Thinkpads Forum

obviously you can put a t9300 in a thinkpad t61.

sure the i7 numbers on charts look good, but when you are doing regular stuff i find it hard to see the difference.

halfcard1 wrote:sure the i7 numbers on charts look good, but when you are doing regular stuff i find it hard to see the difference.

That's because you need to be running at or near its capacity to see a difference. Typical notebook usage doesn't do this, which is why you can't discern a difference.

ZaZ wrote:That's because you need to be running at or near its capacity to see a difference. Typical notebook usage doesn't do this, which is why you can't discern a difference.

interesting.

i wonder if someone has the t9300 and 4gb ram in a t61, what would he need to be doing to be near its capacity?

halfcard1 wrote: interesting.

i wonder if someone has the t9300 and 4gb ram in a t61, what would he need to be doing to be near its capacity?

well, I use T9500 processor and 4gb ram in my T61 for doing 3D CAD ...
when I use 32-bit OS, I can only have 3gb ram max and 3D CAD software needs a lot of ram when loading 3D files since they have many polygons

without 3D CAD software, my T61 usually use around 1.5gb of ram (just for internet browsing and typing with MS Office), but when I use 3D CAD software with many polygons, the ram will change to 3.2-3.5 (depends on the polygons)

higher processor means faster rendering time and faster loading time when I have 1000 holes of diameter 3 mm on a 3D surface

aoitenshi wrote:well, I use T9500 processor and 4gb ram in my T61 for doing 3D CAD

ok. so using the 3d takes almost all you have but not all with your t9500, so the i7 cpu processor would not really help you much - is that right ?

halfcard1 wrote:ok. so using the 3d takes almost all you have but not all with your t9500, so the i7 cpu processor would not really help you much - is that right ?

well ...
I'd love to have one laptop with i7 processor (let say T420, since 15 inch screen is too heavy to be carry around in my backpack ) to make things faster

any computer with i core processor must be using ddr3 ram, right? that will make things more fast than my T9500 and ddr2 ram

but if a laptop with i3 processor, same speed with my T61, using 4GB ddr3, rotational hard drive, I still choose my old T61, since I use ssd

so, the i7 cpu processor would really help me a lot (with 4GB ddr3 ram and one 128GB ssd of course )

halfcard1 wrote:i wonder if someone has the t9300 and 4gb ram in a t61, what would he need to be doing to be near its capacity?

Video encoding would do this because it'll run as many core as you have at or near 100% of the CPU's capacity. Here, a faster CPU would be noticeable. If a fast CPU can do the job in an hour, but a slower CPU that's half as fast, will take two hours to do the same job if that makes any sense.

Typical usage doesn't put much of a load on the controller. Here, hard drive speed and memory are more important.

halfcard1 wrote:i wonder if someone has the t9300 and 4gb ram in a t61, what would he need to be doing to be near its capacity?

I have a T9300, SSD, and 8GB in my T61, and brushed the ceiling by running VMs.

Depends on your computing needs. For most people a T7300 is more than sufficient. If you need the power an i7 is definitely better. Even better is a desktop i5 like a 3570K OCed to 4.4 Ghz. It's a tool so get the tool that is most appropriate for the work.

I often top off both cores of my T9500 and 2.8GHz when playing Unreal Tournament 3 (at 1024x768 due to weak nVidia GPU). That was the game that actually made me change CPUs (was T7500 before), and in this case my frame rates increased quite a bit.

many other games I've played utilize one core more than the other (i.e. 75% and 50%)

here's interesting fact: the most common top of the line (these days) dual core i7-3520m is about twice as fast as T9500. Notebookcheck's Cinebench R10 scores are 10,154 and 5,441 respectively.

Cigarguy wrote:Even better is a desktop i5 like a 3570K

is there any way to put a desktop processor into a t61 ? i would try it if i could.

There is not.

halfcard1 wrote:is there any way to put a desktop processor into a t61 ? i would try it if i could.

There was one IBM's laptop that used desktop's processor on laptops (I forgot the type, I think it was released around 1998-1999)
But it was only able to accept P4 processors ...
---

But today, desktop processor is totally different design with laptop processor, you might break the pins on desktop processor when trying to fit them on the laptop's socket (and I don't think the desktop processor will fit inside the laptop's socket) ..

aoitenshi wrote:
But today, desktop processor is totally different design with laptop processor, you might break the pins on desktop processor when trying to fit them on the laptop's socket (and I don't think the desktop processor will fit inside the laptop's socket) ..

