[?] C2D Mobile CPU downgrade....SL9600, SU9600, T9500/T9600, P9600...

[?] C2D Mobile CPU downgrade....SL9600, SU9600, T9500/T9600, P9600...

i have few laptop that i am thinking of downgrade the CPUs to extend the battery life. and i wondering by downgrade to SL/SU how much battery life does it translate???

as for those who says those SL/SU are BGA can't fit on my laptop...well too bad, i just finish BGA those on a socket and they works on my BCM MX45GM/V2 board.

Clevo M72 / OCZ Avenger 2
Now: T9500
To: SU9600

how much more battery am i looking @?

Lenovo T400 with 8Cell and 3Cell Battery slice @ optical bay
Now: T9600
To SL9600 or SU9600

the SU = 10W and SL = 17W, i wonder how much battery will i save on either? and performace? does the 3MB extra cache worth the 7W? assuming @ same clock rate!

i am assuming if i change all of them to SU/SL it will have much longer battery due to the system's fan wont be on all the time and 10/17W vs 35W.... anyway let me know if anyone can tell me...



here is a PICTURE of my BGA -> Socket

 

I think that if you underclock your t9600 to match the su9600 and also undervolt,
There won't be much of a difference in battery life at all. Probably nothing measurable.

Btw nice bga work.

 

Just quoting myself from this thread; this is mainly based on me experience with an SU9300 in a Latitude E6400:

tl;dr I second what moral hazard said.

 

The only real difference between your T9500 and any LV/ULV CPU would be battery life on full load as the max TDP is far lower, but as everybody has stated above, the idle use is actually going to be the same as it is the same architecture.

 

hummm..... i already running @ max battery profile in win7... was hoping if UL/SU will have even less power @ lower clock rate...

it already is constantl lock @ 1.6Ghz @ 1V... i will see when i get my SU9600 install and see if i can lock it even lower clock @ even lower voltage..

 

That is dependent if the CPU is stable at those voltages. I couldn't get below .976V on my T7500 without it causing system instability/BSOD.

 

OP, the stepping is more important than the stock voltage and frequency, E0 and R0 chips will undervolt better than earlier steppings. But even then there is also randomness and how good the CPU core you get is is the luck of the draw. There is absolutely nothing special about Intel's low voltage chips. Normal cpu's can be made to perform exactly like them by underclocking and undervolting.

But that's a 65nm Merom core, and the OP is talking about 45nm Penryns, which can definitely go lower.

 

My point was each CPU is going to be different, not all will guarantee lower voltages and be stable. I had an E8400 (E0) and Q6600 (G0) that couldn't overclock for anything, despite being highly touted for being overclockable.