Max CPU upgrade for my laptop...

Discussion in 'Alienware 17 and M17x' started by Corngopher, Nov 20, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Corngopher

    Corngopher Newbie

    Reputations:
    0
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    5
    Hello and thank you for looking,

    I have an Alienware M17x with a Q9000 CPU. I would like to know the fastest CPU i can upgrade this unit to.

    Chipset
    Northbridge NVIDIA nForce 730i rev. B1
    Southbridge NVIDIA nForce 730i rev. B2
    Graphic Interface PCI-Express
    PCI-E Link Width x8
    PCI-E Max Link Width x16
    Memory Type DDR3
    Memory Size 4096 MBytes
    Channels Dual
    Memory Frequency 533.3 MHz (1:2)
    CAS# latency (CL) 7.0
    RAS# to CAS# delay (tRCD) 7
    RAS# Precharge (tRP) 7
    Cycle Time (tRAS) 20
    Bank Cycle Time (tRC) 27
    Command Rate (CR) 2T

    CPU Info
    Number of cores 4 (max 4)
    Number of threads 4 (max 4)
    Name Intel Mobile Core 2 Quad Q9000
    Codename Penryn
    Specification Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q9000 @ 2.00GHz
    Package (platform ID) Socket P (478) (0x5)
    CPUID 6.7.A
    Extended CPUID 6.17
    Core Stepping R0
    Technology 45 nm
    Core Speed 1600.0 MHz
    Multiplier x FSB 6.0 x 266.7 MHz
    Rated Bus speed 1066.6 MHz
    Stock frequency 2000 MHz
    Instructions sets MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, EM64T, VT-x
    L1 Data cache 4 x 32 KBytes, 8-way set associative, 64-byte line size
    L1 Instruction cache 4 x 32 KBytes, 8-way set associative, 64-byte line size
    L2 cache 2 x 3072 KBytes, 12-way set associative, 64-byte line size
    FID/VID Control yes
    FID range 6.0x - 7.5x
    Max VID 1.163 V

    If you need any other information please let me know. Again, I appreciate your help.

    Dan
     
  2. Kade Storm

    Kade Storm The Devil's Advocate

    Reputations:
    1,591
    Messages:
    1,860
    Likes Received:
    198
    Trophy Points:
    81
    Most will tell you to go for the QX9300, which has some good overclocking headroom, especially with ThrottleStop. Even I would recommend the QX9300 as it is very powerful, and it is quad core. However, if you're looking for solid speed on a dual-core setup, then an X9100/X9000 or the T9900 should be pretty good. I am going to be trying an X9000 on my own system when I get the time, just to see how many GHz I can squeeze out of the CPU.
     
  3. reborn2003

    reborn2003 THE CHIEF!

    Reputations:
    7,764
    Messages:
    2,988
    Likes Received:
    349
    Trophy Points:
    101
    I've tried the X9000 in my R1 and its quite woeful to be honest. The Q9000 runs rings around it all over LOL. Especially if I OC it to 2.4Ghz in the bios.

    If you are going to use it in your Dell XPS M1730 then thats another story as it runs awesome in that machine. + nice OC headroom as well. Not so much in the R1. I tried OCing the X9000 in the R1 however it was not very stable at all. Only a slight OC was possible when I last tested it.

    So for testing purposes only it is an okay test to run by installing the X9000 in the R1 other than that its quite low in performance even though its default stock clock is 2.8Ghz to begin with.

    Cheers. :)
     
  4. Kade Storm

    Kade Storm The Devil's Advocate

    Reputations:
    1,591
    Messages:
    1,860
    Likes Received:
    198
    Trophy Points:
    81
    Two points here:

    Firstly, thanks for the heads up; I had no idea that the X9000 showed such poor gains on the M17X. Thing is that when I used the X9000, the in-game performance was very promising with certain titles when the CPU was running at a decent 3+ GHz. On the M1730, SLi-scaling was awesome since I could push it up to 3.4 GHz. My present T9550--let's leave out the QX9300 for this discussion--can only make it to 3.2GHz. So I assumed with the X9000, and the ability to tweak the FSB, I could get something upwards of 3.4 GHz.

    Secondly, a quad core will run circles around a really fast dual core when it comes to certain applications -- no doubt. I mean, it is a quad-core after all. But certain applications that are limited to single and dual core setups could benefit more from a very fast dual-core CPU, which is why I still seek a very fast dual-core solution. I remember Mandrake talking about how he got some decent performance out of the T9900.

    Anyway, I think I'll give the X9000 a shot anyway and see how things go, just to be sure (since I have the CPU, might as well give it a try). Would you say the X9100 is similarly limited?

    Thanks.
     
  5. reborn2003

    reborn2003 THE CHIEF!

    Reputations:
    7,764
    Messages:
    2,988
    Likes Received:
    349
    Trophy Points:
    101
    Yeh give it a go for sure. No harm in testing ey. Should be fun to give it a test run. I'm not to sure if it was just my system however when I tried it I wasn't really able to OC the X9000 that much in my R1. Around maybe 3.2Ghz or soo. Yes I agree as well that some apps and games love the extra higher CPU clock rate. It can be quite awesome however from what I saw just booting up and running normal every day apps and using the notebook as I do normally it had a noticeable slower response and felt kinda sluggish at times too. I guess the slower FSB and lower cache amount has a lot to do with that.

    Running the X9000 in the XPS M1730 would be like superman though thats for sure. It was just made to run in that baby. King of the CPUs for that particular machine.

    Let us know how you go. Good Luck and enjoy testing.

    Cheers. :)
     
  6. Corngopher

    Corngopher Newbie

    Reputations:
    0
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    5
    Thanks for the info, gents :)

    I will look at getting a QX9300 as I use this computer for gaming and my wife uses it for Office programs as well as PDF and Photo editing and so forth.

    Its funny how many people on the board have both M1730's and M17x's :) I have both as well and Im just barely keeping the M1730 alive. It no longer charges the battery and is only getting 11.5 volts or so, a far cry from the 12.5 it should be getting. I think my wife damaged the computer MB where you plug in the power cord :(

    O well, thats for another thread and some more research.

    Thanks again
     
  7. Kade Storm

    Kade Storm The Devil's Advocate

    Reputations:
    1,591
    Messages:
    1,860
    Likes Received:
    198
    Trophy Points:
    81
    Cheers, dude. Always appreciate the feedback. I will just give the X9000 a try and see what I can squeeze out. If it isn't that much better than the T9550, then I'll sell it off. Otherwise, maybe I'll keep it for special use. I do follow you on the R1's limitations; others with the X9100--which isn't all that different--have also complained about similar problems.

    F.Y.I. I had actually managed a steady and stable 3.5GHz using a combination of unlocked multipliers and throttle stop on my QX9300. Pretty good. Although there are higher records. This finding had led me to assume that something simpler like the X9000 might get even more GHz. Eh. Naive ambitions.

    Yeah, actually, the QX9300 is just a plain beast. Huge cache, decent FSB and solid quad-core power with decent overclocking headroom.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page