Changing CPU on Laptop

[nunocv]

I have an old laptop that has a crappy amd cpu V120 1 core only. I want to make it usable, it already has 4GB ram(upgraded from 2), a 60GB ssd and works fine. I've researched and I can replace the cpu for any of that socket with a TDP of 25W. So I've narrowed to this two: Phenom II x4 P960 1.8Ghz quad core and a Phenm II x2 P650 2.6Ghz Dual Core, both have the same L2 cache of 2MB, but the quad core has 256KB (code) and 256KB (data) L1 cache and the dual core has half of that.

Which one should I buy to replace?

PS: No need for recommendations to buy another computer, thanks.

[You_are_a_cunt]

i'd say go for the most powerful cpu that is compatible with the socket and chipset. Check for similar models within the series and see if the laptop ever came with the quad core. If it did, odds are they used the same motherboaed across the entire series and the cpu will be compatible

[W-L]

-Topics Merged-

[nunocv]

27 minutes ago, revsilverspine said:

i'd say go for the most powerful cpu that is compatible with the socket and chipset. Check for similar models within the series and see if the laptop ever came with the quad core. If it did, odds are they used the same motherboaed across the entire series and the cpu will be compatible

I'm asking beetween those two, if I should go 4 cores 1.8Ghz or 2 cores 2.6Ghz. I woul put a better one, but has higher TDP, and the laptop might not handle the heat!

[aisle9]

20 minutes ago, revsilverspine said:

i'd say go for the most powerful cpu that is compatible with the socket and chipset. Check for similar models within the series and see if the laptop ever came with the quad core. If it did, odds are they used the same motherboaed across the entire series and the cpu will be compatible

Especially on older platforms, the "best CPU on the chipset" is hit with a disproportionate, stupid price premium. Socket 754 comes to mind immediately as one where buying the highest-end Athlon supported runs about 20-30, 40, even 50% more than the next step down, and you're only giving up 10% at the absolute most in raw performance.

 

Hell, even LGA775 is prone to this. A Core 2 Quad Q9650 will cost you $55-60 on eBay because people are stupid and will overpay dramatically for the "best". Step down one to the Q9550, and you can get one for $35-40 usually, less than $30 if you're lucky. The only difference between the Q9550 and Q9650 that would affect performance in a meaningful way is 170MHz. The 9650 is clocked at 3.0GHz, and the 9550 at 2.83GHz. You'd be paying up to 100% more for the Q9650 and getting only about 7% more performance out of it.

 

And things only get worse as you step down the Q9XXX ladder. I picked up a Q9450 off of eBay in a best offer situation for $18 a while back. That's much lower than they usually go for, but again, the only meaningful difference is that the Q9450 is clocked at 2.66GHz, or roughly 11% lower than the Q9650. In exchange for taking an 11% performance hit, I paid roughly 66% less than I would have for the extra MHz (which, by the way, I easily made up for overclocking).

 

Long post, I know, but when shopping for a CPU for an old system, "the best it can handle" isn't often the smartest shopping method. "The second-best it can handle" yields you prices much closer to actual worth of the part in question, and you're rarely sacrificing much in the way of performance to get there--especially when the system in question is already 10+ years old and on a long-dead socket.

[nunocv]

6 minutes ago, aisle9 said:

Especially on older platforms, the "best CPU on the chipset" is hit with a disproportionate, stupid price premium. Socket 754 comes to mind immediately as one where buying the highest-end Athlon supported runs about 20-30, 40, even 50% more than the next step down, and you're only giving up 10% at the absolute most in raw performance.

 

Hell, even LGA775 is prone to this. A Core 2 Quad Q9650 will cost you $55-60 on eBay because people are stupid and will overpay dramatically for the "best". Step down one to the Q9550, and you can get one for $35-40 usually, less than $30 if you're lucky. The only difference between the Q9550 and Q9650 that would affect performance in a meaningful way is 170MHz. The 9650 is clocked at 3.0GHz, and the 9550 at 2.83GHz. You'd be paying up to 100% more for the Q9650 and getting only about 7% more performance out of it.

 

And things only get worse as you step down the Q9XXX ladder. I picked up a Q9450 off of eBay in a best offer situation for $18 a while back. That's much lower than they usually go for, but again, the only meaningful difference is that the Q9450 is clocked at 2.66GHz, or roughly 11% lower than the Q9650. In exchange for taking an 11% performance hit, I paid roughly 66% less than I would have for the extra MHz (which, by the way, I easily made up for overclocking).

 

Long post, I know, but when shopping for a CPU for an old system, "the best it can handle" isn't often the smartest shopping method. "The second-best it can handle" yields you prices much closer to actual worth of the part in question, and you're rarely sacrificing much in the way of performance to get there--especially when the system in question is already 10+ years old and on a long-dead socket.

Completly agree! 

In this case, both processors I refereed are cheap, quad core costing 15$, dual core costing 12$. This two are the msot powerfull for the TDP of 25W, and the doubt comes from choosing between lesser cores more frequency, or more cores lesser frequency!

[TheDankKoosh]

3 hours ago, nunocv said:

I have an old laptop that has a crappy amd cpu V120 1 core only. I want to make it usable, it already has 4GB ram(upgraded from 2), a 60GB ssd and works fine. I've researched and I can replace the cpu for any of that socket with a TDP of 25W. So I've narrowed to this two: Phenom II x4 P960 1.8Ghz quad core and a Phenm II x2 P650 2.6Ghz Dual Core, both have the same L2 cache of 2MB, but the quad core has 256KB (code) and 256KB (data) L1 cache and the dual core has half of that.

Which one should I buy to replace?

PS: No need for recommendations to buy another computer, thanks.

If possible, I would say a higher tdp quad core and better ram would be the best for your system. Repasting should easily get rid of the heat of the extra 10w on this processor. Try to talk this guy down to $25 and then repaste with something like IC diamond.

https://www.ebay.com/i/253016769859?chn=ps&dispItem=1

[nunocv]

7 hours ago, TheDankKoosh said:

If possible, I would say a higher tdp quad core and better ram would be the best for your system. Repasting should easily get rid of the heat of the extra 10w on this processor. Try to talk this guy down to $25 and then repaste with something like IC diamond.

https://www.ebay.com/i/253016769859?chn=ps&dispItem=1

Good quality thermal paste could make the laptop handle 35w tdp?

[Pendragon]

16 minutes ago, nunocv said:

snip

The paste is more expensive than ur CPU at this point. Not worth it. The best liquid metal or conventional pastes are like 30 bucks. 

[nunocv]

45 minutes ago, Pendragon said:

The paste is more expensive than ur CPU at this point. Not worth it. The best liquid metal or conventional pastes are like 30 bucks. 

Noctua thermal paste wouldnt be enough?

[Pendragon]

3 hours ago, nunocv said:

paste

Its good. Not the best. When u want to add 10w to a cooling system u need the best. 

 

Maybe ur cooling system already has headroom we won't know without checking