probably what the software is
reading, specifically the ~Mhz setting.  I suppose the ~ means approximate.

Oddly, if you check Control Panel / System Properties after fiddling, the
description updates, but not the speed.  Change then check it perhaps?  I'm
not sure whether a reboot resets this.  

Some systems have a logo key so System Properties can have a nice picture of
your cat.

Tony

2009\03\16@071552 by Tony Smith

flavicon
face
> :: Oddly, if you check Control Panel / System Properties after
> :: fiddling, the
> :: description updates, but not the speed.  Change then check it
> :: perhaps?  I'm
> :: not sure whether a reboot resets this.
>
> I think it wise to make a copy of registry before tinkering.  Do you
> think it is just the string that gets checked or the  Identifier as
> well?


There are a few other values in there as well, such as CPU type etc.  If I
were writing an installer I wouldn't go for BIOS tests etc, I'd just read
that stuff from the registry.

I don't think Windows actually does anything important with it, but a backup
would be prudent.  I'd assume Windows would re-write it on boot up as it
verifies the installed hardware.  After all, the Key is "Description".

As seen with the speed setting, System Properties doesn't seem to get it
from the registry (unlike the description).  On some systems there is a
slight delay before that info pops up the first time it opens, so it
probably calcs it or reads the BIOS then & remembers it somewhere...

Ok, I had a look at another PC, and modified ~Mhz in the registry first.  It
didn't have the ProcessorNameString entry, so I added it - "Just another
PC".  When I opened System Properties it picked up the newly added
description, but got the CPU speed right, not the hacked ~Mhz value.  So
Windows doesn't use the ~Mhz setting, but the installer probably does.

Installers that do that are a PITA anyway, they never account for the
future, and then fail to install on newer hardware.  Eg as pointed out newer
CPUs have a slower clock, so a program that demanded a 3Ghz chip will fail
to install on a dual-core 2.6GHz system.  Yeah yeah, we know it'll be slow,
just install it anyway.

Tony



More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2009 , 2010 only
- Today
- New search...