The problem with that is you're stuck with the older generation of CPU's, older GPU, etc. There is a limit to the performance you're going to get by just upgrading the CPU, and it would be a temporary fix. The core i3/i5/i7 offer much better efficiency per clock and that would be the way to go. Not to mention, if you do decided to upgrade your CPU, and you mess up, you're out the cost of the CPU + you're looking at a new laptop anyways. You're also not going to fix the heat issue by upgrading to a faster CPU, it may in fact make it worse.
All true. Especially about the heat. Beyond all of the perks of the laptop the main
reason I would look forward to replacing it is that I have never had an HP laptop that I didn't dislike. The main heat issue besides the fan is the shoddy design: the air vent is on the bottom, i.e., very easy to block, which is probably why the fan is shorting out to begin with, as opposed to some of the competitors' who wisely place the vents on the sides.
And HP loads your system with so many resource hogging drivers that constantly tax your memory even if you disable all their features they are still constantly running update searches. Even imposing a strict series of startup blockers through MSCONFIG, HP has still found ways to **** me off.
Still I would say the main performance issue is not that the board predates DDR3 RAM and iCore series processors, but that it's the slowest processor that is on the market for this board - I can upgrade to a T7600 CPU and get a boost to 2.33 GHz
, from a 533 Mhz FSB to a 677MHz FSB, and from a 2 MB cache to a 4MB cache... for about a hundred bucks.
If I want a 17" widescreen notebook with an internal video card with its own memory, 2 hard drives, 4 USB, 1 HDMI, 8 cell battery, Television expansion slot, it will start in the $700+ range and the question is, since memory has never been an issue, how significant is the difference between the 1.6 Ghz CPU and the 2.33 Ghz CPU?
Are we saying that there is very little difference between the two, or a lot?