Official Gateway 78xx Series FX BIOS - 9c.05.00 thru 9c.17.00

I bought one on 1/6/09 and it came with the .11 bios

 

one of mine from Tiger came with a 9.09 the other 9.17

 

guys we have already tried several different ways to dump the bios (including me) cant figure it out. all i get is an error or a 0kb file. youll just have to either buy a new one or wait patiently for real not say you have then ask around lolz. but anyway i personally have given up i even harassed gateway alot but i got no where (maybe i need to be a bit more of a you know what to them?) but anyway i think only a skilled hacker or reverse engineer can help us now . or maybe one of you guys can harass gateways tech support even more. just a hint to get yah started you must call them and ask for level 2 support as the level one guys are morons and just say no cant help you. they even tell yah stuff that isnt true like raid 0 doesnt work on a p7805u even though i was using it when i called lol.

 

Ryo , how did you get 2,39GHz in your P8400?

 

the .17 bios doesn't have an unlocked multiplier option for extreme cpus either right?
Lord Devlin what is your 3dmark06 score and on what oc settings?? i'm thinking of getting an x9100 myself..

 

@metal angel
honestly i have no idea why but my cpu is a 9x multiplier i checked it with every thing i could and it is 9.0 multiplier but strangely enough its only 9x multiplier when the cpu voltage is 1.2 anything lower and its at 8.5 or 6

 

I haven't really bothered with my 3dmark06 score. This X9100 is the one E-wrecked was running before he sold it to me. I don't have it overclocked, there's no option in the .12 BIOS to do this. I do have it undervolted with RMClock to 1.05 volts at max multiplier. Its been stable so far.

 

I know about the .12 bios, i was asking about the .17 if anyone knows..

 

Hi guy,

I just got my 7805u and haven't been able to do that many tests, but I did run furmark and got the GPU temp to go to almost 80. I think it isn't stressing it enough because i'm not setting it up right, but anyways.

I installed DemiGod and played that last night and the GPU temp went up to a high of about 86C.

Well, last night it froze twice not doing much, just running mozilla and a few apps open. Anyone know why this might be? Think I have a defective laptop.

This morning I installed the .12 bios and after playing around with the laptop for awhile weird colored lines came up on my screen and I had to force restart the laptop.

Also, when I plug in my headphones it doesn't switch the sound automatically to the headphones. I read something about updating to the .12 bios and it needing the sound drivers installed. whats that about?

Just putting some stuff out their to see if anyone has any ideas, gonna run more stress tests when I can, any suggestions to which ones I should run?

Also what drivers should i update? I was thinking about getting the 185.20 nVidia driver from laptop2go, is that good?

Any other drivers I should get and also, can someone point me towards what I should uninstall on the 7805u, I've already gotten rid of norton, just wondering what other things are useless and are taking up my resources(don't want to uninstall something that i'm gonna need)

Thank you very much for any help u guys can give, very excited about this new laptop, just hope I can get the problems to go away or confirm that it's defective and send it back.

 

for your headphone problem...
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showpost.php?p=4798421&postcount=396

 

Well, got my Quad today. And CRAAAAAAAAPPPP! It still won't boot. Powers on, but no boot. No screen change. Nothing. Poof! There goes $230. UNless something crazy happens. May have to get a Q9000 and see if it will work. Maybe it's the only one that will. Or maybe there is still a hardware issue somewhere. Who knows.............Gotta Q9100 for sale..........

 

Sorry to hear..............

 

Sorry to hear dude--

 

Unless that other kid gets his 7808-Pulled-Quad to work in his 7805.... The .17 bios myth seems to be busted.

No worries, the P9600 is still an amazing proc.

 

This blows...

 

Who? Maybe he will buy mine and I his?

 

Lol!

So the myth's finally busted... No quad for the 780X masses...

 

I'm so sorry for Pmassey but I'm very sure he will see his CPU in no time and maybe even making a profit on it.
On the other end, I'm kind of "relieved" once I installed a brand new T9900 on my P-7811 FX just 2 weeks ago

So, it seems we are "condemned" to Dual Core...

 

I kind of want someone to try the Q9000 now .

 

Here, be my guest---

http://cgi.ebay.com/Intel-Q9000-Qua...s?hash=item45ebe28f7a&_trksid=p3286.m63.l1177

 

It's official - No Quad Core support for the P-780X series---

I received the QX9300 today, and since pmassey already confirmed that the Q9100 (ES QGMU version) did not work, I wasted no time and installed the QX9300 (OEM version) in my P-7805u (to recap, I have the .17 BIOS).

