Take a look at our
ThinkPads.com HOME PAGE
For those who might want to contribute to the blog, start here: Editors Alley Topic
Then contact Bill with a Private Message

would the X300 outforms the T42P?

X200/X201/X220 (including equivalent tablet models) and X300/X301 Series
Post Reply
Message
Author
Bashar
Freshman Member
Posts: 112
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 5:51 pm
Location: Salmiya, Kuwait
Contact:

would the X300 outforms the T42P?

#1 Post by Bashar » Sat Mar 08, 2008 12:32 pm

i have T42P 2.10Ghz M processor with 2GB ram

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

aaa
ThinkPadder
ThinkPadder
Posts: 1063
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 2:36 pm

#2 Post by aaa » Sat Mar 08, 2008 12:44 pm

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.

Bashar
Freshman Member
Posts: 112
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 5:51 pm
Location: Salmiya, Kuwait
Contact:

#3 Post by Bashar » Sat Mar 08, 2008 12:50 pm

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

day-to-day business work

openoffice, firefox, thunderbird etc..
Bashar Al-Abdulhadi

cj3209
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 370
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 7:18 pm
Location: SoCal

#4 Post by cj3209 » Sat Mar 08, 2008 1:26 pm

Bashar wrote: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
Last edited by cj3209 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 1:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Bashar
Freshman Member
Posts: 112
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 5:51 pm
Location: Salmiya, Kuwait
Contact:

#5 Post by Bashar » Sat Mar 08, 2008 1:30 pm

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 :)
Bashar Al-Abdulhadi

cj3209
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 370
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 7:18 pm
Location: SoCal

#6 Post by cj3209 » Sat Mar 08, 2008 1:35 pm

Bashar wrote: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

Bashar
Freshman Member
Posts: 112
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 5:51 pm
Location: Salmiya, Kuwait
Contact:

#7 Post by Bashar » Sat Mar 08, 2008 1:37 pm

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

cj3209
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 370
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 7:18 pm
Location: SoCal

#8 Post by cj3209 » Sat Mar 08, 2008 1:45 pm

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
:)

Russ-ST24
Posts: 12
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: London, UK

#9 Post by Russ-ST24 » Sat Mar 08, 2008 1:59 pm

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
X31, X40, X60T, T61, X300
Macbook, Macbook Pro
HTC tytn ii, iPhone
(Reading all that I may be prone to impulse buying!)

ajkula66
SuperUserGeorge
SuperUserGeorge
Posts: 17303
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 11:28 am
Location: Belgrade, Serbia

#10 Post by ajkula66 » Sat Mar 08, 2008 3:09 pm

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.
...Knowledge is a deadly friend when no one sets the rules...(King Crimson)

Cheers,

George (your grouchy retired FlexView farmer)

One FlexView to rule them all: A31p

Abused daily: T520, X200s


PMs requesting personal tech support will be ignored.

Aroc
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 330
Joined: Sat Jun 04, 2005 2:49 pm
Location: Solon, OH, USA

#11 Post by Aroc » Thu Mar 20, 2008 10:56 am

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
IBM X220 | T61p | R61e | T43 | Black Macbook | i5 Hackintosh | i7 iMac 27 | Dell 3007WFP-HC WQXGA

craigg
Sophomore Member
Posts: 154
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 2:52 pm
Location: Princeville, Hawaii

#12 Post by craigg » Thu Mar 20, 2008 2:15 pm

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.
T420s Intel Core I5 2.6ghz, 160GB Solid State Drive, DVDRW, 14" display w/ HD3000 graphics, Intel AGN, BT, 8GB DDR3 SDRAM, Gigabit Ethernet, Windows 7 Pro 64 bit

stronach
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 12:47 am
Location: Toronto, Canada

#13 Post by stronach » Thu Mar 20, 2008 2:25 pm

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
Lenovo Ultraportables Product Manager, Americas

ulrich.von.lich
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 488
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 4:18 am

#14 Post by ulrich.von.lich » Thu Mar 20, 2008 6:28 pm

craigg wrote: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.
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.

craigg
Sophomore Member
Posts: 154
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 2:52 pm
Location: Princeville, Hawaii

#15 Post by craigg » Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:13 am

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
T420s Intel Core I5 2.6ghz, 160GB Solid State Drive, DVDRW, 14" display w/ HD3000 graphics, Intel AGN, BT, 8GB DDR3 SDRAM, Gigabit Ethernet, Windows 7 Pro 64 bit

SHoTTa35
ThinkPadder
ThinkPadder
Posts: 1597
Joined: Tue May 29, 2007 6:20 pm
Location: Wash, DC
Contact:

