Upgrading CPU?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kenny
  • Start date Start date
K

Kenny

M/B is MSI PM8M2-V, currently using Celeron 3GHz.
Thinking of buying a Hauppage digital tv card but Hauppage recommend at
least a Pentium 4 3.2 GHz or higher.
Found this:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Processor-Intel-Pentium-LGA775-Socket/dp/tech-data/B0007QF9DA/ref=de_a_smtd
cheap on Amazon.
MSI support for this board give a list of supported CPU's here:
http://eu.msi.com/index.php?func=prodcpusupport&maincat_no=1&prod_no=180#menu
There is Pentium 4 640 (3.2GHz, R0, 84W) 800 16 in the list, what
significance is Prescott in the name?
Are they the same and is it just a matter of removing the old and replacing
it with the new?
Will there be much of a difference performance wise between the Celeron and
the Pentium although there's not much between the actual listed speed?
Replies appreciated.
 
Kenny said:
M/B is MSI PM8M2-V, currently using Celeron 3GHz.
Thinking of buying a Hauppage digital tv card but Hauppage recommend at
least a Pentium 4 3.2 GHz or higher.
Found this:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Processor-Intel-Pentium-LGA775-Socket/dp/tech-data/B0007QF9DA/ref=de_a_smtd
cheap on Amazon.
MSI support for this board give a list of supported CPU's here:
http://eu.msi.com/index.php?func=prodcpusupport&maincat_no=1&prod_no=180#menu
There is Pentium 4 640 (3.2GHz, R0, 84W) 800 16 in the list, what
significance is Prescott in the name?
Are they the same and is it just a matter of removing the old and replacing
it with the new?
Will there be much of a difference performance wise between the Celeron and
the Pentium although there's not much between the actual listed speed?
Replies appreciated.
Click to expand...

Yes, you remove the old processor and install the new one. You'd run the
existing processor, and warm it up (to make it easier to separate the
thermal paste or thermal interface material). Then shut off the power
and unplug the computer, and while the processor is still warm, attempt
to remove the cooler. The rest of the procedure is shown in an Intel video.
Keep an antistatic bag handy (not tinfoil), to store the old processor.
You might still need it some day, for debugging. And try to keep the
processor contacts clean - don't put finger prints on the gold.
Similarly, don't get thermal paste all over the place.

http://www.intel.com/cd/channel/reseller/asmo-na/eng/100617.htm

The Amazon advert says the processor you're interested in, has a
"BTX Type 1" cooler. That means the cooler on that processor, is not
intended for your motherboard. So you'll be reusing your existing
cooler. This article shows a BTX processor, with bolt-on cooler.
It is quite different than the regular ATX design. Your current cooler
could use push pins or levers.

http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=991&page=2

When you put the cooler back on, you apply fresh thermal paste. It
really depends on what thermal interface material (TIM) was on there
before. Some of them get scratched up or distorted, which means
they can't be reused if you expect good thermal performance.
This doc shows how to apply paste, in place of the original thermal
interface material.

http://www.arcticsilver.com/pdf/appinstruct/cmq/ins_cmq_singlecore_wcap.pdf

This product can be used for cleaning the heatsink and processor, before
installing paste. This isn't absolutely essential, and maybe something
like "Goo Gone" could be used instead. It really depends on the consistency
of the material that was on there before. I've used isopropyl alcohol for
cleanup, but it really isn't the right solvent and smears the stuff around.
In one case, I had to use a bit of abrasive to clean things up sufficiently,
which is not really a recommended procedure either. It would be nice
if a solvent would do the job instead.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835100010

*******

The main difference between the processors, is the size of the cache.
Some programs are more cache sensitive than others. For example, WinRAR,
a data compression/archiving program, is quite sensitive to cache, so
a big cache makes it go faster. Other programs may be less sensitive.
In the benchmarks I could find, the results are so different as to be
useless. I can't say "it is 1.2x" faster, because there are too many
variables.

I think I'd test the TV card with your existing processor first.
Unless the Celeron really sucked for other things, and it is
time to try something else anyway. If you're really getting that
processor for a good price, and it hasn't been abused, then maybe
it is a good deal in any case.

The Hauppauge adverts I could find, mention a "P4 2.2GHz". Do you
have a link to the Hauppauge advert you were looking at ?

