Core Duo on Asus N4L-VM reviewed by ExtremeTech

Hifriday · Post by **Hifriday** » Wed Apr 12, 2006 5:58 pm

Core Duo T2600 on Asus new N4L-VM mATX board reviewed by ExtremeTech here.

~El~Jefe~ · Post by **~El~Jefe~** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 2:34 pm

i think i noticed the lack of frame difference based upon the GPU. It does finally allow for intel to not be cpu limited in their games though.

It does look good. except for no 64 bit. which i use.

ziphnor · Post by **ziphnor** » Sun Apr 16, 2006 10:35 am

AOpen has a similar 945GT based motherboard, i wonder what the difference between the 945GT and the 945GM(used in the asus) actually is?

Mats · Post by **Mats** » Sun Apr 16, 2006 12:28 pm

ziphnor wrote:AOpen has a similar 945GT based motherboard, i wonder what the difference between the 945GT and the 945GM(used in the asus) actually is?

They're both made for Core Duo, the former for desktop and the latter for mobile. But I don't know the real difference either...

narrasuj · Post by **narrasuj** » Sun Apr 16, 2006 12:34 pm

Mats wrote:
ziphnor wrote:AOpen has a similar 945GT based motherboard, i wonder what the difference between the 945GT and the 945GM(used in the asus) actually is?
They're both made for Core Duo, the former for desktop and the latter for mobile. But I don't know the real difference either...

Power consumption of VRMs?

That's just my bored guess while I"m at work.

ziphnor · Post by **ziphnor** » Sun Apr 16, 2006 1:29 pm

Mats wrote: They're both made for Core Duo, the former for desktop and the latter for mobile. But I don't know the real difference either...

I know about that, but seeing as both boards are for desktop it doesnt make much sense

One thing that at least on the surface is different is the onboard GPU. Its listed as GMA950 on the GM chipset but as "Gen 3.5 Integrated Graphics" on the GT.

The GM also lists HDCP support, which i guess must means that the onboard GPU supports HDCP. Thats of course very nice, but personally im going to stay clear of HD-DVD and Blueray until HDCP has been cracked/died quietly so i dont really care about that. Intel is really bad at clearly advertising the features of their chipsets:

The Mobile Intel® 945GM/PM Express chipsets and Intel® 945GT are designed for use with Intel's next generation mobile platform, Intel® Centrino® Duo mobile technology. The Mobile Intel 945 Express chipset family comes with the Generation 3.5 Intel Integrated Graphics Engine and the Intel® Graphics Media Accelerator 950 (Intel® GMA 950) — providing enhanced graphics support over the previous generation Graphics and Memory Controller Hubs (GMCHs).

Im seriously considering a Core Duo for a HTPC build, regardless of the lack of information, but the cost of the mobo's combined with Turion X2's showing up soon has delayed my decision. The Asus card is much cheaper than the AOpen around here, but the Asus requires an addin card in order to support DVI output.

Mariner · Post by **Mariner** » Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:31 am

It would be nice if the Core Duo L2300 or L2400 were to become available to the open market. Max TDP of these dual-core chips is reported as just 15W which I would have thought could be passively cooled relatively easily - ideal for a HTPC.

Unfortunately, the LV Pentium M chips never found their way out of laptops and I'm guessing the situation here will be similar.

ziphnor · Post by **ziphnor** » Tue Apr 18, 2006 11:29 am

Mariner wrote:It would be nice if the Core Duo L2300 or L2400 were to become available to the open market. Max TDP of these dual-core chips is reported as just 15W which I would have thought could be passively cooled relatively easily - ideal for a HTPC.

Unfortunately, the LV Pentium M chips never found their way out of laptops and I'm guessing the situation here will be similar.

Isnt there anyway to get a L chip? I was hoping to get one of those if possible.

Mats · Post by **Mats** » Tue Apr 18, 2006 11:43 am

Remember that the T2700 2.33 GHz is rated for 31 W, and that makes the T2300 1.66 GHz a 22 W part. And that's before undervolting! No reason to look for the L2300 1.66 GHz model if you're asking me.

QuietOC · Post by **QuietOC** » Tue Apr 18, 2006 11:59 am

Here, I found someone selling the L2300. No stock and no pricing however.

