D900F XP Support for i7 Turbo Boost

I'm running a D900F purchased from Eurocom (because they were the only manufacturer to support 4 hard drives in RAID). I'm running XP and everything is working great, except for the lack of Turbo Boost.

According to Eurocom, the special XP BIOS of this system does not support Turbo Boost. Indeed, in the BIOS, there is no On/Off option for the Intel Turbo Boost technology (or dynamic power or whatever other name it goes by). The only available options are for hyperthreading and virtualization technology.

Could any gurus here comment on this? Does Clevo really not have an XP BIOS with support for Core i7's Turbo Boost? Could Eurocom be doing something funny to the BIOS in order to have 4 hard drives in RAID (with the 4th added in place of the optical drive), which could be mucking with the Turbo Boost?

Any insights gratefully appreciated!

 

If I am running Vista Home Premium - How do I turn on the Turbo Boost ???

 

Em... but how much performance could TB bring? Bloomfield's implementation of Turbo boost weren't really aggressive, certainly not as much so as newer Lynnfield CPUs. The chances are that given how fast it already is, in the likely event you won't see much difference - whether its on, or off.

 

Im trying ti get XP running on mine. Could you post a list of the drivers you used and where U downloaded them from? Also, is there anyway you could PM me to for the XP compatible BIOS? Much appreciated

 

I'm afraid I don't have a copy of the BIOS, but I can try to obtain it from Eurocom and send it to you. Be warned: If the BIOS is incompatible with your system, it will fry your motherboard! It did happen to me once before

As for drivers, I used most of the stock D900C XP drivers - I upgraded my existing installation on the D900C by re-imaging it onto the D900F, so this process was mostly automatic. I downloaded the video driver directly from nVIDIA as now they are offering notebook drivers (what a welcome improvement). For a few other items like the chipset and audio drivers, the ones for Vista on the driver CD worked fine - I do still have one yellow bang in my Device Manager, but not really bothered by it

 

I'll take whatever it brings I know Turbo Boost applies +1 or +2 multipliers based on core load - this could translate to noticeable performance enhancements; especially considering most applications today are single, or at most, dual core. So, most of the time I'm using the system, it'd be running as a, say, 3.5GHz or 3.67GHz CPU instead of a 3.33GHz CPU - and I'll definitely take this improvement, since I've already paid for it

 

What driver did U use for the bulit-in webcam? I cannot make mine work with anything I try to install... thanks

 

I used the BisonCam driver - basically this driver worked as-is using the D900C version. I can send it to you if you cannot locate it.

 

OK thanks One question, isnt theTurbo Boost feature actually intergrated in the chip/chipset architecture? It should be totally OS independent I see no reason why it should work on Vista/7 and not XP. If its activated on the BIOS should work anywhere based on the usage and number of threads/cores being used.

 

That's exactly the problem, Clevo has disabled this in their XP/2003 BIOS. I don't know why, but I'm sure they had a good reason. Their Vista/7 BIOS wouldn't let you install XP due to missing/faulty ACPI support, which is power management related, so in order to fix that, they probably did something quick and dirty, which necessitated the disabling of Turbo Boost.

This is needless to say very disappointing. TMonitor, for instance, a tool built by the CPUz folks explicitly for monitoring the Turbo Boost functionality of the i7 CPU line, and takes about 20 samples per second, conclusively shows that Turbo Boost is not working.

I would hope that Clevo would give us a workaround or a proper fix to this issue. Clevo seems to be in the habit of rushing out products without properly testing them. For instance, when the D900C first came out, it wouldn't work with quad core CPU's, needed a motherboard upgrade. After that motherboard upgrade, it needed yet another one to support 8800GTX cards (or you were stuck with 8700GT or 7950GTX). Only the third iteration of the D900C properly suppported dual link DVI, up to 9800GTX SLI, and quad core desktop CPUs.

