FSB downclock mod on the intel GL960 and GL40 --- useful info for PLL Modders

Exactly for this purpose I have a computer. I need this only to test and write posts. 1x1GHz would therefore be sufficient. I think we are all mad.

The impetus for these tests was to you, and the two of you posted topics. ( Theme 1 and Theme 2)
So my thanks go to you. (And-nando4/kizwan/moral hazard and and and)

I'm not sure what contribution you think. Perhaps from a different thread?
In any case I was and am aware of this behavior. Thanks anyway for your explanation.

Again, I'm not sure what you are referring to. No "HDX Dragon" owner ever tried a "T9900". But I see no problem with this CPU. Why should not this work? If "X9100" work, then work "T9900" and any other "1066 CPU". (Apart from Quad)
One problem is, of course, the multiplier locked. But that's what "SetPll" and more. For me would be "T9900" not an option.

Unfortunately, I have the "reference frequency adjustment" is not yet understood to 100%.
The key lies in front of me (your little table), but it still did not click in my head. See your own pictures here in comparison:



"133MHz to 166MHz" is the same "SocketMod" as "266MHz to 200MHz."
Why I just do not understand the simple dynamics.

Next:



"166MHz to 200MHz" is the same "SocketMod" as "133MHz to 266MHz."
The solution is simple, but I do not see it. Help me to understand it!

But did you read that right. I am now writing in short sentences. Then there are fewer errors.
I own PM965. At the beginning of my tests, I needed the "SocketMod 266MHz to 200MHz" for a working "X9100" on PM965. In the bios the correct frequency is displayed. (2300MHz) Everything was quite normal.

After many more tests, I suddenly noticed a wrong frequency display in the bios. Under the same conditions (SM-266 to 200) now "1909MHz". This is a "SM266MHz to 166MHz" correspond.
The OS, however, shows the correct value (2300MHz) to. For this reason, I also noticed the error until very late. Who's going so often in his bios.

Further investigation of this failure rendered the following findings:

Each CPU is working suddenly without "SocketMod" with 166MHz on my PM965.
Whether "X9100" or "T8100" or "T4400". The bios always shows the corresponding value of 166MHz. The operating system was formed from the corresponding value of 200MHz. So it's not a problem but a mystery.
A 166MHz processor is normally displayed in the bios. Tested with T5450.

For a correct display in the bios I need now a "SocketMod 166MHz to 200MHz."
Whether "X9100" or "T8100" or "T4400".

My guess is a damaged socket. What damage would produce this behavior? Certainly only a "CPU Pin" no contact with the base. But which one?

The fact is, "X9100" would not work normally without "SocketMod" on PM965. For me, it makes it now though.

Another factor is, each "SocketMod" carries over into the OS. (CPU frequency)
With me no longer. In the OS is always the fundamental frequency 200MHz.


Changing the subject:
Since I the principle of "SocketMod" still do not understand 100%, I can currently only use your pictures.
I am missing the following "SocketMod" for PM965:
First "266MHz to 133MHz"
Second "200MHz to 133MHz"
Third "166MHz to 133MHz"
Please show me these modifications!

I think it is too simple as I can understand it.

How does this SocketMod? (200 to 166)?

I know only "266 to 166". This corresponds to this mod:

 

I spoke about the T9900 as I used to have one and I know that it won't post on the GL40 and GL960 without the mod from 266 to 200 FSB. So I'm wondering why the X9100 can boot in your laptop without any mod !!?

It is quite simple. You have to keep in mind that your reference is the CPU and not the socket. So the starting point in the case case of the X9100 is the 266MHz FSB, and BSel-2-1-0 = L L L.

In both case we connect BSEL1 to a Vcc hole to force BSEL1 to be high. It is straight forward.

because in both case BSel0 is connected to Vcc and no change is made to BSEL1 and BSEL2.

This is odd.

As I explained in my last post the 166 to 200 mod doesn't do anything since BSEL0 is already set to low for the X9100, T8100 and T4400.

It is strange that you can boot the x9100 with the 166 to 200 mod. It seems that for some reason your BSEL1 is locked in High instead of Low !!!

BSel 2 1 0 | Frequency
---- L L L | 266
---- L H L | 200
---- L H H | 166
---- L L H | 133

266MHz to 133MHz: BSEL0 + Vss
200MHz to 133MHz: BSEL0 + Vcc and BSEL1 + Vss
166MHz to 133MHz: BSEL1 + Vss

Note:
For the X9100 this two mods give the same result: 266MHz to 133MHz and 200MHz to 133MHz.

