NotebookForums.com › Forums › Notebook Manufacturers › Sager & Clevo Notebook Forums › Sager & Clevo Notebooks › Overclocking the 5720 Pentium M FSB from the 5720 BIOS
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Overclocking the 5720 Pentium M FSB from the 5720 BIOS - Page 3

Poll Results: 5720 BIOS "System Frequency" option trend identification

This is a multiple choice poll
  • 12% (4)
    How many who have the 5720 BIOS "FSB OC" option have a 5720-C?
  • 21% (7)
    How many who have the 5720 BIOS "FSB OC" option have a 5720-V?
  • 9% (3)
    How many who have the 5720 BIOS "FSB OC" option HAVE BIOS "SONOMA01.86C.0052.D.0510042137"?
  • 6% (2)
    How many who have the 5720 BIOS "FSB OC" option DO NOT HAVE BIOS "SONOMA01.86C.0052.D.0510042137"?
  • 3% (1)
    How many who have the 5720 BIOS "FSB OC" option have a Pentium M 740/750 (1.73 - 1.86 GHz)?
  • 9% (3)
    How many who have the 5720 BIOS "FSB OC" option have Pentium M 760's (2.00 GHz)?
  • 18% (6)
    How many who have the 5720 BIOS "FSB OC" option have Pentium M 770's (2.13 GHz)?
  • 12% (4)
    How many who have the 5720 BIOS "FSB OC" option have Pentium M 780's (2.26 GHz)?
  • 6% (2)
    How many who have the 5720 BIOS "FSB OC" option bought "ZERO DEAD PIXEL" insurance? LOL ;-)
32 Total Votes  
post #41 of 140
1/12/06 at 11:06pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silent_64
Indeed, Rock Solid can be misleading, your chip might be able to take much, much more and still remain stable, or it might not. Not having crashed, or shown signs of instability after a weeks hard usage has left me to believe that my system is capable of handling the +15% OC.

However I must disagree with codename on the "safe" overclock, in my own experience on desktops I've learned that most processors are very "here-to-and-not-further", I do believe that there is no such thing as a safe overclock, you are pushing the system beyond what it's meant to do. But if the system proves stable, and you have the adequate cooling then I have no experienced that it an overclock has shorten the chips life. Is might be because that these chips are very sturdy and made for many many years of use so you'll probably never get to see one fail. So I do not believe that the +15% opposed to the +6% OC should have any noticeable effect on the processors lifespan

Having said that, if you do not know what you're doing, you better not be trying at all, overclocking is not especially risky when you know what you're doing, then you know what the danger signs are and when to stop. True the Pentium M has proven to be very OC friendly but as Codename has said all along we are working within the confined space and it can be risky.
I have supporting documentation to back up my claims of the Pentium M's propensity for OC'ing from Tom's Hardware which I will post later.

Is this data definitive, no it's not. If you read my review on the 5720, I am the first to speak of the dangers of OC'ing. However, the newer P-M's are contructed of extremely small transistors (90nm) running at lower voltages that attribute for thier ability to be OC'd as much as they can be with relatively little issue, heat kills electronics and the P-M produces little heat. This really all comes down to the fact that the smaller you can make a transistor, the less heat it will make. The smaller the transistors, the more that can be placed on the chip increasing it's computational potential (Logic gates). A smaller transisitor requires less energy then a larger transistor, therefore a lower voltage can be used. Gosh I could talk about CPU architecture all night, you all get the point...
Reply
Reply
post #42 of 140
1/12/06 at 11:21pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silent_64
The increased data transfer rate effectively speeds up the two system, and on that note I believe it's safe to say that it increases the speed of those systems as well.

The FSB is the weakest link in the Pentium processors as they have to use this to send or receive data from the RAM as they first need to contact the Northbridge, where as the newest AMD processors have build in memory controller. Which operates under a system know as Hyper transport. So if you want more speed out of your Intel based system the best way of going about with it is speeding up your FSB.

Of course if you're looking for pure gaming performance the most gain is to be found OCing the GPU. However when I'm sitting on my laptop working with very large Photoshop documents a GPU OC is not going to make a difference to me, here however a more effective data transfer and a high clock rate is what I'm looking for.

So what you want to overclock very much depends on what you use your system for.
I would agree with you here to an extent...

Saying that you are speeding up the system however is not what you stated earlier. You are not "Making your RAM faster or your GPU faster" by OC'ing your FSB. You're making your system quicker because you can negotiate instructions with these components faster.

