Overclocking the Penryn Chips

Well...according to my vista experience index, my new Penryn 9300 is actually the bottleneck on my laptop, with a vista rating of 8.4. My other components fare a lot better, with HD @ 5.6, Ram @ 5.7, GPU(OCed) @ 5.9/5.7 respectively.

I overclocked my GPU to almost twice the original clock (corewise and memorywise), so the Vista score bumped from a 5.2 to a 5.7, and the CPU (which i spent almost 200 bucks on) is now the bottleneck.

I actually thought that the new Penryn 9300 would be way faster...but maybe I am wrong...

anyways, the question is: has anyone tried to OC the CPU with, say, 3rd party tools or within the BIOS itself? and if so, how overclockable are the penryns? I have seen guys OCing the old Celeron Ms to 40% above the original core speed w/o any problems, so I wonder if it is possible to OC the penryn (since C2Ds are theoritically more overclockable...).

-Any help would be greatly appreciated.

 

Don't judge performance by the Windows Experience Index, it isn't a good benchmarking tool.

I can practically guarantee you that the T9300 is NOT the bottleneck for gaming. The only thing I can think of that the CPU would be the bottleneck for is something like video encoding, which uses pretty much nothing except CPU.

Greg

 

Oh really? Thanks for the info. Vista exp index aside, I'm actually just looking to see if I can OC my penryn chip...since i know that I will be constantly upgrading my laptop in the future, I really don't think the potential OC damage would be of any import to me, which is the reason why I'm literarily pushing the limit of every aspects of my lappy.

Like what people always say, Get the most of it (while it is fresh).

PS. call me a laptop-slaver if you wish, but i really DO believe in that a lappy lasts only for about 2 years, and any unused part is a wasted part...so....hehe... *grim* (A Whip, perhaps, would make my lappy run faster?)

 

Not happening.. Laptop chips do not/should not OC!!! how many times must this be said

 

I am aware of the consequences of Overclocking, and I understand that laptops do not fare as well as desktops in terms of FSB stress. However, what I am asking is for the possibility/method of Overclocking the CPU if possible. I know it is possible, many people have done so before with Pentium Ms and even Celeron Ms, so I don't see why a Penryn C2D can't. I am simply inquiring for the methodology, not the ethics/feasibility of overclocking your laptop.

Anyone?

 

Check out http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=230468

 

What are you talking about? "Laptop chips", which I assume you mean the CPU, are usually better overclockers than their desktop brothers. Laptop CPUs usually are required to run at lower voltages and normally scale in either direction just as well.

Rad777

 

Not directly true, sir. Laptop processors are, IMO, just the pick of the litter, from the middle of the wafer. They are the processors which will perform at the highest speeds using the lowest voltages. The cream of the crop, and best-suited to working where heat production needs to be best-managed.

If the laptop is designed to dissipate 35W of heat, then so long as the processor is stable then the speed will do it no harm. If one can manipulate the voltage, it would be possible to run at a higher speed whilst producing less than standard heat.

At the end of the day, it's a laptop, and cooling options are limited by a number of factors. But there is no reason why the CPU itself wouldn't be happy operating at a higher speed.

Lots of people, myself included, have taken mobile P4/Celeron processors, and ran them at higher than rated speeds. I've a Celeron 1.8A sitting in my box of spares somewhere, which was happy at stock voltage to 2.4ghz in a desktop with near-silent cooling. It was stable to 2.6ghz with slightly increased voltage and the same near-silent cooling...

But to be honest, it isn't likely to be worth it in a laptop. Unless you find the "sweet-spot" of processor, for example the slowest rated speed of a particularly well-scaling core, then you're going to end up with minimal gains from it, with the disadvantage of making more heat and using more battery power. The sweet-spot processor should yield a gain of typically one third with minimal voltage manipulation, but it will also yield a similar reduction in battery life.

Undervolting is the best thing you can do with a laptop. They run cooler and last longer from a full charge, which are better qualities than an extra 350mhz...

Undervolting and raising the speed would be the best of all, if your CPU could work under these conditions. A bit more power, generating similar thermal output, whilst getting a bit more time from the battery. A geeks wet-dream...