D900F is a neat product, but it's lost functionality over D900C - namely, dual link DVI. Its annoying to not be able to run at 2560x1600 on a 30" monitor when the GPU is a newer generation than the one in the previous model D900C - which could do that. They also changed the Realtek configurable sound jacks in front of the case, according to Eurocom they are now hard-wired and not configurable. If this is really the case, I'd like to ask why I hacked the Realtek driver/registry to force it to use the jacks as I wanted it to, but I shouldn't have had to.

And the disabling of Turbo Boost on XP is the icing on the cake. Needless to say, if these limitations were properly advertised - and I don't think any vendor does put these even in their fine print, possibly because they aren't even aware of them - I wouldn't have upgraded to the D900F. I think based on my past experience, you need to wait for about a year for Clevo's newly released desktop replacement platforms to stabilize. Otherwise you're essentially paying thousands of dollars to do free beta testing for them. Might be OK if I wasn't paying for it, but not when I've paid a premium.

 

Right. Well, Clevo's mission is to sell laptops so for them its way mor profitable to cripple models of xeratin features and then release updated versions as all new laptops instead of upgrading the old ones. They are greedy in their business doings and we idiots for buying their stuff without MONTHS of testing and trials will we find out what we are NOT getting. Should be a piece if cake for them to release a new BIOS supportung XP and Turbo Boost... or, expect a 901F or 900G that does it...

Surprisingly enough the new W860CU supports XP and Vista/7 from scratch and will be released with drivers for all of them. I wonder why this absurd stupidity of limiting the 900F to Vista only.

AND, for those still wondering why is it that I still insist on using XP and keep calining its still by far the fastest OS compared to Vista and Win7 that positively suck, here goes:

http://www.testfreaks.com/blog/information/windows-xp-vs-vista-vs-7

Anyone else still willing to say Vista is great and upgrading to Windows 7 is a must becuse is "progress" and is revolutionary? Where is really the progress, the upgrades and performance advantage? Is it about better or about kinky desktop special effects?

Ill be using XP till its positively impossible and after that I will buy a Mac.. it sucks as bad as Vista and Win 7 but at least, its pretty.

 

Hey, I have had an idea. With the stock BIOS that supports Turbo Boost under Vista/Win7, it is impossible to "install" XP because of BIOS ACPI conflicts. However did you try simply bypassing the install? Do you have a proper XP configuration running on another computer? If so, do an image with Acronis TrueImage Workstation with Universal Restore Boot CD of your Windows XP active partition. Put the ICH10/ICH10R SATA or RAID Drivers for the X58 Chipset on a folder of your choice somewhere on your hard drive and specify it as additional drivers required during the restore operation. Restore from the Boot CD again to a new hard drive (make sure the ICH10/ICH10R are loaded)

I bet you you'll be able to boot up into XP fully configured with the stock BIOS that supports Turbo Boost. Then upon boot into XP, just install the additional drivers required for the 900F.

Clevo's BIOS "block" is only not to let users load XP, but cloned from somewhere else and bypassing the XP installation altogether, I bet you 9/10 this will work!!!

 

Actually I had tried that originally, my image wouldn't boot due to the same error. I doubt Clevo is actually blocking XP installs specifically, they just had a snafu with the BIOS and fixed it, albeit harming Turbo Boost in the process.

 

Might be worth merging this thread with http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=420857 - very similar subject.

The XP BIOS for the 900F came about because companies like ourselves asked for it. A very small number of the D900Fs we sell go out with XP (i.e. at the absolute most 5%), I assume CLEVO expected this and therefore didn't include XP support in the BIOS at first. At least something like this can be easilly updated, as for the other updates and upgrades I can't comment on them all but it's not always sales ploys.

Back to the Turbo Boost, it's not supported in Vista or XP so it hasn't been taken out of the XP BIOS, it didn't exist in the first place. Just to confirm this I had a look at a D900F with a 950 installed and the max multiplier was 23x in SuperPi, wPrime with 4 threads and wPrime with 1 thread. Now it is possible that CPU-Z isn't picking up on the extra multiplier but I can't see a reason why it would do this. At the same time running a single thread in wPrime wouldn't be enough for any Turbo Mode to throttle back to the stock max multi of 23x.