The Northbridge is the "Sr." traffic cop, the Southbridge is the "Jr." traffic cop. You simply get through the traffic stops quicker with an OC'd FSB.

The Northbridge controls your GPU and L2 Cache, the Southbridge sits on the Northbridge's bus. Intel does not even use a traditional "Northbridge/Southbridge" config anymore, their system is now known as Intel Hub Architecture (IHA - First seen in their 800 series chipsets) and has replaced the Northbridge/Southbridge chipset.
Reply
Reply
post #43 of 140
1/13/06 at 4:52am
I asked Sager helpdesk why I don't have the OC option in BIOS and some other people do.
They reply;

"No choose, so far all our unit did not have that option..."

Also the reply from Rock Direct helpdesk;

"Our bios does allow the 15%, though we do not recommend using it as there is not much overhead with the cooling anyway."
Reply
Reply
post #44 of 140
1/13/06 at 7:54am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Codename_47
I would agree with you here to an extent...

Saying that you are speeding up the system however is not what you stated earlier. You are not "Making your RAM faster or your GPU faster" by OC'ing your FSB. You're making your system quicker because you can negotiate instructions with these components faster.

The Northbridge is the "Sr." traffic cop, the Southbridge is the "Jr." traffic cop. You simply get through the traffic stops quicker with an OC'd FSB.

The Northbridge controls your GPU and L2 Cache, the Southbridge sits on the Northbridge's bus. Intel does not even use a traditional "Northbridge/Southbridge" config anymore, their system is now known as Intel Hub Architecture (IHA - First seen in their 800 series chipsets) and has replaced the Northbridge/Southbridge chipset.
As this is my first Intel system I had to google the IHA you were talking about, and it appears to be nothing more then an upgraded Northbridge/southbridge. This means that the northbridge still controls all access to the RAM and video card thereby increasing the overall system latency, and that is the AMD systems biggest strength their very low system latency.

And you do increase the memory's effective speed, the +15% results min my memory now running at 306 mhz instead of the stock 266 mhz. So saying that it makes your ram faster is not incorrect.


And KlaasH, in the end it's your call if you want to overclock nor not. If Rock Direct advises you against it, it would be because that it is actually like that, or it could be to avoid possible RMA cases.
Reply
Reply
post #45 of 140
1/13/06 at 12:01pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silent_64
As this is my first Intel system I had to google the IHA you were talking about, and it appears to be nothing more then an upgraded Northbridge/southbridge. This means that the northbridge still controls all access to the RAM and video card thereby increasing the overall system latency, and that is the AMD systems biggest strength their very low system latency.

And you do increase the memory's effective speed, the +15% results min my memory now running at 306 mhz instead of the stock 266 mhz. So saying that it makes your ram faster is not incorrect.


And KlaasH, in the end it's your call if you want to overclock nor not. If Rock Direct advises you against it, it would be because that it is actually like that, or it could be to avoid possible RMA cases.
Saying it makes your RAM faster is 100% INCORRECT. The RAM is simply working at a proportional speed to the FSB, IT'S NOT FASTER. So as I stated earlier, your system as a whole is faster. Anytime you up your FSB this is going to happen, your RAM clock will increase to meet the demands of a higher FSB. In some cases the higher RAM frequency can actually SLOW you down if the memory can't handle it. The only technically accurate way of speeding up RAM is to modify memory timing. So the RAM stays the same speed (Refreshes at the same speed) but the operational clock frequency of the RAM goes up to meet the demands of the OC'd FSB proportionally, that's all that is happening. It's a weighted scale, your not any faster without modifying your memory timings or buying RAM that is already optimized. RAM clock frequency has nothing to do with actual RAM timing, however, with proper timing it will make you technically faster. Effective RAM clock frequency speed and faster RAM mean two very different things, RAM timing makes your RAM faster and FSB OC makes the data output from that RAM traverse the FSB to CPU and vice versa faster. There is a BIG difference between the two...

IHA is not just an upgrade, its a completely new architecture. Your latency claims hold no water from the laptop perspective as Sager 9750's with 7800 Go's are scoring no higher then we Intel 5720 folks with P-M's. There is some technical truth to what you are saying but it's so negligable in laptop configs it not even noticable. Desktop configs can benefit from an AMD architecture and do benefit from lower latency especially as the system is OC'd, I will agree with you here.

