Like many, I love the image quality on my T60p 15" Flexview screen, but I could really use a performance boost in display speed. Specifically I want better Flash animation speed, especially in full screen mode. (As an example of the work I want to show, check out my site, Tour de Force 360VR. Go to any of the pages, select a tour and view it in "HD" or full screen.)

Granted, I will never get the performance of a modern desktop but are there way to tweak some extra FPS out of this lovely T60p? Current 3DMark06 is a wimpy 1601.

CPU: T2500 -- I'm thinking of bumping this to a T7600. Not sure how much that would affect graphics performance, but since Flash apparently can't use hardware 3D acceleration for the V5200 it will rely on software rendering which should be affected by the CPU -- I think.
RAM: 2GB -- I might bump this up but I don't think the issue is RAM when it comes to graphics performance
HD: Hitachi Travelstar 7K200 -- Not planning on replacing this since it wouldn't affect graphics performance
GPU: V5200 -- Apparently I'm still using the original video drivers, v6.14.10.6925, the latest available from Lenova, I believe. AMD seems to insist I can only get updated drivers through Lenovo. Is there a workaround?

Is there some type of graphics acceleration tweak available?

Will anything make enough difference to be noticeable?

Thanks for any wisdom.

Scott

You should upgrade to T7600 as this will improve Flash performance. Amount of memory should not affect unless you are at 512 MB or something.

Regarding drivers, here's a topic with the guide how to get the Catalyst driver to accept V5200: viewtopic.php?f=29&t=102905&hilit=catalyst

Haven't tried it myself but I'm planning to.

Buy a T7200 instead, it is a lot cheaper and the performance/speed difference T7200-T7600 (2.00GHz-2.33Ghz) is negligible.

So is the performance difference between T2500 and T7200, so it's unclear why one should buy anything at all.

The T2500 is Core Duo with 2MB L2 cache, the T7200 is Core 2 Duo with 4MB L2 cache.
Some graphics performance could improve by about 10-15% (e.g. rendering 3D), but in the end it's all relative.
If OP wants to squeeze the last drop out of the CPU, he stands a better chance with C2D.
See also this: http://www.anandtech.com/show/2056/1

Here is my take. Please let me know if it makes sense:

As I read the Anantech review I should see roughly a 10% performance boost overall going from T2500 to T7200. Based on pure CPU power, going from T7200 (2Ghz) to T7600 (2.33Ghz) should result in a 15% bump. Total bump would be a good 25%.... depending on what, in particular, you are measuring. A 10-15% increase (from T2500 to T7200 or T7200 to T7600) may not be "noticeable," but combine them and I hope they would be.

What muddies this is the GPU bottleneck, as demonstrated in the Anandtech benchmarks. When all the rendering work is done on the GPU boosting the CPU has no effect. When rendering is shared by the CPU it can make a significant difference. When Flash can't use hardware (GPU) acceleration it resorts to software rendering (CPU). That should be the case with the V5200 at least for the next half year. I am hoping that the 25% CPU boost (if it is real) will have at least that much effect on frame rates.

Make sense? Hopelessly misguided?

All the above, if it works at all, will be in addition to whatever boost I might get by installing the Catalyst 10.2 drivers as discussed in the link Raceboy gave earlier. That looks promising. (Thanks Raceboy.)

Now, what about GPU acceleration? I get the impression that Rivatuner, which supposedly works with the T61p GPU, doesn't work with the V5200? Right? Wrong? is there something else?
[edit] Hmmm. Anyone have experience with ATI Tool on a V5200?

Again, thanks for the input. It really helps.

I don't think that the ATI GPU generation on the T60 supports or will support flash acceleration.

Flash is notoriously inefficient and computationally intensive. Trying your tours on my desktop, the full screen HD managed to fully load 50% (2 cores out of 4) of a rather powerful and overclocked Core 2 Quad QX9650 CPU. This means that the "puny" mobile dual cores stand no chance whatsoever.

However, I did try it on my T60 (T7200 CPU) and although it was noticeably slower and not as smooth as on the desktop, it did not appear to be lagging too much or skipping unpleasantly. It was definitely watchable. So perhaps at least the rendering is done in a way that it tries to get the maximum it can out of the existing hardware, optimizing the visuals based on the hardware abilities.

