A computer components & hardware forum. HardwareBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » HardwareBanter forum » System Manufacturers & Vendors » Dell Computers
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Dimension 8400 Processor



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old February 21st 11, 08:37 PM posted to alt.sys.pc-clone.dell
Bruce Varney
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 87
Default Dimension 8400 Processor

I have a Dimension 8400 fitted with a Pent 4 3.20 GHz processor SL7J7. I
wish to change the processor for something a little faster, can I substitute
a SL96H 3.60 GHz processor. The Motherboard already has 4Gb of PC2-5300
(DDR2-667) memory fitted. I finding that the PC is a little slow when
running Photoshop CS3 especially when going through the procedure to set up
printing. It is running on Windows 7 Ultimate. Otherwise the machine
runs fine.

Bruce.

  #2  
Old February 22nd 11, 07:56 PM posted to alt.sys.pc-clone.dell
William R. Walsh[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 931
Default Dimension 8400 Processor

Hi!

Not having tried it personally, I can't say for sure. However, Dell's
BIOS is pretty tolerant of different CPUs. The Dim8400 power supply
and motherboard should definitely be up to it. I would update to the
latest Dell BIOS for your system and give it a try.

William
  #3  
Old February 22nd 11, 08:31 PM posted to alt.sys.pc-clone.dell
Bruce Varney
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 87
Default Dimension 8400 Processor

Thank you for your reply William. The Bios is already at A09 which is the
latest that is listed on Dell's website for the Dim 8400. I shall give it
a try once I have my hands on a suitable processor.

Bruce.

"William R. Walsh" wrote in message
...

Hi!

Not having tried it personally, I can't say for sure. However, Dell's
BIOS is pretty tolerant of different CPUs. The Dim8400 power supply
and motherboard should definitely be up to it. I would update to the
latest Dell BIOS for your system and give it a try.

William

  #4  
Old February 22nd 11, 08:31 PM posted to alt.sys.pc-clone.dell
Bob Levine[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 88
Default Dimension 8400 Processor

On 2/21/2011 2:37 PM, Bruce Varney wrote:
I have a Dimension 8400 fitted with a Pent 4 3.20 GHz processor SL7J7. I
wish to change the processor for something a little faster, can I
substitute a SL96H 3.60 GHz processor. The Motherboard already has 4Gb
of PC2-5300 (DDR2-667) memory fitted. I finding that the PC is a little
slow when running Photoshop CS3 especially when going through the
procedure to set up printing. It is running on Windows 7 Ultimate.
Otherwise the machine runs fine.


No single core processor is going run Photoshop very well, even a
version as old as CS3.

I wouldn't waste my money...you'll never be able to see the difference.

Bob
  #5  
Old February 23rd 11, 04:07 AM posted to alt.sys.pc-clone.dell
Christopher Muto
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,222
Default Dimension 8400 Processor

On 2/21/2011 2:37 PM, Bruce Varney wrote:
I have a Dimension 8400 fitted with a Pent 4 3.20 GHz processor SL7J7.
I wish to change the processor for something a little faster, can I
substitute a SL96H 3.60 GHz processor. The Motherboard already has 4Gb
of PC2-5300 (DDR2-667) memory fitted. I finding that the PC is a little
slow when running Photoshop CS3 especially when going through the
procedure to set up printing. It is running on Windows 7 Ultimate.
Otherwise the machine runs fine.

Bruce.


i have not attempted what you are considering but i suspect that it will
fail. below is a link to a side by side comparison of the two
processors on intel's site. though they are from the same 'family', use
the processor socket, and are pretty close in terms of wattage and
voltage requirements, there is one big difference. the sl96h is a
speedstep processor. when speedstep processors are installed in
motherboards that do not support speedstep they will work at their
lowest speed ratting. you can think of it as having an internal
multiplier that defaults to a low multiple of the buss speed and only
when instructed by the system to speed up does it operate at it full
potential speed rating. as far as i know the dimension 8200 does not
support speedstep. it has an 850 chipset and the earliest chipset that
could support speedstep was the 910. would like to hear your findings
if you give this a try. use cpu-z to identify the processor and the
internal speed that it is operating...
http://www.cpuid.com/

link to intel for side by side comparison of the two processors...
http://ark.intel.com/Compare.aspx?ids=27485,27468,

example: i recently tried replacing the celeron m 2.4ghz in an inspiron
1000 with a pentium m 2.4ghz and it ran at 1.2ghz because it was a
speedstep processor and the system did not support speedstep. the
processor speed would not increase when under load.
  #6  
Old February 23rd 11, 03:21 PM posted to alt.sys.pc-clone.dell
Bruce Varney
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 87
Default Dimension 8400 Processor



"Christopher Muto" wrote in message
t...