The real advantage of AMD is RISK versus Intel's CISC... AMD kicks ass I will give you that.
Reply
Reply
post #46 of 140
1/13/06 at 12:06pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by KlaasH
I asked Sager helpdesk why I don't have the OC option in BIOS and some other people do.
They reply;

"No choose, so far all our unit did not have that option..."

Also the reply from Rock Direct helpdesk;

"Our bios does allow the 15%, though we do not recommend using it as there is not much overhead with the cooling anyway."
KlassH,

No company is going to tell you to go ahead and use this feature because of RMA concerns.

The FSB OC option may have been placed there by some keen Taiwan engineers fully aware of the "Actual" potentials of the P-M and slipped right by quality control...

Reference this article from Tom's Hardware:

http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/05/...rst/index.html

Good Luck!
Reply
Reply
post #47 of 140
1/13/06 at 12:31pm
But I am aware of the consequences and DO want to OC. To bad I'm missing the option in my BIOS.
Reply
Reply
post #48 of 140
1/13/06 at 12:54pm
I have Sager NP5720-V and no overclock option in BIOS.

I bought the Pentium M 760 because it is very overclockable and the 780 costs $400 more. I understand the concern regarding overclocking, but 10-15% overclock doesn't hurt anything. If you don't know, Intel makes the 760 and 780 as identical designs on the same fabrication line. Intel sets aside a bunch of 7x0 chips as 760 and tests them at 2ghz. Intel also sets aside a bunch of chips as 780 and tests them at 2.26ghz. However, 760's are NOT necessarily rejected 780's that failed the 2.26ghz test. The vast majority of 760's would actually pass the 780 test but Intel has to hit all the various price points.
Reply
Reply
post #49 of 140
1/13/06 at 1:52pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Codename_47
Saying it makes your RAM faster is 100% INCORRECT. The RAM is simply working at a proportional speed to the FSB, IT'S NOT FASTER. So as I stated earlier, your system as a whole is faster. Anytime you up your FSB this is going to happen, your RAM clock will increase to meet the demands of a higher FSB. In some cases the higher RAM frequency can actually SLOW you down if the memory can't handle it. The only technically accurate way of speeding up RAM is to modify memory timing. So the RAM stays the same speed (Refreshes at the same speed) but the operational clock frequency of the RAM goes up to meet the demands of the OC'd FSB proportionally, that's all that is happening. It's a weighted scale, your not any faster without modifying your memory timings or buying RAM that is already optimized. RAM clock frequency has nothing to do with actual RAM timing, however, with proper timing it will make you technically faster. Effective RAM clock frequency speed and faster RAM mean two very different things, RAM timing makes your RAM faster and FSB OC makes the data output from that RAM traverse the FSB to CPU and vice versa faster. There is a BIG difference between the two...

IHA is not just an upgrade, its a completely new architecture. Your latency claims hold no water from the laptop perspective as Sager 9750's with 7800 Go's are scoring no higher then we Intel 5720 folks with P-M's. There is some technical truth to what you are saying but it's so negligable in laptop configs it not even noticable. Desktop configs can benefit from an AMD architecture and do benefit from lower latency especially as the system is OC'd, I will agree with you here.

The real advantage of AMD is RISK versus Intel's CISC... AMD kicks ass I will give you that.
From personal experience I find it that RAM timings will only offer a marginal performance boots compared to a higher RAM frequency, in my AMD desktop i use a couple of Corsair TwinX RAM running at 3 - 3 - 3 - 8 1T, i found that if I wanted more performance out of my RAM in everyday usage I got the biggest boost from increasing the frequency. Although I will agree with you on the fact the a to high RAM frequency can cause system instability, and then same thing goes for your PCI cards, which is why you can, on a desktop lock the PCI and the other expansion cards and also set the FSBRAM timing. I'm well aware that these options does not available on the laptop motherboard and that is one the reason I do not have high hopes for getting my memory to run faster, in fact that has been a problem with Intel's new platforms, slow DDR2 timings and poor performance, often there has been no increase in performance, but none the less DDR2 RAM is more expensive then regular DDR RAM.

I'm not familiar with the Turion, but I would assume that it's architecture is more or less the same as it's desktop cousins, and that would obviously translate into some advantage over the Pentium based systems, but as Intel proved with the introduction of it's new platform socket 775 it does not always translate into a performance increase. I'm of course talking about DDR2, PCI Express which, when it was first released did not offer any performance increase despite the fancy numbers that came with the PCI Express for instance, it can boats with so much more bandwidth the the regular AGP port, but still benchmarks showed no real difference, so it does not surprise me the the Turion based systems does not have any advantage over the Pentium M based systems.