Maybe. Maybe not. Here is what Adobe's plans are:



Hardware acceleration of Flash makes a dramatic difference with current video cards. Fingers crossed with old ones like the ATI X series. Regardless, that will be then. I need to worry about now.

Fun challenge! More information that would be useful, though:

• What OS are you running? If Windows, which iteration? What's your memory usage % at idle?
• Which browser are you using?
• Which AC adapter are you using?

Here's my take:

The CPU upgrade would help. Really, as long as you switch to *anything* C2D, it would be a huge bump. I realize the appeal in going with the highest on-paper speed, but it really won't be a massive game changer here. I have and have used C2D machines that run at 1.6-1.8Ghz that fly so fast you would think they were core i5 for most everyday tasks. The key is the architecture, and that upgrade is worth it.

Your hunch on memory is likely correct, as the graphics is dedicated. If this was an integrated unit, it might help, depending on your memory usage.

ATI of that generation can be messy nowadays. You obviously know this. I tested your website on two machines: (1) T60 with a T5600 (C2D 1.83 Ghz) with Integrated Intel 950 GFX & 2GB ram, and it ran beautifully, almost flawless, and here's the real kicker: this is on Ubuntu Linux 11.10--Linux is traditionally known for poorer flash performance; (2) Z61t with the same processor & 2 GB ram you have but again Intel 950 GFX, and it also ran well albeit with a some struggle and visible lag when it spins into a very high quality section of a scene. No insane choppiness, though, and no tearing whatsoever on either machine. This test was on Windows 7 SP1 x32.

Suggestions:

• Go for a C2D upgrade if you can. Cheap here is fine.
• Try running it on Linux. A good test would be to download Linux Mint 12 LXDE and toss it on a USB for a Live boot. If nothing else, you'll be amazed at how fast your old dog can run on it.
• Your hard drive is fine, but an SSD would help overall speed. If you wanted to go all out with a 2 Ghz+ C2D in there alongside a reliable SSD you would be on par with a current day budget laptop's speed on most tasks and boot times.
• Finally, though my knowledge in this area is more limited, you may be able to swap a motherboard from another T60/T61 with Integrated Graphics into your machine while keeping your FlexView. While you would loose the dedicated GPU, you would gain the functionality you desire without the hassle of ATI drivers and heat of the FireGL chips. These conversions have been made, and a simple forum search reveals several relevant hits.

I'm sorry, but I really really don't believe it. Benchmarks have shown the performance difference between similarly clocked Core Duo and Core 2 Duo CPUs to be 15% tops. Where's the huge bump? The lower end of Core 2 Duos available for this series will be slower than his current T2500.

Benchmarks do not perfectly translate into real world performance with average, general tasks.

Unfortunately, as I am not an engineer, I cannot go into great depth regarding architectural efficiencies that cause C2D, even at a lower clocked speed, to operate faster than the previous generation. This is my experience, however, and my post reflected as much: the Z61t has a T2500 @ 2 Ghz; the T60 has a T5600 @ 1.83 Ghz. Both have same amount of ram, are from same time period, and same integrated graphics. The T60 is noticeably faster. Similar scenarios have played out throughout my usage of Yonah/Merom Thinkpads.

The benefits of switching to a C2D go beyond that, though: 64-bit will speed up most tasks, even with 1 or 2 GB of ram. And in the specific case of the T7200, suggested earlier in the thread but also @ 2 Ghz, there is also a doubling of the cache size from 2 MB (T2500) to 4 MB (T7200). That may not translate into a huge benchmark bump, but you will likely notice that day-to-day.

CRASH! (Sound of head banging on desk as the obvious becomes apparent.)

There is a stupid simple way to know exactly what difference various hardware and/or software configurations can make with a simple test. Go to this: T60p Test Page. When it loads:

• Click the "Full Screen" button at lower right. (important!)
• Note the average FPS (Frames per Second) number at upper left while it is moving.
• Just let it run automatically, don't zoom in as that will affect results. There will be brief pauses every 120°.
• Report FPS number back here with your hardware configuration plus anything special you may have done with software (overclocking???) and we will have apple to apple comparisons with little speculation.

