X41 vs X32

Message

joprodse · #1 Post by **joprodse** » Fri Apr 08, 2005 9:59 am

ok let's get ready to rumble!!!

david25 · #2 Post by **david25** » Fri Apr 08, 2005 10:06 am

I'm waiting for the final specs of the X32 graphics chip;

X32 with 128mb gm900 would get my vote, otherwise x41

rayfranco · #3 Post by **rayfranco** » Fri Apr 08, 2005 10:48 am

Maybe we should wait on the other specs of the X32.

If you believe what is the current tabook and on IBMs website, the "new" X32 still uses the non-sonoma chip set, Intel 855PM, and the same DDR1 333 MHz memory limited to 266 MHz by the memory controller.

On the other hand, the X41 still uses the slow, 4200 rpm, hard drive, and with the 8 cell battery (needed because of the incressed power of sonoma) it is as large as the X32.

joprodse · #4 Post by **joprodse** » Fri Apr 08, 2005 10:53 am

I fully agree with you david 25. There MUST be an improvement to the graphics in the X32

joprodse · #5 Post by **joprodse** » Fri Apr 08, 2005 10:56 am

rayfranco, why would they update the tabook and not give out the right specs? Is this how they use to do when introducing new machines

rayfranco · #6 Post by **rayfranco** » Fri Apr 08, 2005 11:41 am

joprodse,

Lets see, you don't believe the graphics specs in the tabook, but you believe all of the other specs.

The new X32 uses Intel's new PRO/Wireless 2915ABG, which I don't believe is compatible with the old 855 chipset.

I wouldn't be on this board if I thought IBM was stupid.

I'm going to wait on the specs and probably the benchmarks before I shell out $2000 U.S. plus.

joprodse · #7 Post by **joprodse** » Fri Apr 08, 2005 1:23 pm

It was a simple and polite question. Sorry if I offended anyone. And I don't think IBM is stupid at all.

Tsuioku · #8 Post by **Tsuioku** » Fri Apr 08, 2005 7:56 pm

david25 wrote:I'm waiting for the final specs of the X32 graphics chip;

X32 with 128mb gm900 would get my vote, otherwise x41

hehe.. 128mb would be great.. but I highly doubt it... I'd give it 32mb tops..
Specs are still shady though... TAbook says it's still Intel (actually.. it has pretty much the same specs as the X31 which makes me wonder)... IBM says GMA 900..
Hopefully we get some hard specs soon...

Scud · #9 Post by **Scud** » Fri Apr 08, 2005 8:03 pm

It was a tough decision, but I decided to go with a X32 (2672-KBU). I plan on using it as a development machine (vs.net) and the difference between a 4200rpm and 7200rpm drive is to great not to notice (I plan on placing a 7k60 in the X32). The extra 500Mhz in processor speed doesn't hurt as well. I was quoted about a month to ship, but that was only an estimate. Given the wait period it is entirely possible that I could flip and go with the X41 (my biggest beef with the X32 is that the high capacity battery is so darn ugly). I'm rather keen on the extra battery life, Execute Disable Bit support, and the PC4200 memory support (but are those heatures enoguh to justify the speed decrease... that is the rub).

What also makes it tough is that all the reviews seem to gush over the X40/X41 while the X32 gets tossed aside like old bacon.

lanes · #10 Post by **lanes** » Fri Apr 08, 2005 8:14 pm

rayfranco wrote:with the 8 cell battery (needed because of the incressed power of sonoma) it is as large as the X32.

I do NOT consider the x41 as large as the x31 even with the 8cell!

rayfranco · #11 Post by **rayfranco** » Fri Apr 08, 2005 11:01 pm

According to the tabook the size specs are:

X41: 10.5" x 9.3" x 1.1" - 3.3 lb.
X32 10.7" x 8.8" x 1.2" - 3.6 lb.

And the typical battery life for both the X41 and X32 is 5.7 hrs.

