Processor speed diff Lenovo 3000 to X301

Hi

My wife currently have
Lenovo 3000 C200 (Model:8922-4LG)
Intel Core 2 Duo T5500 1.66Mhz
2GB Ram
7200 RPM drive

She wants a new computer and have her eyes set on the X301 (without the SSD)
The model comes with Intel Core 2 Duo SU9400 1.40Mhz. Though I am still not sure if she'll get the 1.20Mhz version (see my other thread).

She is asking if the new X301 will actually be slower than her current computer. She's running a virtual machine inside all the time so speed is important and the cpu does work quite a bit due to the VMware machine.

Set will the X301/X300 be slower than her curreny computer having Intel Core 2 Duo T5500 1.66Mhz ? Process speed wise.

 

The Intel T5500 is a 1.66GHz 65nm part with a 34w TDP, 667MHz FSB, and 2MB L2 cache.
The Intel SU9400 is a 1.4GHz 45nm part with a 10w TDP, 800MHz FSB, and 3MB L2 cache.

The SU9400 is primarily designed to minimize power draw and consequently heat generation (10w vs. 34w TDP). However, it is also on a newer 45nm process, has a faster front side bus, and 50% more L2 cache. These differences should offset any performance lost by the reduced 266MHz.

Additionally, the x301 uses DDR3 memory and supports Intel Virtualization technology (run VMs without any performance penalty), and may in fact outperform the T5500.

The SL7100 in the x300 doesn't have these advantages (65nm process, 667 MHz FSB, DDR2, 2MB L2 cache), and would probably perform slower than the T5500 for CPU intensive tasks.

I would also consider getting the SSD if at all possible. The x300/x301 only supports 1.8" drives, and this leaves you with either a very good SSD, or a very bad hard drive (120GB @ 4200RPM if I recall correctly). The computer will feel much faster with an SSD than it will with the HDD (many computational tasks are not bound by CPU, but are instead waiting for data to be fed to the CPU [e.g. moving heads on a platter based hard drive]).

Conversely, if you really need a powerful CPU, I would suggest either the x200 or x200s.

The x200 offers a 2.4GHz C2D with a 1066MHz FSB, 3MB L2 cache, and a 25w TDP.
The x200s offers a 1.86GHz C2D with a 1066MHz FSB, 6MB L2 cache, and a 17w TDP.
Both are built on the 45nm process, use DDR3 memory, and support Intel virtualization technology.

You would lose the optical drive and an inch of screen space, but the x200s offers the same resolution (1440x900) LED screen as the x301. You would also gain a 2.5" hard drive slot (support for good quality 7200RPM drives), 54mm express card, SDHC reader, docking station support, and a legacy modem.

 

Thanks jon. You explainted just perfect.

I personally prefer the X200s over the X300, but the wife can hardly live with 13.3" with such high rez, let alone 12.1" that the X200s has. So that is why she wants the X300/X301. I didn't think of the fact the 1.8" bay can't fit a 7200rpm drive. so non SSD is no option.

 

If you are already dropping that much money I would get the SSD. It makes for a great computing experience (snappiness).

 

Here are a couple of links to some information on how the X301 compares to other machines that I found a bit surprising:

http://www.pcmag.com/image_popup/0,1871,iid=217459,00.asp

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2330704,00.asp

 

What part did you find surprising? The results are right where I'd expect them.

On tests that are bound by the CPU e.g. Cinebench, Windows Media Encoding, Photoshop (a batch of filters), it posted about 1/2 the score of the Sony with a 2.53GHz C2D.

On tests that are bound as much by disk activity as anything else (e.g Sysmark) it finished on par, and sometimes even ahead of the other computers due to the SSD.

 

I was surprised that it got highest scores in half of the SysMark07 tests. I realize the part the SSD plays, but this just shows that the X301 performs overall much better than I expected. Comparable to (better than in some cases) the 2.53GHz C2D in all tests save those that are solely processor intensive.

Like I said, I was surprised. I didn't think the U9400 was a slouch, but I didn't quite expect that.