On 2/21/2011 2:37 PM, Bruce Varney wrote:
I have a Dimension 8400 fitted with a Pent 4 3.20 GHz processor SL7J7.
I wish to change the processor for something a little faster, can I
substitute a SL96H 3.60 GHz processor. The Motherboard already has 4Gb
of PC2-5300 (DDR2-667) memory fitted. I finding that the PC is a little
slow when running Photoshop CS3 especially when going through the
procedure to set up printing. It is running on Windows 7 Ultimate.
Otherwise the machine runs fine.

Bruce.


i have not attempted what you are considering but i suspect that it will
fail. below is a link to a side by side comparison of the two
processors on intel's site. though they are from the same 'family', use
the processor socket, and are pretty close in terms of wattage and
voltage requirements, there is one big difference. the sl96h is a
speedstep processor. when speedstep processors are installed in
motherboards that do not support speedstep they will work at their
lowest speed ratting. you can think of it as having an internal
multiplier that defaults to a low multiple of the buss speed and only
when instructed by the system to speed up does it operate at it full
potential speed rating. as far as i know the dimension 8200 does not
support speedstep. it has an 850 chipset and the earliest chipset that
could support speedstep was the 910. would like to hear your findings
if you give this a try. use cpu-z to identify the processor and the
internal speed that it is operating...
http://www.cpuid.com/

link to intel for side by side comparison of the two processors...
http://ark.intel.com/Compare.aspx?ids=27485,27468,

example: i recently tried replacing the celeron m 2.4ghz in an inspiron
1000 with a pentium m 2.4ghz and it ran at 1.2ghz because it was a
speedstep processor and the system did not support speedstep. the
processor speed would not increase when under load.

Christopher, thank you for your reply but I think you have the motherboards
mixed up, its a 8400 not 8200. The 8400 has a 925X chipset which does
support speedstep processors.

What I wanted to know was if anyone had tried this processor on a 8400
m'board and if so what if any advantage did it give, if any.

Bruce.

  #7  
Old February 23rd 11, 07:17 PM posted to alt.sys.pc-clone.dell
Christopher Muto
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,222
Default Dimension 8400 Processor

On 2/23/2011 9:21 AM, Bruce Varney wrote:


"Christopher Muto" wrote in message
t...

On 2/21/2011 2:37 PM, Bruce Varney wrote:
I have a Dimension 8400 fitted with a Pent 4 3.20 GHz processor SL7J7.
I wish to change the processor for something a little faster, can I
substitute a SL96H 3.60 GHz processor. The Motherboard already has 4Gb
of PC2-5300 (DDR2-667) memory fitted. I finding that the PC is a little
slow when running Photoshop CS3 especially when going through the
procedure to set up printing. It is running on Windows 7 Ultimate.
Otherwise the machine runs fine.

Bruce.


i have not attempted what you are considering but i suspect that it will
fail. below is a link to a side by side comparison of the two
processors on intel's site. though they are from the same 'family', use
the processor socket, and are pretty close in terms of wattage and
voltage requirements, there is one big difference. the sl96h is a
speedstep processor. when speedstep processors are installed in
motherboards that do not support speedstep they will work at their
lowest speed ratting. you can think of it as having an internal
multiplier that defaults to a low multiple of the buss speed and only
when instructed by the system to speed up does it operate at it full
potential speed rating. as far as i know the dimension 8200 does not
support speedstep. it has an 850 chipset and the earliest chipset that
could support speedstep was the 910. would like to hear your findings
if you give this a try. use cpu-z to identify the processor and the
internal speed that it is operating...
http://www.cpuid.com/

link to intel for side by side comparison of the two processors...
http://ark.intel.com/Compare.aspx?ids=27485,27468,

example: i recently tried replacing the celeron m 2.4ghz in an inspiron
1000 with a pentium m 2.4ghz and it ran at 1.2ghz because it was a
speedstep processor and the system did not support speedstep. the
processor speed would not increase when under load.

Christopher, thank you for your reply but I think you have the
motherboards mixed up, its a 8400 not 8200. The 8400 has a 925X chipset
which does support speedstep processors.

