T43 vs T42p: noise?

Message

Zeitgeist · #1 Post by **Zeitgeist** » Wed May 25, 2005 4:25 am

I intend to sell my two months old T43 2668 (2.0 GHz, 14'' +SXGA, x300, DVD Multiburner) and to buy a T42P (2.1 GHz, 14'') instead because the fan noise of the T43 bothers me.

Just to be on the safe side: can T42P (14'') owners confirm that this is a quiet machine?

Mumin · #2 Post by **Mumin** » Fri May 27, 2005 6:51 pm

Zeitgeist wrote:I intend to sell my two months old T43 2668 (2.0 GHz, 14'' +SXGA, x300, DVD Multiburner) and to buy a T42P (2.1 GHz, 14'') instead because the fan noise of the T43 bothers me.

Just to be on the safe side: can T42P (14'') owners confirm that this is a quiet machine?

T42p 1.7 trying to keep it on low processor speed because of the fan noise when it works full ahead...

asiafish · #3 Post by **asiafish** » Mon May 30, 2005 1:38 am

My T42p is very quiet most of the time, though the fan does kick into overdrive when the machine needs it to (heavy gaming or compiling video).

When the fan is off, the machine is extremely quiet, and even when the fan is on, it usually is quiet.

Zeitgeist · #4 Post by **Zeitgeist** » Mon May 30, 2005 5:24 am

Thanks!

nrj45 · #5 Post by **nrj45** » Tue May 31, 2005 3:45 pm

Zeitgeist wrote:I intend to sell my two months old T43 2668 (2.0 GHz, 14'' +SXGA, x300, DVD Multiburner) and to buy a T42P (2.1 GHz, 14'') instead because the fan noise of the T43 bothers me.

Just to be on the safe side: can T42P (14'') owners confirm that this is a quiet machine?

Before selling your notebook, have you tried undervolting the cpu ? I made it on my acer (i know it's not the same) but i made my acer fanless (passive cooling is enough for what the cpu is burning after undervolting).

I wrote i little article about undervolting here (in french) :
http://userver.dyndns.org/wiki/index.php/Downvolting

If you don't understand, try the google translate tool (i wasn't able to show you the direct link).

Regards

asiafish · #6 Post by **asiafish** » Tue May 31, 2005 5:35 pm

What is the point in owning a supposedly faster T43 if you have to underclock it to make it quieter?

In that situation, I'd also go for the T42.

danny_isr · #7 Post by **danny_isr** » Tue May 31, 2005 5:54 pm

the guy was talking about undervolting it and NOT underclock it .
there is a point. you still get the better performance , you get more battery time ,less heat. and still the same performance as on higher voltage.

as i see this , it's only advantages (not like under clocking )

asiafish · #8 Post by **asiafish** » Tue May 31, 2005 6:16 pm

If it performed the same, with the same reliability and nothing but advantages then it would be undervolted from the factory.

jmt · #9 Post by **jmt** » Tue May 31, 2005 6:42 pm

asiafish wrote:If it performed the same, with the same reliability and nothing but advantages then it would be undervolted from the factory.

I could not have said it better.

danny_isr · #10 Post by **danny_isr** » Tue May 31, 2005 7:11 pm

well that is a different issue .

and no i have to disagree . the voltage that they set it up is on the "safe" side .
It will run just fine on a bit lower (or a bit higher) voltage and it's by the spec ! . as any chip in this world if it's not defect.

i'm running mine on 0.7 instead of 0.988 with no problems.

asiafish · #11 Post by **asiafish** » Tue May 31, 2005 8:26 pm

I'm running both my T42p and Apple PowerBook at exactly what their respective manufacturers set them to run at. The manufacturers know a lot more about optimizing their hardware for the best reliability and performance than you, me, or some guy who wrote a voltage utility.