I booted the machine and voila, it powered on but the screen was blank--

So whoever is selling these quad cores and claiming compatibility with the 7805 or 7801, just simply did not bother to actually put one in a 7805-- Predictably, none of these sellers would show you any pictures of the processors working in the 7805 or 7801---

I am so glad to put this issue to rest. Sorry guys, but there's no quad support for the 780X series.

 

.

 

....what ever happened to the person who ordered the Quad-core Fx model? they haven't posted any pics/info in regards to it.

 

Costs too much. Supply and demand.....

 

They posted some pics of Heat sink and BIOS screen shot I believe. The BIOS was the .17 that's what is so baffling.

Soory dude! You'll sell it though or find a 7808 owner that wants it and exchange like I hope to do.......

 

pmassey31545 - You should let someone else spend their hard earned cash just to find out if indeed the Q9000 will work in the 7805u.

I really don't know if it's worth it-- All this time and money spent over a single piece of hardware.

But I'm not going to suggest to stop the search. Judging from the response, people are still hoping that all it will take is that single missing element for the QUAD to work.

I have a Clevo M860ETU coming in-- That's the backup plan-

 

Does anyone familiar with 78xx BIOS', know what version 17 does to improve over version 12? I think its well-established that Gateway revised the motherboard for Quad-core CPUs and ships this BIOS with those machines and newer Dual-core laptops, but what other features, if any, does this new BIOS revision contain?

 

The 7808 originally comes with Q9000, the rumor says its bios of .17. but still no proof

 

LOL maybe you can be the one to prove wrong this malicious conspiracy with your own money and camera then...

Its been said for a long time now that quads aren't supported by just the socket P but a revision of socket P. Something along the lines of socket P+, not sure exactly...

 

the guy with the 7808 said it's the .17
i think the problem is something with the proper pin layout support, that's what electrosoft said in an other thread..

thinking to get an intel turbo memory, anyone approves/disapproves it?
2gb or 4gb?

 

I havn't read a single benefit to turbo memory. I wouldn't waste my money... But this is for another thread...

 

No Quad cores for older 78xx's, possible reason.............

It is NOT the socket from what I've found maybe it is the controler. There are two, and 82801IBM and an 82801IEM, we seem to have, what Sisandra calls, the 82801DBM (at least with mine). So maybe it is our controler,

Per Intel we need the 82801IEM or IBM with the PM45 chipset..............

http://ark.intel.com/Platforms.aspx?platform=33326&mode=true

http://ark.intel.com/Platforms.aspx?platform=33326&mode=true

SiSoftware Sandra

System Buses

System Bus 13
Type : PCI66
Multiplier : 1x
Bridge : Intel 82801BAM/CAM/DBM (ICH2-M/3-M/4-M) Hub Interface to PCI Bridge

 

How do we get it?

 

You buy a 7808-

 

not even sure though because the T9900 list the same controler as compatability.

http://ark.intel.com/cpu.aspx?groupId=39312

but I'm trying.................

 

I'm on it. Got one coming. Not really!

 

I think I just figured it out (confirming what was thought)...

Here is the pin layout on a T9800 (confirmed compatible, Socket P):


Now, here is the pin layout on a Q9100 (supposedly Socket P):


As you can see (look at the bottom-right-hand), there is actually a huge difference confirming the whole "Socket P'" thing which is actually mentioned on Wikipedia of all places!

 

Ok, so what do we need to do to make the quad work?

 

A new motherboard.....it's not going to happen folks...no quad for 7811 and 7805..

I believe the end of the line performance wise is the T9900....get one (I did 3 weeks ago and works perfectly) and make peace with yourself!!!

 

why not an x9100 with the hope that one day there will be a new bios version that overclocks it?? it's cheaper anyway with the same performance..

 

Thats too bad- i play ut3 and both cores are maxed out-

 

True...the X9100 is good too....but the 45W TDP makes me a bit more nervous...and I don't know how advisable is to overclock a laptop...maybe I'm pessimistic but I do not think we are going to see the OC feature unlocked in potential new BIOS releases either...if we are indeed going to get new BIOS releases at all....

Well I'm suspicious on the reliability of the % usage parameter in the task manager under certain circumstances...and I tell you why.....I play Flight Simulator 2004, which is a very old game anyway (released in summer of 2003) and very CPU intensive.

