WARNING...the Compal (I)FL90/91, (I)FT00/01 and JFT00 DO NOT SUPPORT PENRYN no matter what BIOS they have...try it and fry it!

This comes directly from Compal in Taiwan:

"There will be no BIOS fix for any currently released & delivered Models (i.e. IFL90/91, IFT00/01 or JFT00) to accommodate SRR CPU’s.

Only new production of SRR Models on line will support Penryn 800 MHZ CPUs.

P.S. The BIOS v115 or v116 mentioned below is for JFT02 or JFL92 models ONLY. Even some of you had loaded on IFL90/91 and running SRR CPUs, we still got no words from R&D confirm it will be working correctly continuously. Don’t count on it!"

 

do you think buy now 2.2ghz ifl90 or wait till late feb. for penryn proc. that will decrease price of 2.2ghz proc.?

 

Wow that's a pretty onimous post... Anyway didn't the changelog for the 114(post got deleted) show IFL9x? And why would it fry? If it the cpu isn't compatible the pc doesn't boot and that's it... No need to be alarmist....

 

Please re-read the post.

It is not true that it will not boot...it may well boot and others in this forum have posted that they had a T9300 working using BIOS 1.14. Others users have reported trying BIOS 1.14 with the Penryn processor and they now have a dead IFL90.

This is why Compal is saying "Even some of you had loaded on IFL90/91 and running SRR CPUs, we still got no words from R&D confirm it will be working correctly continuously. Don’t count on it!"

I think it is totally appropriate to sound the alarm

 

No, you should not expect a price drop on the T7500 2.2GHz processor once the Penryn processors become available.

 

You didn't say that in your first post... But I get your point.

 

I shouldn't have had to say it in my first post...and had you done your research before making your "If it the cpu isn't compatible the pc doesn't boot and that's it... No need to be alarmist...." comments you would have known better what the issue was about.

 

So the retailers that are advertising IFL90's with penryn cpus are doing so irresponsibly or do they have the updated versions already?

 

Sadly, they are the ones that Compal is talking about when they said: "Even some of you have loaded..."

Compal makes it pretty clear that "The BIOS v115 or v116 mentioned below is for JFT02 or JFL92 models ONLY." The JFT02 and IFL02 are not in the US yet...so the conclusion should be pretty clear.

Or, was that a rhetorical question?

 

Wow, that sucks if true. But 45nm CPU can't fry MoBo in any way since VID table has left the same and there is no other reasonable porpoise for this to happen.
Please, if anybody has tried Pernyn CPU and it didn't operate properly post you findings here. I still do believe it's nothing but Compal’s marketing honks to make people buy new laptops unless it’s engineers have special disability talents to make it incompatible with.

 

Hey Dirt, why don't YOU try it and report YOUR findings back here?

I have seen one report on this forum from a German poster that he had a T9300 working, and I have another report from a user who tried it and now his IFL90 won't boot...so if you try it that will break the tie

I would also like to hear back from the German after say a month, 3 months, 6 months and more...because I read the part from Compal that said "Even some of you had loaded on IFL90/91 and running SRR CPUs, we still got no words from R&D confirm it will be working correctly continuously. Don’t count on it!"

Also, "...the last info we have from Bizcom is that only the upcoming IFL92 & IFT02 models will support Penryn procs due to the requirement of a new thermal sensor/controller required on the MB. So if Compal plans to retrofit the current FL90 & FT00 models to support Penryn they will have to come up with a way to identify the models that have the new thermal diode"

In other words, unless you are willing to risk failure "Don't try this at home"

 

No I was really wondering because I have suggested these notebooks to other people and I would hate for one of them to buy from someone advertising these processors and then it not work optimally or even at all. The info is appreciated.

After reading this and several other threads I wouldn't risk it.

 

Ok, right after it returnes from the second warranty repair.
But serriously I'm not planing tu buy any pernyn CPU on this laptop, T7500 is more then I need now to do any work and I'll probebly invest in the desktop system if I need any more. Our law doesn't offer money back for computer parts.

 

I have just installed a T9300 (2,5GHz Penryn) in my release date IFL90.
Bios Ver 1.13.

The notebook boots fine.
Windows Vista is running.
I have completed two loops in 3Dmark 2006

The notebook doesn't seem to get to hot or anything.

 

The guy Paladin have been talking about must been upgrading his CPU with Jackhammer and somehow his laptop died afterwards.

 

Ok so you installed it and it boots and everything seems to be running fine. But is the fl90 using it to it's full potential? Are benchmaks similar to notebooks with full penryn support? Anyone have any meaningful comparisons?

 

I think you're overreacting. For a big company (and for any company, but the bigger the sales, the bigger the potential damage in this case) like compal, it's a good idea to state untested = possibly dangerous.

Sure, you can try it- but don't come crying if something breaks. It's the kind of "If you want to run penryn with our blessing, wait for a supported machine, we're working on it".

Let's not get carried away with ideas about marketing and how it works now, eh? I think it's not the point of this thread to raise such a discussion, even if the thread itself or it's title makes one raise their eyebrow.