#16 Post by SHoTTa35 » Fri Mar 21, 2008 5:44 am

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).
Current - Thinkpad T410si - Core i3 330m, 4GB, 250GB 5400RPM, WXGA+, FPR, BT, Camera, DVDRW, Gobi2000, Win7 Pro x32
Past - Thinkpad T410 - T400 - T61 - T60 - T43 - T42 - T41 - T40 - T23 - 600X

craigg
Sophomore Member
Posts: 154
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 2:52 pm
Location: Princeville, Hawaii

#17 Post by craigg » Fri Mar 21, 2008 12:37 pm

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.
T420s Intel Core I5 2.6ghz, 160GB Solid State Drive, DVDRW, 14" display w/ HD3000 graphics, Intel AGN, BT, 8GB DDR3 SDRAM, Gigabit Ethernet, Windows 7 Pro 64 bit

w0qj
ThinkPadder
ThinkPadder
Posts: 1187
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 9:53 pm
Location: Hong Kong

#18 Post by w0qj » Fri Mar 21, 2008 1:00 pm

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)

Bashar
Freshman Member
Posts: 112
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 5:51 pm
Location: Salmiya, Kuwait
Contact:

#19 Post by Bashar » Fri Mar 21, 2008 4:50 pm

w0qj wrote: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 ?!
Bashar Al-Abdulhadi

pianowizard
Senior ThinkPadder
Senior ThinkPadder
Posts: 8545
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2005 5:07 am
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Contact:

#20 Post by pianowizard » Sat Mar 22, 2008 5:36 am

w0qj wrote:i'm starting to feel the strain of no new bigger PATA HDD's...the biggest one is 160 GB for my T42 apparently)
There's a 250GB 5400rpm PATA HDD made by Western Digital.
Dell Latitude 7370 (QHD+, 2.84lb); HP Pavilion x2 12-b096ms (1920x1280, 3.14lb); Microsoft Surface 3 (1920x1280, 2.00lb);
Dell OptiPlex 5040 SFF (Core i5-6600); Acer ET322QK, T272HUL; Crossover 404K; QNIX QHD2410R; Seiki Pro SM40UNP

SHoTTa35
ThinkPadder
ThinkPadder
Posts: 1597
Joined: Tue May 29, 2007 6:20 pm
Location: Wash, DC
Contact:

#21 Post by SHoTTa35 » Sat Mar 22, 2008 10:04 am

Bashar wrote:
w0qj wrote: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 ?!

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.
Current - Thinkpad T410si - Core i3 330m, 4GB, 250GB 5400RPM, WXGA+, FPR, BT, Camera, DVDRW, Gobi2000, Win7 Pro x32
Past - Thinkpad T410 - T400 - T61 - T60 - T43 - T42 - T41 - T40 - T23 - 600X

Bashar
Freshman Member
Posts: 112
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 5:51 pm
Location: Salmiya, Kuwait
Contact:

#22 Post by Bashar » Sat Mar 22, 2008 3:37 pm

SHoTTa35 wrote:
Bashar wrote:
huge price difference between the two, any idea why?
Bashar Al-Abdulhadi

aaa
ThinkPadder
ThinkPadder
Posts: 1063
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 2:36 pm

#23 Post by aaa » Sat Mar 22, 2008 4:35 pm

Bashar wrote:
SHoTTa35 wrote:
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...)

Troels
ThinkPadder
ThinkPadder
Posts: 1028
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2005 2:55 pm
Location: Aalborg, Denmark

#24 Post by Troels » Sun Mar 23, 2008 2:46 pm

ulrich.von.lich wrote:
craigg wrote: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.
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. :)

ulrich.von.lich
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 488
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 4:18 am

#25 Post by ulrich.von.lich » Sun Mar 23, 2008 5:49 pm

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

Bashar
Freshman Member
Posts: 112
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 5:51 pm
Location: Salmiya, Kuwait
Contact:

#26 Post by Bashar » Sun Mar 23, 2008 6:18 pm

whats the X3100?
Bashar Al-Abdulhadi

aaa
ThinkPadder
ThinkPadder
Posts: 1063
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 2:36 pm

#27 Post by aaa » Sun Mar 23, 2008 7:26 pm

Bashar wrote:whats the X3100?
It's the VGA card. Matters if you plan to run 3d games or such.

Bashar
Freshman Member
Posts: 112
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 5:51 pm
Location: Salmiya, Kuwait
Contact:

#28 Post by Bashar » Mon Mar 24, 2008 4:52 pm

no games only office related tasks
Bashar Al-Abdulhadi

dr_st
Admin
Admin
Posts: 9691
Joined: Sat Oct 29, 2005 6:20 am
Location: Israel

#29 Post by dr_st » Wed Mar 26, 2008 2:17 am

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.

rukiri
Freshman Member
Posts: 102
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 11:03 pm
Location: San Francisco, CA

#30 Post by rukiri » Fri Mar 28, 2008 12:51 am

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.

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Return to “ThinkPad X200/X201/X220 and X300/X301 Series”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 83 guests