I have a HP NX6120 laptop.
When I opened the Help and Support Centre and looked at my System information,
it reported that the processor was Centrino 1.73Ghz, and current speed 800Mhz.
Is the "current speed 800Mhz" the reason why the notebook appears to be
running slow now? I increased the RAM from 512M to 1.24G ( with matching ram
chips)?
Is there a BIOS setting that should be touched? I understand that it is quite
risky doing that.
bnmohan via HWKB.com wrote:
> I have a HP NX6120 laptop.
> When I opened the Help and Support Centre and looked at my System information,
> it reported that the processor was Centrino 1.73Ghz, and current speed 800Mhz.
>
> Is the "current speed 800Mhz" the reason why the notebook appears to be
> running slow now? I increased the RAM from 512M to 1.24G ( with matching ram
> chips)?
> Is there a BIOS setting that should be touched? I understand that it is quite
> risky doing that.
>
> Mohan
>
That is probably the Intel SpeedStep which varies the processor speed
depending on load. There is a bios setting to turn it on or off, but
leaving it on is the recommended. You can check by entering setup at boot.
If the system is running slow, you might look for bloatware or other
software doing some type of scanning operation. In one case, I know the
Norton software that came with a laptop was making it extremely slow.
You might be able to turn off some functions to bring you system back up
to speed.
bnmohan via HWKB.com wrote:
> I have a HP NX6120 laptop.
> When I opened the Help and Support Centre and looked at my System information,
> it reported that the processor was Centrino 1.73Ghz, and current speed 800Mhz.
>
> Is the "current speed 800Mhz" the reason why the notebook appears to be
> running slow now? I increased the RAM from 512M to 1.24G ( with matching ram
> chips)?
> Is there a BIOS setting that should be touched? I understand that it is quite
> risky doing that.
>
> Mohan
>
Most notebook/laptop computers, will have power saving options. One of
those options, is to drop the processor speed, when the computer is
relatively idle. That is called SpeedStep or EIST by Intel (Powernow or Cool N' Quiet
by AMD). That would account for the reported speed - that is one of the two
speeds possible.
Chipsets come with one or two memory channels. In the two memory channel
case, an option called "dual channel" is possible. It allows enhanced memory
bandwidth, by fetching from both channels at the same time.
If the "dual channel" criterion are not met, the BIOS will set up the chipset
for single channel operation. Either one channel or the other channel will
be accessed, according to memory address presented. There will be a
reduction in memory speed, when this mode is used.
For dual channel operation, there are a couple possible criterion used.
One is "exact matching". That was a requirement of earlier chipsets.
The rows, columns, banks, and ranks of memory (logical dimensions) of each
DIMM, had to match its partner.
Later chipsets reduced the requirements, to having the same amount of
memory present on each channel. On a desktop computer, with that relaxed
requirement, you could put 2x512MB on one channel, and a single 1GB stick
on the other channel (using three of four slots on a desktop).
In the case of your computer, there are two slots. There is little difference
between "exact match" and "same total memory" in your case. It is easiest
to use the same memory for both the internal slot and the external slot.
It sounds like the machine had 2x256MB matched to start with, you removed
one and added a 1GB stick. This gives the 1.24GB figure, with the mismatched
memory config of 256MB + 1GB. The machine will use single channel mode as a
result of the upgrade.
(Note - this assumes the manufacturer did not cheat, and simply stick both
memories on the same channel, enforcing single channel operation at all times.
If that were the case, it would not matter how the slots were populated. But
I think this is a dual channel setup.)
For a testing program, there is this. This is an ancient program, used by
benchmarkers, and has been hand modified (assembler level instructions),
in order to prevent cheating. Apparently, the original source is not
available.
To benchmark, the dialog will present a "number of digits" to generate.
For example, on my 3.1GHz P4, it takes 50 seconds to generate one million
digits of the constant PI. (I used to get 45 seconds, but after my AV program
was added, the time increased to 50 seconds.)
The above review article (notebookreview.com), notes this benchmark for the program.