 

I disagree with you completely. Everyone wants XP but is being brainwashed that Windows 7 is the second coming of Christ while Microsoft is borderline blackmailing everyone for trying to still push XP out because that makes them no money.

The proof people want XP support is so simple as to the fact Clevo's new mobile i7 laptop will natively support it for example. So, people dont want XP but the new models are picking up having drivers and full support for it? Think again!

As for Turbo Boost not being available at all, then thats total BS from Clevo. I say all 900F owners get a petition going to have it enabled via a BIOS update... after speding almost 4 grand on mine, I refuse to admit this was left out and can guarantee you if my 900F is not updated to the native features of the i7 architure, this isthe last time Clevo gets my business.

Thats almost 4grand!!! Does Clevo even know how MUCH COMPUTING HARDWARE that can actually buy???

Im starting to get seriousely upset at all this... its just spending money, false advertising and positively near zero product support or updates. This is becoming a joke... for a cheapo product, I can (almost0 understand anything... but for what's THE MOST EXPENSIVE LAPTOP ON THE MARKET TODAY??? This is inadmissible.

 

I was trying to help out with the question about Turbo Boost, I don't want to get into an argument about Microsoft’s marketing strategy.

You can't disagree with this, it is fact. The reasons people choose XP or Vista are down to them. You have your view, albeit a very strong one, but I'm not expressing a view - I'm simply stating that a very small number of the D900Fs we sell ship with XP.

 

Yes yes of course. Understood and appreciated... Im the one that is going off course here... UR input & contribution here is valuable to all of us But Im sure you understand that of course only a very small number of the D900Fs you sell ship with XP, when its officially not supported and there aren't even actual drivers for XP for it. So, of course only a few die-hards insist on it... everyone else else really has no choice but to eat the cheese as its served!

 

Hmm. So you really think the rest of us really wants an obsolete OS, but go with Vista or soon W7 because we don't have a choice?
I beg to differ.
Really, if you insist on using XP, I think you will have to accept that you will run into difficulties - it won't be supported for much longer.
If I was still using XP, I would NOT expect it to run efficiently with ANY hardware newer than the XP, or any software newer than the XP. I accept that time moves along, you see - and that hardware and software gets renewed and upgraded with it. But hey, that's me.

 

Right. U choose a machine like the 900F for performance right? Read:

http://www.testfreaks.com/blog/information/windows-xp-vs-vista-vs-7

As for Areo this, Aero that, shake this, Peak that & whatever else desktop effects and enhancements all avaible for XP as add-ons if it suits your heart, if its for looks then Id get a Mac. If its for performance, then use XP. My experience using XP, Vista and trying out 7 has proved me the same as the endless reviews like the one above that state also the same. Again, I will use XP till its supported, MOST ABSOLUTELY. I bought a 900F for performance and the OS that gives me the most for my hardware, keeps on being XP. I have nothing further to say on the matter. Happy for everyone else rejoying with Windows 7. God forbid we dont make Microsoft some bucks and they need a bailout too!

The world is on a mission to kill XP because its a must and progress needs its way. "Progress" is almost comical...

 

I understand your point VeEuzUKY, if Clevo doesn't offer full support for XP on a workstation biased laptop like the D900F then they are arguably forcing you to use Vista/Win 7. However I also have to agree with what ReDuNZL is saying in that XP is outdated - I'm not a fan of Vista but I wouldn't go back to XP:

"Maybe I could turn Aero off and see what kind of results I get then? I’ve always wondered what kind of impact it has on the system."

that's from the article and is probably the most important point. If we sell a workstation desktop system with Vista we optimize it and disable all the garb which frees up some performance. Microsoft added this to Vista for your average PC user (i.e. non gamer, non programmer) so though some of it is in the way for peeps like us you can make it better

 

My question is you would not go back to XP from Vista, why??? It is appalling how forcefully people want to bury XP. Vista is not bad, it is horrid. No, its not horrid, is beyond horrid. But still, some people will not go back to XP...