The pins are actually on the motherboard on desktops these days. The processor just has flat contacts. And for the record, Sager has a couple of laptops with desktop i7 Extreme 6-core processors, but they're something like 4" thick and start around $3500.

aoitenshi wrote:There was one IBM's laptop that used desktop's processor on laptops (I forgot the type, I think it was released around 1998-1999)
But it was only able to accept P4 processors ...
---
But today, desktop processor is totally different design with laptop processor, you might break the pins on desktop processor when trying to fit them on the laptop's socket (and I don't think the desktop processor will fit inside the laptop's socket) ..

The laptops with P4 desktop CPU were the G40 and the G41. There was also a G50, which was only sold in Japan. (I think)

Isn't the grid array today the so-called LGA (Land Grid Array) as opposed to the older PGA (Pin Grid Array)? I have never seen either of the newer i-generation CPUs loose, but I imagine that must be it.

Getting back on topic of the original question, I have several laptops with two core i7 and i5 processors, and when comparing them with a core2 penryn processor like the T9300 of equal speed, I think they are about equal. The only real benefit I see to the i series is that they have moved a lot of the work of the system board over into the cpu. This however is only a benefit if you're trying to build a tiny computer, so you can have the graphics and all your controller chips in one die making your system board smaller and less complicated, but performance wise, I don't see any advantage, in fact on a high end laptop you prefer to have the graphics separate.

I'm sure others may have different opinions, but I don't see any need for an i series cpu in the laptops I use which are mostly discrete models or mobile workstations. If I was into the super thin ultrabooks or something small like the x series or tablets, then I may consider an i series. Also to be fair, you really should compare the T9300 to an i5, the i7 should be compared to the core2 extreme chip like the x9000.

halfcard1 wrote:obviously you can put a t9300 in a thinkpad t61. sure the i7 numbers on charts look good, but when you are doing regular stuff i find it hard to see the difference.

What "regular stuff" are you talking about? If you mean the response lag after you have clicked on an icon or entered an URL, then of course you won't notice any difference between the T9300 and i7. I haven't used the T9300 personally but based on its Passmark score of 1733, its performance should be virtually identical to that of the E7300 (Passmark = 1755), which I have used on a Dell desktop. On that Dell desktop, basic operations like browsing the internet, closing or opening windows, and starting programs felt very smooth, just as smooth as on my Core i desktops. By contrast, my Gateway and Panasonic laptops, whose processors have Passmark scores of just under 900, hesitate quite often even when I am doing simple things. The Panasonic might feel a tad faster than the Gateway because the former is running Win 8 on an SSD whereas the latter runs Vista on a 5400rpm HDD, but both feel more or less equally slow. I once had a Dell Precision M90 that ran Vista and had the T7200 (Passmark = 1227), which felt smooth nearly all the time but would slow down now and then. From these experiences, I came to the conclusion that as long as the processor is above 1,300 Passmark points or so, basic operations should be very smooth and it doesn't matter whether it's Core2 Duo or 3rd-gen i7. But for taxing tasks, the difference would be obvious. For example, I routinely need to convert some of my scientific data from one file format to another. These are huge files and each one takes many minutes to convert. For such conversion, my HP desktop with i7-3770 takes roughly half as much time as my Dell Precision 390 which has Core2 Extreme QX6700. It's also noticeably faster than a Core i5-750 machine that I have tried.

In conclusion, for basic tasks and processing small files, a T61 with T9300 should still be plenty good for at least several more years, or until its Nvidia card dies.

I don't give as much credit to benchmark tests, they basically count how many times a processor can do "nothing" in a cycle, but actual performance in the real world varies quite a bit. For example, if you have two identical computers, we'll use a T61 for example and one has a 2.4ghz T7700 cpu, 2.4ghz clock speed and 4mb of L2 cache, the second has a T8100, 2.1ghz clock speed with 3mb of L2 cache. Obviously the T7700 will give a much better benchmark test, but if both computers are doing heavy graphic work and the cpu's are running at 100%, the T8100 having the more advanced Penryn die will be better able to control it's temperature and avoid thermal throttling, so you may find the slower T8100 performs and "feels" much faster, but in light use the T7700 will outperform due to sheer horsepower.

I do agree with you that if you're doing things like video encoding that the cpu speed is a major factor since the computer is controlling the instructions that the cpu gets, but for the average user the cpu spends most of it's life waiting for the next command. If you're doing this type of heavy computing, that is when you want to go with a powerful mobile workstation with powerful discrete graphics and a fast cpu with lots of cache.