HP nx6120 (1.73GHz Alviso Pentium M) 1m 50s (Calculate Pi to 2 Million Digits)
You could start, by putting the original 2x256MB memory configuration back
in the computer. Start SuperPI running, and verify the 1 minute 50 second
result. That is verifying the thing works as well as the review article above.
On a second run of SuperPI, in the middle of the calculation run, try to run
the System Info tool. Now you should be seeing 1.73GHz or whatever displayed
as the speed. Since the system should be running at 100% CPU during the
SuperPI calculation interval, the Intel SpeedStep should have turned up
the clock speed.
Now, shut down the computer, and go to your mismatched memory configuration
of 256MB plus 1GB sticks. Boot the computer and rerun SuperPI for 2 million
digits. You should see a slight reduction in performance.
Matching your memory, is the next logical step. As in, purchasing the same
memory for both internal and external slots.
The maintenance manual for the machine is here. It shows the location of the
internal and external slots. Page 140 and 118 respectively.
I looked at the BIOS, and found a setting for 'Fan always on on AC' set to
disabled. I enabled, and now I find the Current processor speed at 1.73!!
SpeedStep is enabled.
Thanks all
Mohan
Paul wrote:
>> I have a HP NX6120 laptop.
>> When I opened the Help and Support Centre and looked at my System information,
>[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>>
>> Mohan
>
>There is a review here.
>http://www.notebookreview.com/default.asp?newsID=2483
>
>Most notebook/laptop computers, will have power saving options. One of
>those options, is to drop the processor speed, when the computer is
>relatively idle. That is called SpeedStep or EIST by Intel (Powernow or Cool N' Quiet
>by AMD). That would account for the reported speed - that is one of the two
>speeds possible.
>
>Chipsets come with one or two memory channels. In the two memory channel
>case, an option called "dual channel" is possible. It allows enhanced memory
>bandwidth, by fetching from both channels at the same time.
>
>If the "dual channel" criterion are not met, the BIOS will set up the chipset
>for single channel operation. Either one channel or the other channel will
>be accessed, according to memory address presented. There will be a
>reduction in memory speed, when this mode is used.
>
>For dual channel operation, there are a couple possible criterion used.
>One is "exact matching". That was a requirement of earlier chipsets.
>The rows, columns, banks, and ranks of memory (logical dimensions) of each
>DIMM, had to match its partner.
>
>Later chipsets reduced the requirements, to having the same amount of
>memory present on each channel. On a desktop computer, with that relaxed
>requirement, you could put 2x512MB on one channel, and a single 1GB stick
>on the other channel (using three of four slots on a desktop).
>
>In the case of your computer, there are two slots. There is little difference
>between "exact match" and "same total memory" in your case. It is easiest
>to use the same memory for both the internal slot and the external slot.
>
>It sounds like the machine had 2x256MB matched to start with, you removed
>one and added a 1GB stick. This gives the 1.24GB figure, with the mismatched
>memory config of 256MB + 1GB. The machine will use single channel mode as a
>result of the upgrade.
>
>(Note - this assumes the manufacturer did not cheat, and simply stick both
>memories on the same channel, enforcing single channel operation at all times.
>If that were the case, it would not matter how the slots were populated. But
>I think this is a dual channel setup.)
>
>For a testing program, there is this. This is an ancient program, used by
>benchmarkers, and has been hand modified (assembler level instructions),
>in order to prevent cheating. Apparently, the original source is not
>available.
>
>http://www.xtremesystems.com/pi/super_pi_mod-1.5.zip
>http://www.xtremesystems.com/pi/
>
>To benchmark, the dialog will present a "number of digits" to generate.
>For example, on my 3.1GHz P4, it takes 50 seconds to generate one million
>digits of the constant PI. (I used to get 45 seconds, but after my AV program
>was added, the time increased to 50 seconds.)
>
>The above review article (notebookreview.com), notes this benchmark for the program.
