Would you buy a T43 today?

Message

Dekks · #181 Post by **Dekks** » Sat Sep 17, 2016 12:18 am

kfzhu1229 wrote:I don't know why but I feel Prescott Pentium 4 really takes off with XP and for Sonoma Pentium M, not so.

Not surprising as the top freq desktop Netburst P4s with their deep 31-deep pipelines and high clock speeds were very efficient when running code suited to pipelining, but useless as a mobile CPU due to its crippling heat issues.

Pentium M traded some raw performance/clock speed for energy efficiency although in most use cases the performance was supposedly similar to the P4-M

kfzhu1229 · #182 Post by **kfzhu1229** » Sat Sep 17, 2016 12:41 am

And then under Windows 7, 8.1 and 10 Pentium M beats the P4 hands down if the software is not HT optimized

#183 Post by **dr_st** » Sat Sep 17, 2016 2:07 am

kfzhu1229 wrote:And then under Windows 7, 8.1 and 10 Pentium M beats the P4 hands down if the software is not HT optimized

That's quite interesting.

I never tried anything newer than XP on a P4, so I cannot provide my own point of view. I did notice, that under XP, a P4-HT overall feels quite a bit snappier than a PM, even if the raw single core performance is about the same. So I assumed that the hyperthreading has something to do with it. But there wasn't any HT-optimized software in the mix; it was just the general multi-tasking experience.

Now, if in later versions of Windows the picture is reversed, as you say, than perhaps it's not the hyperthreading at all, but something like the way the OS kernel was optimized for a particular pipeline architecture.

Dekks · #184 Post by **Dekks** » Sat Sep 17, 2016 7:49 am

kfzhu1229 wrote:And then under Windows 7, 8.1 and 10 Pentium M beats the P4 hands down if the software is not HT optimized

The P4-M maybe, but don't forget the desktop P4 had nearly twice the core frequency and that's what gave Netburst it's effectiveness. Plus didn't Prescott have HT where as P4-M did not?

kfzhu1229 · #185 Post by **kfzhu1229** » Sat Sep 17, 2016 2:06 pm

Dekks wrote:
kfzhu1229 wrote:And then under Windows 7, 8.1 and 10 Pentium M beats the P4 hands down if the software is not HT optimized
The P4-M maybe, but don't forget the desktop P4 had nearly twice the core frequency and that's what gave Netburst it's effectiveness. Plus didn't Prescott have HT where as P4-M did not?

I'm talking about to compare with the desktop processor that was around at its time which is LGA Pentium 4 Prescott 6xx which does work in Windows 8 and up, not Pentium 4 which doesn't. And when you run passmark or geekbench 4, PM 780 beats that P4 670 also hands down.

#186 Post by **dr_st** » Sat Sep 17, 2016 2:38 pm

kfzhu1229 wrote:And when you run passmark or geekbench 4, PM 780 beats that P4 670 also hands down.

Benchmarks are not really interesting for such old CPUs. The 1.8-2GHz P-M is approximately equivalent to a 3-3.2GHz P4-HT in benchmarks (even beats it frequently), but in practice the latter felt quite a bit snappier to me. This was in XP, as I said, so I dunno how it feels under Vista or later.

Hans Gruber · #187 Post by **Hans Gruber** » Sat Sep 17, 2016 5:09 pm

dr_st wrote:
kfzhu1229 wrote:And when you run passmark or geekbench 4, PM 780 beats that P4 670 also hands down.
Benchmarks are not really interesting for such old CPUs. The 1.8-2GHz P-M is approximately equivalent to a 3-3.2GHz P4-HT in benchmarks (even beats it frequently), but in practice the latter felt quite a bit snappier to me. This was in XP, as I said, so I dunno how it feels under Vista or later.

If you want to compare a laptop CPU to desktop CPU. You must benchmark it running at Maximum Performance as the desktop doesn't have the throttling aspects of the laptop CPU to the same degree. I do remember during that era desktop PC users who were using intel CPu's where figuring out ways to use the Pentium M instead of the P4. At that time I was still using AMD CPU's for my desktop until the Core2Duo arrived.

kfzhu1229 · #188 Post by **kfzhu1229** » Sat Sep 17, 2016 10:16 pm

Hans Gruber wrote:If you want to compare a laptop CPU to desktop CPU. You must benchmark it running at Maximum Performance as the desktop doesn't have the throttling aspects of the laptop CPU to the same degree. I do remember during that era desktop PC users who were using intel CPu's where figuring out ways to use the Pentium M instead of the P4. At that time I was still using AMD CPU's for my desktop until the Core2Duo arrived.

