New Processor

I just bought a Dell Studio 1737 with a T6400 @ 2ghz, 4 gigs of ram and the integrated graphics.

I was wanting to upgrade the processor and video card, any suggestions?

 

the mother board has a P socket. Also wanting to know would I notice a difference in the 6/4/3/2 MB cache?

 

cache is everything these days 6MB is great.


Mainly read this.. and see whey you need to get the Max cache for your CPU. You may end up with defective 4MB cache CPU which they demote to a 2MB cache model instead of scrapping it. Getting the most cache ensures you have a quality unit.


However, cache memory isn't only a performance factor. It has become a powerful tool to create different processor models for the low-end, mainstream and the high-end segments, as it enables a processor manufacturer to play with defect rates as well as with clock speeds. Defect-free silicon allows for the utilization of the entire L2 cache memory, and it runs at wonderfully high clock speeds. If it should not reach the target clock speed, the die may still become an entry-level model for a high-end processor line, e.g. a Core 2 Duo 6000 with 4 MB cache and a low clock speed. Should parts of the L2 cache be defective, the manufacturer has the option to shut them down and create a lower-end model with less cache memory, e.g. a Core 2 Duo E4000 model with 2 MB cache, or even a Pentium Dual Core with only 1 MB cache. All of this makes sense, but the question still is: how much of a difference does the cache memory really make?

 

I believe the L2 cache size will only improve performance when doing heavy tasks like photo editing and gaming. If you're doing every day things like word processing and web browsing, you'll barely notice the difference between a lower and higher cache processor.

Although if you really care about heat and battery life, the P series fits your needs because it consumes less watts than the T series (25 vs 35). You can expect it to be 5C+ cooler and gain 0:15+ battery life.

For the most part, replacing the video card in a laptop isn't possible.

 

I found this article here at the AnandTech site which is interesting; the chart below has been taken from their site:



This shows that an increased level 2 cache can have different impacts based on what application you are using, although it's worth noting that for the games there can be quite a wide variance in the performance increase.

To explain why this is we need to understand what the level 2 cache is exactly.

OK so we know your CPU operates at very high speeds, but it can't do that without any data to work with. It could get that data from the hard drive, but these are incredibly slow compared to the CPU, so instead data is loaded from the HDD to the RAM. The CPU also doesn't really want to get the data from the RAM, because although it is much much faster than the HDD, it's still pretty slow compared to the CPU.

This is where the cache comes into play. Data is loaded from the RAM into the cache, and from here the CPU has much faster access times. The reason being that in modern CPUs, the cache is actually integrated into the chip (though it wasn't always like so).

Cache is extremely fast in comparison to the RAM. It utilises the same storage methods, but due to the manufacturing process, Cache is typically much much more expensive than RAM. Therefore we don't often have any way near as much of it as we do RAM.

OK, so we now know what cache is, why is there so much difference between different programs?

Well that is actually quite easy to explain.

Your CPU executes incredibly basic instructions; but lots and lots of them very fast. Depending upon what it is being asked to do, it might need to use the same data time and time again. OK, so let's say that the CPU has some work to do on some data as detailed below:

Data Size
A 1MB
B 1MB
C 1MB

So it needs to work with this data in the following sequence: A, B, C, A, C

You have a 2MB cache

Data A is pulled from the RAM and placed in the cache. The CPU accesses it from there and stores the result back in the cache. Data B is then pulled from the RAM and placed in the cache for the CPU to work on. The cache is now full. The CPU completes it work and places data B back in the cache.
Data C is pulled from the cache, but it has nowhere to go, so data A is overwritten (after being sent back to the RAM), the CPU finishes it's work and writes it back to the cache. Oh dear, now the CPU needs to work with data A again, but that needs to be grabbed from the RAM to the cache again.

Having a larger cache means that data A would still be in the cache and would be faster for the CPU to access rather than having to wait for the data to be brought from the RAM to the cache again.

As with my other explanations, this is incredibly simplified. In truth there are intelligent memory controllers that organise when things needs to be sent to different places and recognise that different pieces of data will be needed again in a few cycles and so would overwrite the cache with a little more finesse; but again this is just so you get the picture.

So different programs might need the same data to be worked on time and time again. These programs will benefit more from having a larger cache. Other programs require lots of different data to be worked on. These will still benefit from having a larger cache as more data can be available to the CPU at any one point, but not nearly as much of a performance increase as the first group of programs.

I hope that comes across relatively clear; essentially more cache will generally result in better performance, but looking at the results from AnandTech, this can be marginal or it can be quite large. It's down to each individual person to determine whether a potentially small increase in performance outweighs the additional cost.

Also, as an interesting tid bit. It has been said that in a dual core processor, losing the level 2 cache can have a larger impact than only running on a single core!

 

processor you can upgrade but our model we cant upgrade the gpu(video card) i have the t6600 as it says in my sig. but i also want to upgrade the cpu but its not really necessary unless youre running memory intensive programs

 

So purchasing the intel T9550 be a worthy mov or a waste of money

 

How much difference would I notice going from the T6400 to the T9550?

 

You are the only person that can make that decision.

If your CPU usage is not maxed out very often, then the whole performance : price ratio of your machine is going to be seriously out of whack. Don't listen to people who say "you must have this", but instead make a decision based on your own usage.

Have a look in Task Manager / Performance tab to view your CPU usage. If it is at less than 100% then you're not using the CPU at max capacity now - so why upgrade to a more expensive CPU that you will also not use at max capacity?

With regards to the increased L2 Cache - read through my post above and make a decision for yourself based on the programs you use. Most of the time, for the vast majority of people out there, jumping from 2MB of L2 Cache to a large number such as the 6MB of the T9550 will show a good improvement, but you really really need to offset this against the cost and then determine yourself if you should.

I mean, we don't know what you use your computer for, but I would have thought you'd be fine with what you have at the moment.

People are always trying to upgrade notebooks with expensive improvements which yield little performance boost. In my opinion it is far better to save the pennies and then in two years time spend the money on a new notebook. That's typically the best upgrade you can get considering that technology would have moved forward by some way and you'll get more for your money.

 

I have the T9400 with 6MB cache and even when I disable 1 core, and use low power mode, It is plenty for what I need. except games. Even with 1 core the 6MB cache picks up the slack the data is there. I was reading that removing the cache reduces performance more than removing a CPU core. So you need as much cache as possible. Also you can see this in some high end CPU Intels Extreme which have 12MB cache but the only thing separating a 3.2 ghz extreme vs a 3.2 ghz (non extreme CPU) is that the Extreme model has double the L1 cache making it super fast.

 

Yes, but the performance gains depend on what you use the machine for. If you use only applications that are not utilising the CPU massively, then having increased cache will make only marginal differences. The point is that the price of that additional processor can be quite a lot - in my opinion for the vast majority of people it is not required to spend that sum of money on an upgrade that will yield marginal performance boosts.

To upgrade just because it is faster is not particularly wise. To upgrade because it is faster and things are too slow to be suitable for your needs is not. There is a difference. One of these options is for people with more money than sense, the other is for everybody else. This doesn't mean you shouldn't upgrade, but that you might not need to upgrade. As I said, the best upgrade option is to spend money on a notebook that will last a few years, don't buy any upgrades but instead spend the money you would have on a new notebook. By the time that comes around, you'll get more bang for your buck buying new technology rather than trying to maintain and upgrade aging tech.