 

Hehe...thanks Daytona 955i for the input...
I really don't think that you can raise the speed while decreasing the voltage at the same time...that WOULD be a dream I guess... ;p

However, for me, my 1530 is really a desktop replacement, so I really don't care about the heat production (so long as the CPU don't get fried...). I have heard that the mobile chipsets are quite overclockable, so I'll sniff around to see if there's any way of raising the voltage and the frontal FSB (since the Dell BIOS doesn't support that by default...).

 

My desktop XP1700(1.46ghz) is happy to run at 2ghz with stock voltage. I can't remember, but I'm confident she ran .2v below stock at 1.66ghz.

I can say, without a doubt, that my old Celeron 300a(300mhz, 2v) would run at over 500mhz using 2.1v, and was still stable at 300mhz using 1.3v. And that my Celeron 566(1.75v) would do 1133mhz at 1.8v, and, again, 566mhz with 1.3v.

All processors are different; just because Intel decided a batch would run at 1.5ghz using 1.25v doesn't mean the one in your machine won't perform at it's rated speed using 1.00v, it just means they are guaranteed to work 100% at stock speeds and voltages.

 

Great, thanks again for the info. I have searched online, but apparently none of the FSB changers yet support the Intel M965 board...Since the OC features doesn't come as a standard on the Dell board, I might have to wait for a while for a newer version to come out that would support the mobo. In the mean time, I guess I'll just settle with my default clock...for now...

 

Hehe...got it...
Used FsbChanger, changed the default clock of 2.5 to 3.0 without breaking a sweat! Raised voltage by 0.5v, but not much of deal anyways. Frontal FSB increased by 500mhz, and the original runtime temp of 50 bumpted up to 55, but who cares, only 5 degrees of difference. The performance, however, is stunning. The stock (CUP&GPU) 3DM06 score was 4331, the score with OCed GPU and Stork CPU was 6217, and when the CUP speed is raised to 3.0.....guess what? the 3DM06 score bumped up to: 7012!!! Yeah, that's right! Seven Thousand 3DM06 score on a Dell M1530! That is almost TWICE the stock score. Gaming performance is AWSOME now, and I can actually play Crysis with texture quality and model quality on Very High....Happy~~~

 

http://processorfinder.intel.com/details.aspx?sSpec=SLAQG

Did you really take the voltage up by a half volt? I do hope you made a typo...!

Now, see how low you can get the voltage to go whilst remaining stable with the stock CPU speed...

 

Yah that is a HUGE voltage bump! I'd try to bring that down a little if I were you. No point in burning the chip up prematurely .

 

Out of curiosity what are your CPU temps at those settings?

 

Dude that is some heavy overclocking on the GPU. I havent seen too many go over 900 on the mem...

Crysis on very high from .5 Ghz more... So you just upped each CPU by .25Ghz? I don't know about that dude. Crysis uses the GPU way more than the CPU so you should not have seen much if any improvement.

I don't think its worth it, but just be careful.

 

Which FSB changer did you use? And what are your GPU temps? Thanks.

 

Hehe...i know...a bit too reckless...but still, i think it is worth it.

No, and for crysis, I have most of the settings on medium, and the water quality on low. I am playing with 1350*1015 (or something like that...can't remember), and I just turned Texture quality and model quality to very high cause I can't bear looking at those ugly models...who cares about volumetric cloud or physics anyways? so I turned them down...

Anyways, don't listen to Intel's website claiming the operation range for 9300 is 1.062V-1.150V. They are just playing safe. My stock voltage was 1.325, and after some CPU stress test, I figured that my lappy would be able to handle 1.825 (yeah, a 0.5v increase). And NO, the cpu did not overheat significantly, nor did my GPU after the extensive OC.

CPU: Before: 40-45C, after: 55-65C (Operational Range: 110C)

GPU:

Normal Operations: Before: 60-62C, after: 60-62C NO CHANGE.

Gaming: Before: 70-80C, after: 75-87C, some change, but still pretty far from the danger zone.

Nvidia 8600DDR3 Operational Range: 125C (an estimate, did some GPU stress test, mine hit 130C before the GPU started to slow down...)



PS> Actually thinking of OCing my Ram next...DDR2-667 is a bit slow methinks, should least make it into the 750s...