I'll start:

14/15 FPS
T60p, T2500, 2GB RAM, 15" UXGA 4:3, V5200 GPU, ATI Catalyst 10.2 drivers, WinXP Pro 32, FF11, Flash 11.1.102, CPU Usage 85%, RAM (Commit Charge) 989M/3939M.

(Find your Flash version by right clicking the image. Note the number at the bottom of the click menu.)

Personally I haven't found that the ATI drivers are any better than the last version from Lenovo for this test. Nor did using IE8 and Flash 10.2 make a difference.

Thanks in advance. This comparison should be fun if enough people try it.

@ThinkWise -- Thanks for your comments. Made me think of the test. Answers to your questions in the above results.

In real world general tasks, I'd expect the difference to be even smaller, since other factors (RAM, hard drive) come into play.

Are you referring to the flash test above, or in general? If the flash test, than you haven't tested them under even remotely the same conditions, if I understood your post correctly. If in general - do the machines also have the same hard drive and the same OS installation/configuration. Software / OS configuration has a tendency to affect performance even more than hardware.


I got the 16-19FPS with my T60, T7200, ATI X1400, Flash 11.1.102.63 with plugin-container (Firefox process responsible for running the flash plugin) taking up to 70% of CPU time, at full screen WSXGA+ resolution.

With another T60, T7200, Intel 950, Flash 11.1.102.55 I got 27-30FPS and SXGA+ resolution with plugin-container taking up to 85% of CPU time.

Apparent conclusions based on circumstantial evidence:
* It seems GPU is not involved at all.
* The resolution difference can explain some of the difference in the FPS
* The differences in CPU utilization by plugin-container.exe can account for the rest of the difference. No idea why it goes higher on one of them than on the other. Maybe it's the flash version, or maybe some other factors/settings.

Thanks for testing!

Not sure how you conclude that. For instance, left click and hold on the image thereby stopping rotation. CPU drops to <10% for me but jumps to 85% while moving. So CPU must be involved here.


Absolutely. The more pixels that have to be computed the greater the workload on the GPU/CPU. So obviously going full screen on a UXGA screen is the most demanding leading to the lowest framerate.

Get Advanced Dock with external video card?

Thanks for the test, happy to provide the inspiration and assistance!

Using the same T60 and Z61t I had on hand yesterday with both booted into Windows 32-bit, and, as indicated previous, very similar units spec wise beyond CPU, observed over ~5 minutes:

T60 (T5600 @ 1.83 Ghz, 2 GB RAM, Intel 950, Win 7 Ultimate SP1 32-bit + all updates, Flash 11.2.202, WD Blue 5400 RPM HDD, 15.4" WXGA):

FPS (Full Screen):

Lowest: 25
Highest: 28 (Staying mostly at 26-27.)

CPU Usage: Up to 85%

Z61t (T2500 @ 2.0 Ghz, 2 GB Ram, Intel 950, Win 7 Ultimate SP1 32-bit + all updates, Flash 11.2.202, Toshiba 7200 RPM HDD, 14.1" WXGA):

FPS (Full Screen):

Lowest: 22
Highest: 25 (Staying mostly at 23-24.)
CPU Usage: Also Up to 85%

And for a fun comparison, here is a T420 I have around right now (i5-2520M @ 2.5 Ghz, 8 GB Ram, Intel HD 3000, Win 7 Pro SP1 64-bit + all updates, Flash 11.2.202, Intel 320 SSD, 14" HD+):

FPS (FS):

Lowest: 39
Highest: 40 (Staying mostly at 40.)
CPU Usage: Up to 30%



Flash test wasn't up yet, so that was simply my experience, like I said. Regarding the software & OS, this still supports my assertion: C2D allows you to run 64-bit which nowadays will translate into a performance improvement for many programs.

If there's one clear conclusion I think we can all agree upon it is this: the ATI chips have not aged well at all. And from that, I stand by my most preferred recommendation option to replace the MB with one that has Integrated graphics and a C2D already on it, preserving the beautiful FlexView. Going by our numbers, that move would significantly improve the OP's flash performance, if nothing else.

Thanks for testing!

Promising. The WXGA screen has about half the pixels as the UXGA, so only half the work needs to be done. That said the Intel 950 (3DMark06 = 132 ) is suppose to be pretty weak compared to the V5200 (3DMark06=1203). Not certain how much those benchmarks apply to this situation, however.