>
>HP nx6120 (1.73GHz Alviso Pentium M) 1m 50s (Calculate Pi to 2 Million Digits)
>
>You could start, by putting the original 2x256MB memory configuration back
>in the computer. Start SuperPI running, and verify the 1 minute 50 second
>result. That is verifying the thing works as well as the review article above.
>
>On a second run of SuperPI, in the middle of the calculation run, try to run
>the System Info tool. Now you should be seeing 1.73GHz or whatever displayed
>as the speed. Since the system should be running at 100% CPU during the
>SuperPI calculation interval, the Intel SpeedStep should have turned up
>the clock speed.
>
>Now, shut down the computer, and go to your mismatched memory configuration
>of 256MB plus 1GB sticks. Boot the computer and rerun SuperPI for 2 million
>digits. You should see a slight reduction in performance.
>
>Matching your memory, is the next logical step. As in, purchasing the same
>memory for both internal and external slots.
>
>The maintenance manual for the machine is here. It shows the location of the
>internal and external slots. Page 140 and 118 respectively.
>
>http://h20000.www2.hp.com/bc/docs/su...reg_R1002_USEN
>
>Have fun,
> Paul
bnmohan via HWKB.com wrote:
> I looked at the BIOS, and found a setting for 'Fan always on on AC' set to
> disabled. I enabled, and now I find the Current processor speed at 1.73!!
> SpeedStep is enabled.
>
> Thanks all
>
> Mohan
>
So maybe it was overheating, and decided to use the lower clock value so
it could cool off.
Yes.
Now I have to see if the machine is faster. Unfortunately, I have not
benchmarked the slower performance.
Thanks everyone agan.
Mohan
Paul wrote:
>> I looked at the BIOS, and found a setting for 'Fan always on on AC' set to
>> disabled. I enabled, and now I find the Current processor speed at 1.73!!
>[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>>
>> Mohan
>
>So maybe it was overheating, and decided to use the lower clock value so
>it could cool off.
>
> Paul
"bnmohan via HWKB.com" wrote:
>
> I looked at the BIOS, and found a setting for 'Fan always on on
> AC' set to disabled. I enabled, and now I find the Current
> processor speed at 1.73!! SpeedStep is enabled.
Please do not top-post. Your answer belongs after (or intermixed
with) the quoted material to which you reply, after snipping all
irrelevant material. See the following links:
On My Dell Dimension E-520 Core-2-duo E4300 with 3 GB ram, AVG full running,
it generated 1M pi digits in 31.953 secs.
Now I have to have a go at the notebook
Thanks
Mohan
Paul wrote:
>> I have a HP NX6120 laptop.
>> When I opened the Help and Support Centre and looked at my System information,
>[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>>
>> Mohan
>
>There is a review here.
>http://www.notebookreview.com/default.asp?newsID=2483
>
>Most notebook/laptop computers, will have power saving options. One of
>those options, is to drop the processor speed, when the computer is
>relatively idle. That is called SpeedStep or EIST by Intel (Powernow or Cool N' Quiet
>by AMD). That would account for the reported speed - that is one of the two
>speeds possible.
>
>Chipsets come with one or two memory channels. In the two memory channel
>case, an option called "dual channel" is possible. It allows enhanced memory
>bandwidth, by fetching from both channels at the same time.
>
>If the "dual channel" criterion are not met, the BIOS will set up the chipset
>for single channel operation. Either one channel or the other channel will
>be accessed, according to memory address presented. There will be a
>reduction in memory speed, when this mode is used.
>
>For dual channel operation, there are a couple possible criterion used.
>One is "exact matching". That was a requirement of earlier chipsets.
>The rows, columns, banks, and ranks of memory (logical dimensions) of each
>DIMM, had to match its partner.
>
>Later chipsets reduced the requirements, to having the same amount of
>memory present on each channel. On a desktop computer, with that relaxed
>requirement, you could put 2x512MB on one channel, and a single 1GB stick
>on the other channel (using three of four slots on a desktop).