All that being said the Pentium M have really surprised me and it is without a doubt a very effective processor that Intel can be proud of.

And I do not know enough about Intel's IHA to get into a discussion about it. It wouldn't be unfair to call me an AMD fan boy.
Reply
Reply
post #50 of 140
1/13/06 at 3:05pm
This has gotta be the topic of the week Happy Friday the 13th yalls.
Reply
Reply
post #51 of 140
1/14/06 at 4:08am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silent_64
From personal experience I find it that RAM timings will only offer a marginal performance boots compared to a higher RAM frequency, in my AMD desktop i use a couple of Corsair TwinX RAM running at 3 - 3 - 3 - 8 1T, i found that if I wanted more performance out of my RAM in everyday usage I got the biggest boost from increasing the frequency. Although I will agree with you on the fact the a to high RAM frequency can cause system instability, and then same thing goes for your PCI cards, which is why you can, on a desktop lock the PCI and the other expansion cards and also set the FSBRAM timing. I'm well aware that these options does not available on the laptop motherboard and that is one the reason I do not have high hopes for getting my memory to run faster, in fact that has been a problem with Intel's new platforms, slow DDR2 timings and poor performance, often there has been no increase in performance, but none the less DDR2 RAM is more expensive then regular DDR RAM.

I'm not familiar with the Turion, but I would assume that it's architecture is more or less the same as it's desktop cousins, and that would obviously translate into some advantage over the Pentium based systems, but as Intel proved with the introduction of it's new platform socket 775 it does not always translate into a performance increase. I'm of course talking about DDR2, PCI Express which, when it was first released did not offer any performance increase despite the fancy numbers that came with the PCI Express for instance, it can boats with so much more bandwidth the the regular AGP port, but still benchmarks showed no real difference, so it does not surprise me the the Turion based systems does not have any advantage over the Pentium M based systems.

All that being said the Pentium M have really surprised me and it is without a doubt a very effective processor that Intel can be proud of.

And I do not know enough about Intel's IHA to get into a discussion about it. It wouldn't be unfair to call me an AMD fan boy.
I would have to agree with you about RAM timing, it's not something you can say, wow, that made a huge difference! I think we are pretty much saying the same thing, though in different ways.

OC'ing is like modifying a car, every little bit helps. You OC your FSB, RAM, GPU, etc... It all makes a difference, sometimes not always a good difference either. You know how it is, sometimes increasing a variable to much can actually degrade system performance. Everything is a give and take, that is the nature of life. Since men develop technology, it's in our creation...

I am actually an AMD fan FAR more then an Intel fan. However, I will say this. The Pentium M is the best INTEL gaming processor ever created, period. It's even better then Intel's official gaming processor, the "Extreme Edition".
Reply
Reply
post #52 of 140
1/14/06 at 4:10am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MiataNB
This has gotta be the topic of the week Happy Friday the 13th yalls.
LOL...

Nothing worse then two geeks talking shop...
Reply
Reply
post #53 of 140
1/14/06 at 10:14am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Codename_47
I would have to agree with you about RAM timing, it's not something you can say, wow, that made a huge difference! I think we are pretty much saying the same thing, though in different ways.

OC'ing is like modifying a car, every little bit helps. You OC your FSB, RAM, GPU, etc... It all makes a difference, sometimes not always a good difference either. You know how it is, sometimes increasing a variable to much can actually degrade system performance. Everything is a give and take, that is the nature of life. Since men develop technology, it's in our creation...

I am actually an AMD fan FAR more then an Intel fan. However, I will say this. The Pentium M is the best INTEL gaming processor ever created, period. It's even better then Intel's official gaming processor, the "Extreme Edition".
The Pentium M does not have the same weakness all pentium 4 have suffered from. H-E-A-T, the newest Intel Extreme Edition based on the netburst architecture is way above the 100 watt mark when under load, and it can't exactly boast from not using much power in idle either, and considering that the Pentium M is the best Intel gaming processor, it's not the fastest but it's very effective.

And I can say that I would never even think about buying a Extreme Edition, I do however own an old Clawhammer FX processor and may it always stay beautiful.