Another factor to increase performance on these cpu intensive tasks is the use of an ssd, it will greatly increase not only disc read/write times but also use of virtual memory that is usually relied on for such tasks.

awesome replies, thanks

TuuS wrote:I don't give as much credit to benchmark tests, they basically count how many times a processor can do "nothing" in a cycle, but actual performance in the real world varies quite a bit. For example, if you have two identical computers, we'll use a T61 for example and one has a 2.4ghz T7700 cpu, 2.4ghz clock speed and 4mb of L2 cache, the second has a T8100, 2.1ghz clock speed with 3mb of L2 cache. Obviously the T7700 will give a much better benchmark test, but if both computers are doing heavy graphic work....

Yes of course, which is why my entire discussion about Passmark scores was restricted to basic operations, as I emphasized repeatedly in my last post. The OP asked about "regular stuff" and so I talked mainly about "regular stuff". Let me rephrase my last post if it was somehow not clear enough: When we are just clicking folders or starting simple programs or working on small files, Passmark scores fairly closely parallel our perceived snappiness of the computer, up to around a score of 1,300. For instance, 500 is most likely going to feel slower than 1,000. However, above around 1,300, then all CPUs are going to feel pretty much the same for basic tasks. The keywords are "fairly closely", "around", "most likely" and "pretty much", meaning I am just describing a general trend and I am sure you can name thousands of exceptions. In conclusion, it doesn't surprise me that *for regular stuff*, s/he notices no difference between a T9300 and a Core i7.

I think what should be mostly noted is how long each processor will be able to do these "regular" things, in the machine's lifetime. The T9300 may be a sturdy, powerful Core 2 Duo, but it's old. Nowadays, when compared to an i7 machine for basic tasks, there won't be much of a difference, but what about in 3, 4 years time...? It'd be like comparing the Pentium III-M to the Core 2 Duo when the Core 2 was the newest processor. Obviously, now, the Pentium III could hold it's own for a bit, but it'd eventually be trumped by something, even if all you're doing is web browsing and word processing.

To give those less knowledgeable about processors an idea, the Core 2 Duo is a bespoke, Dual-Core processor. It has two physical processing units inside it. For the T9300 in particular, each Core is doing 2.53 GHz, giving a computational total of over 5 GHz of computing power. We can compare this to the Core i7 in my Toshiba, a i7-2670QM. Not the most recent i7, but a laptop i7, so it's comparable. The i7 has 4 physical cores compared to the T9300's 2, and each Core is doing 2.2 GHz, giving a total of 8.8 GHz. On top of that, each core is hyper-threading. When a processor hyper-threads, it makes itself into two virtual processors. So, actually, the Core i7 has 8 logical processors running.

The Core i7 is substantially more powerful than the Core 2 Duo processors, and because they're newer and smaller on the inside, they get more done per cycle. And they don't consume any more electricity, so they're far more efficient.

Even if you're a basic computer user, the extra CPU power can come in handy. Such as when you're playing the occasional flash game, your kids/siblings are putting loads of adware and bloatware that slows down your computer after awhile, and when you install background applications, such as antivirus. Even slideshows and putting home movies together becomes much easier and smoother.

^ it doesn't work quite like that, there's tons of software out there that is coded for single core processor, so this is where your dual core i7 allowing for higher clock speeds due to TDP will beat your quad core i7 that cant go that high again due to TDP, considering both are processors from same generation.

on top of that you cant compare CPUs from different generations based on clock speeds since long time ago. Different architectures yield different output at same clock speed, i.e. a T9500 at 2.6GHz will be quite faster than a P4-2.66GHz even when using only one of the two cores (in the T9500).

as for lifetime usefulness - I have a P4-2.66GHz laptop from 2004 with 1GB RAM that is still fine for the regular internet browsing (CPU at ~60%), skype calls, and MS Office work. So it really depends on what one uses the laptop for.

as for hyper-threading core - the performance doesnt exactly equal two cores when running software that can multithread nicely, it's less. For comparison, the same software running on one hyperthreading vs. two separate physical cores will be like running the software at ~75% speed and at 100% speed.

I have a T61 with a T9300 (2.5 GHz), 4 GB RAM; and a T430s with a Core i5-3320M (2.6 GHz) and 8 GB RAM. Both processors have a TDP of 35W, both machines run Win 7 x64.