The T8100 and T4400 will not boot with the 166MHz to 133MHz mod, because this is the same as doing 200 to 266 mod.

 

I will look at it. The question is how to verify that certain BIOS component is APIC initialization piece of code?

 

Because my socket has an error. At the beginning of my tests everything behaved exactly as described by you.
At that time worked for each of you described "SocketMod" correctly. Both the BIOS and in the "OS".

This had changed in the meantime. Of course it is not easy to understand. One knows the behavior of each "SocketMod" but not the exact behavior when has a "CPU Pin" no contact with socket.

It even looks like this as if "BSEL 1" and "BSLE 0" locked on high. Because each CPU works so without "SocketMod" with 166MHz. (equivalent to LHH)
And for this reason do I need a "SocketMod" to "LHL" for each CPU in order to get to 200MHz. (for X9100 and T8100)
Just a reminder, the error affects only the BIOS. The "OS" is always correct.

Yes I know it works for me but because of the "socket error".

By your endurance and re-explanation, I finally understood this principle.
I thank you for it. With new information, I'll write here.

For you as a conclusion: Your statement is 100% correct. Everything is just a fault of my system.

Because of my supposed "Socket Error" This is certainly work for me. I will try this soon.

Here you had accidentally chosen the wrong quote from me.

Sorry I had to restructure the text. I hope you could understand everything.
Once again my thanks to you!

 

@RickiBerlin, I can't help but I can tell you that I had a similar problem.

Before my MSI GT627 Died, I was playing with BSEL mods.
After several tests, I had noticed that my SP9400 would boot with a 200mhz FSB (instead of 266mhz originally). This was without a BSEL mod.

I have no explanation.

 

Apologies to other users. My theme is really something off Toppic. There should be afraid of anybody.
My tests were really hard and have nothing to do with the regular "SocketMod".
(15000 on / off switching operations of Testmoterboards, 130xCPU change to the socket, some operations 30xSBios Flash)
All this because of "QX9300" try on "PM965".

Thanks for your feedback. Those are good prospects. (Moterboard death)

For me there is no problem until now. On the contrary. I do not even need "SocketMod" more and can use any CPU immediately.

Interestingly, the only reason would be to know.

The first thing I had suspected the bios. After 10 different flash methods that do not change but I gave up. (including hardware reset and cmos battery overnight distance)

Whether it is the "socket" is? Maybe it's a completely different cause.

My attempt at "QX9300" I always had "SocketMod 266 to 200". If I wanted to test a new bios, I had another CPU (800MHz CPU) use. (only for Flash process)
For this, I removed the "SocketMod" Of course not every time.
The 800MHz CPU worked without any problems even with existing 266zu200Mod.
Whether this was causing this issue?
It is not the time to understand. Perhaps there comes the knowledge.

 

If a BSEL is stuck in low one can say that the pin is broken or is not touching the contact in the hole. In other words, I would have said that you socket is damaged.

I can't find any logical explanation to why your BSEL(s) is stuck in High. This is really odd !!!

Am I missing something?

 

Just a reminder:
BIOS Frequency display my PM965 without "SocketMod" with each CPU = 4x166MHz.
Whether "X9100 (266MHz CPU)" = 1917MHz [x11, 5] or "T4400 (200MHz CPU)" = 1833MHz [x11])

In the operating system without additional tools, however, frequency of 4x200MHz. (X9100 = 2.3 GHz or T4400 = 2,2 GHz)

Now it gets crazy:

For test reasons the "QX9300" I had a "SpeedStepOFF SBios" on the system. With this BIOS, the multiplier is locked on x6. This is for information only.
I'm not sure what role it plays in the mystery. Of course, this lock with "ThrottleStop" are repealed.

Today I tested exactly "this SocketMod" here described by " naton".

Result:
"X9100 SLB48 in bios" 2300MHz (11.5 x200MHz) / "in the OS" = 1200MHz (6x200MHz)
"T4400 SLGJL in bios" 1833MHz (11x166MHz) / "in the OS" = 1200MHz (6x200MHz)

Following this and using the same "SocketMod" I made a "SBios Flash" on an unmodified bios. CPU during the flash was "X9100 SLB48".