>
>In the case of your computer, there are two slots. There is little difference
>between "exact match" and "same total memory" in your case. It is easiest
>to use the same memory for both the internal slot and the external slot.
>
>It sounds like the machine had 2x256MB matched to start with, you removed
>one and added a 1GB stick. This gives the 1.24GB figure, with the mismatched
>memory config of 256MB + 1GB. The machine will use single channel mode as a
>result of the upgrade.
>
>(Note - this assumes the manufacturer did not cheat, and simply stick both
>memories on the same channel, enforcing single channel operation at all times.
>If that were the case, it would not matter how the slots were populated. But
>I think this is a dual channel setup.)
>
>For a testing program, there is this. This is an ancient program, used by
>benchmarkers, and has been hand modified (assembler level instructions),
>in order to prevent cheating. Apparently, the original source is not
>available.
>
>http://www.xtremesystems.com/pi/super_pi_mod-1.5.zip
>http://www.xtremesystems.com/pi/
>
>To benchmark, the dialog will present a "number of digits" to generate.
>For example, on my 3.1GHz P4, it takes 50 seconds to generate one million
>digits of the constant PI. (I used to get 45 seconds, but after my AV program
>was added, the time increased to 50 seconds.)
>
>The above review article (notebookreview.com), notes this benchmark for the program.
>
>HP nx6120 (1.73GHz Alviso Pentium M) 1m 50s (Calculate Pi to 2 Million Digits)
>
>You could start, by putting the original 2x256MB memory configuration back
>in the computer. Start SuperPI running, and verify the 1 minute 50 second
>result. That is verifying the thing works as well as the review article above.
>
>On a second run of SuperPI, in the middle of the calculation run, try to run
>the System Info tool. Now you should be seeing 1.73GHz or whatever displayed
>as the speed. Since the system should be running at 100% CPU during the
>SuperPI calculation interval, the Intel SpeedStep should have turned up
>the clock speed.
>
>Now, shut down the computer, and go to your mismatched memory configuration
>of 256MB plus 1GB sticks. Boot the computer and rerun SuperPI for 2 million
>digits. You should see a slight reduction in performance.
>
>Matching your memory, is the next logical step. As in, purchasing the same
>memory for both internal and external slots.
>
>The maintenance manual for the machine is here. It shows the location of the
>internal and external slots. Page 140 and 118 respectively.
>
>http://h20000.www2.hp.com/bc/docs/su...reg_R1002_USEN
>
>Have fun,
> Paul
On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 10:39:00 GMT, "bnmohan via HWKB.com"
<u35859@uwe> wrote:
>Yes.
>Now I have to see if the machine is faster. Unfortunately, I have not
>benchmarked the slower performance.
>
No need to benchmark, it's unquestionably faster if it were
staying at the lower speed previously. Only remaining
factor is whether the low processor speed was what
bottlenecked the use in which you perceived the slowness,
other things like a slow notebook hard drive, malwave,
filesystem fragmentation, can also seem more impactful on a
laptop which inherantly has a disk subsystem handicap
compared to a desktop.
kony wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 10:39:00 GMT, "bnmohan via HWKB.com"
> <u35859@uwe> wrote:
>
>> Yes.
>> Now I have to see if the machine is faster. Unfortunately, I have not
>> benchmarked the slower performance.
>>
>
>
> No need to benchmark, it's unquestionably faster if it were
> staying at the lower speed previously. Only remaining
> factor is whether the low processor speed was what
> bottlenecked the use in which you perceived the slowness,
> other things like a slow notebook hard drive, malwave,
> filesystem fragmentation, can also seem more impactful on a
> laptop which inherantly has a disk subsystem handicap
> compared to a desktop.
He can compare the 2x256MB configuration, to the 256MB + 1GB
configuration. The first may be a dual channel configuration,
the second a virtual single channel config. If there is
no significant difference, then nothing more need be done.
If the 1.25GB configuration is slower, then purchasing a
matched 2x1GB configuration is a possible solution.
HP notebook running slow 
Linear Mode
