anyone succesfuly OC a laptop?

F

freakdiablo

​

Joined

Dec 13, 2005

• Oct 13, 2006

• #1

I know this question was probably asked 1,000 times before, but has anyone done it? tried clockgen, no luck. Anything else I should try? I dont need to adjust voltages or anything, Im only going for a 200mhz increase. The laptop is in my sig.

 

David

Forums Super Moderator

​

Joined

Feb 20, 2001

• Oct 13, 2006

• #2

If I remember correctly some laptops you could increase the FSB (400 to 533 or something) by soldering something or connecting something. I'm sure it was for the Pentium-M chips.

 

OP

F

freakdiablo

​

Joined

Dec 13, 2005

• Oct 13, 2006

• Thread Starter
• #3

I was afraid of something like that. Im not very good at sodering. pencilmods are fine though. But ill look into that. any other ideas?

 

funnyperson1

Senior Member

​

Joined

Jun 16, 2001

• Oct 13, 2006

• #4

Well the Pentium-M chips didn't require soldering, there was a simple pin-wire mod whereby you shorted two pins together with a thin strand of wire to trick the motherboard into thinking it was a 533fsb chip.

If you do a search you should find plenty of examples.

 

M

myndlessdayz

Member

​

Joined

Dec 29, 2004

Location

City of Sin

• Oct 13, 2006

• #5

http://www.ocforums.com/showthread.php?t=452126

its a sticky in this sub forum

 

OP

F

freakdiablo

​

Joined

Dec 13, 2005

• Oct 13, 2006

• Thread Starter
• #6

o joy. and this is my backup computer. its modding like that i dont want to risk (with the whole voltmod thing). im not gonna risk it since i cant aford another laptop right now, and my desktop is currently fubar (can i say that?). But thanks anyway.

 

FTC

Member

​

Joined

Mar 3, 2002

Location

Barcelona, Spain

• Oct 16, 2006

• #7

Hi,

You can't pin-mod an IBM T40. It uses the 855PM chipset and it only runs at 400Mhz.

Said that, chances are that you can gain a few Mhz from this lappy with SETFSB. You should try with the module for the IBM ThinkPad X31. In most cases it will work, as long as yours has the same PLL clock generator, as many of the T40's seem to have.

Now, be very careful when attempting this. When I did it with my T40 I could only get FSB going from 4x100 (400) to 4x112 (448), which in turn gave 1.68 Ghz out of a 1.5Ghz chip. In my experience your first limiting factor will be the sound chip. This is the one that 'complains' first about increased bus speeds. (music/sounds distorted) and this is why you can't go higher.

 

OP

F

freakdiablo

​

Joined

Dec 13, 2005

• Oct 16, 2006

• Thread Starter
• #8

ok, how come when i opened it my antivirus programs said it was a trojan???

 

FTC

Member

​

Joined

Mar 3, 2002

Location

Barcelona, Spain

• Oct 16, 2006

• #9

... sorry can not help you with the trojan warning. I just downloaded the file, and unzippped it, and nor my antivirus (Norton) or ADaware found nothing... so it could be a false positive,... who knows ? What I can grant you for sure is that I am using this module (a previous version) to O/C my T40 since almost 2 years ago..

 

A

abo333

Registered

​

Joined

Feb 13, 2002

Location

Japan

• Oct 16, 2006

• #10

freakdiablo said:

ok, how come when i opened it my antivirus programs said it was a trojan???

Click to expand...

 

C

Centurion

Member

​

Joined

Aug 23, 2004

Location

IL

• Oct 16, 2006

• #11

Vendor Description
Killwin.c - winnuke idea.
Alias
Nuker.Win32.KillWin[Kaspersky], Nuke-KillWin[McAfee], destructive program[F-Prot], Nuker Program[Panda], DoS-OobKillwin[McAfee], security risk or a "backdoor" program[F-Prot], DoS.OOB.Killwin[Kaspersky], DoS/Killwin[Panda],
Category
Nuker : A program that disables a machine through damage to the registry, key files, the file system, etc.



Sounds like opening it would not be a great idea.

 

FTC

Member

​

Joined

Mar 3, 2002

Location

Barcelona, Spain

• Oct 17, 2006

• #12

Hi,

OK. I am just typing this from my T40, and just did a binary compare of the files in question (the contents of the zip file just downloaded) with the contents of the folder where I have this running since long ago (looks like I did upgrade to the current version many months ago). And the files are identical, so it seems that in this case the 'trojan warning' is really a false positive, since I have had 0 problems since then... (and this is a properly configured machine, with NAV, Firewall, patches,...).