800FSB chips on 945 mobile chipset

[Albuquerque]

Ok, so I'm having a hard time finding details on this...

The 945 mobile chipset only supports FSB's to 667. The newest T7300,7500,7700 processors all use the higher 800FSB.

Both platforms use a modified 478-pin socket, but one or two pins have been removed on certain corners. What I am unable to find is what these pins really do, and if they're actually necessary for proper processor operation.

The root of my question is, can I install a T7300 chip in a mobile 945 chipset-equipped laptop, with the only detriment being stuck at a lower total speed because of the missing 800FSB -- meaning instead of the rated 2.0ghz, I'd only get 1.66ghz because of the lesser FSB on my chipset.

I ask because I have a way to get an incredibly cheap extra-spicy flavored T7300 but my laptop doesn't have a Santa Rosa chipset it in it. I figure that if the chip still works, the extra-spicy flavor can make up for the lack of FSB.

Oh, and if you are unaware of the meaning of extra-spicy chips, please don't ask

[ghost_recon88]

Hmm, good thought. But would the BIOS recognize it?

[Evilsizer]

667fsb mobiles are socket M,800fsb mobiles are socket P. the difference being they took the same layout with socket m and rotated it 180 degree's to make socket p. they didnt want backwards compataiblity. G965 is what supports the mobile 800fsb cpus.....

[Albuquerque]

Those low-down dirty mofos! :mad::bang head:

So I can't just rotate the chip and prune the excess pins? :beer:

[ghost_recon88]

Those low-down dirty mofos! :mad::bang head:

So I can't just rotate the chip and prune the excess pins? :beer:

Go for it and let us know how it turns out ;)

[Albuquerque]

LOL! Yeah, I think not ;)

Oh well, not that I necessarily need the extra clocking room on a laptop anyway, was more curious than anything. I do want to upgrade my T2300E though, and I thought perhaps this particular offer would be a good option since T7200 chips are going for ~$250 nowadays.

[Evilsizer]

there are T7600G's on ebay going for $499 BIN price... hmmm unlocked multi's and those T7600G's were hitting 3.2ghz :O

[ghost_recon88]

yea, but at the moment, the 7950GTX video card is the best thing that can go in the E1705/i9400/M1710. Although the FX3600 (aka 8800m GTX) has the same form factor as the 7900GTX and 7950GTX. So people are thinking that with a hacked BIOS, pretty soon you'll be able to put it in your E1705/i9400/M1710. But again, that requires a hacked BIOS...

I guess my point is whats the point of having a T7600G running @ 3.2GHz, when your video card is only a 7950GTX Go? The scores between the T7200 and T7600 are very slim :( Not sure boosting it up to 3.2GHz would help any.

[Albuquerque]

Yeah, same thing I was thinking -- I really couldn't use any "uber-gigahertz" as I just don't have enough video power. I was more interested in a cheap alternative to paying for a T7200 chip.

I'm more wanting to go from my T2300 to a T7xxx series for the 64-bit capabilities; I know a T5600 could work too, but 2Ghz just seems a much better number than 1.83 ;)

[benbaked]

Yeah, same thing I was thinking -- I really couldn't use any "uber-gigahertz" as I just don't have enough video power. I was more interested in a cheap alternative to paying for a T7200 chip.

I'm more wanting to go from my T2300 to a T7xxx series for the 64-bit capabilities; I know a T5600 could work too, but 2Ghz just seems a much better number than 1.83 ;)

That's funny because I could've sworn I saw a NIB T7200 at newegg for $215 a couple of days ago, but now it's almost $300 again. Must be their automatic pricing system playing tricks. :-/

I'd shy away from the T5x00 series anyways, the 4 MB cache of the T7x00 series is worth the extra $$$ premium in the long run.

[Albuquerque]

The benchmarks for C2D processors that differ only on cache size are pretty close -- averaging about 5% faster for the bigger-cache chips, even in 64-bit benchmarks. I wouldn't miss the 5% performance, but I do want a faster speed than what's available in the T5xxx series.