What I wanted to know was if anyone had tried this processor on a 8400
m'board and if so what if any advantage did it give, if any.

Bruce.


right, after reading that lengthy thread about the 8200 and large disks
i was indeed thinking 8200 and not 8400...
still i have my doubts about the sl96h working in the dimension 8400. i
*think* the 3.6 prescott is the best you can do in the 8400 and it
really isn't worth the effort (SL7J9, SL7Q2). there is a chance that
the 3.6 or prescott, dubbed the 'extreme edition', would work. the
extreme edition processors had 2mb l2 cache (vs the 1mb on yours) and
the system documentation states that the 8400 does support p4 ht
processors with 2mb l2 like only the extreme editions have. the
prescotts are all 90nm vs the higher density 65nm of the cedar mill -
and that is why i do not think the 8400 would support the sl96h you
asked about. but i don't think it would hurt to try it, however it may
not post. trying the prescott extreme edition has potential but
depends on the cost of them these days for the marginal performance
improvement it provides. they were very expensive in their day (over
$1000) and not very popular so are pretty rare. let us know if you try
anything and what results you experience good or bad.
  #8  
Old February 24th 11, 01:17 PM posted to alt.sys.pc-clone.dell
Bruce Varney
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 87
Default Dimension 8400 Processor



"Christopher Muto" wrote in message
...

On 2/23/2011 9:21 AM, Bruce Varney wrote:


"Christopher Muto" wrote in message
t...

On 2/21/2011 2:37 PM, Bruce Varney wrote:
I have a Dimension 8400 fitted with a Pent 4 3.20 GHz processor SL7J7.
I wish to change the processor for something a little faster, can I
substitute a SL96H 3.60 GHz processor. The Motherboard already has 4Gb
of PC2-5300 (DDR2-667) memory fitted. I finding that the PC is a little
slow when running Photoshop CS3 especially when going through the
procedure to set up printing. It is running on Windows 7 Ultimate.
Otherwise the machine runs fine.

Bruce.


i have not attempted what you are considering but i suspect that it will
fail. below is a link to a side by side comparison of the two
processors on intel's site. though they are from the same 'family', use
the processor socket, and are pretty close in terms of wattage and
voltage requirements, there is one big difference. the sl96h is a
speedstep processor. when speedstep processors are installed in
motherboards that do not support speedstep they will work at their
lowest speed ratting. you can think of it as having an internal
multiplier that defaults to a low multiple of the buss speed and only
when instructed by the system to speed up does it operate at it full
potential speed rating. as far as i know the dimension 8200 does not
support speedstep. it has an 850 chipset and the earliest chipset that
could support speedstep was the 910. would like to hear your findings
if you give this a try. use cpu-z to identify the processor and the
internal speed that it is operating...
http://www.cpuid.com/

link to intel for side by side comparison of the two processors...
http://ark.intel.com/Compare.aspx?ids=27485,27468,

example: i recently tried replacing the celeron m 2.4ghz in an inspiron
1000 with a pentium m 2.4ghz and it ran at 1.2ghz because it was a
speedstep processor and the system did not support speedstep. the
processor speed would not increase when under load.

Christopher, thank you for your reply but I think you have the
motherboards mixed up, its a 8400 not 8200. The 8400 has a 925X chipset
which does support speedstep processors.

What I wanted to know was if anyone had tried this processor on a 8400
m'board and if so what if any advantage did it give, if any.

Bruce.


right, after reading that lengthy thread about the 8200 and large disks
i was indeed thinking 8200 and not 8400...
still i have my doubts about the sl96h working in the dimension 8400. i
*think* the 3.6 prescott is the best you can do in the 8400 and it
really isn't worth the effort (SL7J9, SL7Q2). there is a chance that
the 3.6 or prescott, dubbed the 'extreme edition', would work. the
extreme edition processors had 2mb l2 cache (vs the 1mb on yours) and
the system documentation states that the 8400 does support p4 ht
processors with 2mb l2 like only the extreme editions have. the
prescotts are all 90nm vs the higher density 65nm of the cedar mill -
and that is why i do not think the 8400 would support the sl96h you
asked about. but i don't think it would hurt to try it, however it may
not post. trying the prescott extreme edition has potential but
depends on the cost of them these days for the marginal performance
improvement it provides. they were very expensive in their day (over
$1000) and not very popular so are pretty rare. let us know if you try
anything and what results you experience good or bad.

