7811 will P9500 mobile core duo 2 work?

Please answer question, im not interrested in higher wattage CPU (not interrested in 35W or 45W CPU) want to stay with 25W, will this work?

Has anybody done this?

Do you need Bios update?

Thanks ahead of time for all the help.

 

It certainly will. No, you won't require a Bios update.

 

Just out of curiosity, is this out of need or just because you want it? I was seriously considering installing the P9500 before I got the 7811, but after I got it and saw how fast it was, I decided to wait. Besides the P9600 will be out in first quarter 2009 and, rumor has it, cheaper than the P9500.

 

just cause I want it, will wait for p9600 if you think its worth it

 

I was thinking of upgrading too but i can't see 270mhz really making a > $300 difference. That would really throw off the "bang for buck" ratio of these things... Which is why most of us got them.

 

it's not just the MHz, it's also double the cache (and this likely provides the biggest performance difference). Oh how I long for the days when it was as simple as when a 486DX2 really was twice as fast as a 486DX.

 

Hmmm really... I was under the impression that cache wasn't all that import. That for an intel chip as long as you had 1 or 2mb you were fine and the benefit got less the faster your FSB was... and that was kinda why AMD processors don't have as much cache.

 

agree with mormegil83. no need to upgrade unless ur programs require it. like my buddy said, why pay thousands and thousands of dollars each year to play some 50 dollar game for a month or so.

 

Cache is one of those things where, depending on the application, you could see a huge increase in performance or little to no increase in performance. Memory intensive applications will see a big boost. Compute intensive applications with small working sets will see little or no increase in performance. Compute intensive applications with large working sets (like Photoshop) will see a moderate increase in performance. Admittedly, the performance difference between 3MB of cache and 6MB of cache is no where near the performance difference between no cache and even .5MB of cache.

But it is very important to understand that there are 2 levels of memory cache that we are concerned with for this discussion. The first level of cache, conveniently called L1, is small but very fast. It is the cache closest to the processor. It operates at processor speeds and memory in the cache can be accessed within in a single clock cycle. The processor does not wait to access this mempory.

The second level of cache, called L2 (how original), is a bit slower than L1 but quite a bit larger. It can take 1 or 2 clock cycles (or more) to get a cache line from L2 into L1. It can take up to 10 clock cycles to get data from system memory into the L2 cache!!!

System memory is cheap, L2 cache is more expensive, and L1 cache is really expensive. AMD includes a 64+64K L1 cache, and a 1 ro 2MB L2 cache. Intel uses a 32+32K L1 cache and 3, 4 or 6MB L2 cache (up to 12MB cache on the quads). AMD makes up for a smaller L2 cache with a larger L1 cache. So AMD has fewer L1 cache misses compared to the same aplication running on Intel, but Intel incurs fewer L2 cache misses because of the larger L2 cache size. Because of the smaller L1, it is more important for Intel to have a larger L2 to avoid further penalty of an L2 miss. Because AMD has a smaller L2, it is more important to have faster system memory on an AMD system for some applications.

Also, it's not the speed of your FSB that is important, it is the ratio of your FSB to your clock speed. And as I mentioned above, because of the smaller L2 cache, AMD sees a bigger benefit from higher FSBs than Intel does. Because of the higher FSB to CPU clock ratio, Intel sees a bigger benefit from more L2.

 

nice. ty for the info