And we're not geeks, we're just... Passionate about our hobby. And the worst is that most people wouldn't understand a word of what we're saying so the very nice debate we had is more or less wasted. But at least we ended up agreeing on something.
Reply
Reply
post #54 of 140
1/14/06 at 6:02pm

Pls post your FSB OC option BIOS

Thank you for this helpful information. I have read every post. I for one would really appreciate if someone with the option enabled would post their BIOS for all to share. I just got a Sager NP5720-C with a P-M 780 2.26GHz and would love to try this option, conversatively of course. I got mine straight from Sager last week. I also tried to vote in the poll but it says that I can't vote. Thanx
Reply
Reply
post #55 of 140
1/14/06 at 8:26pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawrence_Chiu
I have Sager NP5720-V and no overclock option in BIOS.

I bought the Pentium M 760 because it is very overclockable and the 780 costs $400 more. I understand the concern regarding overclocking, but 10-15% overclock doesn't hurt anything. If you don't know, Intel makes the 760 and 780 as identical designs on the same fabrication line. Intel sets aside a bunch of 7x0 chips as 760 and tests them at 2ghz. Intel also sets aside a bunch of chips as 780 and tests them at 2.26ghz. However, 760's are NOT necessarily rejected 780's that failed the 2.26ghz test. The vast majority of 760's would actually pass the 780 test but Intel has to hit all the various price points.
You're right, I would have to agree with you... Don't forget the 770, it's also on the same 7x0 manufacturing line... And like you said, it's all done for price points.
Reply
Reply
post #56 of 140
1/15/06 at 1:55am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silent_64
The Pentium M does not have the same weakness all pentium 4 have suffered from. H-E-A-T, the newest Intel Extreme Edition based on the netburst architecture is way above the 100 watt mark when under load, and it can't exactly boast from not using much power in idle either, and considering that the Pentium M is the best Intel gaming processor, it's not the fastest but it's very effective.

And I can say that I would never even think about buying a Extreme Edition, I do however own an old Clawhammer FX processor and may it always stay beautiful.


And we're not geeks, we're just... Passionate about our hobby. And the worst is that most people wouldn't understand a word of what we're saying so the very nice debate we had is more or less wasted. But at least we ended up agreeing on something.
lol...(Regarding the Geek reference)

The Clawhammer was a very cool CPU and still is. The Intel EE is technically their fastest gaming CPU, however the best overall is the M. The Pentium M is arguably the most efficient production CPU ever developed. The Turion's are good but still run a little too hot for my liking...

By the way, kudos on your cool auto-flash boot CD... That was cool.
Reply
Reply
post #57 of 140
1/15/06 at 7:24am
yes the flash is quite useful for the GPU....

but for the love of god (and computers ) would somebody please post the overclockable BIOS?!? Yes, I know it could be bad, I can live with that.
Reply
Reply
post #58 of 140
1/15/06 at 11:26am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Codename_47
lol...(Regarding the Geek reference)

The Clawhammer was a very cool CPU and still is. The Intel EE is technically their fastest gaming CPU, however the best overall is the M. The Pentium M is arguably the most efficient production CPU ever developed. The Turion's are good but still run a little too hot for my liking...

By the way, kudos on your cool auto-flash boot CD... That was cool.
Indeed the Clawhammer is a very nice CPU, but the socket 940 makes it a biatch to deal with, need ECC RAM and the BIOS is not exactly overclock friendly, but none the less, a very nice cpu.

And I'm glad you liked the boot CD, now I just need to get my hands on the right VGA bios.

Quote:
Originally Posted by doc_simple
yes the flash is quite useful for the GPU....

but for the love of god (and computers ) would somebody please post the overclockable BIOS?!? Yes, I know it could be bad, I can live with that.
I don't think that it would help it seems that only the 2.0 and 2.13 Ghz processors have the OC option. So if you don't have it now, you probably won't have after a BIOS update.
Reply
Reply
post #59 of 140
1/15/06 at 1:11pm
i'm gonna make a thread about it silent
Reply
Reply
post #60 of 140
1/15/06 at 4:04pm
silent, I have the 2.0. Its not a BIOS update i am looking for but an actual .ROM file from someone who has the option. COpy it, flash it, OC it. SImple. However if you are right that it would not give the option after attempting we would all know and could give up......or maybe be celebrating success of an extra 15% out of our computers.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sager & Clevo Notebooks
NotebookForums.com › Forums › Notebook Manufacturers › Sager & Clevo Notebook Forums › Sager & Clevo Notebooks › Overclocking the 5720 Pentium M FSB from the 5720 BIOS