Quantcast Compaq Presario CQ60-615DX Processor Upgrade

Closed Thread
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 24
  1. #1
    Newbie
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    4
    Rep Power
    0

    Default Compaq Presario CQ60-615DX Processor Upgrade

    I recently came by a lightly used Presario CQ60-615DX. I love this little computer, it's just extremely slow. I upgraded the RAM to 4GB and have a T7350 laying around that I'd like to put in it to replace the JUNK Celery 900 that it came with.

    But before I tear the whole thing apart I'd like to know:
    1) Will it support a dual-core processor?
    2) Will it support a 1066MHz FSB processor?

    I've scoured the HP website but can't find anything.

  2. #2
    Wisdom listens quietly...
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    9,090
    Rep Power
    52

    Default Re: Compaq Presario CQ60-615DX Processor Upgrade

    Looking here:

    See:
    Intel® Celeron® Processor 900 (1M Cache, 2.20 GHz, 800 MHz FSB) with SPEC Code(s) SLGLQ

    See:
    Intel® Core?2 Duo Processor P7350 (3M Cache, 2.00 GHz, 1066 MHz FSB) with SPEC Code(s) SLB53, SLGE3


    It seems like they share a socket spec.

    Whether it works on your specific system will depend on the BIOS and possibly the chipset used.

    I say give it a try - not only will your performance skyrocket - the notebook should actually run cooler too (35W vs. 25W TDP).

    Good luck.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Say the bells of St. Clement's.
    Posts
    2,303
    Rep Power
    0

    Default Re: Compaq Presario CQ60-615DX Processor Upgrade

    What processor do you have? There is no such thing as a T7350.

    Quote Originally Posted by cuytastic101 View Post
    I recently came by a lightly used Presario CQ60-615DX. I love this little computer, it's just extremely slow. I upgraded the RAM to 4GB and have a T7350 laying around that I'd like to put in it to replace the JUNK Celery 900 that it came with.
    Why is it "JUNK"?

    Quote Originally Posted by cuytastic101 View Post
    But before I tear the whole thing apart I'd like to know:
    1) Will it support a dual-core processor?
    2) Will it support a 1066MHz FSB processor?
    Yes and yes.

    Quote Originally Posted by tilleroftheearth View Post
    the notebook should actually run cooler too (35W vs. 25W TDP).
    No, not at all. Here Intel is using TDP as a marketing ploy.

  4. #4
    Wisdom listens quietly...
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    9,090
    Rep Power
    52

    Default Re: Compaq Presario CQ60-615DX Processor Upgrade

    Trottel, how can it be used as a marketing ploy?

    Most people don't compare TDP numbers - right?

    Anyway, with a dual core (yeah, I linked to a P7350 not a T7350, oops!) the cpu will get to idle quicker than a single core which will always be 'on' and that will get you a cooler system by itself.

    If the TDP numbers are the most that the cpu's can survive/operate at - then, how can they be used as a ploy?

  5. #5
    Newbie
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    4
    Rep Power
    0

    Default Re: Compaq Presario CQ60-615DX Processor Upgrade

    P7350, not T7350. I guessed, didn't know for sure. It's the 2Ghz dual core out of my dead G51VX-RX05.

    And I call the Celeron junk because, quite frankly, it is. The clock speed is decent, but it's a stripped down single core with 1MB of cache and 800MHz FSB.

    Updated the BIOS to the newest version on HP's website, I guess now all that's left is to tear it apart and try it out.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Say the bells of St. Clement's.
    Posts
    2,303
    Rep Power
    0

    Default Re: Compaq Presario CQ60-615DX Processor Upgrade

    Quote Originally Posted by tilleroftheearth View Post
    Anyway, with a dual core (yeah, I linked to a P7350 not a T7350, oops!) the cpu will get to idle quicker than a single core which will always be 'on' and that will get you a cooler system by itself.
    To complete the same task, the dual core will be 'on' less, but it will use more power when 'on'. But when doing small tasks that don't require much horsepower, they will both be doing the exact same amount of work at the same time. So, in no situation will a dual core be able to consume less power than a single core, all else being equal.

    Quote Originally Posted by tilleroftheearth View Post
    If the TDP numbers are the most that the cpu's can survive/operate at - then, how can they be used as a ploy?
    TDP is the thermal design power, the maximum amount of heat energy the cooling system has to be able to remove from the system. Since the heat energy being given off by the processor is directly related to the energy the processor it is consuming, people make the conclusion that TDP is related to power consumption. But it is only related to it in the same way that TDP is related to the heat given off by the processor. It is the maximum that the system has to be able to handle, not how much energy the processor consumes or gives off as heat.

