SuperLFM with Quad Q9200

I have a HP 8530p that I have dropped a Q9200 quad core into. This is an ES cpu, it gets detected as a "Genuine Intel(R) Core(TM) 2 Extreme" in windows and BIOS, and a "Intel Mobile Core 2 Quad SP9400" in CPU-Z.

Anyway, I'm trying to use RMClock to set/monitor the speeds and voltages, as I have always done. But this CPU doesn't seem to ever enter the SuperLFM mode for speed. It seems to set the SLFM voltage ok, but it is stuck at 1600MHz, never going to 800 as I think it should.

The only other CPU I have to test with is an old T9300, which is 800MHz FSB, I don't have any 1066FSB Duo's at the moment. In this laptop the T9300 correctly goes down to 600MHz under SLFM.

Is there something wrong with my setup that prevents SLFM?

 

Besides the fact that your CPU is an ES, according to Intel datasheets there are no SLFM mode on the quad core Core 2 mobile processors.

 

Thanks IntelUser, I must admit I didn't even think for a minute SLFM would be disabled by Intel in the quads. On further reading I note that the quad has some pretty advanced power saving strategies over and above the C2D's. Which is backed up by my surprising findings with my kill-a-watt meter. The quad uses 3W less at idle (1600MHz) than the C2D T9300 uses at SLFM idle (600MHz). Quite an achievement, which, if I'm honest, I wouldn't beleive if I didn't have the kill-a-watt to confirm it.

 

I don't know how its even possible. The power ratings for T9300 in ALL cases are lower than the quad core mobile versions.

http://download.intel.com/design/mobile/datashts/31891401.pdf
http://download.intel.com/design/processor/datashts/320390.pdf

It may be possible that the more advanced features like Intel Enhanced Deeper Sleep or Deep Power Down isn't working on the dual core. See, at C3 power state, the clock turns off and the frequency don't really matter on the power consumption anymore.

I don't think the SuperLFM on the quad cores are in any way disabled by means of marketing, but technical. A revision of a chipset or CPU might be required for it which Intel didn't find it was worth it.

 

Yeah it is very strange, but there is a definite repeatable 3W difference to the quads favour. Maybe the T9300 isn't, as you say, configuring properly on the P45 chipset in my case (since it was really designed for the 965).

Further to this, in my setup an old T7100 CPU runs at the same wattage as the quad, and hence 3W lower than the T9300. I really need to get hold of a 1066FSB C2D to do a proper comparison.