After successful flash and before the first "OS startup" I went into the bios to the "System BIOS Information"

Bios frequency indicator for "SLB48 X9100" = 1917MHz (11.5 x166MHz)
Now I started the OS.
In the OS CPU frequency = 2300MHz (11.5 x 200)
So far, everything ok. I finished the OS again and went into the bios.
Now been shown in the BIOS suddenly 2300MHz. This remained the case after 30 other motherboard starts above)

Now I removed the "SocketMod BSEL1+VSS"
Result: No change in frequency for "X9100 SLB48"
(Without "SocketMod" Now 2300MHz in the BIOS and OS) - equivalent to 11.5 x200MHz

The "T4400" I also always testetet parallel under the same conditions.
Result: For the T4400, there was no change. In the BIOS always 1833MHz (11x166MHz).
Of course, the "OS" with this "normal bios" then always 2200MHz (11x200MHz).

Now the new mystery:
I now put "X9100 QHBQ" (ES version) "on the socket without Mod
Result: In the BIOS 1917MHz (11.5 X166) / OS = 2300MHz (11.5 x 200)

I could not believe it. I changed "QHBQ X9100 (ES version)" and "X9100 SLB48" repeatedly against each other.
The result was the same. I started several times the "OS", no change.
"Bios frequency display" no "SocketMod":
"X9100 SLB48" - (OEM version) "= 2300MHz
"X9100 QHBQ" - (ES version) "= 1917MHz

It looks as if a Biosflash is responsible for the mystery. But what exactly happens?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EDIT:

I tested further. Without renewed Biosflash.

First "X9100 QHBQ" - (ES version) installed with BSEL0 + VSS (166zu200).
"Bios frequency" = 2300MHz ("without SocketMod" it was 1917MHz)

Then "X9100 SLB48" - (OEM version) without "SocketMod"
"Bios frequency" = 2300MHz

Then "X9100 SLB48" - (OEM version) with BSEL0 + VSS (166zu200) installed.
"Bios frequency" = 2300MHz

Then "X9100 SLB48" - (OEM version) without "SocketMod"
"Bios frequency" = 1917MHz

Now the socket is firmly back on 166MHz on your CPU. This happened only a "SocketMod of 166zu200".

Who can solve this riddle?

 

Now I am gonna get a bit out of topic, but Ricki, can you tell us exactly the steps needed to run a QX9300 on a PM965? even if it utilizies just one core I bet it outperforms X9100.. is any special bios/mod involved or it just runs after having done the BSEL mod? thanks

 

I've solved the puzzles.

The only reason was faulty contacts on the socket.

For mainly affected the contacts "BSEL1", "BSEL0" and 1x "VCC" were.
See picture in the spoiler.

Spoiler

All mysteries I have described can thus also explain exactly.

Here is the explanation:

If 'BSEL' has no contact, then corresponds to the "bios CPU frequency" of a "SocketMod of BSEL to VCC" (corresponds to high)

This "CPU frequency" is not transferred to the chipset. For this reason, the CPU appears there with a normal "200mhz BSEL". Therefore, we the "socket contact error" not recognize the operating system.

Examples of contact error: (all examples without any "SocketMod")---->

First only "BSEL1" defective (equivalent to "SocketMod266zu200" but without effect in OS)

"X9100 / 1066 CPU" = "BIOS 2300MHz" / "OS2300MHz"
"T4400 / 800 CPU" = "BIOS2200MHz" / "OS2200MHz"

Second only "BSEL0" defective (equivalent to "SocketMod266zu133" and "SocketMod200zu166" but without effect in OS)

"X9100 / 1066 CPU" = 133MHz is not possible!
"T4400 / 800 CPU" = "BIOS1833MHz" / "OS2200MHz"

Third "BSEL1" and "BSEL0" defect (equivalent to "SocketMod266zu166" and thus indirectly "SocketMod200zu166" but without effect in OS)

"X9100 / 1066 CPU" = "BIOS 1917MHz" / "OS2300MHz"
"T4400 / 800 CPU" = "BIOS1833MHz" / "OS2200MHz".

Precisely this assumption I had mentioned here:

By the way I've found a "1066 CPU" can not underclock to 133MHz.

@naton, here is you made ​​a slight mistake. Written in "RED" should " VCC" to be!

Edit:

As you see, you had to post this one flaw.
It's the opposite. BSEL without contact corresponds to "high".

