1. You may have noticed things look a little different around here - we've switched to a new platform (XenForo) and have some new forum styles and features. This how-to guide will help you find your way around. If you find anything that looks strange, post it in this thread.

Compaq Presario CQ60-615DX Processor Upgrade

Discussion in 'Hardware Components and Aftermarket Upgrades' started by cuytastic101, Oct 28, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. cuytastic101

    cuytastic101 Newbie

    Reputations:
    0
    Messages:
    4
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    5
    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. tilleroftheearth

    tilleroftheearth Wisdom listens quietly...

    Reputations:
    3,817
    Messages:
    9,265
    Likes Received:
    320
    Trophy Points:
    251
  3. Trottel

    Trottel Notebook Virtuoso

    Reputations:
    828
    Messages:
    2,303
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What processor do you have? There is no such thing as a T7350.

    Why is it "JUNK"?

    Yes and yes.

    No, not at all. Here Intel is using TDP as a marketing ploy.
     
  4. tilleroftheearth

    tilleroftheearth Wisdom listens quietly...

    Reputations:
    3,817
    Messages:
    9,265
    Likes Received:
    320
    Trophy Points:
    251
    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. cuytastic101

    cuytastic101 Newbie

    Reputations:
    0
    Messages:
    4
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    5
    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. Trottel

    Trottel Notebook Virtuoso

    Reputations:
    828
    Messages:
    2,303
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.

    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. Trottel

    Trottel Notebook Virtuoso

    Reputations:
    828
    Messages:
    2,303
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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. tilleroftheearth

    tilleroftheearth Wisdom listens quietly...

    Reputations:
    3,817
    Messages:
    9,265
    Likes Received:
    320
    Trophy Points:
    251
    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. Trottel

    Trottel Notebook Virtuoso

    Reputations:
    828
    Messages:
    2,303
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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. tilleroftheearth

    tilleroftheearth Wisdom listens quietly...

    Reputations:
    3,817
    Messages:
    9,265
    Likes Received:
    320
    Trophy Points:
    251
    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).
     
  11. Trottel

    Trottel Notebook Virtuoso

    Reputations:
    828
    Messages:
    2,303
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You said that a dual core uses less power and puts out less heat than a single core. But there is just no way for that to be true under any circumstances if they are running the same software.

    If the single core has 1 billion clock cycles per second, the dual core would have 2 billion clock cycles per second. Each clock cycle used to do work uses a high amount of energy, and each clock cycle idle uses a low amount of energy. If we have a program using 1 billion clock cycles per second, power consumption of the single core would be 1 billion high plus 0 low. Power consumption of the dual core would be 1 billion high plus 1 billion low. Thus the dual core will use more power. The single core cannot exceed a power draw of 1 billion high, so a program that tries to use more clock cycles per second will not increase power consumption of the single core, but may increase power consumption of the dual core all the way up to 2 billion high and 0 low. This hold true no matter what the values of high and low are, as long as high is more than low.

    If you still don't agree with me, could you please explain to me how it could even be possible that adding a second core adds less than 0% power consumption?

    If the single core processor is running at 2% and the dual core is running at 1%, they are still doing the same amount of work in the same amount of time, using the same amount of clock cycles to do that work and are thus consuming the same amount of power doing that work. But the missing 99% of the dual core is idle and still using power, just like the idle 98% of the single core. But the idle 99% of the dual core is over twice as big as the idle 98% of the single core! There is no way that the dual core can do the same work in the same time, or in even less time by using more than 50% of its available clock cycles, and use less power than the single core. It is just not physically possible.

    This isn't related to the above, but the premise of multi-core processors is that it has become that multiple weaker cores will have a greater processing power than a single more powerful core using the same die space. Multi-core processing doesn't offer any other advantage whatsoever and is actually less efficient, to varying degrees.
     
  12. tilleroftheearth

    tilleroftheearth Wisdom listens quietly...

    Reputations:
    3,817
    Messages:
    9,265
    Likes Received:
    320
    Trophy Points:
    251
    Using your examples, I agree with your conclusion.

    But, as mentioned before, your examples are not based in today's reality.

    Adding a second core is not 'free' in regards to idle power usage - but intelligent power gating makes it (almost) effectively so.