I set my T43 so that it NEVER, EVER underclocks so the maximum performance factor is out of the way. I guess Windows XP is not really that optimized for P6 architecture and Windows 7 does feel better to me for machines that have Tualatin Pentium III and better except for P4M. Newer Core processors are built as the improved versions of P6 architecture instead of netburst. Especially in internet browsing my Dell OptiPlex GX520 with Pentium 4 650 is ALWAYS slower than my T43 with Pentium M 780 despite the clock speed is 3.40Ghz-2.26ghz=1.14Ghz faster than Pentium M and there is also HT support and SSE3 (This specific Pentium 4 is new enough to have that) on the Pentium 4 even though it is smoother only because of Radeon HD 3450 vs. Radeon X300.

ajkula66 · #189 Post by **ajkula66** » Sun Sep 18, 2016 1:06 am

Dekks wrote:
Not surprising as the top freq desktop Netburst P4s with their deep 31-deep pipelines and high clock speeds were very efficient when running code suited to pipelining, but useless as a mobile CPU due to its crippling heat issues.

My only real-life with Prescotts on daily basis comes from several hi-end G41 units that I've owned. There was a nice "oomph" to these things...HT was a pretty neat concept for its time IMO...

Pentium M traded some raw performance/clock speed for energy efficiency although in most use cases the performance was supposedly similar to the P4-M

Now that even the fastest PM CPUs are becoming effectively obsolete for web use in the Windows environment, the closeness of *actual* performance to P4M units of similar clock speeds becomes quite evident. I've been playing with several *nix distros over the past few days with both my A31p and my T43pSF, and yes, the difference is far less drastic than I had originally expected it to be. They've both come to the point where the CPU has become a bottleneck...pretty amazing.

kfzhu1229 · #190 Post by **kfzhu1229** » Sun Sep 18, 2016 9:06 am

ajkula66 wrote:I've been playing with several *nix distros over the past few days with both my A31p and my T43pSF, and yes, the difference is far less drastic than I had originally expected it to be. They've both come to the point where the CPU has become a bottleneck...pretty amazing.

Did you try adblock? The difference is only by a multiplier of 2.5 so if both machines struggle, there isn't much difference. However, if you try youtube T43 can give you 720p playback while A31p can barely give you 360p. Yes it is a bit slow to browse Internet by today but just like my quote a little patience would be appreciated, and then it is still very likely to work. There is still so much to love about the T43 and A3x: T43: last pair of speaker that aren't ruined by lenovo, fp scanner, first machine to run Windows 8 and later, not as good ad A3x but still good keyboard, etc. A3x: the best of the best speaker quality, decent keyboard other than 600, dual drive bays, etc. I put my T530i into rest and watch my two T43 frankenpads to complete their daily job. With adblock the machines still work just fine and settles themselves down at 50-60 degrees if you don't use video playback. With a bit more patience a fully upgraded A30 can still browse the Internet with Firefox and adblock. It render pages slowly and lags when scrolling but if by some time you are stuck with it you can still live with it.

#191 Post by **600X** » Sun Sep 18, 2016 2:48 pm

Breakthrough discovery: When I change the resolution to 1024x768 or 1280x960, YouTube plays smoothly (mostly) and audio and video are now in sync. I'm gessing the X300 simply can't handle UXGA?

ajkula66 · #192 Post by **ajkula66** » Sun Sep 18, 2016 3:23 pm

600X wrote:Breakthrough discovery: When I change the resolution to 1024x768 or 1280x960, YouTube plays smoothly (mostly) and audio and video are now in sync. I'm gessing the X300 simply can't handle UXGA?

I don't believe that to be the case...which OS are you running right now?

FWIW, I've noticed major differences among several *nix distros when it comes to YT, both on my A31p and T43pSF...and in W7 on the latter, when I go into full screen mode on V3200, I lose the video altogether...

#193 Post by **600X** » Sun Sep 18, 2016 3:37 pm

I am currently running Manjaro XFCE.

480p YouTube (that's all I'm asking for) will probably work just fine on Windows. I tried to install Windows 7, but for some reason it failed. I'll have to try again sometime later. I was inspired by your idea to run Windows 2000 on the T43. I might try that once I can get my hands on a few blank CD's.

kfzhu1229 · #194 Post by **kfzhu1229** » Sun Sep 18, 2016 4:41 pm

600X wrote:I am currently running Manjaro XFCE.

480p YouTube (that's all I'm asking for) will probably work just fine on Windows.

It is not probably but 100% if it is not 60fps. Windows would also handle 720p fine under UXGA but that will eat 80%+ of a Pentium M 780's power

Dekks · #195 Post by **Dekks** » Mon Sep 19, 2016 5:13 pm

dr_st wrote:
kfzhu1229 wrote:And when you run passmark or geekbench 4, PM 780 beats that P4 670 also hands down.
Benchmarks are not really interesting for such old CPUs. The 1.8-2GHz P-M is approximately equivalent to a 3-3.2GHz P4-HT in benchmarks (even beats it frequently), but in practice the latter felt quite a bit snappier to me. This was in XP, as I said, so I dunno how it feels under Vista or later.