Perceived responsiveness is about the same (both machines have SSDs), however for anything CPU dependent, the T430s has a significant advantage. When idle, the T61 consumes >20% CPU at 800 MHz, while the T430s idles at 1.2 GHz and 3-4% CPU utilization.

WinSAT CPU ratings are 6.1 and 7.2, memory 5.9 and 7.5. I can provide additional CPU and memory numbers if anyone is interested.
T430s also runs cooler and has a much quieter fan.

Bottom line, the T61 is a perfectly fine machine and I love it to bits. However, despite the upgrades (memory, processor, SSD, BIOS) it cannot really compete with the technology 5 years newer in anything that requires real horsepower.

I definitely agree with billyj. I also own t61 with T9300 and SandyBridge i5 based t420s. When it comes to vbox ubuntu boot up procedure the latter one does it in ca 15sec while t61 need +-45 sec. So we have about 3 times better score - both machines have ssd drives and RAM amount is not a bottleneck either. Penryn CPU is ok but you cannot cheat on age - it is 5+ years technology

Oh, dear your question is really big mistake. Its will be same as:"Difference between Jaguar vs Aston Martin." Both of cars are high end. i7 is much more better than T9300. I upgraded my previous Thinkpad SL510 CPU to T9600. If you watching movies, listening music, browsing web it is ok. But nothing serious, like 3D Cad, Adobe Premiere etc. For video editing, 3D graphics priority is GPU, RAM and HDD speed, (SSD highly recommended).

billyj wrote:I. When idle, the T61 consumes >20% CPU at 800 MHz, while the T430s idles at 1.2 GHz and 3-4% CPU utilization.

Then you're doing something wrong, or your "idle" is not idle at all when it comes to the T61...

Right now, I have 78 processes running in W7 64 on my T61-based FrankenPad, CPU (T9500) is at 4% at 1200MHz.

iThinkSL wrote:Its will be same as:"Difference between Jaguar vs Aston Martin."

No. A proper comparison would be XK150 vs. XJ220.

Both of these CPUs are of the same class and origin, one is just significantly newer (and snappier) than the other one.

ajkula66 wrote:Then you're doing something wrong, or your "idle" is not idle at all when it comes to the T61...

Right now, I have 78 processes running in W7 64 on my T61-based FrankenPad, CPU (T9500) is at 4% at 1200MHz.

Please check your CPU usage with a recent Process Explorer. It uses fine-grained CPU accounting, unlike the Win7 Task Manager.

billyj wrote:
Please check your CPU usage with a recent Process Explorer. It uses fine-grained CPU accounting, unlike the Win7 Task Manager.

Just downloaded the Process Explorer...as per your wishes:

CPU usage: 11.83%; processes: 77;

All of this at 1200MHz...1197 if you want to be precise.

I've got easily over 50 browser tabs open at the moment. Can count them if you'd like me to.

My point stands: there's absolutely no reason to have 20% CPU usage in idle state.

That's the thing... the T9300 and the i7, when used side by side for close to the same basic needs, they're very hard to tell apart. There's a lot more that comes into it too... if you're using a T9300 and an i7 laptop, but both have 5400RPM mechanical HDs on SATA 1 speeds, guess what the result's going to be?

Even if you have SSDs, you'd have to push both processors pretty hard with specific, abusive tasks to get the real results. Even single core applications will run cleaner on the i7, the newer tech and 32nm/22nm construction is just phenomenally better.

I have a D900T laptop with a 3.8 GHz Pentium 4, and decided one day to try and convert the video on that, rather than ship all 200GB of video to my main i7 laptop I mentioned earlier to convert it. Which is fair enough, but it took the Pentium 4 nearly 30 min to convert one 12 video(by the way, this is converting raw, uncompressed full HD video into HD WMV format). After about an hour, I got fed up of waiting, aborted the conversions that were done, and moved the footage. My i7 laptop burned through the first video in under 5 minutes.

I understand that may not be the most fair test, but aside from the point: The Pentium 4 may be a hot-running, beefy, old processor from 2005. But using the D900T with the Pentium 4 and my i7 Toshiba laptop from the now, for web browsing, flash gaming, slideshows, viewing video, typing up documents, checking email, etc., yields really no difference at all. The D900T also has a 1920x1200 screen, runs Windows 7 and has Aero on.

It really depends on your needs. That's why my friends who don't game absolutely love the T60ps I recommended for them. They may be old, but they're still powerful enough to do the job exceptionally well.