I was just wondering if we should create a library of micro-codes per CPU like how the IRST has “recommended” and “best IRST drivers”. I read in here and look at the UBU tool during updating and there are notes here and there, but not a central location. Something like:
Haswell (some sort of tab or page that lists just Haswell)
Micro-code 23 - make 6 columns. Two groups, one called overclockers the other standard?
Under each group you have the following columns Great, standard and bad and just tally up whoever reports in. Kind of like the old listing when we use to mod the Intel OROM and we wrote back our findings whether good or bad. But at least here you can see the bads out weighing the goods for version 23 micro-code as an example. Do the same for the standard group which are people who do not overclock, but may have errors or maybe none.
I mean looking at the UBU tool and the list of micro-code for a CPU one has to wonder if I should update to one or another based on which gave better stability or reliability or no errors based on what we all say by doing something like this?
Then you can have a column after all that saying NOTES like in the case where for Haswell the UBU tool says that version 7 is the last one for non-K overclocking. Or 19 for best overclocking and so on. Or stating for what fix and if it has issues or not.
I don’t know if this is worth it, but I am wondering which one to chose. The newest may not be the best as we are seeing in the Haswell park. Is there one the best? Is there one more stable or reliable than the others. Just throwing this on the wall to see if it sticks and if not then no biggie. I can start an Excel sheet to show what it may look like or if someone else has an idea or maybe this is mute. Just thinking out loud.
If you are not overclocker, latest microcode is the best microcode. The case with Haswell is just an error which will be corrected and latest microcode for Haswell will be the best again.
PS Microcodes usually issued to fix errors, not to please overclockers.
Of course. But the point is that the information is scattered in threads. Having a single chart like with the OROM from long ago makes it easy for someone to come here and just look. Then they get their information and then off they go. Right now there are posts and posts and posts of questions on which micro-code to use.
I think this is a good idea. Because then one could easily check out different microcodes how they work, without having to search a lot.
I now do no longer think that would be a good idea. Too many processors, too much work for maintainers.
Probably a better alternative would be providing some easy-to-understand instructions how to derive the start of the microcode file name.
It is not really easy and logical how to find out the traditional cpuid from the family-model-stepping information.
And it’s not always easy to find out using search engines for every processor.
But, when you got that legacy cpuid, you can just use the browser search function to find all microcodes matching.
Maybe we should not bite off more than we can chew based on how I started this thread. Maybe we should start out with all the CPU’s of the members here. I am sure someone once said with the motherboards listing with the results of Intel RST performance, “So many motherboards”. I remember that listing from back then when Fernando created the list. Lots of different motherboards; 6-series, X58, and so on. But then it hit me, those were just of people here reporting in on their results; whether failure or triumph when updating to a new Intel Orom. Example, my X58 board could not install one of the Oroms which I did find in the list which did have a 50/50 result. So i tried and with Fernando’s help it was discovered that on the BIOS for the board I had it could not fit. So the notes warned me, but I had to try and find out. In the end another notch for the board I had is don’t try. The result is the information was there in one chart.
Maybe, if we follow this endeavor, it would look like this
Stage 1 - Start with member CPU’s, which ones we have. Type (i.e Core I5 xxxx) then add which CPU ID for that one CPU
Stage 2 - With CPU’s listed, begin listing all micro-codes of just those CPU’s which are provided by members.
Stage 3 - Now add notations of results to those micro-codes; i.e. problems with one micro-code, best overclock, good one for standard user, recommended micro-code for that CPU, etc.
I agree Snurg that this is some work, but if memory serves this website at one time just had some information about Intel Oroms and RSt’s. Now it has Intel ME, just added NVMe drivers and information, Intel TXE, a whole section on System performance, etc. and with all that each category in some way has to be updated with version of tools, drivers and firmware’s. The site has grown considerably and thanks to all who have contributed to this site; to make it what it is. Was not easy, but it is here.
Hopefully that makes better sense. I can see where it sounds like I want to take on all of Intel’s CPU’s, but baby-steps, right? We could just start out with members who want to contribute their information, their results, etc. and then the chart starts off as that. Just CPU information of members.
Again, looking back, thanks Fernando and to all. Don’t just look at this site today, remember what it use to look like. Pretty incredible everyone!!!