TIMELINE 4ya...

- IBM PUCH CARDS TO DOS = PROGRESS
- DOS TO WINDOWS 1.x to 3.1= PROGRESS
- WINDOWS 3.1 TO WINDOWS 95 = PROGRESS
- WINDOWS 9.x to NT= PROGRESS
- WINDOWS 9.x/NT to WINDOWS MILLENIUM= NO COMMENT
- WINDOWS 9.x/NT to 2000 = PROGRESS
- WINDOWS 2000 to XP = PROGRESS
- WINDOWS XP to VISTA = REGRESSION
- WINDOWS VISTA to WINDOWS 7 (that's almost 9 years after XP worth of "developemnt") = REPAIRING VISTA

So, we are today in the days of Windows 7, just about where we were with XP, except glass special effects on the desktop and about 7 gigs worth of stuff no one really know what they are using disk space for... ohhh yes... and 64bit... the next thing supposedly more important than the transition from 16bit to 32bit... gotta love progress indeed.

Lets hope for Windows 8. Maybe it will be 128bit, use 500gigs of disk space, 12gig of RAM just to boot and hopefully, there will be ACTUALLY some sort of a performance advantage to actually cheeer for.

I dont do gaming so on that, I cant talk but aside from that, I am yet to run ONE SINGLE APPLICATION I USE that does not work leaner in faster in XP than in Vista/7... and lets not talk 64bit apps such as 3D rendering work better on 64bit because though true, try running XP 64bit against Vista/7 64bit and again, lets talk about where the numbers got crunched faster

Anway, enough of this.

Bottom line, we should demand Clevo to release a BIOS to support Turbo Boost for all of us mortals, no matter the OS we are running I'll pay for the BIOS upgrade if I have to, no problem!

 

Oh yes, and a multiplier overclockable BIOS option for all of us that have EXTREME PROCESSORS in our 900Fs just waiting to make them actually be worth their actual cost and speed capabilities!

 

I don't want to go into this debate any further either - but I just want to say this: I don't care if this and that runs slightly faster with XP, or takes up less space, or uses less RAM - I have a machine that is big and fast enough so I don't have to worry about that, see? I have plenty space and RAM. I'm on Vista now, and I don't have a problem with it - even when running all the eye candy. Been very stable and efficient for me, and I don't think that will change when I get my W7 upgrade DVD in November. On the contrary.
Apart from that, I want a OS that is more optimized for the latest of hardware - like the i7 processor and SSD's.
Sticking to XP because it gives a 5% speed increase here, another 5% there? Not me. I bet you could get Windows 95 to run even faster, if you tried - but I'm not going to use that either

That being said - yes, I think it would have been more decent of Clevo to have supplied a BIOS with support for XP, for those that still cling to it. For the turbo boost thingy too - provided XP actually CAN use it, of course.

 

The people who sit around and bash Vista as a bad OS are idiots. All they have is anecdotal evidence and their own biased opinions. The one and ONLY reason Vista didnt sell well was because microsoft let XP live too long. People like everything to be the SAME, they want their little icon in the same place. Anyone who's worked with someone who isnt computer savvy know what a fit people will throw if "the internet" isnt were it was on their desktop.

If you're going to sit around and compare The speed of in windows 7 to vista you need to do it on MODERN hardware and MODERN applications. All I see people doing is saying "hurrr well my program starts up faster on my p4 2.0ghz with 1 gig of ram when I use XP hurrrr". Of Course it does, and by that logic you should just go back to Windows 2000! Upgrade to modern hardware and you're looking at at absolute WORST a second or fraction thereof difference between XP and Vista/7. It's been proven several times over, yet people still cling to XP.

