None of those processors can be interchanged. Your Cyrix can't up upgraded.
The Centrino (which really isn't a processor, the processor is a P M, if I
remember). Won't interchange with a P3 or P2 or P4 or.....

Tom
"Ricky Spartacus" wrote in message
om...
The centrino processor is smaller in size compared to my other two
Compaq desktop Presario 5304 and 2256. Why is it smaller? Did they
stop making the larger processors? I swapped the CPU from the 2256 to
5304 and won`t boot. It fits but won`t boot. Would the AMD Athlon XP
2600 work on the 5304? If so, I think upgrading the S4020WM to a
better performance Pentium and swap the S4020WM`s CPU to my sluggish
5304.

Note: My Presario 2256 uses an AMD 300 MHz and works great, and
reliable. My Presario 5304 uses a Cyrix 100 MHz and slow and
sluggish. Repeating, would the AMD Athlon XP 2600 work on the 5304?
Thanks
Rick

Yes, the box tells the kind of processor. XP 2400+, XP 2600+, XP 2800+,
etc.
That's a series of processors. The further to the right you go, the
better
the processor, but also more expensive. I think the 2400+ at 2.0GHz is a
good compromise, at least it is for my purposes.
--
Euc1id

"Ricky Spartacus" wrote in message
om...
One more note: I Will take it back and get the one that has the AMD
Athlon 2400+. I hope Wal-Mart have labled it Athlon 2400 so I can get
what ever has the AMD Athlon 2400+.
--

I use primarily chess analysis software. It maxes out the processor
(near
100% usage). There's just enough time left, provided by the op system
apparently, to insert a little multitasking such as go online with
IE/OE,
or
run another app if it isn't too processor intensive. I run it that way
24/7/30/12, in other words almost all the time. Speed is everything to
me.
Those who don't run time-intensive apps probably don't care, so almost
anything would work. Actually I could still get along with my old
Commodore
64 for most things, but the chess software requires optimum speed.
Real
speed (#ops/second), not "fake GHz" numbers.
--
Euc1id

"Kevin Childers" wrote in message
...
It's really all a matter of what your apps demand from the
processor.
Having some in low end servers I can say that when you have a lot of
small
apps being called at random they seem to do well. If you are using a
heavy
app that places a big load on the processor that onboard cache really
becomes important. You lose a nanosecond here and a nanosecond there,
after
a bit those begin to add up and you can tell the difference.

KC


"Euc1id" wrote in message
nk.net...
You've got it reversed. The older Celerons based on the Pentium II
were
excellent values, good performers for the money. The current batch
based
on
the Pentium IV are junk. They juiced up the "GHz" artificially
because
they
knew it had sales value, but that means it doesn't indicate the true
speed
anymore.

For example I briefly had one of those 2.5GHz Celeron computers,
exactly
like Ricky Sparticus bought, and compared it to my old 500MHz
Celeron
computer with W98se purchased in 1999. You would expect the new one
to
be
5X
faster, based on the relative GHz valuses. Right? Wrong! It was only
2X
faster, using various operations from my own apps for benchmarks.

So I took it back and got this 2.0GHz AMD Athlon 2400+, which
according
to
the relative GHz you would expect to be 4X faster than the old
500MHz
Celeron. Right? Right! It is indeed 4X faster!

So you can ignore the "GHz" altogether if you've got one of the new
Celeron
processors, because it's meaningless. It just doesn't have the
indicated
ops/sec, which is the only thing that matters. You might be able to
find
some obscure benchmarks that say differently, but certainly none of
my
apps
did so.

Now, to further emphasize why GHz doesn't indicate the true or
relative
speed anymore... Get ahold of one of those 1.3GHz Centrino
processors
that
come in some notebooks, and they're a lot faster than my 2.0GHz
Athlon
XP
2400+. Maybe 50% faster. So "GHz" is for the birds, it doesn't mean
anything
anymore.

So the 2.5 GHz Celeron is very sluggish by current standards. Take
it
back
and get something worthwhile.
--
Euc1id

"Tom Scales" wrote in message
...
Celerons are not crap. Period.

The early ones, many, many years ago were. No question.

Current ones are really just P4 chips with a slightly smaller cache.
Good
value for the money.

I'd take one over an AMD any day. Why would I want to buy a copy of
the
real thing?

Tom
"Euc1id" wrote in message
k.net...
You weren't listening. You got a Celeron processor, and they're
pure
crap.
You'll have nothing but problems... Take it back and get an AMD
Athlon
processor computer. Anything starting from the Athlon XP 2400+ or
higher
is
good. Or as second choise, get an Intel Pentium 4.

128MB RAM just isn't enough to run Windows XP and applications and
video
graphics. You need at least 256MB RAM. I put 1GB RAM in mine,
because
RAM
is
cheap now.

"Ricky Spartacus" wrote in message
om...
Your experieces were helpful. After days of thinking, I decided to
get
the CPQ S5000NX from a local store. Walmart is further away. This
one
comes with 2.5Ghz and 128 RAM. I do work with graphics. What do
RAM do
that will impede with normal computer tasks?
Rick