New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Cheap Processor Upgrade? - Page 11

post #201 of 754
4/29/05 at 7:49pm
He has the 1.7. I figured I would "settle" for the 1.6

Spaz, the Pentium M's biggest weakness is video/audio encoding, that is one of the main reasons for the slow time also.
Reply
Reply
post #202 of 754
4/29/05 at 7:56pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Why0Why
He has the 1.7. I figured I would "settle" for the 1.6

Spaz, the Pentium M's biggest weakness is video/audio encoding, that is one of the main reasons for the slow time also.
Oh I completly agree. I just was a tad confused about the 2.8 in the 9100. Isnt that a desktop 2.8?
Reply
Reply
post #203 of 754
4/29/05 at 8:37pm
On the overclock, I really think once the 915M chipset has been out for a bit, it will be easy to overclock by a software utility. But I'm not that patient

Not sure on the 9100. My toshiba P25 had a desktop (northwood) core 2.8 in it. If it did have that, it should encode much better that the M. Unless the RAM/Hard Drive were a significant bottleneck.
Reply
Reply
post #204 of 754
4/29/05 at 8:41pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by macman1
Other than heat, what makes a processor unstable? Why does raising the voltage help? If it's only heat that causes problems, what is the limit? Just some questions I've never heard the answer to.
Eventually, the gates can't keep up (this is partly heat related partly the manufacturing) and they either stop working or break. This all depends on the actual CPU you get as some are better than others when it comes to overclocking.
Reply
Reply
post #205 of 754
4/29/05 at 9:09pm
Just to confirm, the pentium 2.8ghz (northwood) is slower than a Pentium M @2.26ghz when compressing Xvid.
Reply
Reply
post #206 of 754
4/29/05 at 9:17pm
OK guys, maybe this is a little off topic but I wanted to tell you that I just purchased an Asus CT-479 adapter for my P4C800-E Deluxe mobo in my desktop and also a Pentium 745 CPU. Hopefully I can overclock this setup to 2.6+GHz. Will keep you guys updated.

Does anyone think 18x133 at 1.5V is not doable. I think that will be my first try.
Reply
Reply
post #207 of 754
4/29/05 at 10:19pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by joseyu
OK guys, maybe this is a little off topic but I wanted to tell you that I just purchased an Asus CT-479 adapter for my P4C800-E Deluxe mobo in my desktop and also a Pentium 745 CPU. Hopefully I can overclock this setup to 2.6+GHz. Will keep you guys updated.

Does anyone think 18x133 at 1.5V is not doable. I think that will be my first try.
2400 at 1.5, It will probally work. The desktop setup would be great to test out the processor before breaking down the whole laptop :P

Ive seen almost 3Ghz on a Pentium M with only 1.635
Reply
Reply
post #208 of 754
4/30/05 at 12:13pm
So is this succesfull, can I order my i9300 with 1.6 GHz cpu and then buy a 1.7 (400FSB) for cheap anywhere and run it at 2.26ghz without problems?
Reply
Reply
post #209 of 754
4/30/05 at 1:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaero
So is this succesfull, can I order my i9300 with 1.6 GHz cpu and then buy a 1.7 (400FSB) for cheap anywhere and run it at 2.26ghz without problems?
The 1.6 would be a fairly safe bet getting to 2.13. A 1.7 might be pushing the odd's against you.
My 1.5 made it to 2.0 with 1.1v at full load instead of the 1.3v+ stock.
It runs substaintially cooler @ 2ghz undervolted than it did stock 1.5ghz with default voltage.
Reply
Reply
post #210 of 754
4/30/05 at 2:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by RamIt
The 1.6 would be a fairly safe bet getting to 2.13. A 1.7 might be pushing the odd's against you.
My 1.5 made it to 2.0 with 1.1v at full load instead of the 1.3v+ stock.
It runs substaintially cooler @ 2ghz undervolted than it did stock 1.5ghz with default voltage.
Sorry for my n00bness... But what program are you guys using to undervolt your CPUs? I just got into the Dell/Centrino scene last week and have been trying to learn all that I can.
Reply
Reply
post #211 of 754
4/30/05 at 2:25pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DriveEuro
Sorry for my n00bness... But what program are you guys using to undervolt your CPUs? I just got into the Dell/Centrino scene last week and have been trying to learn all that I can.
Its a program called RMClock
Reply
Reply
post #212 of 754
4/30/05 at 4:44pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by RamIt
The 1.6 would be a fairly safe bet getting to 2.13. A 1.7 might be pushing the odd's against you.
My 1.5 made it to 2.0 with 1.1v at full load instead of the 1.3v+ stock.
It runs substaintially cooler @ 2ghz undervolted than it did stock 1.5ghz with default voltage.
So 1.6@2.13 is a safe bet?
Would this make more heat or less battery life than a standard 2.13?
Reply
Reply
post #213 of 754
4/30/05 at 4:53pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaero
So 1.6@2.13 is a safe bet?
Would this make more heat or less battery life than a standard 2.13?
It will have the same heat output as a original 2.13.
Just remember, you ARE betting and sometimes you win and other times you lose.
Even if you lose, just ebay the chip and the whole experiment will end up costing you $20~$50.
Reply
Reply
post #214 of 754
4/30/05 at 5:00pm
I can return the cpu within 14 days of arrival

What about battery life?
Reply
Reply
post #215 of 754
4/30/05 at 5:48pm
Just wanted to let you guys know that I successfully got a 1.6 to 2.13 running completely stable even at 1.308 volts (as opposed to default of 1.34)
Reply
Reply
post #216 of 754
4/30/05 at 6:34pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by PJK
Eventually, the gates can't keep up (this is partly heat related partly the manufacturing) and they either stop working or break. This all depends on the actual CPU you get as some are better than others when it comes to overclocking.
Would I be right in assuming that the reason transistors keep getting smaller and smaller on chips is they can switch faster because there is less mass to move? I guess they take less energy too, that's handy.
Reply
Reply
post #217 of 754
4/30/05 at 7:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by evertec
Just wanted to let you guys know that I successfully got a 1.6 to 2.13 running completely stable even at 1.308 volts (as opposed to default of 1.34)
What computer?
Reply
Reply
post #218 of 754
5/1/05 at 3:34am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaero
What computer?
Dell Inspiron 9300... used the processor from my old 8600 though
Reply
Reply
post #219 of 754
5/1/05 at 4:58am
Quote:
Originally Posted by macman1
Would I be right in assuming that the reason transistors keep getting smaller and smaller on chips is they can switch faster because there is less mass to move? I guess they take less energy too, that's handy.
Well, it is really the manufacturing technology that holds transistors from getting smaller. Right now the two big problems are #1 the tools to physically make smaller transistors aren't good enough yet. #2 the silicon and materials used, as they shrink, you end up getting gates closer and closer together. Eventually the space between and the materials are such that electrons can jump the gap and throw things out of wack. This is why instead of faster CPU's, you get dual core chips coming out. Die sizes are small enough now and electrons getting off track is such a problem that it is easier to add more cores (on high yield proven processes) to a system than it is to increase frequencies. Right now dual core is the big thing but wait just a few years and 4 core or more desktops will be common.
Reply
Reply
post #220 of 754
5/1/05 at 6:43am
Quote:
Originally Posted by evertec
Dell Inspiron 9300... used the processor from my old 8600 though
Does Speedstep work just like before, any differences there?
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home