HD is the other bottleneck, rated at 5.6, should try to OC that....XD...(with a whip, perhaps?)...well, actually, if you uninstall the "Intel Matrix Storage Manager" and reboot, you can then go to device manager, select your HD, go to properties and choose the "Performance" mode as opposed to the "Quick Removal" mode, which is a LOT slower, and my 7200 doesn't spin at 7200 under the Quick Removal mode, so to maximize the speed, I got rid of the "Matrix Manager" (Whatever the hell that is), and got pretty decent speed for my HD...


Well...actually...I do knwo what the matrix storage is...read this article here if you want to know: http://www.intel.com/design/chipsets/matrixstorage_sb.htm

Basically, the manager protects serial ATA drives from data loss, at a HUGE cost of performance. Really, unless you are the type of business person who ABSOLUTELY needs your data to be safe and sound, you really shouldn't sacrifice speed over something like that....i think it is a waste....

 

shawnhao, can you tell us the how to find the program or link to it, i've been looking but i cannot find it. thanks.

 

Oh sure. It is in this post...someone has posted this link earlier in this thread, so I just followed the instructions for OCing my CPU.

http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=230468

If you want to knwo more about OCing the GPU...hell...just search something like "Overclock Mobile GPU" on google, and I bet you will find a LOT...

REMEMBER: every card is different, so yours may perform better or worse than mine, don't sweat, but that's how it works. But since we have the same specs, we should be pretty close to each other, so my numbers (stable BTW, after 3 continuous runs through the 3DM06) should serve as a pretty good reference for you.

 

thanks a ton, but i have one more question, what clock generator did you use?
i tried the one they mentioned in the other forum but it hasnt worked for me

 

You're yanking my dick.

There is NO WAY you're running 1.825v through that chip. If you are, you're a moron and deserve to lose the 6mb cache.

Absolute maximum voltage quoted by Intel is 1.55v.

You don't just slap 50% more voltage through the CPU. Nobody does, unless they're using peltiers and the like.

87C is not that far from the danger zone. The "danger zone" you're referring to doesn't exist in any conditions other than on a testbench. Plus all that heat being sucked away is transferring straight to your video card, which means it'll be running even hotter - and now I can't trust anything you've said about that either.

87C at the core - do you think the components placed immediately near the processor are designed to take that kind of heat? Moving further astray... do you think your battery is designed to work near such temperatures? Have you ever seen the damage caused by a battery failing?

I now have no reason whatsoever to believe a word you're saying. Well done.

 

Thats a good 3dmark score but man .5 volt up on the cpu seems pretty extreme, you can probably get a good overclock without touching the voltage.

I may try to get a few hundred mhz out of mine but nothing too crazy, the 1530 does seem to have better cooling than the asus laptops though that are running in the 80s-90s C, my 8600m GT never has gone above 72 mildly oced...

 

Daytona, I am not trying to make a believer out of you, but seriously, use logic. First of all, 87C is NOT hot. Search around the forum, there are people running the 8600 with a temp of 90-92C, so 87 is actually below par. Then, to make my point, your mobo is NOT going to melt under 87! the melting point for plastic is around 300, and even higher for the mobo. The hardware around the CPU can definitely handle it, like right now. Then, since you also OC, have you ever tired to OC your CPU's voltage beyond 20%? if not, then don't tell me I can't cause it is running fine. Besides, where did you get that 1.55 from anyways? Intel.com? do they tell you that your CPU will be fried if you go above 1.55? I don't think so. That's probably what they consider the CPU safe zone. Remember CPU stepping? so the generation 9300 on mine does not HAVE to follow those numbers either. Anyways, not here to argue the feasibility of OCing CPU...merely presenting what I have...I'll post the CPU-Z screen later (when I get the damn snipping tool to work properly...).


@Sneakyasiankid: I used the present: CV174CPAG, yeah, I know, it is designed for older Intel mobos, but it seem to work fine on the 965 board, so whatever....(the FSB detection is a bit off, but close enough to work anyways...).

 

Dude 1.8v is completely unnecessary PLEASE lower that so I can sleep tonight! I guarantee you're proc can do 3ghz on 1.5v it will also last longer, be more stable, generate less heat and extend battery life. Then again it's april fools, maybe you're messing with us

 

How did you get this PLL to work? I'm trying setfsb latest beta, but this I keep getting a PLL ID error.

