• Welcome to Tux Reports: Where Penguins Fly. We hope you find the topics varied, interesting, and worthy of your time. Please become a member and join in the discussions.

Re: Upgrading the CPU?


Bill in Co

Flightless Bird
dadiOH wrote:
> Bill in Co wrote:
>> I was thinking about possibly upgrading my current 1.6 GHz CPU on my
>> Dell Desktop with a faster 2.2 GHz CPU (which is compatible and
>> available), but I had a couple of general questions:
>> Would upgrading the CPU would require some, or perhaps most, apps to
>> need to be reactivated again, due to tripping some copy protection
>> features of the apps?
>> IOW, will apps typically look at that alone and that's enough, or
>> does it take 2 or more large changes to the system to normally trigger
>> it?

> You have apps that needed to be activated?? Or are you talking about XP?
> If the latter, I don't know if changing just the CPU would require a new
> activation or not but if it does it is no big deal.
> _____________
>> Also, when making image backups on my system to my second internal
>> SATA2 drive, I am now getting a throughput of around 1.5 GBytes per
>> minute. Is that max transfer speed limit likely due to my slow CPU
>> speed (I have a 1.6 GHz CPU), or more likely a limit of the disk
>> drive (or other motherboard components)?

> Not the CPU. Drive or program doing the imaging.
> ______________
>> As I recall, I think the
>> theoretical transfer limit of SATA2 hard drives is supposed to be
>> around 3 Gbits per second, so I'm not sure if the hard drive itself
>> is the primary limit here. If so, then a CPU upgrade wouldn't affect
>> that transfer rate either.

> I get 76 MB/sec...4.56 GB/min. My older drive does about 60 of that,

(60? 60 of what? You mean 60% of the 4.56 GB/min)?

Well then, I don't get it. My Dell desktop system (Dell 530 Inspiron)
isn't too old (dated around 2008), and has two internal SATA-II drives, and
I can't get anything close to that (using Acronis True Image to make the
image backups). Instead, it takes around 10 minutes to create a 15 GB
image (between my two internal SATA-II drives), which is 1.5 GB/min. For
what you quoted above, it would only take you about 3 minutes, which is
phenomenal! Wonder why the difference?