    A cpu will always output more heat at the peak of its clock limit than at lower frequencies. A dual core, by running at much lower frequencies (same amount of work shared by two cores) than a single core takes advantage of that property by running cooler.

    The case you're stating is only for a single, single threaded application (and like I said above, I can agree with your conclusion).

    The case I'm stating is that in a modern O/S with a full complement of apps and A/V software, there is never just a single thread loading the cpu at any one time.

    If you also believe this state to be true, then maybe you can see how I come to my conclusions too:

    The single core cpu will be loaded/struggling at a higher frequency and for much longer than a dual core system would. This translates into running at a higher inefficiency for a significantly longer period of time (the single core) vs. running at a greater efficiency (the dual core) for a much shorter period of time (where one or both cores are at 'idle' while the single core is still sweating heavily).

    I can see what you're trying to present (finally), but knowing that a single core cpu can easily take 4+ times longer to do the same (modern) work as a dual core is something I've seen again and again with many clients systems compared to my dual+ core setups.

    As an example, I'm currently running 102 processes right now at a 0%-5% cpu load (i3 350M cpu). With a single core running less than half as many processes (same basic install + A/V, 0.2GHz slower single core cpu) the cpu was spiking up at idle to 40% constantly and never, ever 'idled' less than 8%.

    In a very limited example as you've set up, you are right. In the more real world usage I have seen different cpu/platforms/systems running side by side on, I think the facts are on my side?

    When you compound the above with the fact that most single core cpu's do not downclock when idle (as you have stated previously), the dual cores are even more impressive from a (lower) power consumption and a (less) heat generated point of view.

    Given that the Celeron 900 in the OP's system is such a CPU (no advanced speedstep circuitry to make it idle more efficiently) maybe you can see why I stated that the change to the P7350 would positively affect how cool the notebook would run compared to the 10W higher TDP of the Celeron processor.

    Again, I don't see how the TDP is a 'marketing ploy' by Intel.

    The benefits are real and tangible. In smaller, more powerful and cooler running notebooks and in longer run times while on battery power.


    On the desktop side:

    I can remember, when idling, the computers would heat up the office by themselves (great in the winter). Now, if I don't set the furnace to fire up, the office can be a great imitation of a walk in cooler. ;)

    (Above: I'm comparing 8 single core computers to a dozen quad cores, btw).
     
  13. cuytastic101

    cuytastic101 Newbie

    Reputations:
    0
    Messages:
    4
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    5
    Long story short, The P7350 is not compatible with the Compaq CQ60-615DX. I borrowed the T9300 from my sister's computer and it worked, so I know it supports dual core. No idea why the P7350 didn't work, but neither laptop would boot with it installed and I know the processor isn't broken.
     
  14. Trottel

    Trottel Notebook Virtuoso

    Reputations:
    828
    Messages:
    2,303
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ah, you're right. Sorry. It uses the GL40 chipset, which is not very commonly used. That chipset supports only up to 800Mhz FSB. Most Core 2 laptops use the GM45 chipset.

    I agree. There isn't a lot of cost in terms of absolute power consumption with more cores. But if you have one core idling, it will probably use not much more than half the power of two cores idling, and not much more than a quarter of four cores idling.

    You got me. Yes, a dual core of the same architecture running at half the speed of a single core can use less power at high load levels if it is running at a lower voltage than the single core.

    The main problem with your experiences is that I doubt it was an apples to apples comparison. Some old single core processor is going to get destroyed by a new one, regardless of how many cores it has. You really cannot do a side by side comparison between them unless they are the same architecture, running in identical systems with identical software. Ideally it would be simply swapping out the processors on the same system. All of what you said is very apt if what you were comparing was a new processor architecture to an old one, but that isn't what we are talking about here. On the same architecture, both otherwise identical processors are going to do the same amount of work using the same amount of energy to get the same job done and there is no efficiency bonus or synergistic effect by having an extra core. One misunderstanding you have is of a single thread or a hundred threads. It really makes no difference at all to a single core processor. On the other hand it is important for a multicore processor, and more important the more cores you have, because then the load can be spread evenly over the cores. If having too many threads on a single core meant anything, even if the processor was at low usage, then six core nehalem would do the work far more efficiently than a dual core or even quad core.

