P78_BIOS_IMV3564_9C.17.00_x64

New BIOs on Gateway Site. But they dont say what it fixes


Update! Ahh not new for me! Already running 9c.17

 

P78_BIOS_IMV3532_9C.17.00_x32.zip - Gateway P78 BIOS Update v9C.17.00

P78_BIOS_IMV3564_9C.17.00_x64.zip - Gateway P78 BIOS Update v9C.17.00

Will have a look at them now. Maybe Gateway has updated to SLIC v2.1.

EDIT: Looks like we're too eager as the actual files haven't been uploaded to Gateway's FTP yet.

EDIT: Uploaded now

EDIT: Removed again - re-hosted a few posts down.

 

Wait... Is this it?

Could this really be the holy grail disappointment .17C that we've been after for months now?

 

What a tease, the link there does not work............

Now they took it down.............

 

Nope still SLIC v2.0.

I have both files here if anyone wants them.

 

if you can email them to me [email protected] I'll gladdly host them....

 

I downloaded them. But don't want to update since I don't have the older ones. Is it a new bios or an old one?

 

http://www.mediafire.com/file/2nvzzw1iqn3/P78_BIOS_IMV3532_9C.17.00_x32.zip

http://www.mediafire.com/file/kynuqn1mzlj/P78_BIOS_IMV3564_9C.17.00_x64.zip

It's the most recent known BIOS for the 78xx series.

 

The page is back but the link still does not work there

 

Did any one try to update?

 

how do we know it's a good one and not a fake like that godzilla kind of BIOS under the 7811fx downloads section?

anywas... thanks for posting it, I will just check it with a hex editor to see if I notice similarities with the older ones. it might take a while

 

It'll be fine. Some people already have 9C.17.00 on their 7805u's.

 

running it now, thanks................

Edit;

So far it looks like the cpu, p9600, is working better. The 3dmark06 cpu mark seems to run slightly faster. CPUmark 99, I know old, went from 391 to now 399...........

2nd Edit;
Superpi runs better too...........

 

hey... it seems authentic.

does anyone have an older dos version to flash with crysis bios recovery? just in case...

 

I'd add this one to the "archive" file I've got hosted on Rapidshare, but ewrecked seems to be MIA, and changing the file will change the ID.

Also, call me paranoid, but I'm waiting for a trip report from a 7811FX user before I try this.

EDIT: The reason the CPUs might be working better is perhaps this BIOS takes better advantage of CPUs with the "Turbo Boost" tech, which might explain the higher scores. The P9600/9700 and later T-series I think have it, so people still using P8400s probably won't see a gain.

 

Anyone willing to be a sacrificial lamb and test the bios update on a stock 7811? Might I suggest someone that was already planning on sending their system in, at least that way if the flash bricks their computer Gateway can fix it ...

 

I can say from 9c.12.00 that while the system was peppy before it seems like the desktop is on steroids now...........

Edit; remember though I have a P9600 so it could just be better cache handling of the larger than P8400 cache............

 

that I remember, only p9700 has intel turbo boost. none of the other t9xxx has it, not even p9600.

I had to re-validate windows.

also, I agree with the desktop performance being on steroids... maybe we are just being paranoid, but there's something different

 

Just upgraded on stock 7811; no problems.

btw, the bios itself is from december

 

That's good to hear. I wonder why they're first releasing a file from December now?

 

Because it's been that long since the .17 BIOS initially popped up on newer laptops.

 

Flashed. No problems here.

All I can say is, it's about time they got that up for download.

 

T9600, P9500 and P9700:

http://ark.intel.com/ProductCollection.aspx?familyId=26548

I wonder why only those CPUs.

Plus I thought Intel Turbo Boost was only available on Nehalem. Is this actually Intel Turbo Memory Boost renamed and causing confusion with the new Nehalem tech?

EDIT: Nope according to this post it is the proper Intel Turbo Boost on Core 2 Duo, interesting. Can't find out any more info about it being on mobile CPUs though.

 

hmm... that's interesting. thanks for the chart.

yeah, I wonder why only on those cpus.

I don't think it is being renamed to something else, just newer technology introduced in former architecture. call them "gifted" cpus. also, it's not the first time that intel does such thing.

if I remember correctly I think the EM64T extension was introduced in some cpus but was hardware-disabled and you could enable it only via newer BIOS upgrade of your motherboard's manufacturer.

now, something related to the 9C.17 BIOS:

I noticed in cpu-z that under the "mainboard" tab, in the graphic interface the link width has changed from "always" x16 to now x1 when idle.

it changes to x16 under full load and it stays like this for a few seconds when back to idle then it goes back to x1.

I guess a more efficient way to use available bandwidth, I wonder if it has an impact on power consumption.

 

I have a P9600 ES and per SiSandra I have turbo mode but it says the maximum multiplier is 10x/10x so it isn't faster tham stock but I run the cpu benchmark and it is faster now and it says 2.80 rather than the 2.66 24.24 before now 24.44 in arithmetic. So it is slightly faster.

This would also explain the older cpumark 99 score going up along with increased performance in superpi as they are single thread too.............

 

are you using RMclock? cause if you are, there is a way to hack it via registry key, to let RMclock recognize half mult.
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=346084

also, you don't lose intel turbo boost at all.

I have a p9700 on my 7805u and I use either RMclock or crystalCPUID depending on the applications that I am running.

I like crystalCPUID a little better because it can handle half mult. a little better than RMclock.

