 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsPC HardwareCPUMotherboardsVideo CardsStorageNetworkingPeripheralsBrand Name Systems Related Topics Video GamesWindowsMS Server ProductsMS OfficeMore Topics ... |
Hardware Forum / Brand Name Systems / Dell / July 2007Processor question
Can I remove the Core 2 Duo (E6600) processor from my Dell Dimension 9200 and simply replace it with a Quad Core processor, or is it not as straight forward as that? Joe. It is almost impossible to answer your question. It is definitely not a given that a quad core processor will work, it will in some systems, it won't in other systems. There are a LOT of potential issues. It probably won't work in most systems. > Can I remove the Core 2 Duo (E6600) processor from my Dell Dimension 9200 > and simply replace it with a Quad Core processor, or is it not as straight > forward as that? > > Joe. Can't speak to the 9200, because it depends on the mother board and its chipset. Mine has the nVidia 680i chipset and it will easily swap out for a quadcore. > It is almost impossible to answer your question. It is definitely not a > given that a quad core processor will work, it will in some systems, it [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> >> Joe. > Can't speak to the 9200, because it depends on the mother board and its > chipset. Mine has the nVidia 680i chipset and it will easily swap out for [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >>> >>> Joe. Just as an "afterthought"....:-) Would there really be that great a difference to my machine's performance if I took out the Core2Duo (E6600) and replaced it with the Quad Core Q6600? Both have the same clock speed of 2.4GHz. Joe. >> Can't speak to the 9200, because it depends on the mother board and its >> chipset. Mine has the nVidia 680i chipset and it will easily swap out [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Joe. your pc would run at errrmm the same speed most likley currently, dual and quad cores is like havin 2 or 4 cars you can only drive 1 of them at a time (it's the right way to go, but it's still going to take time for every day software to be complied for SMP machines) > -----Original Message----- > From: Geoff [mailto:fooooooool@hotmail.com] [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > day > software to be complied for SMP machines) Not true. Think of the billions of background tasks that run in Windows. You have four processors to spread the work. In my case, I have a video application that runs multiple processes, one per core, so I would benefit. Not exactly. It is correct to say that a single program will run at more or less the same speed on Dual Core and Quad Core machines. But the ever more complex Windows environment has many background tasks launched at startup time. Further, some programs like databases, PhotoShop and video software are multi-threaded, meaning that they can already take advantage of two or more cores. I can easily imagine a lot of scenarios in my somewhat unsophisticated daily use of a computer where four cores would be put to good use and save me some time... Ben Myers <SNIP> >your pc would run at errrmm >the same speed most likley [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >(it's the right way to go, but it's still going to take time for every day >software to be complied for SMP machines) > I can easily imagine a lot of scenarios in my somewhat unsophisticated >daily use of a computer where four cores would be put to good use and save me >some time... Ben Myers Hi Ben, Just curious -- what are the scenarios? Just about anything where I am multitasking, such as downloading a file from the internet while defragmenting a hard drive while seaching my email in box for some obscure message. Well, that's only 3 cores in use, but you get the idea. Of course, I rarely do several lengthy tasks at once, because they often interfere with one another on a single processor box... Ben >> I can easily imagine a lot of scenarios in my somewhat unsophisticated >>daily use of a computer where four cores would be put to good use and save me [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Just curious -- what are the scenarios? > Just about anything where I am multitasking, such as downloading a file from the > internet while defragmenting a hard drive while seaching my email in box for > some obscure message. Well, that's only 3 cores in use, but you get the idea. Not really, those uses are almost entirely I/O speed limited, not CPU bound; I'd be willing to bet there'd be virtually no discernible difference compared to a single processor machine (since doing all three wouldn't max the CPU). A more common scenario might be playing a flash game (flash is a cyclke hog, at least in Linux) while ripping a DVD/CD to Xvid/MP3. Another example would be ripping a CD to MP3 while compiling code. However for the most part, the limiting factor for day to day use is not your CPU, rather it's your network/IO/memory bandwith or memory/drive capacity (much less of an issue these days as well). The extra cores for prosumer/professional, non-server use are more common. Eg. a developer working on an application with a DB backend could do it all on the same system instead of using a separate DB server. Also certain applications, especially those that transcode audio/video, are designed to be multithreaded. Right now the biggest boost from multicore CPU's is the lowend server market (highend has had SMP systems for years).Virtually every server app, from J2EE application servers, to web servers, to databases, can be configured to take advantage of multiple cores, and the increase in capacity and performance is in some cases almost linear. Yeah, the examples I picked are somewhat "I/O speed limited", but you'd be surprised how many instructions need to be executed to get the I/O happen in the right place at the right time, especially to push all those bits onto the screen. The multiple cores would benefit me some, but not enough for me to throw money at them. Your examples surely illustrate better the advantage of multiple cores. But the real news here is that applications do not necessarily have to be written for a computer system with a multi core CPU to get all the cores chugging away. All one needs to do is start opening windows and doing several tasks at once... Ben Myers >> Just about anything where I am multitasking, such as downloading a file from the >> internet while defragmenting a hard drive while seaching my email in box for [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >configured to take advantage of multiple cores, and the increase in >capacity and performance is in some cases almost linear. >Just as an "afterthought"....:-) > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Joe. Whether you would benefit depends a lot on what you do with your PC. I think the vast majority of users would not see much difference between a Core 2 Duo and a Quad Core. All of my current computers are Core 2 Duo. For the things I do right now, Quad Core wouldn't be noticeable. I will probably get back into video conversion and other video apps. In that case, converting a large video file to .mp4, i.e. a batch process that usually runs a long time, is one infrequent area where I would benefit. If it worked (it might or might not) .... The difference would depend a lot on what you were doing. Some software supports (and benefits from) multiple processor cores, some doesn't. The difference could be either huge or nearly non-existent. > Would there really be that great a difference to my machine's performance if > I took out the Core2Duo (E6600) and replaced it with the Quad Core Q6600? > Both have the same clock speed of 2.4GHz. > > Joe. It depends on the motherboard, the chipset, the BIOS and possibly some other variables. > Can't speak to the 9200, because it depends on the mother board and its > chipset. Mine has the nVidia 680i chipset and it will easily swap out for a [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >>> >>> Joe. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.