Installed 3.60Ghz processor. As soon as power lead inserted PC powered on
and stayed on with no video. Turned PC off and back on no video. So I
conclude that the motherboard doesn't like the processor.

  #9  
Old February 24th 11, 05:05 PM posted to alt.sys.pc-clone.dell
Christopher Muto
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,222
Default Dimension 8400 Processor

On 2/24/2011 7:17 AM, Bruce Varney wrote:


"Christopher Muto" wrote in message
...

On 2/23/2011 9:21 AM, Bruce Varney wrote:


"Christopher Muto" wrote in message
t...

On 2/21/2011 2:37 PM, Bruce Varney wrote:
I have a Dimension 8400 fitted with a Pent 4 3.20 GHz processor SL7J7.
I wish to change the processor for something a little faster, can I
substitute a SL96H 3.60 GHz processor. The Motherboard already has 4Gb
of PC2-5300 (DDR2-667) memory fitted. I finding that the PC is a little
slow when running Photoshop CS3 especially when going through the
procedure to set up printing. It is running on Windows 7 Ultimate.
Otherwise the machine runs fine.

Bruce.


i have not attempted what you are considering but i suspect that it will
fail. below is a link to a side by side comparison of the two
processors on intel's site. though they are from the same 'family', use
the processor socket, and are pretty close in terms of wattage and
voltage requirements, there is one big difference. the sl96h is a
speedstep processor. when speedstep processors are installed in
motherboards that do not support speedstep they will work at their
lowest speed ratting. you can think of it as having an internal
multiplier that defaults to a low multiple of the buss speed and only
when instructed by the system to speed up does it operate at it full
potential speed rating. as far as i know the dimension 8200 does not
support speedstep. it has an 850 chipset and the earliest chipset that
could support speedstep was the 910. would like to hear your findings
if you give this a try. use cpu-z to identify the processor and the
internal speed that it is operating...
http://www.cpuid.com/

link to intel for side by side comparison of the two processors...
http://ark.intel.com/Compare.aspx?ids=27485,27468,

example: i recently tried replacing the celeron m 2.4ghz in an inspiron
1000 with a pentium m 2.4ghz and it ran at 1.2ghz because it was a
speedstep processor and the system did not support speedstep. the
processor speed would not increase when under load.

Christopher, thank you for your reply but I think you have the
motherboards mixed up, its a 8400 not 8200. The 8400 has a 925X chipset
which does support speedstep processors.

What I wanted to know was if anyone had tried this processor on a 8400
m'board and if so what if any advantage did it give, if any.

Bruce.


right, after reading that lengthy thread about the 8200 and large disks
i was indeed thinking 8200 and not 8400...
still i have my doubts about the sl96h working in the dimension 8400. i
*think* the 3.6 prescott is the best you can do in the 8400 and it
really isn't worth the effort (SL7J9, SL7Q2). there is a chance that
the 3.6 or prescott, dubbed the 'extreme edition', would work. the
extreme edition processors had 2mb l2 cache (vs the 1mb on yours) and
the system documentation states that the 8400 does support p4 ht
processors with 2mb l2 like only the extreme editions have. the
prescotts are all 90nm vs the higher density 65nm of the cedar mill -
and that is why i do not think the 8400 would support the sl96h you
asked about. but i don't think it would hurt to try it, however it may
not post. trying the prescott extreme edition has potential but
depends on the cost of them these days for the marginal performance
improvement it provides. they were very expensive in their day (over
$1000) and not very popular so are pretty rare. let us know if you try
anything and what results you experience good or bad.

Installed 3.60Ghz processor. As soon as power lead inserted PC powered
on and stayed on with no video. Turned PC off and back on no video. So I
conclude that the motherboard doesn't like the processor.


I assume that the 3.6ghz that didn't work was the 65nm cedar mill sl96h
that you initially asked about. Looked at the prescott extreme editions
on ebay and the few there seem to be about $100 which is way too much
for what they offer (and which also may not work, but probably will).
  #10  
Old February 24th 11, 05:27 PM posted to alt.sys.pc-clone.dell
Christopher Muto
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,222
Default Dimension 8400 Processor

On 2/24/2011 11:05 AM, Christopher Muto wrote:
On 2/24/2011 7:17 AM, Bruce Varney wrote:


"Christopher Muto" wrote in message
...