Paul
 
Thanks for the reply.
This is the card I was thinking of:
http://www.hauppauge.co.uk/site/products/data_hvr4000.html
Clicking on the System requirements tab shows:
System Requirements
a.. Minimum processor 3.2 GHz Intel® P4 or equivalent.
b.. Microsoft Windows Vista (32 & 64bit) or XP (32bit only) with Service
Pack 2.
c.. Graphics with 64 MB of memory (minimum).
d.. Sound card or on board sound.
e.. A free PCI slot.
f.. CD-ROM drive (for Software installation).
This is an older PC which I use connected to large screen TV for movies etc.
Had been thinking of buying a standalone Humax Freesat PVR but doing it via
PC will work out considerably cheaper, also saved files will be on the PC
for editing etc..

Kenny
 
Kenny said:
Thanks for the reply.
This is the card I was thinking of:
http://www.hauppauge.co.uk/site/products/data_hvr4000.html
Clicking on the System requirements tab shows:
System Requirements
a.. Minimum processor 3.2 GHz Intel® P4 or equivalent.
b.. Microsoft Windows Vista (32 & 64bit) or XP (32bit only) with Service
Pack 2.
c.. Graphics with 64 MB of memory (minimum).
d.. Sound card or on board sound.
e.. A free PCI slot.
f.. CD-ROM drive (for Software installation).
This is an older PC which I use connected to large screen TV for movies etc.
Had been thinking of buying a standalone Humax Freesat PVR but doing it via
PC will work out considerably cheaper, also saved files will be on the PC
for editing etc..

Kenny
Click to expand...

Hauppauge bundles PowerCinema with the thing. The config they tested here,
would be roughly equivalent to P4 3GHz (on one of the processor cores). An
Athlon64 core at 2GHz is about equal to a P4 at 3GHz.) And they claim they saw
a CPU load of 20%, claiming the 8800GTX video card their system had, was helping
with video decoding. Now, if they swapped out the video card, and tried a
5 year older card, that would have been a more interesting test case.

http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=396&Itemid=40

The PowerCinema requirements are listed as P4 2.6GHz, and
it says "higher CPU speed will yield higher video quality". There
is no mention of whether a portion of the playback can be
accelerated by the video card.

http://www.cyberlink.com/products/powercinema/requirements_en_UK.html

I think you'll just have to test it, because the odds of finding
comments for your combo of processor and video card is pretty
unlikely.

I have an older AGP video card, and as far as I can tell, it
doesn't accelerate anything of great importance on video. Fortunately,
I have more CPU horsepower to compensate somewhat for that.

If you get a recent vintage video card, some of those support
various video decoding standards. But you can never be sure that
a feature like this is being used (how do you prove it?).

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductReview.aspx?Item=N82E16814131161

"Pros: Moving from X1950GT to this card, CPU utilization for Blu-rays
dropped from ~90% to ~10% or lower played in PDVD 8 (after driver
update - see below). The card installed easily with included CD.

Cons: With the drivers (9-05?) on CD, PDVD 8 (and 7) blue screened me
as soon as hardware acceleration was accessed. Updating to the
9-10 drivers (necessarily followed by the 9-10 AGP hotfix - yikes!)
from the AMD site fixed PDVD 8 - but not 7. I find blue screens
irritating, even on programs I don't absolutely need..."

New AGP video cards are like that. Too little attention to detail, and
perhaps only one driver that works well. Still, if you're trying to
stretch an AGP system to last, those are the rules of the game now.

This article shows a table at the bottom, as to which cards support which
version of video decode accelerator. What you'd be looking for, is an
AGP version of one of those cards. Not all newly released cards have AGP
versions. In the HD 4600 series, you might have 4650 and 4670. The
video decoding isn't as sensitive to the support of high performance
gaming - the video decoder clock frequency is what counts. The cards
are a tradeoff, based on power consumption and noise, versus having enough
clock speed for good video decode accaleration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Video_Decoder

RV740 Radeon HD 4700 Series UVD 2.2
RV730 Radeon HD 4600 Series UVD 2.2
RV710 Radeon HD 4300/4500 Series UVD 2.2

It is harder to get Nvidia to provide their latest video decode accelerator,
in something like an AGP card.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purevideo

The closest you might get, to something that might plug into your motherboard,
would be Nvidia 8400 GS PCI. And that wouldn't be such a good idea. There are
still a few Nvidia AGP cards kicking around, but the GPU on them is pretty old.
The 8400GS would give the VP3 video decoder, but since two different chips
are used on the cards, it is pretty hard to tell what you're buying. I use
the list here, to find interesting cards.

http://www.gpureview.com/videocards.php

The end result of all this, is it is pretty hard to advise on what hardware combo
will give good (enough) performance. No two people seem to see exactly the
same results. One system could stutter, while another is fine. The industry needs
to be more public about what features they support, and how much those features
help. (So a one line statement, that you need "P4 3.2GHz" and that's it, isn't
good enough.)

Paul
 
Back
Top