On the other hand, palladin, you didn't necessarily have to be quite that dramatic in the topic title- try it and fry it? I haven't seen anything in the message from compal you posted stating that as a fact. So maybe being overly cautious in warning the users raised unnecessary panic this time

As regards the support of penryn features itself, I don't think this is the correct thread, so let's not get offtopic here. If I may only add, I don't think the IFL92 models will have that full support - rather, they'll be updated FL90's so they can officially be branded as 'supports penryn'. The chipset isn't going to change, I'd imagine. Unless penryn doesn't really differ all that much, feature wise and chipset-requirements from the current C2D? Dunno. Something to confirm tho - in another thread.

Cheers.

 

I have a question or 2 on this, if you do the bios update and it's no good can you go back on the update or if not can't can you just change the bios yourself or do you have to send it in for repair.

Thanks in advance!

 

-> chrisgssc

I didn't have time to run benchmarks, but I did however install Riva tuner with the Core2Temp plugin. (GPU not overclocked)
I get around 25c/77f in idle vista with outlook 2007 open and wifi turned on.
On full load I get 61c/141f.

I would be happy to run a bechmark for you, but I don't have any scores from my T7500 to compare to.

Which test would you like me to run?

As a final note my notebook was turned on for about 12 hours (idle with outlook) and no problems.

 

Run SuperPi mod 1m and 3DMark06 full test without OC, that should make it clear. If possible register your result on ORB.

 

-> Dirt,

3DMark06, just installed no settings changed (1280x1024)
I get 3239 3DMarks (SM2.0=1260, HDR/SM3.0=1152, CPU=2244)

Super PI mod 1.5XS
512KB=8.439
1M = 19.763
2M = 44.855

 

It looks like the platform that will be 100% compatible with Penryn's chipset it will be the JFL92 platform (Microexpress.net).

Some resellers are saying that Penryn's technology is not supported by the IFL90 platform (different heat sensors, BIOS, etc.). I personally think that unless the IFL90 has tunable oscilators, it won't be able to drive the greater clocks of the Penryn's technology chipset based (once again this latest comment is my personal opinion). Also, a higher clock means higher power radiation requirying different heat dissipation system (e.g head sink) and different battery system drawing a higher current.............many other things have to be accounted for while you modify your IFL90 to make it work with the new nano core technology. It is like trying to fit in the same pants after you have gained an extra 50 lbs.

Anyway, if it works with all the "garage" modifications, fine, but it won't work at its effective performance, or for what the Penryn was really done for, and in the long run I believe it will cause problems to your IFL90.

 

No offense but Mobile Penryn is compatible with the Crestline chipset, it is also using the 800mhz bus speed, same socket than the merom, same TDP than the merom, hell the t9300 is even using lower vid than the t7700... Quoted from the Intel Site:

T7700 VID voltage range: 1.0375 - 1.30V
T9500 VID voltage range: 1.062V-1.150V

So what is Santa Rosa Refresh exactly? What makes it different from the "legacy" Santa Rosa platform? Unless somebody come and answer those questions my opinion on the situation will be: we have a bios-only problem, it's not hardware compatibility.

 

With regards the heat radiation subjetc I meant "heat" sink, not "head" sink.

 

Die shrink and lower vid = less heat, it is cooler than the t7700

 

Same number of pins and power voltage isn't sufficient to conclude that menron and Penryn can use the same platforms. The resellers are dealing directly with the OEM and they are saying that the Penryn processor is not for the IFL90, that's very indicative of the real differences between the platfoms.

I saw an interesting video on YouTube about the Hybrid cars in Japan, some kind of club try to modify the software inside the cars to increase the performance (mileage/gas/battery), they kind foul the main processoir about the engin temperature so the car continues using the battery instead of gas, then they claim greater mileage/gallon. I haven't read more about it, but I'm convinced that if the engineers put some If{ } then { }.. is for something and in the long term they will damage the car. Like overclocking a laptop.

 

The actual VID for T9500 is actually from 1 to 1.25V. ( http://processorfinder.intel.com/details.aspx?sSpec=SLAPW)

Nevertheless, as Ayle said, it would seems that just looking at the frequencies, voltages and power would put both processors on a very similar situation from the heating viewpoint, hence similar heat sink as well, however that was just an example, there are other factor to be considered, like other chipset working with the new processor, which affects the BIOS as well.

I'll check the requirement for the mobo platforms for the Penryn processor and inform this panel of the differences with the Meron mobo platform.

 

Those who are sinister enough to really believe Compal has some profit motive for creating a new model and motherboard for the JFL92 and IFT02 are certainly entitled to that opinion. However it is only an opinion.

Let me assure you that if there was a way to safely just drop Penryn processors into the IFL90 and IFT00 it would make it sooooo much easier on Compal and all OEMs and resellers that there would be no way to justify going through all the trouble of creating a new model/motherboard SKU.

You can study all of the spec sheets you want, but unless you are part of the R&D team of engineers at Compal you will never be able to know exactly why they have to go through all that trouble...and put us through all that trouble.

 

Hi Donald, do you know how different is the JFL92 mobo?

 

No, I am not a member of the Compal R&D team, and they generally do not publish that information.

The only thing I know about it is what I posted in #11 above.

