i have T42P 2.10Ghz M processor with 2GB ram

would the new 1.2Ghz X300 be faster when it comes with 4GB ram ?

Define "faster"... as you can see, the CPU is clearly slower in terms of GHz. However, it comes with an SSD disk, so your programs load *alot* faster.

So it depends on what kind of stuff you do. For ordinary tasks the X300 would definitely blow the T42p away, however CPU-bound tasks that don't support dualcore would take a hit.

faster in opening programs, booting,running softwares etc..

day-to-day business work

openoffice, firefox, thunderbird etc..

You could say the same thing with a nice T61p with 4GB of RAM and a speedy 7200 RPM HD; the only advantage of the x300, really, is the light weight and 13.3" LCD option which I actually find ideal in a notebook.

So if you don't care about weight and the 13".3" widescreen LCD, wait til SS-HDs are cheaper and more available. You should be able to put them in a T-series soon.

The X300 is a niche product for well-heeled execs (can you say, 'tax write-off?') who want a fast and light notebook. You really wouldn't use one for intensive applications.

All-in-all, wish I could afford one!


CJ

comparing the 7200RPM with that SSD disk i don't think the T61 would have a chance infron of the X300 SSD disk, correct me if i'm wrong

Maybe, but that's not the point. Once SS-HDs are available for ALL notebooks, the X300's speed won't be that impressive.

Again, get the X300 if you want/need a 13.3" LCD and a sub 4lb high res. notebook and if you can afford it. Otherwise, wait for SS-HD to become available for ALL notebooks.


CJ

i thought SSD is available on all notebooks that supports the joint of the disk such as the T-series ?

Yeah but not at $1,100!! Wait for realistic prices like around $300-$600. I remember a 60GB 5400 RPM HD cost around $400 way back in 2001!

CJ

with regards to speed compared with a T42p then don't forget the x300 has 2 cores and faster memory and overall architecture.
Based on this I would guess base processing alone should be similar aside from the ssd drive.
Russ

I've never tested any laptop with SSD, so I can't talk about that aspect, but:

a) If you are running XP, you are not very likely to notice any difference.

I've tested T43p and T60p side-by-side for a weeks straight and failed to notice any measurable difference in performance.

b) You will see a difference in Vista, with a dual core outperforming single core.

c) Any serious graphic application is likely to run better on your T42p, at least under XP.

Just my $0.02...and a few assumptions.

I haven't tried a X300, but FWIW the 1.2Ghz ULV C2D chip in the Dell Latitude D430 "feels" about as fast as a 1.8Ghz Pentium M in most tasks (disclaimer: the D430 has a 1.8inch 4200rpm drive, which is OK for light duty computing whereas the X300 has a SSD). Like others have mentioned the drive differences will affect the results too. I believe the 1.2Ghz runs Super_PI about as fast as a 1.8Ghz P M

The CPU is not the problem. The major bottle neck with the X300 is the video card. If you have a T4x with dedicated video you will notice a difference in performance. The faster SSD does allow pages to load quicker for most applications.

IMHO 1. SSD performance regardless of OS is a major increase over spinning disc, so much so that you wouldn't even compare the two against one another (even the 7200 ones CJ). 2. Raw processor power isn't required when your data is screaming in and out at that speed, so the 1.2Ghz really is quite fast. 3. Video processing power is where a T series is going to burn the X300 due to integrated vs discrete. 4. Cost is dropping quickly on the SSDs today, so very soon the jump to SSD will be minimal over traditional SATA. 5. While SSD is more robust overall, there are too many second rate manufacturers flooding the market with substandard drives at the moment.

FWIW XP boots to desktop in roughly 22 seconds for me which is much faster than any other ThinkPad I've used previously, and I've used pretty much all of them at some point.

SJS

How much memory do you have in your ThinkPad X300? From what I learned, the performance of the Intel X3100 is pretty close to (sometimes even better than) the ATI X300/9600.

The X3100 is also the only integrated card that delivers enough power to drive an external WUXGA monitor via DVI.

IMO, the CPU is the bottleneck, but many people don't demand much power from a CPU so there shouldn't be a problem.

As stated in my signature I'm running with 4GB of memory. Trust me when I say that the video is the slowest component. As proof look at the Windows Experience Index. You will notice that the CPU, Memory, and SSD Drive perform well; however the graphics engine is very slow:


The base score is 3.4.

Processor Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU L7100 @ 1.20GHz 4.4
Memory 4.6
Graphics Mobile Intel(R) 965 Express Chipset Family 3.4
Gaming graphics 3.5
Primary hard disk 19GB Free (60GB Total) 5.9

well yeah, integrated video is always a "slow" component compared to the rest of the system but too slow for what? Gaming? Most definitely! Viewing some videos and browsing and even some general apps that might have 3D acceleration? Deifnitely not! You get some power but still get sweet low power usage which is what the system is designed for in the first place.

I have a ATI x1400 and sometimes i wished i had a Intel 950 as i don't game at all so the extra power savings would be sweeter to have. Then again this machines gets a decent battery life also so can't complain too much there either.