This Intel pricing page shows the L2400 for $316 and the L2300 for $284.

ziphnor · Post by **ziphnor** » Tue Apr 18, 2006 12:10 pm

Mats wrote:Remember that the T2700 2.33 GHz is rated for 31 W, and that makes the T2300 1.66 GHz a 22 W part. And that's before undervolting! No reason to look for the L2300 1.66 GHz model if you're asking me.

Is it possible to over/under volt and clock the Intel Core CPU while still using SpeedStep? Btw, why does Intel rate the T2300 at 31W then, to avoid confusion?

My initial plan was actually to look for a T2400 since it seems to have a decent price point while maintaining a reasonable clock speed. Im worried that the T2300 isnt fast enough for HDTV etc.

But maybe its smarter to just buy a T2300 and then overclock the max SpeedStep speed?

QuietOC · Post by **QuietOC** » Tue Apr 18, 2006 12:21 pm

Also, check out TechReport's Core Duo review.

They included several Turion's in their comparison.

Mats · Post by **Mats** » Tue Apr 18, 2006 2:20 pm

ziphnor wrote:Is it possible to over/under volt and clock the Intel Core CPU while still using SpeedStep? Btw, why does Intel rate the T2300 at 31W then, to avoid confusion?

Depends primarily on the motherboard, but otherwise you can possibly use CrystalCPUID. I wouldn't really need SpeedStep or similar for a 15 W CPU...

You know there are other functions that lower the power consumption besides SpeedStep, or just think about the fact that the CPU uses less power when idle.

Intel does the same they've always done with the TDP, placing models in groups where they all have the same TDP. AMD does it too.

ziphnor · Post by **ziphnor** » Tue Apr 18, 2006 10:05 pm

Mats wrote: I wouldn't really need SpeedStep or similar for a 15 W CPU... You know there are other functions that lower the power consumption besides SpeedStep, or just think about the fact that the CPU uses less power when idle.

As i need the CPU for a 24/7 HTPC it gets rather critical to save even a few watts in idle.

Mats · Post by **Mats** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 3:22 am

ziphnor wrote:
Mats wrote: I wouldn't really need SpeedStep or similar for a 15 W CPU... You know there are other functions that lower the power consumption besides SpeedStep, or just think about the fact that the CPU uses less power when idle.
As i need the CPU for a 24/7 HTPC it gets rather critical to save even a few watts in idle.

Ok, so this is from an economical point of view, I didn't realize that.
But what do I know about HTPC's.
Other software like CrystalCPUID should vork fine, right? Or does it really have to be SpeedStep?

jaganath · Post by **jaganath** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 3:37 am

Other software like CrystalCPUID should work fine, right? Or does it really have to be SpeedStep?

I don't think CrystalCPUID works with Speedstep-enabled processors:

PIII-M thread

My Dad's company let him keep his old laptop. It's a Dell Latitude with a 1.2ghz Pentium III-mobile tualatin processor. In windows, it dynamically adjust prcoessor and voltage with Speedstep technology (from 800mhz to 1200mhz depending on cpu use). However, I cannot adjust voltage or processor speed using RMClock or CrystalCPUID. Both programs recocgnize that the processor has Speedstep technology, but I am not able to adjust anything.

Of course, Core Duo may allow control by CrystalCPUID, but I think it's unlikely personally.

Mats · Post by **Mats** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 5:14 am

I don't think you can compare mobile P3 (and P4) CPU's with PM and CD when it comes to undervolting via software (other than BIOS).

We have the Notebook Hardware Control, formerly known as Centrino Hardware Control.
Here's a thread about it.

CrystalCPUID mentions "Intel SpeedStep Control (AT YOUR OWN RISK)", dunno what that means.
SPCR thread, which program used is not mentioned though.

It seems to work with RMClock too, however:

NOTE: Intel(R) SpeedStep(tm) technology and the "old" vision of Enhanced Intel(R) SpeedStep(tm) technology found in mobile Pentium III-M and mobile Pentium 4 processors are not supported.

So all three should work with PM, which gives me the idea that they'll probably work with CD.

Devonavar · Post by **Devonavar** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 1:25 pm

We used CrystalCPUID to undervolt our Core Duo when we did our recent CPU power consumption article. Worked fine.