On 2/23/2011 9:21 AM, Bruce Varney wrote:


"Christopher Muto" wrote in message
t...

On 2/21/2011 2:37 PM, Bruce Varney wrote:
I have a Dimension 8400 fitted with a Pent 4 3.20 GHz processor SL7J7.
I wish to change the processor for something a little faster, can I
substitute a SL96H 3.60 GHz processor. The Motherboard already has 4Gb
of PC2-5300 (DDR2-667) memory fitted. I finding that the PC is a little
slow when running Photoshop CS3 especially when going through the
procedure to set up printing. It is running on Windows 7 Ultimate.
Otherwise the machine runs fine.

Bruce.

i have not attempted what you are considering but i suspect that it will
fail. below is a link to a side by side comparison of the two
processors on intel's site. though they are from the same 'family', use
the processor socket, and are pretty close in terms of wattage and
voltage requirements, there is one big difference. the sl96h is a
speedstep processor. when speedstep processors are installed in
motherboards that do not support speedstep they will work at their
lowest speed ratting. you can think of it as having an internal
multiplier that defaults to a low multiple of the buss speed and only
when instructed by the system to speed up does it operate at it full
potential speed rating. as far as i know the dimension 8200 does not
support speedstep. it has an 850 chipset and the earliest chipset that
could support speedstep was the 910. would like to hear your findings
if you give this a try. use cpu-z to identify the processor and the
internal speed that it is operating...
http://www.cpuid.com/

link to intel for side by side comparison of the two processors...
http://ark.intel.com/Compare.aspx?ids=27485,27468,

example: i recently tried replacing the celeron m 2.4ghz in an inspiron
1000 with a pentium m 2.4ghz and it ran at 1.2ghz because it was a
speedstep processor and the system did not support speedstep. the
processor speed would not increase when under load.

Christopher, thank you for your reply but I think you have the
motherboards mixed up, its a 8400 not 8200. The 8400 has a 925X chipset
which does support speedstep processors.

What I wanted to know was if anyone had tried this processor on a 8400
m'board and if so what if any advantage did it give, if any.

Bruce.


right, after reading that lengthy thread about the 8200 and large disks
i was indeed thinking 8200 and not 8400...
still i have my doubts about the sl96h working in the dimension 8400. i
*think* the 3.6 prescott is the best you can do in the 8400 and it
really isn't worth the effort (SL7J9, SL7Q2). there is a chance that
the 3.6 or prescott, dubbed the 'extreme edition', would work. the
extreme edition processors had 2mb l2 cache (vs the 1mb on yours) and
the system documentation states that the 8400 does support p4 ht
processors with 2mb l2 like only the extreme editions have. the
prescotts are all 90nm vs the higher density 65nm of the cedar mill -
and that is why i do not think the 8400 would support the sl96h you
asked about. but i don't think it would hurt to try it, however it may
not post. trying the prescott extreme edition has potential but
depends on the cost of them these days for the marginal performance
improvement it provides. they were very expensive in their day (over
$1000) and not very popular so are pretty rare. let us know if you try
anything and what results you experience good or bad.

Installed 3.60Ghz processor. As soon as power lead inserted PC powered
on and stayed on with no video. Turned PC off and back on no video. So I
conclude that the motherboard doesn't like the processor.


I assume that the 3.6ghz that didn't work was the 65nm cedar mill sl96h
that you initially asked about. Looked at the prescott extreme editions
on ebay and the few there seem to be about $100 which is way too much
for what they offer (and which also may not work, but probably will).


the SL7Z5 is an extreme edition prescott that will probably work and is
available on ebay for $35 delivered (item number 270706002365). at 3.6
ghz it is a little faster than your 3.2 and it has twice the amount of
l2 cache but still a 90nm prescott so the changes are good that it will
work in your system.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
If you have a Dimension 8400 Tom Scales Dell Computers 0 February 18th 07 12:39 AM
Processor upgrade in a Dimension 8400 Alex Flaherty Dell Computers 4 October 29th 05 09:53 PM
Difference Dimension 8400-processor in the USA vs the Netherlands wederik Dell Computers 4 March 14th 05 06:11 PM
8400 Dell processor choices Ma No Dell Computers 6 February 9th 05 12:28 AM
Dell 8400: Processor Vs. Ram Tracy Dell Computers 7 July 27th 04 07:43 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:29 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 HardwareBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.