Well with all the settings of the game to the max and literally thousands of add-ons and extremely crowded skies with traffic everywhere, my P-7811 FX (with the new T9900 on it) run the sim like a breeze...feels like nothing, I can open literally several other programs andI will not notice any decrease in performance...if I look at the task manager, one of the core runs at 100% (FS2004 is a single thread game, it cannot use the other core)

Now it gets interesting...if I lower all the setting to the absolute minimum and flying from a simple airstrip with no traffic at all with the default Cessna, which is the "lightest" plane in the fleet, (with that settings, the game would runs fairly well even on a prehistoric Pentium II 600 MHz machine with integrated 8 MB graphics....I did it personally) then I switch the affinity of all the other processes running to the other core, if I look at the core running only FS2004 it is still at 100%!!! There is not way that single core is running at full capacity with settings so low.....I don't know but it seems to me that some applications can somewhat "book on paper" all the available CPU resources without necessarily using them, at least not all the time....

Many thinks that is better to have a dual core with higher frequency than a quad at lower GHz...theoretically, even if we could install a QX9300 on our machines, we would lose a hefty 0.53 Ghz compared to a T9900 or a X9100 on a core to core frequency comparison...that seems a lot to lose for me....

 

I do get lags here and there with UT3 on. I'm not really interested in overclocking-- Seems like asking for trouble.

 

I've been following this and a few other threads for a while now and I figure I'll throw my $.02 in on the whole Quad on the 7805 topic.

I downloaded the spec sheets for both the Core2Duo and Core2Quad processors and it's going to need more than just a BIOS update to get a Quad working on a 7805.

For example, pin AE-8 on the Core2Duo is VSS, which I take is connected to a voltage source. On the Core2Quad, it's connected to a clock source BPM_2[3]#. There's a few other pins like this between the two chips.

So, in a nutshell, no BIOS update is going to make it happen.

There may still be a way to make it work, but it's going to involve using jumper wires, razor blades, nail polish (to insulate pins), finding clock sources on the board, and nerves of steel.

For now, it looks like the only way to make it happen is to buy a 7808.

 

Ther pin out compatibilty is still not answered by Intel. Look at the below image of a T9900 (see EDTIT though), same missing pin............


EDIT; This may not be a T9900, His advertising page properties of the pic list this as a X9100QS

 

Yes, it IS answered by Intel. It's nothing to do with missing or added pins, rather that pins that had one assignment on the Core2Duo now have a different assignment on the Core2Quad. The missing pin in the corner is simply for correct orientation in the socket.

The only way you can see the difference is to look at the spec sheets. Here's the PDF files with the pinouts in them:

Core2Quad:
http://download.intel.com/design/processor/datashts/320390.pdf

(refer to page 40 and 41 to see the pinout list. The pages following it specify what the pinouts are).

Core2Duo:
http://download.intel.com/design/mobile/datashts/31674505.pdf

(refer to page 49 and 50 to see the pinout list).

 

Regardless. The number of pins are the same between the processors because Intel used the same socket for them. They probably did it as a cost saving measure; ODM's wouldn't have to source a new socket to make a quad core system. They'd only need to change the pin assignments on the board and/or add a clock source.

 

See Table 15, it bolsters the point the PM45/GM45 should take care of these extra pinout signals from the socket. This is why the PM45 and or GM45 are required. I strongly think there is a motherboard revision and the 82801IEM on the 7808's but this is for someone else to find out.

Per the tables there is no changed or added pins just new signals, again these should be available too the PM45 or GM45 unless there are revisions of those too, or the old mainboards had cut traces from the socket to the chipset....................

Edit; it does come down too that manufacturer may not have enabled dual capability to our boards and this could because of an early controler or otherwise...............

2nd Edit; It could also be the trace is routed out the the motherboard as a solderable junction, jumper or dip. It could also be the bios sees an older revision and disables quad core support. I do not any longer at 51 have the time, money, desire, inclination or patience,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

 

Sir, you're missing the point. While the required signals are being generated by the chipset, they're not being sent to the required pins on the socket on the 7805.

It's most likely the same trick that they pulled with the old Socket 370 Celerons to inhibit dual CPU's, except in this case they did it to prevent sticking a higher wattage quad core CPU into a system that wasn't validated for the higher heat output.

For those that don't remember, here's some back story on the old slocket dual CPU Celerons:

http://arstechnica.com/cpu/3q99/dual-celeron-retro-1.html

If I'm right, you'll be able to stick a core2duo in a 7808 since the CPU will ignore the extra signals on the socket.