    A dual core running at full load will consume twice the energy of a single core running at full load, all else being equal.

    With a lower TDP, the cooling and energy regulation circuitry doesn't have to be as good and people can say that the lower TDP processors are more energy efficient, even if they really don't have a clue how much energy any of the processors consume. Even though the Celeron 900 could be given a TDP much lower than 35w, it isn't for two reasons. The first is that the Celeron 900 is a budget CPU, the cheapest mobile Core 2 that Intel sells. The second is that lower TDP processors are sold for more money than similar processors with a higher TDP. Remember, TDP is a somewhat arbitrary figure Intel gives to its different processor families.

    As an aside, there are a couple of things irrespective of TDP that Intel has done to the Celeron 900 that makes it a bit less power efficient during low or no use times. It does not automatically lower its multiplier or decrease its voltage, although it does downclock using the FSB. Although during idle, it still has the advantage of being only one core.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Say the bells of St. Clement's.
    Posts
    2,303
    Rep Power
    0

    Default Re: Compaq Presario CQ60-615DX Processor Upgrade

    Quote Originally Posted by cuytastic101 View Post
    And I call the Celeron junk because, quite frankly, it is. The clock speed is decent, but it's a stripped down single core with 1MB of cache and 800MHz FSB.
    Cache and especially FSB are mostly irrelevant. What you basically have is a 2.2Ghz single core vs a 2Ghz dual. The P7350 is clearly far more powerful, but the Celeron is really not bad at all for web browsing, movies, and office tasks. I have mine overclocked to 2.93Ghz as you can see in my sig. I set it to 50% speed in the power options menu one day so that it was running at only 1.45Ghz. I completely forgot about it until a week later when I noticed I was getting some stuttering in a very demanding flash application, so I know even at 2.2Ghz it is far more than enough for light usage.

  8. #8
    Wisdom listens quietly...
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    9,090
    Rep Power
    52

    Default Re: Compaq Presario CQ60-615DX Processor Upgrade

    Trottel, I have to be honest, you lost me with your TDP explanation.

    With regards to a dual core consuming the same power as a single core cpu doing the same work, sure, if we're comparing the chips on a Windows 3.1 O/S.

    On a modern O/S install, with AV software installed, there will always be a real and measurable benefit to a dual core over a single core system - in performance and power/heat metrics.

    The single core cpu is never at rest - while the dual core can/will operate at a much lower 'intensity' for much less time to do the same work - faster - at much less heat output too.

    This is the whole premise of dual core tech - and on that it delivers. At least in my experience (with Intel CPU's).

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Say the bells of St. Clement's.
    Posts
    2,303
    Rep Power
    0

    Default Re: Compaq Presario CQ60-615DX Processor Upgrade

    tilleroftheearth, think about it this way:

    Let's say we have a single core processor and a dual core processor that is identical to the single core processor in every which way except that it has two cores. If we are running a process that doesn't require full power from the cpu some cycles will be used and some will be idle. If the process requires X cycles every minute on the single core processor, it will also require at least X cycles every minute on the dual core processor. Then if we have Y cycles spent idle for the single core processor during that time frame, we then have 2Y+X cycles spent idle on the dual core processor during that same time frame. So if we have the same amount of cycles being used by both processors, but one has more idle cycles, the one with more idle cycles, the dual core, will consume more energy/release more heat in the same time frame getting the same work done.

    Of course the advantage of the dual core is that it can get more work done in the same amount of time or get the same amount of work done in less time, but the above paragraph shows that under no circumstances will the dual core use less power in the same time frame or use less power to get the same amount of work done as a single core.

  10. #10
    Wisdom listens quietly...
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    9,090
    Rep Power
    52

    Default Re: Compaq Presario CQ60-615DX Processor Upgrade

    Thanks for trying to explain Trottel, but I still don't see it.

    First, your example is not reflected in real life with real cpu's on real O/S installations.

    I think you may be stuck with the first generation dual cores; the Pentium D series.

    See:
    Intel Dual Core Performance Preview Part II: A Deeper Look - AnandTech :: Your Source for Hardware Analysis and News


    But even back then with a very non-optimized architecture a second core only added less than 15% to the power consumption.

    I would be very hard pressed to believe that today's processors (Core 2 Duo's and even more to the point, i3's and i5's) are even less efficient than in 2005 when two single cores were basically glued together.

    However, I am still open to further persuasion (with appropriate facts).

 

 
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:09 AM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2
Copyright © 2014 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1