    The Celeron 900 does downclock. Unlike speedstep which lowers the mutliplier and slightly lowers the voltage, the Celeron 900 downclocks by FSB throttling.

    But look, none of what we have been arguing about has anything to do with TDP. TDP is the thermal design power, the most energy Intel says the cooling system has to be able to remove. The processors reach max heat output at full load. There is no way that a 2.2Ghz single core processor could ever consume more power at full load than a 2Ghz dual core of the exact same architecture. The only reason Intel gave it a 35w TDP was for marketing purposes. Their low TDP models are sold at a premium, but that doesn't jive well with the Celeron 900 being the cheapest mobile Core 2 processor.

    That is apples to oranges, tiller. Apples to oranges.
     
  15. tilleroftheearth

    tilleroftheearth Wisdom listens quietly...

    Reputations:
    3,817
    Messages:
    9,265
    Likes Received:
    320
    Trophy Points:
    251
    Trottel, okay, lets say we're both right (using our own assumptions).

    The only thing I know is that there is a way for a 2.2GHz single core to be less efficient than a 2GHz dual core. It is manufactured on a less efficient process (requiring higher voltage to be stable).

    On topic;

    I am saddened that the OP couldn't get his cpu upgraded.

    Could he keep his sisters cpu and put the P7350 in hers?

    Ah! Just saw that it wouldn't boot with the P7350 in either computer. :(


    How much does a T9300 cost? :)
     
  16. darnok44

    darnok44 Notebook Consultant

    Reputations:
    153
    Messages:
    201
    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    31
    Trottel Your theorethical explanation is somehow convincing but what about people reporting that after upgrading to dual core battery life in every day usage actually increase, sometimes significant?. And aren;t You doing wrong assumption when You talking about identical cpu different only of number cores - one vs two. What's my point: if we have 2Ghz 800Mhz 2Mb cache dual core cpu is it equivalent is 2Ghz 800Mhz 2Mb cache 1 core cpu ? or maby 2Ghz 800Mhz 1Mb cache 1 core cpu beacause whats make cpu its not only cores but for example cache. If we have 1 core consuming theorethicly 10W, second core 10W and cache 5W that give us 25W cpu, but cpu with one core and that same cache will give us 15W cpu and even we assume that single core cpu have half cache and that half cache consume half energy - what I dont think we can assume - it give us 12.5W cpu. But I think if we have fairly compare 1 and 2 core cpu they should have that same amount of cache because amount of cache influence on performance in lots of task and programs. At the end we have 25W dual core vs 15W singiel core. And thats mean that 2 core even on full load will not consume 2 times more energy. Or maby my thinking is wrong ? I'm just asking? I'm curious myself how it is actually.
     
  17. Trottel

    Trottel Notebook Virtuoso

    Reputations:
    828
    Messages:
    2,303
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think a large part, if not all, is that the dual cores replacing the single cores were more advanced. Most of all the mobile single core Core 2 processors were early stepping Meroms (65nm). As steppings progressed they became more efficient. There are even some cases of power consumption and overclockability differences between early and later processors of the same stepping, the later ones being better. The jump to 45nm was probably the biggest change in decreasing power consumption. The last steppings of the 45nm Core 2, the 3MB cache R0 and 6MB cache E0 offered very significant power saving improvements over all the earlier 45nm steppings, let alone 65nm chips. As it stands, the only 45nm single core socket P processor is the R0 stepping Celeron 900. So really depending on how big the jump was, the power savings could be huge based on the advancement of the Core 2 microarchitecture.

    Also Intel has disabled multiplier downclocking and voltage dropping on their mobile Celerons, and although they still allowed downclocking via FSB, the voltage dropping ability is not in the Celerons' favor as far as power consumption.

    What I am not trying to say is that the Celeron 900 is awesome or that the single core Core 2 and beyond processors Intel has released are great or anything like that. All I was trying to say was that despite Intel's arbitrary TDP rating, it isn't exactly power hungry compared to other similar processors and in fact could have a much lower TDP than most other mobile Core 2 processors, and that there are no advantages inherent in a dual core design versus a single core of the same architecture.

