Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (
More info?)
In article <yf8lc.3125$YI4.29034769@news-text.cableinet.net>,
postmaster@127.0.0.1 says...
>
> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1afed6c5248237f998a4b3@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
> > In article <c72akh$ahjh$1@news3.infoave.net>, jingram@hotmail.com
> > says...
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > I've got a Dimension 4500 that I bought a year and a half ago which came
> > > with a 2.8Ghz CPU (w/o hyperthreading) I'd like to know if it's
> possible to
> > > upgrade it to a 3+Ghz CPU?
> >
> > I don't know if it's possible, but a .2Ghz jump won't be noticeable.
>
> Which, of course, begs the question: "why do successive Intel processors
> seem to be .2Ghz faster than their predecessors?"
>
> There must be *some* performance increase surely?
In a term of numbers, any increase in CPU speed on the same model of CPU
is an increase in performance, but, is it enough to notice? I'm willing
to bet that most people would not notice any difference if they switched
from a 2.8Ghz CPU to a 3.0Ghz CPU in a blind test. On the other hand,
switching to a new model CPU does not always bring an increase in
performance either - a good example is the 586 and the Pentium Pro -
without the right OS the PP was slower. You also need to consider things
like faster hard drive (can make a BIG difference), faster video card
(and faster does not always mean Newer or newest), faster RAM, increase
FSB, etc....
Depending on the system specs, a faster video card and faster hard drive
would provide more performance than a 3.0Ghz CPU upgrade.
--
--
spamfree999@rrohio.com
(Remove 999 to reply to me)