Geekbench browser shows a very wide data spread with a lot of overlap between the 2 CPU's, so i guess it's down to individual use.

kfzhu1229 · #196 Post by **kfzhu1229** » Mon Sep 19, 2016 5:18 pm

Dekks wrote:
dr_st wrote:Benchmarks are not really interesting for such old CPUs. The 1.8-2GHz P-M is approximately equivalent to a 3-3.2GHz P4-HT in benchmarks (even beats it frequently), but in practice the latter felt quite a bit snappier to me. This was in XP, as I said, so I dunno how it feels under Vista or later.
Geekbench browser shows a very wide data spread with a lot of overlap between the 2 CPU's, so i guess it's down to individual use.

I'm NOT using Geekbench browser but I am using my very own machines to test it under Windows 10 with 2GB RAM on T43 and 3GB on the Dell desktop. On geekbench browser they even mix the 500 series with the 600 series that have the same clock speed and under geekbench app it reports my Dell OptiPlex GX520 has Pentium 4 550 which is incorrect because Pentium 4 550 CANNOT run Windows 10 but only 550J can.

Dekks · #197 Post by **Dekks** » Mon Sep 19, 2016 8:05 pm

kfzhu1229 wrote:I'm NOT using Geekbench browser but I am using my very own machines to test it under Windows 10 with 2GB RAM on T43 and 3GB on the Dell desktop. On geekbench browser they even mix the 500 series with the 600 series that have the same clock speed and under geekbench app it reports my Dell OptiPlex GX520 has Pentium 4 550 which is incorrect because Pentium 4 550 CANNOT run Windows 10 but only 550J can.

Good for you.

#198 Post by **600X** » Mon Sep 19, 2016 9:13 pm

So I tried 480p YouTube under Windows with the proper ATI X300 driver today. It runs better than on Linux, but still not smooth. It would seem that the 750 and X300 simply can't handle it. Usually, I would just accept that you can't expect very much from hardware that is over a decade old, but the only reason I have constantly been bringing this up is because my X41 has no issues with 480p YouTube.

kfzhu1229 · #199 Post by **kfzhu1229** » Mon Sep 19, 2016 9:28 pm

600X wrote:So I tried 480p YouTube under Windows with the proper ATI X300 driver today. It runs better than on Linux, but still not smooth. It would seem that the 750 and X300 simply can't handle it. Usually, I would just accept that you can't expect very much from hardware that is over a decade old, but the only reason I have constantly been bringing this up is because my X41 has no issues with 480p YouTube.

In fact I used to have that 750 processor and X300 as my main computer before I upgrade to 780. 750 and X300 still plays 720p30 in 2k, XP, 7, and maybe 8.x and 10 as well. Just try installing W7 on a spare HDD with Vista driver and see how that performs

#200 Post by **600X** » Mon Sep 19, 2016 10:34 pm

kfzhu1229 wrote:Just try installing W7 on a spare HDD with Vista driver and see how that performs

That is exactly what I did. It just isn't working for me. I'm surprised (and frankly a bit sceptical) that it is working so well for you, but I guess you can be glad that it all works.

ajkula66 · #201 Post by **ajkula66** » Mon Sep 19, 2016 11:06 pm

600X wrote:
That is exactly what I did. It just isn't working for me.

The more I play around with different browsers on YT, the less I understand...

There's a particular video that I test every setup with and for some reason, W7 and the latest FF actually perform the worst. It makes absolutely no sense. What. So. Ever. At 720p I just lose the video altogether when going full screen and yes, it works within reason (lagging but not choppy) in several *nix distros...

kfzhu1229 · #202 Post by **kfzhu1229** » Mon Sep 19, 2016 11:12 pm

Oh and forgot to tell you some tips if they may help: the default settings for W7 may not be maximum performance. Open your task manager and see if there is anything wasting your CPU power. Use the Vista driver in the drivers tab of this forum or lenovo website, not the XP one. I also have another T43 with your specs but with UXGA AND WINDOWS 10 and it still handles 480p with no problem even though 720p may be painful. Also check your heatsink, if you hear it running at fan 7 without TPFANCONTROL it is likely that your machine is throttling. I guess the worst case scenario is for me to send a image of the Windows 10 in my hard drive to you for experiment purpose. Microsoft Edge actually enables me to work with 720p on my Pentium M 750 but yes you have to pause the video when switching back and forth to fullscreen. Pentium 780 is much less painful and I can tell

kfzhu1229 · #203 Post by **kfzhu1229** » Mon Sep 19, 2016 11:14 pm

ajkula66 wrote:
600X wrote:
That is exactly what I did. It just isn't working for me.
The more I play around with different browsers on YT, the less I understand...