RS_003 · #12 Post by **RS_003** » Sat Apr 09, 2005 5:49 am

Tabook also says 16mb radeon graphics for the X32

So the X31 had beter graphics

Now thats logical

eriqesque · #13 Post by **eriqesque** » Sat Apr 09, 2005 9:27 am

RS_003 wrote:Tabook also says 16mb radeon graphics for the X32

So the X31 had beter graphics Now thats logical

The X31 had a 16MB Radeon GPU.
So no it does not have better GPU it has the same GPU.
But AFAIK the X32 has the Intel 900 GPU.

ipXpert · #14 Post by **ipXpert** » Sat Apr 09, 2005 10:14 am

I dont know where the 3lb X32 is but this X32 ( 2673M3U ) off my university site says 5.5 lbs. i know my X40 with the extended battery doesnt come close to that. I think they are worlds a part when it comes to size and weight.

Product Description IBM ThinkPad X32 2885 - Pentium M 755 2 GHz - 12.1" TFT
Dimensions (WxDxH) 3 10.7 in x 9.1 in x 2.4 in
Weight 2 5.5 lbs
Localization English / United States
Mobile Technology Intel Centrino
System Type Notebook
Built-in Devices Speaker, wireless LAN antenna, ThinkLight
Processor 1 Intel Pentium M 755 2 GHz
Cache Memory 2 MB - L2 cache
RAM 512 MB (installed) / 2 GB (max) - DDR SDRAM - PC2700 - 333 MHz
Hard Drive 60 GB - 5400 rpm
Optical Storage CD-RW / DVD-ROM combo
Display 12.1" TFT active matrix XGA (1024 x 768) - 24-bit (16.7 million colors)
Graphics Controller ATI MOBILITY RADEON - 16 MB
Audio Output Sound card
Telecom 4 Fax / modem - CDC - 56 Kbps
Networking Network adapter - Mini PCI - Ethernet, Fast Ethernet, Gigabit Ethernet, Bluetooth, IEEE 802.11b, IEEE 802.11a, IEEE 802.11g
Wireless NIC Intel PRO/Wireless 2915ABG
Input Device Keyboard, TrackPoint
Device Type (AI) Docking station
Power AC 110/230 V ( 50/60 Hz )
Battery Lithium ion
Average Run Time 5.7 hour(s)
Operating System Microsoft Windows XP Professional
Manufacturer Warranty 3 years warranty

gazingwa · #15 Post by **gazingwa** » Sat Apr 09, 2005 10:17 am

5.5 lbs WITH the docking station.... the t42 doesn't even weigh 5.5

ipXpert · #16 Post by **ipXpert** » Sat Apr 09, 2005 3:57 pm

That is funny. I thought that sounded big. I must not have had my coffee when I posted that. My first thought is that it was that much with the extra capacity battery. I must be way to dependent on coffee.

#17 Post by **K. Eng** » Sat Apr 09, 2005 7:52 pm

I voted for the X41, but that's only because I don't need a really fast hard drive.

plucky duck · #18 Post by **plucky duck** » Sat Apr 09, 2005 10:33 pm

What about those who already have a T40/41/42/43, would you be more inclined to go with the smaller form factor X40/41 over the X31?

If the X series was my only system I'd go with a X30.
Having a T series I'd go with an X40/41 over a X30/32 since I would want both ends of the extreme and not the X31/32 which I'd consider middle of the road.

The X40 has slowly dropped in price to around $1550Cdn for the base model.

Rax · #19 Post by **Rax** » Tue Apr 12, 2005 9:29 am

I'm in the market for either an X40 or X41 - can I ask where you found that price? On ibm.ca X40s are still in the $1800 range...

S.

bigscreen · #20 Post by **bigscreen** » Tue Apr 12, 2005 9:34 am

I cast my vote for an "X32p" with better graphics.

rayfranco · #21 Post by **rayfranco** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 6:14 pm

I voted with my pocket book.

X32 2885 K4U, 2MHZ, 512 MB, 60 GB HDD, X3 CD-RW/DVD-ROM

#22 Post by **daeojkim** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 9:25 pm

If I had a choice for having one computer only, then I would go for X32 due to better performance and better graphics.

If it was a choice as a second computer while having a desktop replacement TP, then definitely X40/41.

Which one is best? It depends on the user demands. I think they are both winners.

joprodse · #23 Post by **joprodse** » Fri Apr 22, 2005 2:38 am

Are you happy with your new X32 rayfranco? I'm waiting for the release here in sweden. But I really hope that the swedish one will run faster than your 2 MHZ!!!