RMclock will recognize it if you hack it.
if you don't have intel turbo boost you are fine, but if you do then you lose the undervolting purpose with RMclock but not with crystalCPUID.

if I set the multiplier to 11x with RMclock (which belongs to turbo boost) and undervolt it, the undervolted value will show up only when the cpu is working under the 11x multiplier, but since it is not a "normal" state multiplier, whenever it switches back to 10.5x (almost all the time) it will use the regular voltage value assigned by default to that multiplier.

but when using crystalCPUID this does not occur. I undervolt the 11x mult and isolate it to 11x.

when the 10.5x kicks in, it still retains the same undervolting capability I adopted for the 11x.

I have thoroughly tested this to sort of understan what was going on.

so, you don't lose intel turbo boost when undervolting, just make sure you use crystalCPUID for now, because it can handle half multipliers much better.

 

No need to undervolt here, my CPU stays niced and cool with ICD and my Zalman.........

 

nice

although in my advice it is always good to undervolt, even when you are already keeping the cpu cool with thermal comp. and cooling pads, expecially on summer time and with no air conditioning around

 

Unless you live in Siberia

P9600 doesn't use half multipliers anyway does it?

 

Flashed fine on 7811 (P9700 + Win7), no issues so far. I'm too new to 7 to know if there was any real performance gain, does seem slightly snappier, however. Fan behavior seems a bit better as well. Did not enable my eSATA port, tho .

 

Flashed from .08 to .17 on my 7811.

So far I can tell that the GPU Fan algorithm is much much much better, but my fan makes a sharp noise, though not loud at all but noticeable, at low RPMs. Hopefully it will stop doing this after some time. :/

 

Just flashed mine. It got rid of my audio driver, so I had to reinstall the driver again. So far, feels the same as 9C.12.00.

 

it basically is the same, but i accidently flashed mine back down. so finally i have my old .17.

Great find!

 

Does anyone know how to extract the ROM/WPH file from the windows EXE so that us non-Windows users can flash via DOS?

Also, I'm guessing that there are multiple Gateway FTP servers, as the first time I went to the original link it said no file (and the entire P78 directory didn't exist on the site), but the second time I went it was there...

 

Never mind - I figured it out myself. Now to see about doing the upgrade (and hopefully not bricking it)...

For anyone who wants it, I uploaded it here: http://www.mediafire.com/?tmmxm0zbo4n

 

Yes I've extracted the .ROM but you can't do anything with a .ROM unless you have an EEPROM programmer. Unfortunately the .WPH can't be ripped from the .EXE as it's compiled slightly differently to a stand-alone .WPH file.

EDIT: Where / how did you get hold of that .WPH? It's larger than all previous .WPH files - did you create it yourself?

 

Iam wondering then if this afffects only the p9xxx cpu's then? I can measure the difference in at least single thread benckars of about 2.0-2.5%. This woul logically corespond with 133 Mhz increase or about 5% cpu speed incease to 2.80 Mhz.

With 9c.12.00 my audio at first login was not there but it PNP'd and re-initialized.........

 

I extracted it from the EXE file - I looked at a different laptop's BIOS on the FTP site that had both DOS and Winphlash pieces in it, and compared the contents of the WPH file to that of the EXE file. I found that the first 888880 bytes of the EXE are the flashing code itself, and the remainder is the WPH file (2048K of BIOS ROM, followed by the WPH). I just compared the DOS WPH file with the extracted WPH file of the EXE (for this other BIOS) and they are identical. So I'm guessing that it really is the same (at least I'm hoping it is)...

Why did you say the stand-alone and EXE WPH's are different?

 

Oh, one more thing - I have a copy of the 028 (.10 BIOS) WPH for DOS, and I did my extract method on the IMV-028.EXE windows updater, and they're identical. It looks like there was a change to the WPH in the 030 (.12) BIOS, as the extra WPH part is identical between the .12 and .17 files...

 

Some thing has to be different, the reasons are when upgrading to 17 from 12 my sound changed and I can tell you there is a small but definate performance increase here with the 17................

 

Ahh, you mean something in the BIOS ROM changed. As far as I can tell, the .wph file is the 2MB ROM image, plus a tail set of instructions. That tail didn't change from .12 to .17, and there's no difference between the windows and DOS version.

FYI, I just flashed up to the .17 using my extracted WPH, and it seems to work just fine.

 

Thanx for the find, man.

I'm a big F@H cruncher, so the fan noise problem sometimes was a bit too big fo me.

Looks like .17 changed smth in videocard temps and the fans are not as noisy as they used to be.

 

You are nearly right in that the platform data at the end of the .ROM file which makes up the additional data to create the .WPH file hardly changes between versions. There is just a single byte (possible checksum) and a version string which does change.

However as I mentioned previously I've already looked at extracting both the .ROM and platform data from the .EXE and found that the .ROM was fine but the location data differs slightly. Even the size of your .WPH is not the same as previous .WPH files which it should be:

Your 9C.17.00 .WPH: 2,105,423 bytes

Official 9C.10.00 .WPH: 2,105,279 bytes

Also comparing the files in WinHex there is obviously additional data in there. Comparing the 9C.10.00 .EXE to the 9C.10.00 .WPH shows the same differences.

However if you say it flashed ok then obviously none of this matters. The location data doesn't get flashed anyway

 

Thanks - that was much easier than I anticipated (updating the bios).. I am happy..

 

Stock 7811FX - flashed fine, sound is fine (original drivers), didn't have to recert my Vista install. I'll have to see if temps change.

 

What is SLIC again? I'm drawing a blank.

 

I can't get it to flash in Windows, anyone know how to turn the official Gateway files into DOS flashable files? I have a bootable DOS thumbdrive already.

 

Flashed 7811 FX perfectly, upon reboot, it cycled at the POST screen over and over. Removed the USB key and it booted perfectly (even keeping all current BIOS settings), does seem a bit snappier now.

 

How did you flash it in DOS?

EDIT: The DOS flash worked, thanx.

 

It seems most with the 6 meg cache cpu's are seeing a snappier system........