There's a particular video that I test every setup with and for some reason, W7 and the latest FF actually perform the worst. It makes absolutely no sense. What. So. Ever. At 720p I just lose the video altogether when going full screen and yes, it works within reason (lagging but not choppy) in several *nix distros...

If you have XGA display going to fullscreen will be fine under Microsoft Edge which is what I'm using. SXGA+ and UXGA will give the machine more pain to do so, so pause the video when you do that and resume it. The frames will catch up after 5 seconds. Patience is what we all need...

Pokrzept · #204 Post by **Pokrzept** » Sun Sep 25, 2016 2:54 am

Guys if you struggle to get an decent video playback performance on your retro thinkpads please try SMTube + SMPlayer combo on both Windows and Linux. It does miracles to my A31p.

kfzhu1229 · #205 Post by **kfzhu1229** » Sun Sep 25, 2016 10:52 pm

The problem with using 14.1" SXGA+ is that the cable is NOT long enough for the lid to close or open up to 180 degree. You end up with a white screen if you do so and you have to open everything up in the lid to get to that cable.

Kilkenny · #206 Post by **Kilkenny** » Tue Sep 27, 2016 10:46 am

ajkula66 wrote:
Dekks wrote:
Not surprising as the top freq desktop Netburst P4s with their deep 31-deep pipelines and high clock speeds were very efficient when running code suited to pipelining, but useless as a mobile CPU due to its crippling heat issues.
My only real-life with Prescotts on daily basis comes from several hi-end G41 units that I've owned. There was a nice "oomph" to these things...HT was a pretty neat concept for its time IMO...

Pentium M traded some raw performance/clock speed for energy efficiency although in most use cases the performance was supposedly similar to the P4-M
Now that even the fastest PM CPUs are becoming effectively obsolete for web use in the Windows environment, the closeness of *actual* performance to P4M units of similar clock speeds becomes quite evident. I've been playing with several *nix distros over the past few days with both my A31p and my T43pSF, and yes, the difference is far less drastic than I had originally expected it to be. They've both come to the point where the CPU has become a bottleneck...pretty amazing.

I have switched back to my T42 as my main machine after using the T23 for a while and found that the biggest determinant in web browsing is the browser choice. Firefox and Chromium are near useless, so I run Xombrero and am happy with it. Minitube handles Youtube duties just fine. This is a pretty standard T42 with the 1.7 GHz PM and Radeon 7500.

blink · #207 Post by **blink** » Fri Sep 30, 2016 6:47 pm

That series has a special place in my heart as a T42 was my 1st thinkpad & got me addicted

Actually Put in a cheeky bid on ebay earlier for a couple of old thinkpads sold together spares or repairs one a t43 purely for nostalgia sakes but didnt win it

Simply just because I have not had one for years & wouldnt mind seeing one again lol

Dekks · #208 Post by **Dekks** » Sat Oct 01, 2016 1:38 am

Kilkenny wrote:Firefox and Chromium are near useless, so I run Xombrero and am happy with it

How does Xombrero do with a modern JS heavy site like facebook?

ajkula66 · #209 Post by **ajkula66** » Sat Oct 01, 2016 2:39 am

Dekks wrote: How does Xombrero do with a modern JS heavy site like facebook?

Facebook on a T4x? Blasphemy!

Tar and feathers for this gentleman, please...

Dekks · #210 Post by **Dekks** » Sat Oct 01, 2016 3:24 am

ajkula66 wrote:Tar and feathers for this gentleman, please...

Well name another heavy JS site then young man.

Would you buy a T43 today?

Re: Would you buy a T43 today?

Re: Would you buy a T43 today?

Re: Would you buy a T43 today?

Re: Would you buy a T43 today?

Re: Would you buy a T43 today?

Re: Would you buy a T43 today?

Re: Would you buy a T43 today?

Re: Would you buy a T43 today?

Re: Would you buy a T43 today?

Re: Would you buy a T43 today?

Re: Would you buy a T43 today?

Re: Would you buy a T43 today?

Re: Would you buy a T43 today?

Re: Would you buy a T43 today?

Re: Would you buy a T43 today?

Re: Would you buy a T43 today?

Re: Would you buy a T43 today?

Re: Would you buy a T43 today?

Re: Would you buy a T43 today?

Re: Would you buy a T43 today?

Re: Would you buy a T43 today?

Re: Would you buy a T43 today?

Re: Would you buy a T43 today?

Re: Would you buy a T43 today?

Re: Would you buy a T43 today?

Re: Would you buy a T43 today?

Re: Would you buy a T43 today?

Re: Would you buy a T43 today?

Re: Would you buy a T43 today?

Re: Would you buy a T43 today?

Who is online