 

I can only speak for my system. (HDX Dragon with PM965)

Besides the "SocketMod 266zu200 266zu166 or" there are no further conditions. ( I did everything described here exactly)

And still is "QX9300 or Q9200" recognized only for every "one hundredth motherboard start". That means "99x motherboard start" without success.

For a successful "OS boot" the system must first be limited to "working with a core." (in Windows using "msconfig" / when using Knoppix "acpi = off")

"QX9300" corresponds to 2x X9100 "(with four cores working)
With a core "QX9300" is equivalent to a half "X9100".

You see, with a core makes "QX9300" no sense.

@naton (or other users)

Can you confirm the "1066 CPU" will not work on 133MHz?
I have not googled. Maybe you had the test before.
For me, not a function "X9100" or "QX9300" with "BSEL0 VCC".
(of course also not "BSEL0 VSS" because that is "not a mod for this CPU" )

CPU remains in each case at 266MHz. Not possible to boot PM965.

And one more question:

But first a few preliminary remarks.

At the beginning of this paper I describe the conditions when "QX9300" works on my system with one core.

Are all these conditions, then works "QX9300" perfectly normal "1 core".

That is, normal temperature normal overclocking with "ThrottleStop". No problems. ( see pictures)

But, and here's one not explainable mystery for me:

As soon as I would like to adjust with the help of "ThrottleStop" a voltage of more than 1.3000 V, there is an immediate crash. No matter what the multiplier.

Why?

Normally a "voltage up to 1.5 V" be possible. At the "X9100" is not a problem. This also works with 1.5 V.

 

Read the ENTIRE thread. Great stuff.

I see you have figured the CPU socket can be disassembled.
You guys have made a lot of progress so far. A few questions...

have there been any Acer pm965 bios break throughs as far as adding c2q micro codes and apic with the recent progress of NetRollers 9600m gt bios fixes?

How do you keep the bsel from spreading apart contacts?

How do you keep the Bsel routed in such a way that it doesn't touch other pins when the cpu is clamped down?

 

Could you please post those links about acer pm965 discoveries around micro code and apic. I have prepared already a bios version with quad core information for ricki but it didn't help. I think and it was said already that apic probably has to be changed to support q2d. Unfortunately I don't know how to locate APIC information in HDX bios and also I would need information how to find it in another pm965 laptop which has such support. What is concerning netroller 3D I have asked him to made a fix to our vbios to support FX3700/280m video cards but after few replies he is not longer responding to my pm's Is someone able to talk to him and ask for further work?

 

I think if it was just a bios related issue it would be able to run without any problem on two cores.. however, according to Ricki it doesn't and therefore I doubt whether it's just a microcode/apic/you_name_it bios issue.

 

C2Q is a retrofit it into a PM965 system, running at a slower 800Mhz FSB. They are officially supported only in Series-4 chipsets (PM45/GM45) so look to those systems for a bios with the APIC/ACPI with C2Q initialisation code (eg: HP 8530W, 8730W).

 

Thank you for your clarification!
I thought this would be "AlphaHex" known. I wrote this but also on several occasions.
If it were otherwise, then would my purchase of "QX9300 and" Q9200 "not as a high risk.

PM965 is "gennerell" not for "quad" is specified. And I also have not found anyone worldwide of a "Quad" on "PM965" put to work successfully.
Exactly that's the biggest problem. Even if all conditions are (ACPI bios etc) mastered the question still remains .... can PM965 with "Quad" work?

I think yes.

What do you think of the 1.3-V problem?

 

I know that already but need help with those bioses. When you decompress them with phoenix mod tool you will get few dozen of files. I need information about GUID for DSDT and APIC to be able to work further on them.

 

But, i believe it was ricki who did a get c2q to run on 2 cores on his hdx. I saw this going through this very thread.

i was just referring to the 9600m gt thread netroller made.as far as bioses you can dl them from acer unless you need it extracted/copied from the computer witch i may be able to help with.

you guys should do some googling about bios modding there are some communities out there that do bit of bios modding. they may be able to help.

 

I'd also like to add that you guys are really close to some break throughs hell getting that quad core to boot a pm965 already is a break through.

I really dig this kind of stuff essentialy we are learning what the heck makes the chip sets so different.... kind of if a pm965 can boot a quad and possibly run all 4 cores with the correct APIC and Micro codes what would make them so different from chip sets that officially support quads except an FSB clock incompatibility?

THINK ABOUT ALL THE THINGS!