Since I use my computers for real work, I'm willing to buy a faster chip or an actual low-voltage model for higher speed or longer battery life. As it is, with the 9 cell and ultrabay batteries and a semi-dim screen I get about 9 hours n my T42p (much better than the PowerBook's 3.5 hours), so I have no need to hack it.

danny_isr · #12 Post by **danny_isr** » Tue May 31, 2005 8:35 pm

there was no need to "heck" mine either .
it was just fine , but i prefer to have more battery life and less heat,
if i had a T42 i would have done exactly the same.

and i will say it again : a chip that was design for example to work on 5v , BY DESIGN HAVE to be able to work all the way from 4.75v up to 5.25v .
if it doesn’t then it will fail on the manufacture tester and will be thrown away , period.
so if it was design to work from 4.75 to 5.25 it's obvious that they will set it up to the middle point.

talking about "real work" this is what i do for living (chip design and chip testing)

sugo · #13 Post by **sugo** » Tue May 31, 2005 9:52 pm

Even if it means some level of risk on crash / unstability, I undervolt my pentium M 24/7. Longer battery life, less heat and less fan noise in a free package. Doesn't sound too bad does it?

I have been running 0.7v at 600MHz on a dothan 1.7GHz for weeks. It has not caused any issue so far.

jmt · #14 Post by **jmt** » Tue May 31, 2005 9:59 pm

danny_isr

"so if it was design to work from 4.75 to 5.25 it's obvious that they will set it up to the middle point"

That is the exact point that you seamed to have totally missed. Why do they set it to the middle point ? It is set in the middle because that is the OPTIMAL place. Right in the middle of the two extremes. Once set there it can move at random with no ill effect. If you set it near either extreme you will have instability that can strike at any time. Electricity does not move at a constant.

Zeitgeist · #15 Post by **Zeitgeist** » Wed Jun 01, 2005 12:58 am

Thanks for all these replies, yes, I tried Centrino Hardware Control. I have set the lowest voltage possible for all factors.

Result: only marginal drop in temperature, may be from 44 °C to 42 °C, for "normal" office, internet applications- if at all.

danny_isr · #16 Post by **danny_isr** » Wed Jun 01, 2005 5:08 am

jmt wrote:danny_isr

"so if it was design to work from 4.75 to 5.25 it's obvious that they will set it up to the middle point"

That is the exact point that you seamed to have totally missed. Why do they set it to the middle point ? It is set in the middle because that is the OPTIMAL place. Right in the middle of the two extremes. Once set there it can move at random with no ill effect. If you set it near either extreme you will have instability that can strike at any time. Electricity does not move at a constant.

i will rest my case it's pretty pointless to go against emotions and no sense, i just don't have time for this

i'm not missing one point here for sure : seems all you do here lately is just bashing my posts.

Zeitgeist - if you decided to sell your T43 , then sell it

Zeitgeist · #17 Post by **Zeitgeist** » Wed Jun 01, 2005 5:55 am

danny_isr wrote:
i'm not missing one point here for sure : seems all you do here lately is just bashing my posts.

ALL? What did I do???

danny_isr · #18 Post by **danny_isr** » Wed Jun 01, 2005 6:01 am

not you . i was Referring to jmt (sorry)

danny_isr · #19 Post by **danny_isr** » Wed Jun 01, 2005 6:33 am

Zeitgeist wrote:Thanks for all these replies, yes, I tried Centrino Hardware Control. I have set the lowest voltage possible for all factors.

Result: only marginal drop in temperature, may be from 44 °C to 42 °C, for "normal" office, internet applications- if at all.

from what i seen, the fan is not triggered directly from the reported CPU temp.
i seen it off on 45 and on on 42 .
the heat sensor must be located some ware else . Probably closer to the wireless card.

nrj45 · #20 Post by **nrj45** » Wed Jun 01, 2005 7:40 am

danny_isr wrote:
Zeitgeist wrote:Thanks for all these replies, yes, I tried Centrino Hardware Control. I have set the lowest voltage possible for all factors.

Result: only marginal drop in temperature, may be from 44 °C to 42 °C, for "normal" office, internet applications- if at all.
from what i seen, the fan is not triggered directly from the reported CPU temp.
i seen it off on 45 and on on 42 .
the heat sensor must be located some ware else . Probably closer to the wireless card.

Sorry if there isn't a big difference in temperature... I hoped intel would have kept a similar margin on their sonoma version (compared to the dothan's one, downvolted as described on the link I posted before). Because I think (in my case) that there is a compromise to find when your cpu is able to run with a vcore 288mV lower than the normal one.

Someone was talking about stability... That's true, lowering the vcore is lowering the stability. But when you drive a car, you generally don't let a 1km space between you and the next car on the road. You don't follow him with a 50 cm space.

