Asus f3sa-a1 laptop

[jaluca]

Help. I like to buy midgrade new products, wait until compatible top-of-the line hardware prices bottom out, then upgrade the system to its fullest potential. In '08, I paid $1000, + $200 for the ext warranty, for the asus f3sa-a1. For my $1200, I never needed support. Last month, I decided that it was time to check hardware prices. I called asus to find out what the highest processor the system could support is, and for my $1200, THEY STONEWALLED me. They 'don't support that kind of upgrade.' They won't even give me any information on what the highest bios supports, listed in their site's browser's auto-update scanner, which obviously THEY'VE PROGRAMMED to specifically scan the system it's online with.
What I've extrapolated so far: their chinsey installed updater lists up to bios 301 for install. That flash is done. Their site's updater shows 25% of my drivers to be out-of-date; fat lotta good their installed updater did. The browser scanner also lists 2 bios beyond 301: 302 & 303. My system came w a memron core2 duo socket P 2.2 ghz 800mhz processor model t7500, but bios 303 states that its final goal was to give the system better compatibility w penryn processors. Penryn mobile goes as high as the quad extreme qx9300, 1066mhz. Memron only goes to the duo t7800, only .4ghz faster than the t7500's clock speed.
Any penryn duo clocks slower than the t7800. I'm guessing the .4ghz between thet7500 & the t7800 wouldn't be worth the trouble. The qx9300 may not be a match due to the 800\1066 difference. That brings me to the x9100, seemingly compatible in every way, when comparing @ intel's ark core2 memron & penryn socket Ps. Where the heck do I go from here?

 

[WR2]

How much would the x9100 cost?
I'm thinking it's probably not worth the cost and effort to do the upgrade.

 

[WR2]

Only listing @ Amazon was for $449

 

[jaluca]

eBay has several listed for $147-180.

 

[WR2]

$180 would be 1/3 the cost of a nice entry level Core i3 Sandy Bridge laptop.

 

[jaluca]

Okay, the core I have is a duo that clocks @ 2.2ghz. The fastest i3 clocks @ 2.4, & the x9100 clocks @ 3.06. So, trading between two processors with two cores that each clock @ ~the same cnt possibly b better than trading the duo that clocks @ 2.2 for the quad with 4 cores, each clocking @ 3.06. I think a quad extreme upgrade to my current laptop for 1\3 cost of an i3 dual core would not be worth it, seeing as all i'd be trading for said $540 would be dual core for dual core, only increasing .2ghz. I know the i's are newer, but math shows the quad to be better. Maybe new technology would compare well to the quad, but it's still a $360 difference, as you say. Will the x9100 be compatible w my system, or not?

 

[WR2]

Not compatible.

 

[WR2]

but math shows the quad to be better

Improper application of Pseudo-maths.
Comparison of Mobile Processors (CPU Benchmarks)
Actual CPU benchmark performance shows the Core 2 Extreme X9100 (3.06Ghz) having less overall performance than the dual core Core i5-2410M (2.3Ghz)

 

[WR2]

Core 2 Duo T7500 came in @ 161 on the benchmark list.

 

[jaluca]

I did not come to the forum asking to upgrade my entire system or trade 'psudo-math' calculations. All I asked for is advice on what the best processor is for my current hardware. Also, note that you first reffered me to 'a nice entry level i3 sandy bridge laptop,' then in your last response changed the refferral to an i5. So, you said, with a curt tone the x9100 isn't compatible with my system. I am not challenging your knowledge, just asking for a factual response to my question. Please show me why it isn't compatible, or at least tell me what the highest processor that my f3sa-a1, with bios 303, will accommodate.