Upgrade processor?

[Fishy]

I know you can upgrade RAM, video and soundcards etc, because I've done that, but my actual processor is shite, like 1.4GHz, and I'm not impressed. Is it possible to upgrade that to something like 3GHz? Is it expensive, and wheres a good place to start?

Am I gonna just have to buy a new PC or something gay like that?

[OverCoat]

Of what family of processors does yours belong? Pentium 3? Athlon?

[Smoke]

Upgrading your processor is possible, although there are limitations to what you can install.

First of all, it needs to be of the same socket type as your motherboard. Socket types vary between manufacturers as well as processor lines(IE: You can't swap an Athlon with a Pentium, or an Athlon with a Turion 64 since they all use different socket types)

Second, your motherboard needs to support the speed at which the new processor works. Some motherboards can handle only part of a processor line, even if the faster and newer ones have the same socket.

Third, you'll need to remove the old CPU and cooler, and install the new CPU and a new cooler. The reason for this is that most coolers can only handle a specific range of processors before you run the risk of the system running too hot or it sounding like it's about to take off.

Alternatively, you can replace motherboard and CPU at the same time. This sometimes also means having to replace your RAM(If you use DDR for example, since DDR2 is getting pretty common) and your videocard(AGP to PCI-Express, although some boards have both) In a worst-case scenario, you'd also have to replace your system case, and possibly the harddisks because newer boards tend to have only one IDE connector(Supporting a max of 2 devices)

Replacing your motherboard pretty much guarantees that you'll have to reinstall your OS as well, since WinXP doesn't like motherboard swaps. If you've got an OEM system with matching license, you might also have to get a new license for the OS.

Finally: Clockspeed doesn't mean much anymore(And hasn't for the past couple of years) You'll notice that there's 2GHz CPUs outperforming 3GHz CPUs.

[Kanthos]

Clock speed is still entirely relevant. Current CPUs are multi-core (essentially having two or more CPUs, called cores, on the same chip). So, a dual-core machine has two identical cores, and for most programs or for general multitasking, this allows you to achieve almost double the speed of a single-core CPU. Clock speed for multi-core CPUs is reported as the speed *per core*, so a newer 2.0 GHz dual-core machine is able to outperform a 3.0 GHz single-core machine because the dual-core machine is essentially 4.0 GHz altogether.

[zircon]

Well... there's that, but even a single core on a 2.4ghz e6600 can outperform a 3ghz P4. FLStudio for example only uses one core for VST effects processing. I can load 13 instances of Garritan Ambiance before encountering pops/crackles. Compare that to 4 instances on my 3ghz P4. Other users report ~26 instances in Cubase - which DOES support multicore processing for VSTs. So really, it's like you have a 6ghz P4, or something like that.

[Smoke]

Clock speed is still entirely relevant. Current CPUs are multi-core (essentially having two or more CPUs, called cores, on the same chip). So, a dual-core machine has two identical cores, and for most programs or for general multitasking, this allows you to achieve almost double the speed of a single-core CPU. Clock speed for multi-core CPUs is reported as the speed *per core*, so a newer 2.0 GHz dual-core machine is able to outperform a 3.0 GHz single-core machine because the dual-core machine is essentially 4.0 GHz altogether.

Explain to me why my 2GHz Athlon XP 2400+(2 GHz) can outperform a P4 running at 2.4GHz, if both have the same FSB speed, same amount of RAM and similar other hardware surrounding it(Basically reducing the difference down to the CPU as much as possible)

Clockspeed is about as meaningful as the amount of bits a current-gen videogame console has, as it refers to a single variable in a system where a lot of variables can influence performance.

The only time you can use clockspeed as a measurement is when comparing CPUs from the same line and manufacturer. For everything else, you're better off benchmarking while keeping most of the variables the same.

Also, dualcore's only useful if the software you're running supports it well enough, otherwise you might as well be using a single core machine. So they don't add up there .

[Katsurugi]

Explain to me why my 2GHz Athlon XP 2400+(2 GHz) can outperform a P4 running at 2.4GHz, if both have the same FSB speed, same amount of RAM and similar other hardware surrounding it(Basically reducing the difference down to the CPU as much as possible)

The only difference is really architecture. P4 chip is not designed the same as the Athlon. In general, P4 chips are not as great as they can be. I sometimes feel it's just the amount of heat they generate hinders their performance. But even with people with better cooling systems, P4s are a step up from P3s, but aren't as good as equivalents from the competition.

[CH]

Architecture makes most of the difference these days. Any Athlon that is Socket 939 and up will kill a comparable (same L2 cache, close to same clockspeed) Pentium 4. Likewise, any Core 2 Duo will pretty much eat up a comparable Athlon.

The number of cores you have makes absolutely no difference if the programs you run aren't multi threaded. For instance, Fireworks will run the same, if not faster on my Opteron 144 single core versus a dual core Athlon XP 3800. The Athlon is just using one core, so the faster single core Opteron wins. (Opty has 1024kb L2, while the 3800 has 512kb per core)

The Pentium 4 is an abortion. They run waay too hot, and that is what actually slows their performance. Intel had plans for 5ghz and up P4s, but the dies would melt before they ever got there. The whole Netburst architecture was a bad idea from the get go, and it was clearly designed so marketing experts could say "LOK 4GHZ LOOL ITS FASTER BUY THIS!!"

Intel eventually went back to the P3 design, and came up with the Core Duos. Then they refined that even more into the Core 2 Duos, which are absolutely excellent processors.

I know you can upgrade RAM, video and soundcards etc, because I've done that, but my actual processor is shite, like 1.4GHz, and I'm not impressed. Is it possible to upgrade that to something like 3GHz? Is it expensive, and wheres a good place to start?

