Pin-Modding question

[IceRedwing]

So I recently decided to do a pin-mod on my girlfriend's xps m140 laptop, it use to have the pentium m 1.73ghz processor on it. I used a pentium m 725 and successfully pinmodded it to 2.16ghz stable. The problem is I noticed that it is always at 2.13ghz and never enables speedstep to kick in. So the battery is dying substantially faster than it use to, does anyone know if that is always the case or if speedstep should still be working?

 

[Zap]

Did you do a FSB mod on it? I think SpeedStep should still work since with Pentium M chips it just lowers the multiplier and voltage. You can try some 3rd party utilities to manually set the speeds. I use CrystalCPU on my Dell notebook with a Pentium M 1.6GHz. It can have three profiles and if the CPU is stable, can even undervolt more than SpeedStep normally does for even better battery life.

 

[ther00kie16]

I see you got a similar answer at Hardforum. So yes, the pin mod will render speedstep useless. You can try CrystalCPU or RMClock but I have a feeling it won't help. Have you tried undervolting? I remember reading that you can undervolt the chips a bit even after the pin mod, so maybe that'll help with the battery life.

 

[IceRedwing]

yeah i did try undervolting, it doesn't help the situation much since the processor is still at full speed. I'll try to crystal cpu method, i'm just surprised speedstep is disabled since there wasn't any mention of this on the long discussion involving it

 

[xylem]

Using the 133 mhz bus pin mod on the pentium m does not render speedstep inoperable. I have two laptops using such a pin mod, and speedstep is working fine. I recommend checking out a program called "notebook hardware control" if your laptop is having a problem with it.

 

[IceRedwing]

alright thanks, I'll get it a look

I don't see why it wouldn't work. I disabled speedstep in the bios just to see if the cpu multiplier would change, which it did. I know the system itself has no problem using speedstep since it was running it fine when it was using the normaly 1.73ghz processor.
So I'm not sure where the problem would be.