Thinkpads Forum

Has anyone ever successfully undervolted an X300?

Notebook Hardware Control isn't able to detect any states for my X300, so there was nothing to change.
RMClock only works when set to desktop CPU mode, as opposed to mobile. However, even then it only can set one multiplier, which is x6, and is unable to lower it past 1.0125V, which is the default. When it's set in mobile mode, any changes to voltage don't actually change the processor voltage according to CPUZ.

Failing that, has anyone ever disassembled their X300 and applied Arctic Silver to the CPU? Did it significantly improve the temperatures?

manekineko wrote:Has anyone ever successfully undervolted an X300? ... unable to lower it past 1.0125V...

At 1.0125v, the processor is already operating -- amazingly! -- within the margin of error of junction voltage. Where were you planning to take it lower than 1v?!

EOMtp wrote:At 1.0125v, the processor is already operating -- amazingly! -- within the margin of error of junction voltage. Where were you planning to take it lower than 1V ?!

Well, I would like to at least try lowering the voltage on the higher multipliers. Also, there is a SuperLFM mode on the CPU that runs by default at a lower voltage than even the base multiplier, and apparently this voltage can be used successfully to lower the default voltage of the base multiplier even more.

1.0125 isn't actually an especially low undervolting number. I managed to get my old HP with a Core 1 Duo undervolted running at max multiplier to be perfectly stable at only .975v, with the locked in .95v at base. It made a fairly significant difference in heat and battery life. Before Intel locked in the base voltage, people used to take their systems as low as .7 or more I heard.

I'd love to hear about a utility to undervolt it further than 1.0125v, which is also the lowest I can set it to. It does help lower temperatures when fully loaded, it can keep temperature manageable at fan speed 2. I'm very interested in hearing any experiences with upgraded thermal paste.

Esben wrote:I'd love to hear about a utility to undervolt it further than 1.0125v, which is also the lowest I can set it to. It does help lower temperatures when fully loaded, it can keep temperature manageable at fan speed 2. I'm very interested in hearing any experiences with upgraded thermal paste.

RMClock from what I read supports the platform found in the X30x series. (I'm going to be testing this myself soon)

And as far as changing the thermal paste you can see a drop of a couple degrees celsius. It kind of depends on how cheap the stuff Lenovo put on is and how well it was applied. Age also affects thermal paste's ability to transfer heat.

visionviper wrote:RMClock from what I read supports the platform found in the X30x series. (I'm going to be testing this myself soon)

And as far as changing the thermal paste you can see a drop of a couple degrees celsius. It kind of depends on how cheap the stuff Lenovo put on is and how well it was applied. Age also affects thermal paste's ability to transfer heat.

Yes RMClock indeed supports the X300 and the ULV processor. It can undervolt it at maximum load, but only down to 1.0125v. I think I'll skip the thermal paste reapplication untill I hear reports of how many degrees it drops (how bad Lenovo's application is)

Esben wrote:Yes RMClock indeed supports the X300 and the ULV processor. It can undervolt it at maximum load, but only down to 1.0125v. I think I'll skip the thermal paste reapplication untill I hear reports of how many degrees it drops (how bad Lenovo's application is)

Wow I just re-read your post and realized you had already mentioned RMClock. I'm suprised that RMClock will only take it down that far considering NHC would let you take down the voltage on my T40 to .7v.

manekineko wrote: 1.0125 isn't actually an especially low undervolting number. ... Before Intel locked in the base voltage, people used to take their systems as low as .7 or more I heard.

My experience with Dothans (the 2 MB cache versions of the Pentium-M) makes me think they were the peak of Intel processor design for Laptops. Since then, it's all been about adding cache, cores, and clockspeed. The locked lower voltage really stinks. I put a Dothan in my wife's old Celeron laptop, and with RMClock, the fan pretty much never kicks on anymore!

Makes me bummed I didn't keep that 2 GHz X32 I scored a few months back - didn't know what I had! !

-Dan

I have to agree with you - The P6 is one of the best architectures ever made my Intel. It's so good if fact that Intel used it as their base for their Core architecture (Core is basically an updated P6).

I understand the need to move to faster chips with more and more but I still wish they could get those Core 2 Duos running a bit cooler.

Hi,
I used (still using) RMClock on two old machines successfully:
1. Sony Vaio X505 Pentium M 1.1ULV 600MHz: 0.7V, 1.1GHZ: 1.08V
2. Dell D600 Pentium M755 (90nm, 2GHz, 2MB cache) 600MHz: 0.7V, 2GHZ: 1.132V

The saving on already low power ULV is about 1-2W. Since this is fanless machine, it now runs at 1.1GHz constantly, whereas before it was throttled down when CPU reached 70°C (& top panel vas very, very hot!)
The Pentium M755 consumes 1-3W less, yielding better battery life & less fan action
The M755 is running 1.1GHz at 0.86V! So, which CPU is really the ULV now?

On a Core Duo 1.86 I was only able to reduce voltage to 1.095V at 800MHZ...