Core duo to Core 2 Duo

I have an E1705 core duo and a few questions about upgrading.

1. Is the core duo upgradable to the core 2 duo in the E1705 or this is just a rumor?

2. Where can you purchase a core 2 duo merom cpu?

3. Is dell going to put out a bios update, if 1 is true?

4. Is it an easy to change cpus in dells.

 

1) Yes, as far as I know
2) Look for newegg to post them, but so far they aren't on the shelf.
3) The probably will, given the E1705 now offers C2D...just download the latest BIOS in a week or two.
4) It should be...I've completely disassembled Dells without a problem (of course that is when I found out that my processor didn't have any thermal paste on it!)

NOTE: CD to C2D isn't really worth the upgrade based off of posts on these forums...unless you NEED 64-bit.

 

1. Yes
2. Get your Core 2 Duo Merom at http://www.us.ncix.com/search/index.php?quicksearch=merom&minprice=Min.+Price&maxprice=Max.+Price&nocookie=1&membership=0
3. They probably will, the E1505 recieved a BIOS update to add support for Core 2 Duo.
4. It's pretty easy if you follow the instructions but make sure you don't void your warranty in anyway unless you want to.

 

For those who want a review of the two CPUs:

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2808

 

Hold your horses. Only a 10% performance increase. Unless you get some sort of status kick out of having, or wnat to feel all fuzzy about having a <echo>Core 2</echo>, it's a waste of money, at the moment.
A upgrade from core (1) 1.66GHz to core (1) 2GHz is a better upgrade than a core (1) 1.66GHz to core (2) 1.66GHz upgrade.

See http://www.notebookreview.com/default.asp?newsID=3137&review=Inspiron+e1505+Core+2+Duo

I just ordered a "deal" 1705 with 2GHz core (1), because to get a core (2), I'd have to spend close to 500 CDN bucks extra, because of the way Dell prices it, like taking out all kinds of things like large harddrive, dvd writer, memory, screen, large battery, so you have to buy all it back resulting in the $500 jump. Not worth it. It's not as magical as it seems.

 

Will there be a 'worth-while' improvement in Windows Vista? With the 64 archy?

 

No, 64bit instruction set will give you a higher available addressable memory space for most purposes. Just because an instruction set gives you double the bits, does not mean double the performance. Please research the what "32 bit" instruction set means to a computer, in most cases the format is this:

Source A Source B Operation Destination C

No where in this basic instruction states increasing the addressable space will increase performance.

 

*possibly*. It depends if M$ spend the $'s on the hardcore assembler programmers to craft specific graphics routines with 64 bit (and 128/256 bit) registers. The enhanced mmx stuff and all that.

For plane application execution - I don't think so. The C compiler and other compilers (.net CLR translation layer) still have to work with the same registers for normal operations. Even with the larger 64 mmx registers and the wider 128 (and 256?) bit instructions, making it possible to move and process more memory more efficiently, it is NOT of any benefit to normal program logic. Even if a specific 64 bit compiler recompiles, say, Microsoft word, I *highly* doubt the 64 bit instructions will help one ayota.

So, for games? Maybe, *IF* it contains specifically crafted code for it.
Maybe the GDI+ (= Java2D rip off) *might* have some optimized 64 bit flavoured mmx stuff, but don't hold your horses on that one.

 

Yes. Maybe not now, maybe not next month or next year, but someday, Vista and all of the computer world will move to 64-bit, just as they moved to 32-bit from the previous 16-bit. And 64-bit apps will not run on 32-bit chips. Period. It really doesn't matter whether 64-bit is actually faster or not (though I'm gonna say it is), but when you try to run a 64-bit app on a Core Duo and find out you can't, you'll be wishing you had a Core 2 Duo.

Having said that, let me say this: I would not recommend upgrading the processor. While 64-bit is the next generation of computing, I don't think that it will be the 'norm' or 'required' for at least another two years, maybe three. By then, both processors will seem slow in comparison to modern processors, and you'll probably want to upgrade to something newer anyway. And 32-bit performance is not that much faster between the two as has been stated. If you were buying a new computer, I would say go with the Core 2 Duo definitely. It's a pretty cheap upgrade and would allow you to run 32 and 64 bit apps anytime in the future. But replacing a processor is not an easy task, nor cheap, and it's still unclear whether or not Dell will honor your warranty if you perform such an upgrade.

 

Uh yeah, exactly what I was thinking...Sorry, I don't know Japanese

 

With Dell's structure, it is definitely *not* cheap. It would cost me $500 CDN to get a similarly configured system with an C2D that what I can get with their "special" pre-configured C1D combination. It's quite extravagant, really.

 

Core2 Duo (who the f*ck thought of that marketing anyways) should cost dell the same price from intel according to public pricing in the 1k volumes. That is a sweet deal for the laptop makers in the short term for people who "just gotta have it now". Considering the Duo2 Core is a drop in replacement (pin wise), Dell is simply charging the "gotta have it now" people a tax since it really is in short quantity for the short term. As for the price hike, not worth it. The Pentium M cpu line was a HUGE improvement to the laptop industry, the Yonah (core duo) was a great leap as well .... the core2 duo, more like an evolution with nothing to loose sleep over if you have a Yonah.

 

This is all well said, and I consider quite true, if you only consider that the future of "majority home" computing relies on the desktop/laptop you are physically using. There are many powers in this world that are pushing the normal computing work towards a "thin client" idea, you know, the one Sun tried to push during the Dot Com age but failed .... Google has some particular free web based apps I have been using with great success, which by the way, can run on any free OS which all support CPUs down to 16bit with fury. If you think about work usage, even as an engineer, you will only be temporarily hosting the files and modifying/using them when you need to, the rest of the time files get sent to network storage while you scrummage through server hosted email. Business users... Excel/Word/Powerpoint ... lets be honest, weak sauce apps since the 90s. The need for "powerful" computing ended with the P3 for most of the business world, and about 20% of the engineering world. Servers, diff story.

Screw CPU power, just give me my Gigabit net connection and I am set with a thin client Pentium M Dothan that sips power.