Seriously, think about all the things... ever...in existence. It seems almost every day I learn something or teach/learn something by my self by just pondering and going over all the information i have absorbed weather it be some weird problem with a desktop i'm tinkering on or just coming up with some convoluted idea of technical nature.

Think about all the results you have gained so far, ALL the results weather it's screen caps or beep codes or damaged CPU socket. Then think about related things like netrollers bios mod thread, or even bios modding guides. Just let it all float through your head. Trust me you will come up with some ideas and answers.

 

Today I have a picture with all the differences created ( see Spoiler! ). The image is very large, so please also scroll to the right!

Only then did I realize a "Bios Mod" alone can not help.
Even with "PM45" there are "Quad Support" and "not Quad-support". "PM45 not Quad support " corresponds to "PM965". (apart from 1066MHz to 800MHz)

Spoiler

Here the same picture for smaller monitors. (slightly blurred)

Spoiler

A subsequent search in the "WEB" was an immediate hit.
For example, "Aspire 8930G" with PM45. There are several motherboard designs:

1."MB.ASZ0B.001 - MAIN BD AS8930G.PM45.ICH9 LF" - only for C2D

2."MB.ASZ0B.004 - MAIN BD.PM45.ICH9.DIS.LF.QC" - for C2Q (even C2D?)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'll try the "Blue + Red Pins" to isolate. Only for experimental purposes for two functioning cores. Further tests arise from my picture.

 

not necessarily for all we know it's a bio difference but, i doubt it, if anything it uses the same bios and if they use the same fsb then you might be on to something but, it could be something like a lockout because model A has better VRMs and can support quad core but, model B has less VRMs and can only support dual cores.

it may just depend on brand and model and revision but, when you booted that c2q on a pm965 thats a pretty strong indicator it may just be possible but, depend on the board or system weather it can be modded to work.

 

To all users are interested in the progress of "Quad Core" to "PM965 chipset" have.

I decided to publish more information in the thread " HP HDX DRAGON Owners Lounge 9000, Part 2". Otherwise there is a double post.

I think this thread for the topic is "off topic". For a separate thread on this topic, it is too early.

Meanwhile, there are already new information. With a new "SocketMod" I am able to boot "QX9300" at every startup. (previously only every 100 boot)
Nevertheless, it remains for now at just one core.
My test go to the "four core success," continues. (if earlier than in 10 years)

I think from this side there was new information. (I now looked not exactly)
If not go from this side up! Those interested will find all the information. I had also updated the pictures.

If there is a breakthrough, I'll put a link in this forum.

Thank you for your attention and your interest!

 

1 core ehh, interesting, i hope your cpu socket is still in working order, i saw the picture of of the bent contacts. hopefully that is not an issue other wise the experiment results may not be correct.



"Arbitration Request signal for the second die.
BR1# is connected to the first die within the package, allowing two
dies within quad-core parts to artitrite for the bus. This pin is
fundamentally provided for debug capabilities and should be left as a NC."

doesn't mean that pin doesn't go any where or that it can't be used. or if that is the case maybe it can be moded so that it does function.

EDIT: orrrr would it possible to duplicate the arbitration request pin, take the one that goes to die number 1 and run a bsel wire from die 1 request pin to die 2 request pin, basically 1 arbitration request pin for 2 dies, or am i talking nonsense?

 

I watch very closely to the test, there is no alienation. In addition, these contacts play no role. I explained exactly what these contacts are responsible.

Of course, I had directed the bent contacts. When a pin is not making contact, then I noticed that immediately.

The last word ( red) of your article accurately describes your proposal. Thanks anyway!

I only needed a translation for "NC". This I had in the meantime received from "AlphaHex". (not contact)
The result confirmed my work. "BR1#" may have when using "Quad" no contact.

Please do not be mad when I'm here now do not answer immediately. That to me is always very time consuming. (for translation)
I have yet to implement many ideas and I need the time.

 

I and other people understand that you are very busy.

Do you mean you think NC is not just a useless/blank pin?

 

NC = no contact

This pin must be insulated. I thought you would have understood.

 

yeah but, i believe that is NC under normal usage with core 2 duo doesn't the core 2 quad need it for something.

 

Then, your English is worse than mine. You had in your post "#73" the "Intel Text" quoted from my picture. There is clearly, "BR1#" with "quad" = NC.

It may therefore have no contact. This is confirmed also my tests. "No Contact" starts the "Quad" at any time.