The question for the people running XP because it's faster is why don’t they just go back to 2000? It's "Faster" than XP and should be compatible with everything out there designed for XP.

Whereas I'll sit in windows 7 with the nice looking interface on an i7 laptop with 6 gigs of ram and run a virtual machine if I NEED some crazy compatibility for an ancient OS like windows 95.

I'm sick of hearing people cry about windows vista and how much better XP is. No one wants to hear about it, so save your half assed arguments and opinions for somewhere else. If you want to run XP, buy an older laptop that supports it. Dont buy NEW hardware and expect full support for MODERN operating system. you shouldnt buy a PC in 2003 and expect full windows 95 compatibility with all of the modern features to work like magic in 95 would you?

 

This is turning into too much of a strawman-laden bashfest.

I think VeEuzUKY has a good point, he's just expressing it in such a way that some Vista/Win7 users are guaranteed to be offended.

While Vista/Win7 is 'the future', I'm sure plenty of people are still running WinXP as of 2009. So, in the very least, a laptop sold in 2009 should include the ability to load/install WinXP.

As for Turboboost, does it work in WinXP on desktops? If so, Clevo should see that it works on the D900F; if not, then can't expect Clevo to do the impossible. If for some reason it should work, but it doesn't work on the D900F, then Clevo should make potential customers aware of that, since Turbo Boost is one of the more well-heralded features of the new i7 processors, and could be a crucial factor in someone choosing to purchase the D900F (especially someone like the OP who clearly didn't need to upgrade).

As for allowing overclocking via unlocked multipliers in the BIOS, Clevo is well known to be very careful of this; probably due to thermal limitations and the likelihood of novice overclockers getting carried away. I guess it would be nice if they advertised this in advance, but any experienced Clevo owner should have known to look into this before buying. It does suck for new customers who don't realize that their $1000 processor might just end up being a 1x multiplier upgrade over a $500 processor.

 

I agree, except for this: I don't think Clevo, or any other manufacturer should have an obligation to support a dying OS, and more to the point; a OS that does not support the hardware in this particular machine as well as newer OS'es do. I'm not upset that Vista does not work as good with SSD's that W7 will, am I ... I accept the fact that Vista was coded at a time when SSD's wasn't an issue. If one wants to continue to use XP; Fine - just don't demand that it should be supported forever, or demand that new hardware should "dumb down" to fit.

As for the turbo thingy - there are more to a i7 than that, that makes it superior to the older architecture. Clock speed is not that important. Same goes for overclocking the processor - in my view, being able to have that possibility at all, should be regarded as a bonus - not as something one expects to have.

And now I will shut up on this topic - it belongs to another debate/thread.

 

When I started this thread, I didn't intend for it to get turned into some kind of religious debate on XP vs. Vista. I admit I almost started a blog like www.vistagripeoftheday.com, but that is beside the point. Obviously I use XP, and obviously I'm not the only customer using XP.

The point is, there's an abnormality in Clevo's XP BIOS. This abnormality is what is typically referred to as a bug in folklore Whereas desktop XP systems support Turbo Boost, and the Clevo ships with a desktop processor, the Clevo XP BIOS does not support Turbo Boost.

This is the issue that I am asking for help with. There's a lot of people with contacts at Clevo here, such as Gophn, and many Clevo resellers. I would very much appreciate if they could take a moment of their times and ping Clevo to see if there is anything constructive that can be done here.

I did return my first D900F back when the XP BIOS wasn't even available, I would have returned it once again had I found out about the Turbo Boost bug in time. When spending so much money on a system, I don't want to get something that is half baked.

The least Clevo and their resellers can do to protect consumers is to put up notices, even if in fine print, regarding this issue. It might also make sense to put up notices about other limitations like lack of dual link DVI (on ALL OS's). The D900F is advertised as an extreme system, so these limitations do catch people off guard.

 

B u m p