#Gigabyte n730 2gi vs geforce gtx 275 update#
#Gigabyte n730 2gi vs geforce gtx 275 driver#
#Gigabyte n730 2gi vs geforce gtx 275 code#

If I flash the dump of a modified 102 ROM there will be no change of Binary BIOS_IDTF by AtiFlash. If I flash the dump of a modified 103 or 107 ROM there will be no change of Binary BIOS_IDTF by AtiFlash. If I flash the dump of a stock 103 or 107 ROM there will be no change of Binary BIOS_IDTF by AtiFlash. Then what is the purpose of this field, if it gets updated before flashing, instead of being used to validate the image? Other than box/stickers they are all the same cards down to the PCB. This ROM has been on all 6 Fury X I have bought at various times, I have had MSI / Sapphire branded cards. Only 113-C8800100-102 (Non UEFI stock ROM) was not changed in it's unmodified state. rhallock is Robert Hallock - Head of Global Technical Marketing at AMD. ДЎ13-C8800100-107 padding area between legacy & efi change post :).

#Gigabyte n730 2gi vs geforce gtx 275 code#

This is just a safety measure, not something enforced.ДЎ13-C8800100-107 code revision change not post :(. Only after you are satisfied with the result on the first VBIOS, can you test with the second one. Whatever you decide, test with one VBIOS at a time, make sure everything is in order on the UEFI side. Furthermore, your card doesn't seem to be affected by the hash check that AMD has added on the latest generation of cards.Дў) It is your choice.

#Gigabyte n730 2gi vs geforce gtx 275 update#

Still, a very weak security measure from AMD part, that has more chances to annoy its loyal users than to Yes, it is OK to update your card. For the first part we have the tests I suggested to, for the second part there is patience and luck.

It is most likely done on the Legacy ROM, the only thing left to determine is its boundaries and how it transforms from SHA-1 (160 bits) to Some_Hash (128 bits). It looks like the GOP has a SHA-1 function and it can't be used on itself, because there is no hash on the GOP and it would be idiotic to verify itself. This is rather dangerous and I wouldn't recommend anyone doing this unless they have all the cards in their hands. For a definitive solution to CRC, it would require someone with a spare hardware, disassembly knowledge, a live debugging of ATIFlash when flashing and some comments or breakpoints around the function I indicated just 2 messages back. This should tell us what are the margins of the region used for CRC (and maybe hash). Test 3 would be with original VBIOS, changing just a byte in the padding between Legacy and EFIROM, flash, dump and compare.ДЄll tests must be done with CSM=On, but you can also test them with CSM=Off on a card that had UEFI from factory. Test 2 would be with original VBIOS, changing just a byte in the Code Revision of ROM (offset PCIR + 0x12), flash, dump and compare. Test 1 would be with original VBIOS, changing just a byte in the Date (offset 0x50 or so), flash, dump and compare. If you are willing, I can think of some tests to figure out CRC: ATIFlash also fixed the CRC in stock ROMs, the untouched ROMs from OEMs? Then what is the purpose of this field, if it gets updated before flashing, instead of being used to validate the image? Next to that, if AMD/OEMs don't bother with updating those integrity fields, why do they force them on users? If the 8-bit checksum and CRC can change without affecting the hash, it would imply that the hash must exclude them from calculation. The question is why they force this hash on R2xx and above, why they want to loose even more market share?Д«ut here is the weird thing in your tests. Unless The Stilt provides more details on the hash and how it was cracked, I don't see where to start. If the GOP does check this hash, it is difficult to find where it happens, if no error or message or debug code are displayed.

#Gigabyte n730 2gi vs geforce gtx 275 driver#

A BSOD with a dump and the driver that caused it - might help, but I understand that this was in the past. The hash is rather difficult to reverse, if there is nothing linked to it. If the CRC (or BIOS_IDTF) is changed by ATIFlash on the fly, then it shouldn't be at blame, only the hash would remain as the probable cause for black screen.