Scud · #24 Post by **Scud** » Fri Apr 22, 2005 12:06 pm

I changed my pre-order to go with the same model as rayfranco. It has the exact specs as my old order, but comes with the combo drive for only $6 more (EPP pricing). Sort of a no-brainer decision on that.

rayfranco · #25 Post by **rayfranco** » Sat Apr 23, 2005 1:27 pm

Scud,

The X32 2885 K4U does come with the combo drive for about the same price as some of the other configurations. I too, do not understand IBM bundling and prices. Some configurations are a lot better and cheaper than others. For example, the 2884 was not only more expensive, but it came with only a one year warrnity, where as, the 2885 came with a three year warranty. There are also differences in the discounts. I hope you order via American Express. The amex discount on the 2885 was approximately 20%, where as, the Visa/Mastercard discount was only approximately 10%. Trying to order an IBM thinkpad is a lot more complicated than it should be.

Joprodse,

My ship date is 19 May 2005. I'll let you know then how I like it. Thanks for letting me know about the typo. I hope mine runs about 1000 times faster than the 2 MHz I specified.

All,

I believe IBM made the right decision not to upgrade the X32 with intel's new 915 chipset. The chipset draws too much current, and presently there is no performance increase. CNET rated the T43 at only 6.5 out of 10 because of this.

http://reviews.cnet.com/IBM_ThinkPad_T4 ... 12127.html

Because of the high current draw, IBM is currently only promoting the X42 and T43 with extended batteries. The X42 does not look too bad with its extended battery, but because the battery of the T43 does not extend all of the way across its back, it looks like a bad kludge.

When comparing the X32 and the X42 with its extended battery, there was not a lot of differnce in size, weight and battery life. I chose the X32 because of its performance and its superior 2.5 HDD. By far, the biggest compliant of the X42 is its slow 1.8, 4200 rpm HDD.

Opps, IBM also made the right decission to put the 915 chipset in the X42. It significantly increased the X42 graphics.

rjs · #26 Post by **rjs** » Sat Apr 23, 2005 2:52 pm

I have not seen definitive word on the X41 graphics vs. the X32. Any views?

rayfranco · #27 Post by **rayfranco** » Sat Apr 23, 2005 4:24 pm

The IBM sells rep stated that the X32 still uses the ATI Mobility Radeon (MC-C16H) with 16 Mbytes of memory. This GPU is alright for 2D, but is limited for 3D.

The X41 uses intel's 915GE chipset with Intel Media Accelerator 900, which shares the main system memory. Intel, Dell and others state that the new Intel chipset and graphics accelerator should increase the speed of the graphics 76% over Intel's Extreme Graphics 2, which was in the X40.

For most users, this will not matter until Microsoft releases Longhorn, which will use 3D icons and Aeroglass. Longhorn is scheduled to be released in mid 2006. By the time Longhorn gets popular, I predict that most everyone will be runing dual 64-bit cores (desktop replacement laptops may have to be water cooled). Microsoft's intent is to drive PC sells by requiring everyone to buy new hardware. Hence, Bill and Michael Dell are two of the riches men in world.

joprodse · #28 Post by **joprodse** » Sun Apr 24, 2005 3:49 am

hmm, the X32 fighting it's way back again, it looks like in the poll...

Scud · #29 Post by **Scud** » Mon Apr 25, 2005 11:28 am

There are also differences in the discounts. I hope you order via American Express. The amex discount on the 2885 was approximately 20%

The EPP pricing is about $200 cheaper than the AMEX discount. Thanks for the heads-up.

rayfranco · #30 Post by **rayfranco** » Tue Apr 26, 2005 5:28 pm

There are pictures and links to higher resolution pictures of the X41 tablet on this board. From the pictures, it looks like IBM made room for the 8-cell battery. They should have done this for the X41 since Intel's Sonoma draws too much current for the 4-cell battery. IBM did make the right decission to incorporate Sonoma into the X41; it improves the integrated graphics considerably.

The main compliant I have with the X41 is its slow 4200 rpm, 1.8 inch hard drive. Again, from the X41 pictures, it looks like the hard drive is still on the front and not the side.

My expected ship date on the X32 2884 K4U has moved up to 10 May 2005.

X41 vs X32

X41 vs X32

X41 vs X32

X41 vs X42

X41 vs X32

Re: X41 vs X42

Really? That cheap?

Who is online