Precision M4400 Owner's Lounge

@baniels

a refurbished mobo? I don't think that possible but i'm probably nit-picking since you probably mean a mobo that has been used in another laptop? Not sure how to see that though i somehow doubt they would reuse mobo's. A refurb laptop has to have a large green (or was it yellow) sticker on the bottom saying it's a refurb.
My reason for thinking you'll get a new mobo is that when they're refurbishing a laptop and it needs another mobo they probably won't use one they took out of yet another laptop.

other ideas?

 

@minibob: the inside is pretty cleanish. the mobo just got replaced 2 times, also both heat sinks. the fan has lil dust on it, but looks very fine.

still, lifting or not lifting doesnt make much of a difference. for my old laptop it made quite a difference.

anyhow, lets see how and if dell gets the overheating problem into they'r grip.

@baniels: easiest solution is probably to ask. the part number on the box can tell - but i didn't listen carefully how to check it .)

 

Hi guys,

I have a m4400 with a p9600 processor. I've used it just for surfing the web, and I noticed that the CPU temperature rises to 37C (and GPU at 57C) then the fan kicks in until CPU is at 25C. Then after 25-30 min, CPU is back at 37C.

Is this normal? What should be the normal temperature for the CPU under low load? I think I read 32-35C for the T9600 CPU, and I expected the P9600 to be cooler.

I'm using the laptop on my lap with the dell coolslice, using it on a table doesn't make a big difference. And I'm on bios A11.

Thanks!

 

Hello all,

I'm nearing the 30 day mark for my new M4400 and after a lot of consideration I decided I made a mistake and should have gotten the higher resolution screen (1920x1200 instead of 1440x900).

I'm curious about what people think about 1920x1200? Is the size of text etc. too small? Can you configure it to be comfortable for use at that resolution? Originally I thought 1920x1200 was way too high for a 15.4in screen, but I've decided now that 1440x900 is just too low and the clincher is that it's easier to make things bigger to compensate for too high resolution than it is to make things smaller to compensate for too low resolution.

So - I'm filing a return request with Dell to see if I can exchange it.

Anyone else done something like this? Is there any chance Dell will replace the screen on-site rather than force me to return the laptop and get a whole new one (and spend hours setting it up, etc)? I have to think this will be cheaper for Dell as well, so I'm hoping they will do it that way.

PS: Why oh why couldn't Dell support the resolution I would actually like - 1600x1050???

 

My old Dell was 1600 x 1050 and it was perfect. It came preconfigured with the fonts upscaled to 127 points and some of the dialog boxes had text cut off so I went back to standard font size and everything fit perfectly but got much smaller. I got used to it and I actually ended up enjoying that resolution.

Now, with that in mind, I was really afraid that 1900 x 1200 would be way too small for 15 inch. Also, the 15 inch macbook pros all have 1400 x 900 screens, so I figured that if it's good enough for a high end Apple lappy, it's good enough for me.

When I first got my M4400 with the 1400x900 screen, I found it a little too low resolution compared to my old Dell but I found that it was comfortable to read web pages and such. I got used to it and am fine with it. I love the led screen!

I am going to keep this screen.

However, I am sure the rgb led 1900 x 1600 must be jaw dropping.
If you are using vista, upscaling the font size won't mess up dialog boxes like xp had a tendency of doing.

I say go for it. It is true when you say it's better to upscale something than to downscale something in this instance.

I think the 1600 x 1050 was the sweet spot for me.

 

I have setup and configured my M4400. It runs very smooth. The system was not loud while I did all the configuration work. At that time I used only the build in display. As I started to use the M4400 as a primary computer with an external monitor the situation changed: The GPU is always clocked 500/800 MHz (measured with GPU-Z), the GPU temperature is above 60° and the fans are running and are very noticeable.

I downloaded new drivers from laptopvideo2go, but the situation did not change. Unfortunately there is no configuration setting on the UI for the manipulation of the powermizer (I use Vista X64). All tools that I know (like NCH) do not run under X64.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

@ zuperduperman I like the 1440x900 resolution, because it is close to 100 DPI. This density is optimal if you work very long with your computer. If possible, I always work with two monitors. This gives my the space on the desktop which I need.

 

Amen. I went with the 1920x1200, and while I do enjoy the screen real estate, icons and text are a touch on the small side. My wife has a 15.4" 1680x150, and I do think that would have been the optimal resolution for this screen size.

 

Anyone play around with undervolting? I'm giving it a try right now, with pretty decent results, but I'm wondering what experience others have had.

I've got the T9600 processor, rated at 1.05-1.175 volts. It has a 10.5x multiplier, which is not recognized by the RightMark CPU utility (doesn't support half multipliers, apparently), so I'm worried that I'm effectively underclocking as well as undervolting. That being said, I've got it running with a 10x multiplier at 1.0375 volts right now, dropped it from 75°-80°C (1.175 volts, after 12 minutes of Orthos) to 63°C (after over an hour of Orthos).

I'm confused about the multipliers, though. Intel says the T9600 has a 10.5 bus/core ratio, meaning it has a 10.5x multiplier, right? But RMclock doesn't support half multipliers, so all I'm seeing are whole multipliers (10x, 9x, 8x, 7x,and 6x, specifically). But when I do the calculations, it seems the whole multipliers are correct after all? At 10x, my CPU runs at 2793MHz. At 8x, it runs at 2234MHz. 2793 divided by 10 and multiplied by 8 is exactly 2234, whereas dividing by 10.5 and multiplying by 8.5 give 2261MHz. Am I misunderstanding the multiplier and the bus/core ratio?

Edit: Installing CPU-Z confirms that RMclock is giving me faulty information. At 8x, my system IS NOT running at 2234MHz, it's running at 2128MHz, which exactly matches the expectations when you divide 2793 by 10.5 then multiply by 8. CPU-Z also confirms that, when RMclock is active and set to 10x, I'm underclocked by 133MHz. :/

 

One tip I picked up from another poster here was that pressing Fn-Z resets the fan. I've found sometimes that the fan goes on and gets 'stuck' on high speed and if I reset it, it returns to low speed and stays there. You might already know this, but I haven't found it documented anywhere else so I thought I would mention it.

I think I'd be happy with 2 monitors as well. Unfortunately one of my primary goals is to make this laptop a complete self sufficient workstation when I'm on the go - so I need the desktop real estate even when I'm mobile.

Cheers,

Simon.

 

It is very easy to reproduce my problem.
1. Download GPU-Z to measure the clock frequencies
http://www.techpowerup.com/gpuz/
2. Start GPU-Z on an idle desktop with no external monitor connected. The GPU clock should be 169/100MHz.
3. Connect an external monitor (idle desktop). Immediately the clock frequency will be increased to 800/500MHz and remain at this level all the time.
The graphic driver switched to 3D performance mode even though no 3D application is running. How can I avoid this false 3D detection?
Am I the only person with this problem?