Am I gonna just have to buy a new PC or something gay like that?

Pretty much ya. You either have a Socket A Athlon (okay, upgradeable I do believe if you can find the right part and your mobo supports it), or a first gen P4. (horrible, actually worse than the fastest Pentium 3s)

[Fishy]

I have an AMD Sempron 2500.

My PC is not what I would call up to date with newer PCs. It can out perform our 1.6 GHz laptop, but thats to be expecteed. I doubt it could take a dual core processor. I'm really not interested in buying a new motherboard because the one I have at the moment can house all the old type cards I bought for it. I've upgraded pretty much everything on it.

Do you know any processors which are likely to be easily replacable with the one I have?

(BTW, my motive for this is actually so I can use FL, because at the moment it's just an utter chore. Reason works perfectly though...)

[CH]

I have an AMD Sempron 2500.

My PC is not what I would call up to date with newer PCs. It can out perform our 1.6 GHz laptop, but thats to be expecteed. I doubt it could take a dual core processor. I'm really not interested in buying a new motherboard because the one I have at the moment can house all the old type cards I bought for it. I've upgraded pretty much everything on it.

Do you know any processors which are likely to be easily replacable with the one I have?

(BTW, my motive for this is actually so I can use FL, because at the moment it's just an utter chore. Reason works perfectly though...)

There is good news and bad news.

The good news is that you are not on Socket A as I had thought, but you are on Socket 754, which is one step up. The bad news is, socket 754 is just as dead.

You do have possibilities though. You have the slowest of the Sempron line of processors for socket 754, so you could go for the fastest of those for really cheap (like less than 50 bux).

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.asp?Category=34&N=2010340343+1051707438&Submit=ENE&SubCategory=343&Description=Sempron&Ntk=all

You could also go for an Athlon 64 3200+, which is just about the fastest you will find for socket 754 (and its still less that 50 dollars).

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819103035

It is impossible to truly recommend you anything unless I know what type of motherboard you have. Not everything is guaranteed to work with everything else.

Really, the best thing for you to do is just buy a new motherboard. You cannot do anything else with socket 754 nowadays.

[Smoke]

The only difference is really architecture. P4 chip is not designed the same as the Athlon. In general, P4 chips are not as great as they can be. I sometimes feel it's just the amount of heat they generate hinders their performance. But even with people with better cooling systems, P4s are a step up from P3s, but aren't as good as equivalents from the competition.

That's pretty much my exact point . Kanthos seems like he was looking purely at MHz, which doesn't matter much, only in similar architectures.

The main issue with the P4 is not only heat, it's also a lack of optimization while pushing purely for a faster clock(Resulting in a lot of heat) Doesn't help that they were pretty damn expensive when new, especially when compared to other architectures with similar performance. At least Intel got their shit together and now they make some pretty good CPUs.

[Kanthos]

I meant it more as a rough point of comparison. Anyone who doesn't know any other details about computers and doesn't bother to ask probably isn't going to be using their PC for much more than word processing and surfing the Internet, so comparing by clock speed alone is probably fine for that type of person.

[CH]

I meant it more as a rough point of comparison. Anyone who doesn't know any other details about computers and doesn't bother to ask probably isn't going to be using their PC for much more than word processing and surfing the Internet, so comparing by clock speed alone is probably fine for that type of person.

Exactly what intel was counting on when they started the whole project.

[Pyrion]

Explain to me why my 2GHz Athlon XP 2400+(2 GHz) can outperform a P4 running at 2.4GHz, if both have the same FSB speed, same amount of RAM and similar other hardware surrounding it(Basically reducing the difference down to the CPU as much as possible)

In the context of comparing outdated processors (yes, even my Athlon64 3200 is outdated) to current offerings, no, clockspeed didn't matter nearly as much back then as it does nowadays. The Athlon vs P4 debate is all about L2 cache - the Athlons had plenty, the P4s had next to none. That's why a 2GHz AthlonXP would outperform a P4 running at 2.4GHz. The AthlonXP had far more cache, so it could waste less clock cycles on cache clears and subsequent accesses from RAM.

Nowadays, both AMD and Intel processors have plenty of cache on them, so the only major differences in performance are the FSB (Intel) vs HyperTransport (AMD) argument, shared L2 cache (Intel) vs dedicated L2 + shared L3 caches (AMD), and the DDR2533 vs DDR2667 vs DDR2800 argument (DDR2667 on a Core 2 actually results in lower performance than DDR2533).

Also, dualcore's only useful if the software you're running supports it well enough, otherwise you might as well be using a single core machine. So they don't add up there .

Try playing Supreme Commander on a single-core machine. It's no longer "useful," it's "mandatory."

[Kanthos]

Dual-core machines won't offer performance benefits over equivalent single-core machines if the single-core programs aren't multi-threaded. Intel doesn't have or isn't yet using technology to split up a single process over two cores. In all likelihood, that's something that could only happen at the compiler level (doing it at runtime would be too inefficient); compilers would have to schedule the instructions to be run on two cores with data being passed back and forth. It's possible, but the overhead for this would be significant, and until compilers generated code sequences for single-threaded programs with dual-core support in mind, it wouldn't matter. Even if compilers did so, the only practical advantage would be to run floating-point instructions with a high execution time and latency on one core while the other core executed other instructions. With processor pipelining on a single core, this wouldn't really be worth it.

[Pyrion]

Dual-core machines won't offer performance benefits over equivalent single-core machines if the single-core programs aren't multi-threaded.

Unless other processes are vying for processor time. Which is usually the case.

It probably won't be noticeable, but it'll be there nonetheless.