 

Without being part of Compal R&D we can still know the different chipsets on the mobo, don't we?

 

We know the Intel 965 chipset...what other "chipsets" are you referring to that would impact on Penryn support?

As I said in my post #11 above the ONLY thing they have told us about is the thermal sensor/controller/diode.

 

You have many controllers chipsets (e.g. expres PCI, DRAM, USB, ICH8's, Modem, Video card, HDD, SCSI, RAID, LAN, etc.).

 

what other "chipsets" are you referring to that would impact on Penryn support?

As I said in my post #11 above the ONLY thing they have told us about is the thermal sensor/controller/diode.

 

Wait and see then... paladin are you getting the ifl92 some time in the future?

 

Not to sure on the details about why it won't work or how it does work, or why they won't make a bios update for it, but it all comes down to the money.

Why would they want consumers just buying the CPU? It's way more beneficial for them if you just had to buy a whole new laptop to begin with.

Kind of like the same reason why MXM video cards aren't sold retail. It's all about the money. So if some of you are screaming foul because they won't make a bios because it "doesn't support it well", well, money is the reason why. Since I see someone already has it working somehow.

 

Very shortly. By mid February I would expect.

 

From the BIOS 116 Change log:
*********************************

Known issues:

Modified:
1.Add Penryn C6/MTRR support.
2.Modify Thermal table for Penryn CPU.
3.Add ucode support for CPU ID 10676.
4.Verb table update for DTM test.
5.Add SVID/SSID for ICH8M LPC device.
6.Add 45B1 command to EC when penryn CPU was installed

Issues Fixed:
1.Fix if in dos environment and has no partition on the HDD, the system can change
to¡§drive letter C:¡§(HDD) when boot from ODD (using bootable CD).
2.Fix Intel Wireless 3945ABG + WinXP + S4 resume hangup issue.
3.Fix MBID display error in production line issue.
4.Fix system hang on POST when TPM enable with 4G RAM.
5.Fix system auto enter into Hybrid sleep again after being resumed.
for the Vista "Hybrid sleep" test(JFT02 NO#CCIC039).
6.Fix Intel Penryn Thrmtrip# issue WA(S3 shutdown issue Only).

 

I have done a lot of research and it seems that all what it would take to convert the IFL90 into a JFL92 is to change the thermal sensor IC and the BIOS, that's all. Albeit I still think is safer to leave it alone and not do the changes.

Also the JFL92 will accomodate the legacy processors, and since I imagine the new Penryn is more expensive, thus I would buy an JFL92 and populate it with a less expensive processor field proven and wait until Penryn makes its probes in the field.

 

The Penryn processors are actually cheaper. For example:

T9300 2.5GHz w/6MB L2 Cache is the same price as the T7700 2.4GHz w/4MB Cache. The T8300 2.4GHz w/3MB L2 Cache is the same price as the T7500 2.2GHz w/4MB L2 Cache.

Further, changing the thermal sensor IC is not recommend for the end user since it needs to be soldered on to the motherboard (that is assuming you can even get one). However if anyone wants to take the chance they need to understand that it will void any remaining warranty they might have.

 

How much is the T9500?

I agree that if you want to do the changes yourself you better know what you are doing. Also, I don't know the part number nor where to get the thermal sensor IC, neither how to install it, that's why I said I think is better to leave it alone.

I'm not too much concerned for the warranty, resellers are incredible lousy when it comes to repair laptops that I think many of us don't even bother on send it for repair, resellers are actually even charging our side of S&H, so a couple of $35 here and there, we might as well order the part and install it by ourselves. This is my personal experience

 

The T9500 is what we fondly call the Intel® Testosterone Trap™

It only offers .1GHz more clock speed than the T9300 (2.6GHz vs. 2.5GHz), and has the same 6MB L2 Cache, but costs $225 more than the T9300.

Too bad you have never experienced the standard PowerPro 3 Year Parts and Labor Warranty w/Next Business Day Shipping paid both ways

 

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

 

As you can see I have a 2.4GHz, so I don't think an extra 0.2GHz will buy me much, however we are always eager to push the envelope a little bit farther, since we are never satisfied with what we have knowing that something more powerfull is out there.

 

Well, that is one way to look at it, and Intel loves you for it

Then there are others who look for the "sweet spot"

 

Can I theoreticaly install 116BIOS on my IFL-90? Even if I don't want to use penryn and only want to applay other fixes relesed by this 116 BIOS? And where I can to download him? Currently I have 113 BIOS.

 

When I upgraded my BIOS 113 to 116 yesterday, Vista installed a new driver for the ICH8M LPC... That means that something has changed, Compal also writes in the change log for the IFL90 that penryn support is added. We got the bios direct from compal.

But Compal also told us that the IFL90 don't support penryn.... hmmm

 

I Have Downloaded All The BIOSes From Compal site 114,115,116 But when i try to extract them ZIP asks me to enter the password?!?!?!
What the #*****ING Password?
Please Help me! Do anyone knows about what password he talks?

 

-> delta90h I don't know why Compal password protected their BIOS files this time, they normally don't do that.

 

May be because................ I dont know????? Biz stuff