And the T7200 chip has been around $300 for quite a while, even at NewEgg. I know, because I've been watching for quite a while.

[ghost_recon88]

The only reason I'd go to a T7xxx series is if I saw the need for 64-bit. I'd bypass the T5xxx series all together. The sad thing is the performance difference between the T2600 2.16GHz and the T7600 2.33GHz isn't big enough to justify a $350 upgrade once assuming I was able to even sell my T2600 for $150.

http://www.pcper.com/images/reviews/288/Intel%20Core%202%20Duo%20T7600%20-%20Quake%204.png

http://www.pcper.com/images/reviews/288/Intel%20Core%202%20Duo%20T7600%20-%20CoD.png

http://www.pcper.com/images/reviews/288/Intel%20Core%202%20Duo%20T7600%20-%20FEAR.png

http://www.pcper.com/images/reviews/288/Intel%20Core%202%20Duo%20T7600%20-%203DMark%2005.png

http://www.pcper.com/images/reviews/288/Intel%20Core%202%20Duo%20T7600%20-%203DMark%2006.png


Someone had a T7600 on eBay with a BIN for $175...sadly I saw that in the completed items :cry:

[Albuquerque]

I guess you're trying to say an upgraded processor won't help your gaming experience, because your video card is the bottleneck. Is that right? Because all the benchmarks you just posted were purely limited by GPU output.

I say that because a T7600 is clearly capable of stomping a hole in the T2600 in raw processing power. Which is more what I'm going to use anyway; my little T2300E certainly cries a bit when I start encoding even simple videos from MS Movie Maker.

[Evilsizer]

yea the main reason for a faster cpu is for better a/v encoding on a lappy since the gpus are the bottle neck...

[ghost_recon88]

Yea those benchmarks are relevant to me I guess cause the main thing I use my laptop for is gaming :p As far as encoding and stuff, well yea theres a lil difference ;)

[Albuquerque]

I've got a nice fat desktop rig for gaming, although it's been having some small hiccups lately. Still, the laptop is only really used for encoding of music and movies, mostly because it can move around with my firewire-connected DVC.

Figured I'd move from the current Vista32 to Vista64, along with a full 4gb of ram, and the better processor. I should be having zero performance issues after that :D

[ghost_recon88]

Only thing is with the E1705/i9400/M1710 series, you can put 4GBs in, and the BIOS will see 4GB, but the BIOS will only make 3.25GB available due to the chipset :( So with Vista, you're only gonna get 3.25GB to use out of the 4GB.

[benbaked]

The benchmarks for C2D processors that differ only on cache size are pretty close -- averaging about 5% faster for the bigger-cache chips

Depending on application. There are some apps where the cache size makes a significant difference.

[Albuquerque]

Only thing is with the E1705/i9400/M1710 series, you can put 4GBs in, and the BIOS will see 4GB, but the BIOS will only make 3.25GB available due to the chipset :( So with Vista, you're only gonna get 3.25GB to use out of the 4GB.

No, that's not a chipset limitation, that's a 32-bit OS limitation.

Convert to a 64-bit OS and see :)

[ghost_recon88]

The BIOS will only allow any form of Vista to use 3.25GB, although Vista will see 4GB. Read post #9 and #17 here, http://www.notebookforums.com/thread189668.html

[Albuquerque]

Having personally witnessed an E1705 and E1505 with all four gigs available and usable within Vista64, I don't know what's wrong with the people in that thread. But the laptops do see and use all 4GB when you're on a 64-bit operating system.

EDIT -- hmm, well, I think a few of the E1505's had Santa Rosa chipsets before the moved to the 1520. Or maybe I'm thinking of the 1520... Because one of the 1705's that I was so sure about turns out to be something else.

:( Maybe I was wrong? Hmm...