intel core 2 duo T9300 upgrade

Hi, I've got sony vaio vgn-sz71xn/c, default cpu is T9300, is there any information about upgrading it to T9600/T9800?

I'm not sure about bios compatibility, pm965 chipset seems to support all T9*** cpus...

 

The PM965 chipset supports CPU's with up to an 800MHz front side bus(FSB).

The T9600 and T9800 CPU's have a 1066MHz FSB speed.

You can install a T9500 @ 2.6GHz, that's basically the fastest with out going to an Extreme series CPU.

 

That's definitely not worth it. T9300 runs at 2.5Ghz and therefore the frequency increase will be only 0.1GHz (4 %). This won't be noticeable in real life at all.

OP: Save your money for a new laptop as Core 2 Duo's are already outdated.

--

 

+1 I agree.

 

As stated, T9300 is already the cream of the cream for Santa Rosa. Only other real upgrade would be an X9000.

You'd best follow the other poster's advice and go for a Sandy Bridge or newer laptop.

 

you can try the PLL mod. More about it here

 

Just curious...what problems are you encountering with the T9300? Even core2duo's running at 2.5 or greater is still plenty for most users.

From experience, no matter what you get new or old; you will want to upgrade for some reason. So I don't know if you will be saving anything by getting new. You can purchase an extreme processor (x9000), and that should just about take care of any if not all of your needs.

 

I have a T9300 in a Dell D630 (upgraded from a P7300) and it was an excellent upgrade, this CPU is awesome, faster and cooler then the P7300. This + an SSD, 8GB of RAM and the great 1400x900 screen and I have never felt the need for anything better, but then I am not a gamer. For comparison my work machine is an E4310 with i5, SSD and 8GB and they feel the same for every thing I do.

- Tim

 

While this is true there are still quite a few folks that love 16:10 LCDs from that era and the Penryn C2Ds offer more than enough performance for their needs. Plus those systems may offer pre-GFC superior build quality with two real mouse buttons. Newer, especially 16:9, is not necessarily better.

Back to the OP - I recommend comparing prices of a ebay T8300-2.4 and T9300-2.5. The T8300's lower level of cache makes it a better overclocker with it often being close to half T9300 prices. Worth also creating a modded dual-IDA bios to gain another 200Mhz: http://forum.notebookreview.com/win...ida-both-cores-core-2-duo-15.html#post6646598 .

 

Could you please provide me the link of people doing 3.3Ghz + with their T8300's?

 

See RickiBerlin's sig. He has a dual-IDA + PLL overclocked to T9300 to 3.5Ghz and a T8300 to 3.3Ghz. At 3.5Ghz you've got 1st gen i5 performance levels.

 

Without doing anything special, I was doing 3.3Ghz with my T9300. But I never heard of the T8300 being a better overclocker than the T9300.

 

T8300 has 3MB of internal cache vs 6MB of a T9300. So in theory, it's % gain from stock levels should be higher than a T9300's. When viewed with it's lower price it makes for a better bang-per-buck option.

 

I hear ya!

I would take the T9300 9 out of 10 times if the price between the two is within 20 to 30 dollars of each other, which I believe it is.

It's just something about having a chip doing 3.5 GHz with 6mb of cache, as suppose to one chip doing 3.3 GHz with only 3mb of cache.

 

Cheapest buy-it-now T8300 on ebay is $39, and T93400 is $93. So a T9300 is more than double the cost for 100Mhz (official) extra performance + double cache with the T8300 being the likely better % overclocker of the two. I'd take the T8300 personally, keeping in mind I could get a whole budget SB notebook for $380 which would outperform these CPUs in a chassis smelling of fresh plastic (albeit 16:9 LCD and questionable build/mouse).

Lenovo - IdeaPad B570 Laptop / Intel® Pentium® Processor / 15.6" Display / 4GB Memory / 500GB Hard Drive - Silver $380

HP Probook 4530s core i3-2310M Laptop/Notebook (XUO15UT#ABA) - $428+ship @ TigerDirect after Discover cashback

 

Its because of the cache size.

I had a t6600 at 3ghz.

 

How did you get that t6600 at 3GHz??

 

I'm still not sold on the T8300 being the better overclocker. If the T9300 is only 100 MHz more at default, but overclocks to 3.5Ghz even 3.6 GHz in some cases. That would mean the T8300 should do at least 3.7 or 3.8Ghz and beyond to make it a better overclocker...Am I missing something?

I do agree...at $39 vs $93 it's definitely the better buy for most when it's about cost to performance.

 

The T8300 is cooler than the T9300 because it has less cache (i.e. less transistors). As we all know a cooler CPU overclocks better, it's that simple, or at least in theory . In practice they all overclock to more or less the same level. Because of it's cheap price, and because of the limited number of applications that can take advantage of the additional cache in the T9300, the T8300 is a better buy.

Since you already have the T9300, it doesn't then matter what of the two CPU overclocks better. I personnaly don't really like overclocking laptops as I don't like the additional heat produced by the overclock . . I'm using a T7300 right now, undervolted and block so that the speed is only 2 x 600MHz, and I find my laptop hot considering that the ambient temperature is 34c.

Unless the colling system is very good, overclocking should be left to desktops where one can easily upgrade the CPU's cooling system and add case fans to cool their desktop. This unfortunately is not possible with a laptop

 

naton,

I know y'all mean well, but the T9300 runs just as cool as the T8300. I don't have the T9300 anymore, but when I had it; I definitely compared it to the T8300 and the x9000. There's no doubt in my mind, that the T9300 has to go down as one of the better c2d chips ever!

When my T9300 was overclocked to 3.2Ghz, it never went passed 56C under full load for hours. Now that's a 700Mhz overclock without upping the voltage, and it ran beautifully without full load at 36c - 43c.

You guys can talk till someone comes down from the sky above us, and it will not convince me having more cache is a burden more so than a performance gain. When I see i5's vs i7's, the situation is the same. If it's not going to be a benefit, then they would make both models with 3mb of cache.

I guess the xtreme chips are horrible overclockers because they have more cache?

Funny how this turns out to be about cache. The x7900 has 4mb of cache, we know how it compares to the x9000 which has double the cache, runs cooler and overclocks twice as high.

 

The x9000 overclocks better because it is a 45nm while the x7900 is a 65nm . The x9000 is cooler and hence overclocks better.

I said that they all should overclock the same because the use the same architecture and the same manufacturing technology. Now, as you all know, in practice it is different since every batch of produced CPUs is difference. Also, CPU revision have an impact on overclocking.

 

The Method used to overclock the T8300/T9300 and X9000 is different. The former requires the PLL clock to be increased from 200Mhz to 250Mhz+ with the chipset, RAM and internal cache requiring have tolerance to deal with it. Only RAM can be slowed down via a SPDTable change using spdtool or Thaiphoon Burner. Less cache means the internal cache OC wall will extend further AND will have lower running temps.

The X9000 has unlocked multipliers so doesn't need the PLL clock changed. Just bump up the multipliers. Internal cache would work at the factory frequency so 6MB is fine there.

If it was my system I'd get the T8300 because it's potential % overclock is higher AND it costs less than half a T9300. At ~$100 for a T9300, I'd be calculating changeover costs to go to a s/h Montevina C2D (1066Mhz FSB) or 1st gen i-core systems.

 

I love it when you two " power houses" come at me!

Now let us see what we can do with this P505-8980, shall we?

Forgot to add...it doesn't look good for the Australian women at the moment nando? Goodluck in the second half maybe.