You maxed out at 40 FPS on the desktop because that was the target I set in the demo. If I could get my rig to score in the upper 20's or better I would be happy enough, although, can you ever have too much FPS?

This is fun. Hoping someone with a V5200 GPU and core2duo can test for comparison. Ooooh, and then maybe someone with an overclocked T7600G???

Thanks for the suggestion, Moltar. In this case I don't think it would help. The intent is to carry the laptop with me to client meetings so I can demo my 360VR services to them. A dock and external monitor gets unwieldy. The eventual solution will be a W520 or whatever is next, but I will regret giving up the 4:3 Flexview screen.

To stay with 4:3 15" IPS: Frankenpad T60/T60p with mobo from T61 in 14.1" 4:3 format.
T61 Intel GMA X3100 mobos are nearly twice as powerful as the T60 Intel GMA 950 mobos.
See more specs here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_GMA
Or find an nVidia mobo from 08/08 (2008/August), 08/09 (2008/September) or later.

Like I said, it does not seem the GPU is doing anything at all in these tests.

This is probably the way to go. You can have the UXGA Flexview screen, but can go as high as 2.8GHz Penryn CPUs, which will be much faster than the T7600 even.

This is looking more attractive. Guess I'll be reading some "Frankenpad" threads to learn more.

My machine fits the bill: T7200, V5200 GPU, 3GB RAM, Windows 7-64, Catalyst 10.2. I averaged 19-20 FPS, occasionally getting as high as 21 or as low as 14.

Edit: I should have added that these results were obtained with the laptop docked and displaying to an external UXGA monitor. Presumably the results would be better if I displayed to the laptop's UXGA screen.

Thanks! I was wondering what if any difference being docked might make, using an extra GB of RAM or Windows 7. Now I have my answer.

I just installed a T7600 in my T60p. 3DMark06 saw no change which makes sense. It should really only be measuring the GPU, which hasn't changed. But the important number from the T60p Test Page:

19/20 FPS
T60p, T7600, 2GB RAM, 15" UXGA 4:3, V5200 GPU, ATI Catalyst 10.2 drivers, WinXP Pro 32, FF11, Flash 11.1.102.

Interestingly, CPU only averaged 80% with one core in the mid 80's and the other in the mid 70s and temp around 80°. Obviously not maxed out. GPU temp stayed around 80°C as well, so it wasn't maxed out. (Maxed out it goes to the 90s.) I would really like to know what the bottleneck is. RAM?!? It seems the hardware should be capable of more.

Conclusions:

• The move from T2500 to T7600 alone made a good 34% difference in performance -- definitely noticeable.
• A move to Windows 7 and/or 64bit and/or using 3GB RAM instead of 2GB and/or working through a dock to display on an external monitor seems to make NO difference for this purpose.

Next steps:

• I may try to overclock the GPU after I install the new fan (still in transit).
• I will probably look into why neither CPU nor GPU are maxing out even though they aren't meeting their performance directive of 40FPS.

Based on my understanding of what is happening and reading of benchmarks I predict that creating a FrankenPad with a T9300 would result in a 20-25% increase in FPS (4-5 FPS) without overclocking. Overclocking the CPU and GPU apparently is possible in the T61 universe. That should result in a grand total 28-30 FPS, or double what I started out with and up to 50% more than I have now.

Hmmmmmm.

The bottleneck is the flash.

How so?

Apparently, it is not efficient enough to load the CPU to 100%. Hardware can be very strong, but if software is not smart enough to utilize it, you will have bottlenecks.

I get between 30 and 33 FPS on my T61 with a T7300 and Nvidia graphics. CPU load for both cores is around 80% but I can't tell if the GPU is doing any of the work.

How do you plan to overclock the GPU? I wasn't aware that could be done with the ATI chips on the T60 line.

ATI Tray Tools should allow you to do it.

Maybe. I'll try to see what my Flash experts think as well.

Thanks for testing. What screen do you have and which Nvidia GPU? I ask because the more pixels that have to be computed for each frame the longer it will take and the lower the frame rate. WXGA screen has about half the pixels as the UXGA, so only half the work needs to be done and frame rate should be significantly higher, all else being equal.