It's a Pentium-M Dotham 1.7GHz chip. I use Notebook Hardware Control
to set custom Voltages for each multiplier, and also restrict the top multiplier to 12x battery or 14x plugged. The CPU rarely gets over 50oC like that (even when gaming), which means the fan doesn't ramp up much. I expect NHC is functionally the same as crystalcpuid, except limited to laptops and much more user-friendly. It also lets me clock the Radeon down when i don't need to toast bread on the lappy.
Iâ€™m suspicious about utilities that offer to lower VCore to such low levels as from my experience they donâ€™t actually do what they say they are doing; CrystalCPUID is guilty of this.
Although I canâ€™t remember what Dothanâ€™s voltage settings are so maybe what you are seeing is accurate? I prefer to test the power consumption whilst changing the VCore to confirm the settings are real.
I was really questioning myself when i read this, because i've definitely seen that on my P3 board (i can change the FSB to anything i want with clockgen or whatever the program is that supports that pll is -- i can't remember -- and it actually does nothing). I tried setting the laptop Vcore to 0.8V and watched the battery drain numbers to see if there was any perceptible change at 6x. Well, too many things were going on to get a stable drain, but then i remembered that when i tested the different multipliers way back when, 10x worked at 0.748 -- but not at 0.732. Likewise 12 worked at 0.828, but not stably below that. So i have good evidence that those are real voltages. However, the original Pentium-M was so good that it became the basis for all modern Intel desktop processors, so i don't think 0.7 is too unbelievable--although it is incredible considering how high CPUs require still.
BTW, according the battery drain circuitry, the power consumption was around 12W when idling, with the LCD backlight on high.
Intel get in right in the current mobile platform as it halves the FSB speed at idle as well as lowering the multi to 6.
Well yeah, it's obviously most useful in that context.
The newer revisions
of both the 200 and 333MHz FSB chips are more efficient at load and also idle I believe. The Q6600 (G0 revision)
seems to under-volt very well.
My French is soo bad.
Props to those mad frenchies for a very thorough review, though! oO The problem with that table for me is that i have no intuition what any of those chips have as FSB by looking at them, so it's just so many numbers. I gather you are saying that the new 200 and 333 (that's 800/1333 FSB effective, right?) chips are the standouts (leaving the ~1000 FSB ones inferior??), though. Right? The 6750 looks tasty...
I donâ€™t think thatâ€™s the best solution as memory bandwidth will get even more constrained. I have lowered the FSB of a 266MHz C2D to well below stock but havenâ€™t tried with a 200MHZ FSB chip; Iâ€™ll take a look to see how low it goes. The older chipsets that officially support Pentium 4â€™s with a FSB of 133MHz (533) might offer the best options here. My G33 and also the P35 only officially support 200MHz and higher. The P965 would be a better option.
Well, the real problem is that i want too much range of performance from this system. I want to be able to game on it sometimes, and when not, scale it right down as far as possible. As long as it's possible
to set really low FSBs/Vcores, etc, things can be tweaked until i find something i ilike or hit a chip wall. If it's not possible, i'll get annoyed.
Thanks for that info. Anyway, as long as 200MHz is supported, i could get a 333MHz chip and have plenty of room on either end to clock according to whim.