Bios Ps2 Usa V02.20 Download
Laverne Levenstein
If you are trying to install windows 7 on a USB3 only zenbook, your next headache will be windows setup failing, from either a bootable USB memory stick or a USB DVD drive. This is because the bios loads the windows boot image, but when the windows setup program starts it doesn't have USB3 drivers and can't read the setup files.
Heimdall used the "bios.bin" title in HeXEn, which may've given you the wrong idea? That wasn't because of any limitations in XBlast, it was just so he could tell users to select that specific file name when the flashing screen came up.
Coming across a console with C:\Bios\bios.bin and saying, "hmm, I wonder what this bios.bin is?" and having to go, "oh well, guess we'll never know" and then deleting it, because it's basically unknown garbage at that point seems, well, less than ideal.
Just thinking about the future people (or future us) who come across all this stuff and wonder what the heck bios.bin was, that's all. Of course, it's not a big deal, but I'd argue that's a two way street and keeping the files named accordingly seems the better of the two streets, if you will.
The main point is that you can flash a winbond TSOP only if the bios is named bios.bin. And since I don't like to put every bios with the release name and as bios bin on a disc, I decided to do it always as bios.bin in a folder bios. And it keeps the C:\Bios folder pretty clean. When I unpack a bios to C it will be always overwritten which I like. Finaly, for the Installer and Flasher in the next version, there will be also be a bios-info.txt in the C:\bios folder. That way you always now which bios in in that folder.
Like I wrote above, for the next release of the Installer/Flasher every bios will have an bios-info.txt file included in C:\bios to keep track. And every time you unrar a new bios the entire C:\bios folder will get overwritten with the new files. (Side note, if you would do it with copy, rename you would also need delete which just blow up the flasher configs instead of a simple "unrar" and done. (Sadly unleash didn't overwrites an existing bios.bin if the file name of the new one is the same).
And you can find out what this "bios.bin" is and even a future user can by checking the MD5. I also update the EvoX ini's with the MD5 sums and the BiosChecker app. So by simply checking the MD5 and reading the ini's you could find out. And to take that a step further there is also a TXT file which contains all MD5 sums of all bios.bin files.
I don't have that, but maybe it's a bug in cerbios only on some revisions or combination with certain hardware. The guys from cerbios have an own room on this discord server: You can add bugs there and they pick it up then.
Hi guys, I just installed Cerbios 2.2.0 on an 1.6 xbox that has an Aladdin chip working fine. I used the 256kB with UDMA2 file because I use an original IDE drive with original IDE cable. What I did was take the SST49LF002A chip from the aladdin, flash it with an external EPROM writer and reinstall it on the Aladdin thingie. I made a backup of the original Aladdin BIOS just in case. The flashing went well, the xbox now uses Cerbios when starting and it gets up to the dashboard correctly and games work, however the video quality is horrible. I use composite video to connect the xbox to a Sony PVM monitor. Previously I had good quality video (within composite video limits) but now with Cerbios, there are horizontal lines of "snow" and the letters are a bit harder to read than before. I also noticed that the video starts correctly, very sharp when it shows the Cerbios Wolf at the beginning, and after a few seconds, the video changes and it gets bad. Any idea how to solve this? Thanks!
Hi guys, I just installed Cerbios 2.2.0 on an 1.6 xbox that has an Aladdin chip working fine. I used the 256kB with UDMA2 file because I use an original IDE drive with original IDE cable. What I did was take the SST49LF002A chip from the aladdin, flash it with an external EPROM writer and reinstall it on the Aladdin thingie. I made a backup of the original Aladdin BIOS just in case......
I did not noticed. I have to compare it with M8Plus, I have the Xchanger chip which has two 256 (M8Plus) and 512 benches (Cerbios 2.2.0).
Have you tried if with RGB cable it works or is it left black screen?
