Based on everything I now know about the 8540p, if I were to tackle a similar project again, or if I were to come across another model like this that needed to be made suitable for retro LAN gaming, I would try the following configuration:
| Component | Currently upgraded to… | Possibly more suitable… |
|---|---|---|
| Processor (CPU) | Intel Core i7-840QM 4 Cores, 8 Threads “Maximum Cores” | Intel Core i7-640M 2 Cores, 4 Threads “Maximum clocks with lower power consumption” |
| Memory (RAM) | 2 x 8 GB DDR3-1600 Running at 1333 MHz | For Windows XP: 2 x 2 GB 1066 MHz with the lowest possible latency. For newer operating systems: 2 x 8 GB for a total of 16 GB is very good. However, 2 x 4 GB for a total of 8 GB would also be sufficient. |
| Graphics (GPU) | Nvidia Quadro 2000M 2 GB DDR3 | AMD FirePro M5950 1 GB GDDR5 |
| SSD / HDD | Samsung 870 EVO 2 TB | Due to the limitation to SATA II speeds, any SATA SSD will suffice; it does not have to be the most expensive one. The main thing is that it is a 2.5″ SSD and not an HDD. For dual booting Windows XP and 7, for example, 250 GB or 500 GB would be more than enough. Fortunately, games and software from that era are not as large as they are today. |
| TDP of the upgraded components | 45 watts CPU, 55 watts GPU – that adds up to 100 watts. The power supply has 120 watts and the rest of the notebook also needs to be powered. It runs stably, but it’s the absolute limit of everything. | 35 watts CPU, 35 watts GPU – that’s 70 watts. Plus the rest of the notebook. That looks much healthier. |
So what would be the new philosophy?
As you can see, I would primarily reduce the power consumption somewhat.
The reason is clear—less power means less heat and thus inevitably less wear and tear on the components. It also means less noise, as the cooling system has to work significantly less or less frequently.
This also saves electricity, which is no longer cheap these days.
For example, when I run the overclocked Nvidia Quadro 2000M at its limit with Unigine Heaven—and at the same time run all cores at maximum capacity with Prime95—I find that in our current configuration, after a few minutes (it also depends on the room temperature; the test was conducted in spring, ~ 22 °C) the 8540p shuts down on its own due to overheating or overloading the power supply – I can’t say for sure which.
However, I strongly suspect that the temperatures are getting too high – in HWiNFO, I can see that the CPU and GPU are CLEARLY above 90 °C, approaching 100 °C, and the GPU VRMs are above 110 °C. The system also has other temperature sensors in many places, and for an emergency shutdown, it is sufficient if one of these reaches a limit specified by HP in the BIOS.
Next time, maybe the AMD FirePro M5950 would be better?
If the AMD FirePro M5950 with 1 GB GDDR5 can be made to work, which I don’t know and can’t estimate due to my limited knowledge of ATI/AMD graphics cards, it would definitely be the better choice. Drivers are also available down to XP, so there are no restrictions.
It is supposed to achieve 1314 PassMark points with 20 watts less power consumption, which are strong arguments.
In my case, however, it was much less common second-hand and, when available, considerably more expensive than the Quadro 2000M (approx. 50% more expensive). Added to this are the uncertainties regarding operability and a lack of experience with modifying ATI/AMD drivers – I don’t know if this would even be necessary.
Is more VRAM better?
The M5950 naturally has “only” 1 GB VRAM, while the Quadro 2000M has 2 GB – I don’t think this should be a major problem for retro applications, as compatibility and processing speed are more important.
Especially since GDDR5 is considerably faster and more efficient than DDR3 and even GDDR3.
The original NVS 5100M we installed also had “only” 1 GB GDDR3 VRAM, and I never came close to reaching the limit with anything relevant to us, even though we installed the HD+ (1600 x 900) display. With demanding games, however, you’ll quickly fill up the 1 GB at this resolution, even with the “smallest” display option available at the time, “HD” with 1360 x 768.
In conjunction with the Full HD displays that are also available, however, VRAM becomes much more relevant, and I would almost want to require 2 GB or more (more pixels = larger frame buffer = more VRAM required), because when limited by the full VRAM, the overall performance drops very quickly and very sharply.
All in all…
…I am satisfied with the selected hardware.
In terms of performance, overclocking brought the Nvidia Quadro 2000M at least close to the maximum performance of the AMD FirePro M5950 (~20% difference, 1100 points for the Quadro 2000M compared to 1314 points for the FirePro 5950), and since the components will rarely run at their limits (and even if they do, it will only be for a short time), I think the maximum has been achieved.