Re: OT: Can I upgrade processor?

In a magazine article for PC Week, my old friend, Dave Methvin, long ago said
that unless a computer replacement or upgrade resulted in a 50% speed
improvement (not just 10-15%), you would not notice it. That's one of the
reasons I have not upgraded the CPU on this old dog I am working on right now.
It's not worth the effort to make the upgrade, never mind the cost.

Even if you could double the speed of the processor, or double its number of
cores in a computer, the memory, graphics card, hard drive subsystem and network
remain the same. In short, the increase in computing speed is highly diluted by
all the other bits of hardware... Ben Myers

On Sun, 07 Sep 2008 13:04:23 -0500, RnR <> wrote:

>On Sun, 07 Sep 2008 01:23:26 -0500, journey <> wrote:
>
>>My desktop PC is a XPS 410 with a Intel Core 2 Duo 6600 @ 2.4GHz w 4M
>>cache.
>>
>>Can I replace that CPU with one of the newer and more powerful ones?
>>(just pull it out and put a more powerful one in)?
>
>
>Well let me try to answer this in a different perspective....
>
>Depending on what you are running on your pc, it may not be worth the
>expense for the speed increase. Inotherwords the biggest benefit
>will be the programs you are running are optimized to make use of the
>quad core. Of course there will be some increase in speed if you
>multitask a lot (2 or more programs running at the same time). I've
>read tho some time ago that in some cases it can be slower tho I can't
>explain or confirm if true. Here is one link that might help explain
>a little better:
>http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000942.html
>
>I guess in summation, most likely you'll see some benefit but
>depending on the application(s), may not be a lot. You can probably
>Google if your apps will make use of the quad core to see if the
>benefit is worth the expense.
>
>From my OWN experience when I compared benchmarks comparing speeds,
>unless it was greater than 10 to 15%, I could not see the difference
>(in actual useage; your eyes may vary tho).

On the flip side of things, a memory upgrade remains the most cost-effective way
to improve overall computer performance, after one has gone through the usual
drill of cleaning up useless files, uninstalling obsolete software (How many
versions of Java do we all need?), removing trivial programs from startup
(installed there because some company thinks you cannot LIVE without it),
removing crap from the registry, defragging the registry, and defragging the
hard drive... Ben Myers

On Sun, 07 Sep 2008 19:30:51 -0500, RnR <> wrote:

<SNIP>
>
>I agree 99 to 100% with you Ben. I hesitate on the 50% so that's why
>the 99% <g> but without no extra thought, your number sounds
>reasonable.
>
>Earlier when I used the 10 to 15% speed increase in another post, I
>did not mean it was worth the cost for such speed increase but rather
>I could not see that or less with my eyes even if the benchmarks say
>so.
>
>You described very well why I don't bother to upgrade. I have never
>really seen or read claims that an upgrade made a 50% increase in
>speed. Of course you could do it but as you explained, the system
>depends on many components so likely you'd have change out several to
>make that number making it uneconomical when compared to just buying a
>new faster system.
>
>Ben, your post is a GOOD reference for the less experienced pc users
>to remember !!!

It all depends on how extreme of a job needs to be done in cleaning up a system.
If someone has simply used a system for 3 or 4 years without any cleanup at all,
a cleanup will appear to be a miracle. No matter how speedy a hard drive is,
defragging can make a perceptible difference. Can make a difference, but not
always. I have run into slow booting systems with the registry fragmented into
over 100 pieces. You can bet that a registry defrag helped... Ben Myers

On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 00:33:33 -0500, RnR <> wrote:

>On Sun, 07 Sep 2008 21:33:37 -0400, Ben Myers
><> wrote:
>
>>On the flip side of things, a memory upgrade remains the most cost-effective way
>>to improve overall computer performance, after one has gone through the usual
>>drill of cleaning up useless files, uninstalling obsolete software (How many
>>versions of Java do we all need?), removing trivial programs from startup
>>(installed there because some company thinks you cannot LIVE without it),
>>removing crap from the registry, defragging the registry, and defragging the
>>hard drive... Ben Myers
>>
>
>
>Agreed tho I've seen some question the need nowadays to defrag the
>current model of hard drives. I guess the thought now has to do with
>the newer drives' speed and sizes. And from my experience I've done
>the registry clean up and defrag and likely my system speed was
>improved but my eyes could not really see it. But when push comes to
>shove, I agree with you 100%