 

hhmm well if it doesn't need the pin, is there any reason to not cut the pin off the cpu or spread open the contacts under the socket? is it NC with a core 2 duo as well? does it need to be insulated?

 

Question about pinmods - isn't a problem that every pin in the path of the non insulated wire will be conducting electricity into each other, not just the 2 intended pins? :S

Been thinking about that for a while.

About to try p9400 on the Dell m1530 then maybe a q9200.

 

Mod confirmed working with a p7350 on Dell m1530 with PM965. Didn't work with the p9400 tho.

 

Without tape as insulation can cause a short circuit.
This experience I've already done. Since I'm doing it this way:



I hope that answers your question.

 

Well, the fact is I have NO insulation tape right now. I don't think most people do who have tried the mod.

However, it does seem like half the time when I try it, the wire breaks. Not when I turn the screw. When I power on the laptop

Ricki... you must have a fine hand, but also I've noticed a fine cognitive mind. I learn visually. Can we PLEASE see pictures of your modified socket for Quad? Or have you already soldered the backside of the board?

The truth is, while I think people believe you did it, you still do not get enough credit and appreciation. And no one else has done it. If I do it with success I will post a thread in your honor.

BTW you posted asking about the word "arbitration" and if it means Conciliation / arbitration / mediation / settlement.
I think the best meaning is "judgement" but it implies decision being made, the best meaning being "decision" but that may be translated wrong because it should be more a verb, not the more common noun interpretation.
Try to play the protoss in starcraft sometime

I actually envy the german language, I hear you have words for things that we do not.

However you use the word "Isolation" to mean the same as with the original mod on page 1 and the Quad mod you did. This is why I ask for a picture. Did you connect AA7, BR1# to VSS at Y6??

I'm going to try the mod as best I can soon.

I don't think this is off topic for you to post here, as in the 1st post it says "this mod concerns qx9300"

 

Your proposal would represent a short circuit. Because "AA7" corresponds to "VCC". A direct connection to "VSS" is therefore not possible.

I have "AA7 (BR1#)" in isolation. That is, separation of the connection between "AA7 Pin" and socket. It works just as well. (of course only one core, but always be started)
For this you need either paint as an insulator, or ...
If the socket is open paper or other insulating material. See also figure in the last link. Here I have the CPU pin isolated directly.

Unfortunately I have no time to full answers. Here it is 5:20 in the morning (still night)
But I see you're online. So at least a brief answer. Later a detailed.

I just got your interest.
See also my previous posts on the HDX forum !!!

A mod is currently hopeless. Unless your BIOS supports quad.
Soon I will try a "DSDT" Mod.

 

Well it seems fairly clear to me we need a bios modder to add micro codes and apic i think that might change a few things.

one thing it might change is that you may not need to set the os to use only one core with knopix.

a second thing it might change is the UUID bug, where the UUID vanishes.

as interesting as this mod is, i think i'm stick with a x9000 in my 5920g for now but, the possibility of a booting a quad would be interesting once the dual core can't cut it any more. How ever dual cores are still proving very effective for me in some desktop builds.

Regardless i still wanna see this happen if it proves in possible in the end. I'm wondering if some mods to the chip set can't be made to help accommodate the quad cores if indeed we get no luck with micro codes and APIC bios mods.

 

Then most of them will not succeed.

No wonder, your cable has blown due to a short circuit. Be glad that your cable has worked as an electrical fuse! Determines your socket is melted at this point something.

The problem lies in the images of "naton". These form from only a guide, but are not practically feasible. The cable on the images to have a large diameter.
A "CPU Pin" would never set in the remaining opening of the socket. And without insulation would be "naton Socket Mod picture" an immediate short circuit.

See here is my mod to the "naton" by comparison:

An electron microscope would be an advantage sometimes.
No, no soldering at the time. Pictures and explanation below!

Thank you for your appreciation. Nevertheless, I must disappoint you. No matter what you try, I'll always be five steps advance.
But maybe I'll mention your name in my thread.

Thanks for the detailed translation! Meanwhile, there is not more important. Fact is, "BR1#" no contact with the "Quad Core" can get.
In other words, the corresponding pin to be insulated.

Now there are various possibilities......

1. Violent: desolder pin of the CPU. (Or Cancel)

2. Insulation with color. For example, with ballpoint pen refill. Mine cut in the middle. Then push the open end of the mine over the pin.