I own an MSI Gaming Pro Carbon AC motherboard, with an R5 1600 (perfectly stable @ 3.8GHz, with 2x8GB DDR4 @ 3200Mhz) and I've noticed that when running the latest MSI bios (2.A0) that every single cpu benchmark contained in AID64 Extreme (or Engineer) slows down by 5%-15% when compared to the performance of the same version of AIDA64 cpu benchmarks when running the bios that preceded it, 2.8. I have verified this several times, btw, in subsequent reflashes back and forth between bios versions. All UEFI bios settings are the same--everything in the software environment is the same between bios versions. Currently, I am back on 2.8 because of this. CPU Benchmarks like Cinebench 15.x, which I gather use no OOSE, do not seem to be affected by the Spectre2 microcode in terms of cpu performance, however. (Obviously, I am not concerned only with how the AIDA64 cpu benchmarks perform, but rather with how any similarly written cpu application may perform.) Example: the AIDA64, 5.97.4600 version, running the Memory Read bench repeatedly shows 2.8 (pre-Spectre2 microcode) 49,xxx mb/s, whereas Memory Read under the 2.A0 bios shows 40,xxx mb/s. Big drop there.
Under 2.A0, InSpectre tells me that I have full coverage against Spectre, including cpu microcode. Under 2.8, same version of InSpectre (#8) tells me that while the OS portion of the Spectre defense is present, the cpu microcode is not, and so it equates to vulnerability to Spectre2. That is how I know that the 2.A0 bios is installing the Spectre2 microcode.
Note: Although the normal MFlash method of updating MSI x370 bios versions will not let the user flash back to an earlier version, MSI provided me with a bios utility that allows me to flash to whatever bios version I want. Here's a link:
I always turn off the DRAM power down feature, although I certainly wish that was the case--it would be so easy to fix...;) As I mentioned, with the exact same bios settings I get a definite slowdown with the AIDA64 cpu benchmarks--every single one of them. Other cpu benchmarks like Cinebench 15.x run without negative performance from the Spectre2 microcode, and It is perfectly repeatable between reflashings. The Spectre2 fix for my MSI mboard is of course going to be different from your ASUS board--not the Spectre2 fix itself, but the implementation of it in the MSI bios code, of course. MSI may well be doing something non-optimal here.
Your post does give me some optimism, however; the latest MSI bios (2.A0) includes the 1.0.0.1a AGESA, the one with the Spectre2 microcode fix, not the 1.0.0.2a AGESA version you are using in your ASUS board, so perhaps this will be fixed next bios release from MSI. (That would be nice!) Bios 2.8 runs perfectly--just not with the Spectre2 microcode. As there apparently are *no* pieces of malware loose in the wild that exploit Spectre2 at this time, I'm not worried about it...;) Still, I would like an implementation of the Spectre2 patch that wouldn't slow down these particular cpu benches...at least not to the extent I'm seeing with the latest MSI bios 2.A0.
From what I've read so far, it appears the Intel cpus are receiving their cpu microcode fixes through Windows Update, but for AMD the only vulnerability is Spectre 2, and it requires *both* a microcode update through a bios delivery and the Windows software fix. I think the bios-level microcode delivery is far better since the Windows cpu microcode fixes must be reinstalled if you install a different OS, like a newer version of Win10x64, or Linux, etc. With the bios microcode fix, it doesn't matter which OS you install, you have the CPU portion already present and installed.
I think you maybe misunderstood my OP...;) (But I appreciate your reply, anyway.) In my first post, you'll notice I am already running at 3.8GHz without a problem. At the moment, the only thing showing a concrete and repeatedly demonstrable slowdown when the cpu microcode is applied via the 2.A0 bios, are the CPU benchmarks in AIDA64 Extreme and Engineer, version 5.97.4600--every single one of them. Cinebench 15.x does not show a slowdown, nor does the cpu benchmark included with CPU-Z, version 1.84 x64, nor does the Valley benchmark, or the Heaven benchmark slowdown, and I can detect no games slowdowns thus far. With the 2.8 bios--which installs without the Spectre 2 CPU microcode--performance is anywhere from 5% to 15% better, depending on which of those AIDA64 benchmarks I run. The problem is not that the cpu itself slows down in terms of MHz because that isn't happening--what is happening is that on these CPU benchmarks the slowdowns are sizable in processing speed (not MHz. IP x cpu MHz = processing speed, more or less.) As mentioned in the OP, all bios settings and clocks are the same between bios versions, including the the cpu MHz speed of 3.8GHz.
aa06259810