Instead of putting the host to ACPI S3 state, could an external PCIe riser be used with a separate power supply?
Seems like that would considerably speed up the process, by letting the host continue to run while only the target cycles.
myself248
amazing to think there was a time (literally not too long ago) where you would throw 80 GB of HBM onto a chip and turn 90% of it off
htrp
This is great. I’m actually trying to unlock the 80G in a CMP 170HX the software way for the last 2 weeks (still no luck).
I just don’t know if I’m brave enough (and knowledgeable enough) to go this blown fuses way. Seems a lot more risky.
P.S. I now see this is for the 8GB model, which is insane. The 10G one is the one that until now was proven to have 80G, but never fully accessible through CUDA (it was accessible using CPU memory copy though - much slower).
notenchange
But what if nvidia used those fuses because an A100 had too many fabrication faults so it could only be a cheaper mining card?
(which is the more likely scenario because they can make much more money on enterprise/datacenter products, see DRAM)
amelius
Glad I jumped on these cards, excited to give this a try!
Hard to believe $1k was a deal a few months ago (and $200 before then).
roger_
I just wish they had something like this for older Tesla p100s, p4s...
SillyUsername
Considering how unobtainium GPUs have become nvidia could get a PR win by publishing unlocks for all their outdated hardware. ... people are figuring it out anyways, might as well embrace it.
nullc
Great usage of glitching!
dylanger
there are several functions where blowing a fuse on an NVIDIA die can grant you more access, not less. In a properly secured design, a blown fuse should always induce a more restrictive state, because a blown fuse cannot be unblown in an economically feasible way.
Not really.
If the fuses are for security, sure. But these aren't.
These fuses are for economic extraction. Doing it the way NVIDIA did it is a safety feature: it ensures that blowing a fuse will never destroy economic value -- it will never turn a card that was previously able to do something correctly into a card that can no longer do that thing correctly.
octoberfranklin
Selling anything that has been purposely hamstrung to limit available capabilities for market reasons seems morally repugnant beyond words. I understand walling off die defects but if it is functional that is disgusting.
comments (10)
Seems like that would considerably speed up the process, by letting the host continue to run while only the target cycles.
myself248
htrp
I just don’t know if I’m brave enough (and knowledgeable enough) to go this blown fuses way. Seems a lot more risky.
P.S. I now see this is for the 8GB model, which is insane. The 10G one is the one that until now was proven to have 80G, but never fully accessible through CUDA (it was accessible using CPU memory copy though - much slower).
notenchange
(which is the more likely scenario because they can make much more money on enterprise/datacenter products, see DRAM)
amelius
Hard to believe $1k was a deal a few months ago (and $200 before then).
roger_
SillyUsername
nullc
dylanger
Not really.
If the fuses are for security, sure. But these aren't.
These fuses are for economic extraction. Doing it the way NVIDIA did it is a safety feature: it ensures that blowing a fuse will never destroy economic value -- it will never turn a card that was previously able to do something correctly into a card that can no longer do that thing correctly.
octoberfranklin
mr_roboto