    You're right that the shared cache should remain constant. In reality the cache uses little power compared to the rest of the processor. Definitely not a negligible amount, but it is not very much. When I said how much it would use I said "a little more" than half compared to the dual core to make up for this. But either way, at full load, where TDP is concerned, the factors greatly affecting it are microarchitecture (amount of cache is included here, but I don't think it makes too much difference), number of cores, frequency, and voltage. So how on earth does one expect that a P9700 (2.8Ghz dual-core, 6MB L2 cache, 28W TDP) uses less power at full load than a T6400 (2Ghz dual-core, 2MB L2 cache, 35W TDP)? I'll tell you why; because Intel's TDP's are semi-bogus.
     
  18. Judicator

    Judicator Judged and found wanting.

    Reputations:
    1,098
    Messages:
    2,543
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    55
    You're mixing your TDP and power consumption with your last statement, although given that it's the same microarchitecture, most people would probably assume that the relationship between TDP and power consumption would be proportionate. I'm not as certain, but let's gloss over that for the time being.

    In your particular example, I think any difference in power consumption would be contributed to by a lower voltage range on the P9700 (1.012-1.175 V vs 1.00-1.25 V), as well as possibly the 25% faster FSB (1066 vs 800). The P9700 also came out half a year later than the T6400; we don't know what sort of refinements may have been made to efficiencies within the CPU within that time frame.

    Either way, this is starting to wander rather far afield from the original topic. This thread (http://forum.notebookreview.com/har...es/334009-gl40-chipset-cpu-compatibility.html) may be helpful with the CPU upgrade; there is mention of a successful upgrade of a Compaq CQ62-219WM being successfully upgraded from a Celeron 900 to a T6670.
     
  19. cuytastic101

    cuytastic101 Newbie

    Reputations:
    0
    Messages:
    4
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    5
  20. Trottel

    Trottel Notebook Virtuoso

    Reputations:
    828
    Messages:
    2,303
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Intel says that a cooling system for a P9700 has to be able to remove 28W from the processor and that a cooling system for a T6400 has to be able to remove 35W from the processor. Thus, Intel is saying that the cooling system for a T6400 has to be better than the cooling system for a P9700. Since heat produced by the processor is equal to its power consumption, from that we can reasonably assume that Intel is telling us that the T6400 uses significantly more power at full load than the P9700, which, by the way, is provably false.


    Power consumption for a processor is directly proportional to the number of cores and the clock speed, and proportional to the square of the voltage.


    [​IMG]

    So you can see, at the top of their voltage ranges and at full load, the P9700 will consume roughly 24% more power than the T6400, yet the T6400 has a TDP 25% higher than the P9700! IE, TDP in this case is complete bull.

    FSB does not affect the processor's power consumption. In any case, would it not be logical that a higher frequency would consume more power, and not less?

    Yes we do; none. The T6400 uses the R0 stepping, and the P9700 uses the E0 stepping. The steppings are identical except for the R0 stepping having 3MB of L2 cache built on the die, and the E0 stepping having 6MB of L2 cache built on the die. If you think that maybe the E0 stepping has superior power consumption to the R0 stepping, don't. Intel's white papers say so and both steppings are found in both the P and T series processor lines. Also the T6400 was only released 6 months before the P9700, and they were made concurrently as soon as the P9700 was released.

    For these reasons, TDP is rarely useful information for end users. It is part guide to follow for manufacturers, and part marketing hoopla.
     
Similar Threads: Compaq Presario
Forum Title Date
Hardware Components and Aftermarket Upgrades compaq presario cq56 t4500 to x9000 Dec 29, 2014
Hardware Components and Aftermarket Upgrades Bios upgrade winphlash error -144: BIOS is not flashable with HP, Compaq, Presario, Pavillon May 13, 2014
Hardware Components and Aftermarket Upgrades compaq presario CQ40-320LA cpu upgrade help Jun 30, 2012
Hardware Components and Aftermarket Upgrades Ram for Compaq Presario cq57-319wm Dec 3, 2011
Hardware Components and Aftermarket Upgrades compaq presario replacement Jul 19, 2011

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page