As for the X300 beating the T42(P) i'd say it would be even with it just doing normal day to day tihngs and the T42 is definitely not a slouch. The P version tho is for it's graphics capability and the X3100 is no match there for sure. I wouldn't get a x300 tho thinking to do what i did with a T42P or even a T41P (graphically).

I agree with you Shotta but was just trying to clarify that the CPU is not the issue. In my opinion the X300 is the best ultraportable on the market. I don't use it for gaming so the video speed is not an issue for me; however I really wish they could source a Sony LCD for this machine as that to me is the major weakness. Other than that I would say the X300 is perfect.

Guys, there's 1 key point that's been missed in this debate:

Your T42 which use a PATA HDD interface, the biggest SSD you can buy (regardless of money) is a lowly 64 GB SSD.

the new 128 GB SSD's announced so far all state support for SATA interface, and i have not seen any PATA interface for 128 GB SSD's... so it's beginning to look like the whold HDD world is stopping development of any PATA HDD (SSD or traditional spinning platter ones).


(I use a T42 myself, and i'm starting to feel the strain of no new bigger PATA HDD's...the biggest one is 160 GB for my T42 apparently)

you mean T42P can have 32 or 64GB SSD ?!

There's a 250GB 5400rpm PATA HDD made by Western Digital.

Yeah, there are 32GB SSDs out there now:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6820313024

Seems that one sucks...

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6820208317

That one definitely sux!

There are some Samsung ones though that are better.

huge price difference between the two, any idea why?

They're both bad and not worth it IMO. The cheaper one has extremely slow write speed (ie avoid avoid avoid).

This one has semi-decent speed, but it's still not as fast as the X300's disk.

If you're serious about getting a good one, you should go to this site:
http://www.dvnation.com/nand-flash-ssd.html
However, they cost around $1000, and it doesn't look like they've made a 64GB one yet (they said "coming in January", but that passed...)

Actually, i've seen T42 with over 10k in 3dmark2k1, with omega drivers and no overclocking of any sort.
X3100 is roughly 5.5k judging by http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthr ... 777&page=5
For 3dmark2003, the 9600 scores approx 2500 while the X1300 is about 1500.
Also, system memory access saves power in comparison to dedicated, but the performance isn't exactly as good. It's the same hit in performance one would feel when the GPU starts using the system memory with modern dedicated video cards, when it runs out of dedicated memory.
The X300 vs. 9600 has been a heated debate, but with the T42 vs. T43 the X300 is slower by some margin, but probably not enough to be noticeable.

I've never used 3DMarks but I guess better graphic cards get higher scores? If there isn't yet a conclusion on the X300 vs 9600 debate, how could the 9600 be almost 70% faster than the X1300? Well I'm not a very tech person and I don't always trust the scores, especially the Windows Experience Index. (I got the same score before and after upgrading the memory from 1GB to 2GB in my T43, but the performance gain is quite noticeable in reality.)

In this thread, someone claimed the X3100 had even managed to outperform the desktop version of X550, based on some benchmarks...

Anyway the X3100 seems to be a pretty fast card. It also possesses better technologies which the old FireGL card in the T42p doesn't have.(pixel shader 4.0 if I remember right and stuff..) And in order to maintain the battery life, I don't see any other candidate out there.

I think the CPU is the bottleneck because there are other ThinkPads which have the same graphic card but way faster CPUs: X61/s & T61.(excellent battery lives too. approx 8 to 9 hrs for the X60s and 7.5 hrs for the T61, both with extended battery) The SL7100 is even slower than a high-end Pentium M in reality, despite the fact it gets better score in Vista

whats the X3100?

It's the VGA card. Matters if you plan to run 3d games or such.

no games only office related tasks

As far as 3DMark05 tests go, the X3100 in a modern PC with new drivers performs roughly on the level of a 64MB 9600 in a T42. A T42p with a 128MB 9600/FireGL might be slightly better, although with the wrong drivers it can actually be worse for games.

wow, lots of conflicting and, as far as I know, some incorrect information in this thread...

I'm using a T61 now with the intel integrated x3100, 4gb of ram, dualbooting vista 32 and 64.


In my personal experience, I don't think the x3100 is comparable to a 9600. The *specs* of the x3100 are comparable and in some ways better, but intel's x3100 drivers are poor, especially in compatibility with old games.

For example, a recently released PC game, Sins of a Solar Empire runs surprisingly well. Even with medium-high settings, 1440x900, it runs OK.

I recently tried to play an old game, Evil Genius, which is considerably less demanding, and it ran like a dog.

On the other hand, another old game, Homeworld, though admittedly even *less* visually demanding, runs great.

so if you're worried about "bottlenecks" and intend to play 3d games, know that with the x3100 your performance will vary *considerably*.



If you're not doing 3d gaming, just using vista aero and movies and whatnot, the x3100 is *more than enough*
I use it to run my lcd and a 22" external. it's great.