Each driver will adopt a different security space as each "downvolter" will keep a security difference of vcore from the crash point.

One reason i can imagine why intel kept such a big security is because each processor reacts differently to its vcore. Two processors (same type, frequency,...) won't have the same "crash point". So if intel kept this security, it's perhaps to be sure that the vcore/frequency of each step of the speedstop technology would be appropriate for each cpu.

IT'S A SPECULATION !!!! DON'T LET MY THOUGHTS BECOME RUMORS AND FACTS PLEASE

astpaul · #21 Post by **astpaul** » Thu Jun 02, 2005 6:06 am

danny_isr wrote:well that is a different issue .

and no i have to disagree . the voltage that they set it up is on the "safe" side .
It will run just fine on a bit lower (or a bit higher) voltage and it's by the spec ! . as any chip in this world if it's not defect.

i'm running mine on 0.7 instead of 0.988 with no problems.

wow
wonderful program. I was looking for sthing that would help me to get rid of BatteryMaximiser. Thanks !!!!

And i get to lower consumption on the same package.

Would you tell me what are you exact parameters? just 0.7 at 6x?

danny_isr · #22 Post by **danny_isr** » Thu Jun 02, 2005 6:25 am

0.7 on 6x
and 1.1v on the rest

seems stable so far . i'm still playing with it and will try to lower it more (except the 0.7 , that the lowest possible on this utility)

astpaul · #23 Post by **astpaul** » Thu Jun 02, 2005 6:35 am

danny_isr wrote:0.7 on 6x
and 1.1v on the rest

seems stable so far . i'm still playing with it and will try to lower it more (except the 0.7 , that the lowest possible on this utility)

do you define every single multiplier or just max and min?

danny_isr · #24 Post by **danny_isr** » Thu Jun 02, 2005 9:44 am

i defined each one

nrj45 · #25 Post by **nrj45** » Fri Jun 03, 2005 12:35 pm

astpaul wrote:
danny_isr wrote:well that is a different issue .

and no i have to disagree . the voltage that they set it up is on the "safe" side .
It will run just fine on a bit lower (or a bit higher) voltage and it's by the spec ! . as any chip in this world if it's not defect.

i'm running mine on 0.7 instead of 0.988 with no problems.
wow
wonderful program. I was looking for sthing that would help me to get rid of BatteryMaximiser. Thanks !!!!

And i get to lower consumption on the same package.

Would you tell me what are you exact parameters? just 0.7 at 6x?

When you reached the 0.7@600MHz and would try to go further, then increase the idle frequency... When downclocking my acer travelmate 4500 (dothan 715), I saw that the machine was stable at 0.7@600MHz, I increased the freqency and it crashed at 0.7@1000MHz. So i tried 0.7@900MHz, seemed stable but crashed after 20min of prime95.

My laptop is now rock solid (since 2 months) at 0.7@800MHz.

I made a piece of graphics here : http://userver.dyndns.org/wiki/images/7/7d/Dothan1.gif

Edited by Moderator: Links, not images.

#26 Post by **BillMorrow** » Sat Jun 04, 2005 2:09 am

Zeitgeist wrote:Thanks for all these replies, yes, I tried Centrino Hardware Control. I have set the lowest voltage possible for all factors.

Result: only marginal drop in temperature, may be from 44 °C to 42 °C, for "normal" office, internet applications- if at all.

where can centrino hardware control be found..??

alsk, FWIW, my T43p sitting next to my T42p is slightly louder..
how much i can not say since my ear is not all that sensitive..
neither are running anything other than the OS..

JHaislet · #27 Post by **JHaislet** » Sat Jun 04, 2005 2:21 am

Bill, I assume you've probably had a chance to run a lot of laptops at the same time.

So, is the T43 louder than the T42p?

sugo · #28 Post by **sugo** » Sat Jun 04, 2005 9:14 am

This is the official site for Centrino Hardware Control. I have been using v1.7 and haven't tried the new version yet.

http://www.pbus-167.com/chc.htm

T43 vs T42p: noise?

T43 vs T42p: noise?

Re: T43 vs T42p: noise?

Re: T43 vs T42p: noise?

Who is online