3. Socket open. Spread the contacts in the socket. (This is important, otherwise bend the contacts and can not be reused)
Subsequently, paper or other method to isolate. Alternatively, you can also get the "CPU Pin" an insulating coating.
I use both components of Example 3 (See the link from my own previous post)

or a high resolution right here:



Nevertheless, already carries the mere opening of the socket at high risk.

My socket always remains open. Even with tests. Anything else would be just a gamble. I need but 100% true test results.

Do not do this to your main system! There can be no success at the time.
But if you have multiple systems, then of course you can experiment.

You're right, but my home is the " HDX Dragon Thread".

 

Haha, you have no idea, I am the perfect guinea pig for this mod. I don't have a main system, and I have 3 pm965 systems right now with 1 extra motherboard each for 2 of them (thats 5 boards). Thats only half my laptops.

What if, in some crazy upside down world this mod was easier on socket M? Just a thought.

Anyway thanks for the pics that does clarify. And when i said "I would start a thread in your honor" I was not claiming your accomplishment!! I was simply saying you should start a dedicated thread already.
Your home may be the HDX dragon thread but everyone must leave their home sometime.

I don't think anyone understood until now. those pictures are GREAT. You were saying "isolate" like bsel mod with wire = same type of mod as BR1# isolation.

For your mod does q9200 work?
Im worried because a ES p9400 did not work on the m1530. Maybe it was the short but p7350 is working well now (without insulation). I have to try the p9400 modded on another laptop.

Lastly, what do you think would happen if you ran a wire from BR1# to VCC? Possibly have the same effect?

I can think of a way to do it and close the socket. With a very small drill bit maybe you could drill out the BR1# hole of the socket making it easier to fit.

Thanks again for your help and of course your amazing ambition.

 

Thanks for sharing your experience with us. I've updated the main page to show that you have been successful at doing the mod with the P7350.

Something I don't understand is what's a P9400? or did you mean a T9400?

 

using a tape is a neat trick

 

^I'm as surprised as you are

Really its amazing that it works without tape.

 

technically the mod could be done on the cpu in between the pins, i have seen it done on tualatins, then again it has pins much further apart.

 

Hallo,

I just found this very interesting thread and like to ask a further question. Is there a guarantee, that if the conditions postet in the first message are met, a 1066MHz Core 2 Duo CPU will work in older notebooks or is there still a chance that it will not work?

I`ve got an Acer Extensa 7630EZ with a GL-Chipset and a T4300 CPU. I asked Acer Support if the notebook is upgradable to a CPU that supports Virtualization Technology. They said yes and send me a list of CPUs. So I bought a P8600 (1066MHz), which was on the list too, but I can't get this CPU running even after upgrading to the newest Bios Version. Black screen, notebook reboots etc. So maybe the method of downclocking the CPU FSB described in this thread is a solution for my problem?! (I'm new to pinmodding and didn't want to damage the CPU or the notebook so I thought to ask before I try..)

Thanks in advance for your help.

 

Lets see the list

 

P8400, P8600, P9500, T9400, T9600

 

I meant the actual content from Acer itself, Not what you can type. Just out of curiosity.

 

It was an communication by email. They send me no content in form of pdfs or similar, although I asked for the service guide. Here is the list in more detail. I hope it will help to answer/solve my questions/problem. Thanks.

They said the compatibility is written in the service guide, but not tested with all notebooks. I hope now that the compatibility with my notebook is not given, the pinmod will do.

 

<strike>The only 800Mhz-FSB CPU in that list is a T9500, so that's the only one that would work with your GL40 chipset. The others may work too if you apply the BSEL pinmod, running them at 800Mhz which is 75% of their rated frequency.</strike> <--- disregard. There are no 800Mhz FSB CPUs in that list.

 

nando4 I think you misread the list as the T9500 is not included.

besel12 the reason that none of the CPUs on the list will work is because their FSB is 1066MHz (266MHz effective) and that's not supported by the GL chipset.

The mod as described in the first post should work. If you're having trouble with it use some sellotape like it was explained by RickiBerlin in post 82.

Let us know how it goes so I could add your experience to the 1st post

 

Thank you all. I' ll try it tomorrow..

 

I'm sorry, I was not able to do the pinmod. I tried nearly two hours, but I think my fingers were too big. After a while I got headache too, because of focusing to the small dimensions of socket and wire. So I gave up and will now by another cpu on ebay.

Will all 800MHz Cpu's do for GL40 chipset or must I choose someone with nearly equal features than T4300 (vcore 1-1,25 etc.)?