Also, how did you increase the cpu voltage? I can only find ways to decrease it

Thanks!

 

I have the same problem with Tummy

 

Freaky,
cant wait to get the penryn on my lappy to try this out.

 

Good lord. Where to start trying to resolve the issues you have with 'logic'. Here goes...

1.55v is taken from the Intel datasheets. It is not the maximum working voltage, it is the absolute maximum voltage. If you had a hint of what makes electronics work, you'd know that this is not the same as the voltage the IC should be exposed to whilst operating. It is the maximum voltage which can be applied to the circuit whilst not functioning, and remain capable of working correctly afterwards.

Think of it as the largest spike in voltage the CPU can tolerate before it starts to degrade. Now, that should be pretty easy to understand. It isn't the maximum working voltage, it is the absolute maximum voltage that the IC should ever be exposed to. Beyond this voltage has shown to have exponentially increased damage or wear to the component in question.

http://www.analog.com/analog_root/static/raq/raq_maximumRatings.html

As for melting the motherboard, I never said this. Strip down your machine and look at the components located in the immediate vicinity of the CPU. You'll find resistors, capacitors, diodes, inductors, and a heap of other things I doubt you'll understand. But the long and short of it is that every single component near to the CPU will be running hotter as a result of the heat generated by your CPU. when things overheat, they don't tend to fail cleanly - their ability to function correctly drifts out of spec. Imagine if the resistors used to set the voltage to the CPU become too hot and drift out of spec - the voltage applied to the processor could potentially increase, causing more heat, more drift of values, and so-on.

You need a lesson on the subject far bigger than any forum post. I stand by my original claims - I believe that many processors start out life as the highest-rated model, and are 'marked down' depending on how samples have behaved under scrutiny. The best processors come from the centre section of the wafer, and these are earmarked for mobile use because they tend to offer the highest stability and working speeds whilst operating at the lowest voltages.

There are gains to be had from gently tweaking the voltages in order to allow successful manipulation of the clock speed.

Had you followed up from my last post, where I linked to the processor specifications, you'd have read the processor datasheet. The maximum working voltage is specified at 1.35v. Anyone with a half-ounce of intelligence would stray from this by a tiny amount. 1.45v should be a HARD limit, and only for short-term testing.

Really want to learn what happens with too many operating cycles with too much power pushing?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromigration

You're going to lose your CPU because you don't understand what you are doing, what realistic limits are, and the potential compromisation of components other than the CPU, and the effect of their drift on further components.

 

Hehe...Daytona, hopefully you are right, but as far as my concerns, my CPU is working fine, so I really see no need to tune down the voltage...
Trust me, on the CUP-Z, the voltage reads loud and clear: 1.825v. However, I do thank you for the info you have presented me, and I have learned a lot from it. You stand by your claim, and so do I. Let us go our own ways; you can keep believing in what you believe, and I will keep my CPU OCed...no "theoritical conflicts" here, right?
Again, thanks for the input, and I have learned a lot from you...^_^


@Tummy and Sneakyasiankid:

Do you guys have the Intel E965 motherboard w/T9300? If so, then the "CV174CPAG" present, which worked flawlessly on mine, should work on yours. Load the app up, select the present, and click on "get fsb" and the app should automatically detect your default speed and maximum capacity. As for how far you want to go with it, well, my numbers should only serve as a reference, so your CPU and motherboard combo may perform better or worse than mine, depending on the case...good luck...i guess....=]

PS> I am using Windows XP Pro SP3RC2....if that makes any difference...

 

this has got to be april fools! dude! you're not even going to TRY a lesser voltage?? see my above post...

 

Hm.. shouldn't all XPS 1530's share the same motherboard?

Anyway, cpu Z shows mine as model 0XR148, with Intel GM965 chipset. And that PLL doesn't work for me, unfortunately.

 

I could not get it to work at all :-(
oh well

 

LOL I think he was fooling around with everybody.

 

Not even one screenshot...

I have other question - how much can I lower the voltage of t8300 to maintain its productivity?

 

Until you get a lockup or bluescreen.

Just test it with Prime95. If it fails, then you have to raise your voltage a bit.