X40 Vs. X60

Message

higgins · #1 Post by **higgins** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 8:51 pm

I've found a reliable place to get a new X40 for around $1,000. I can get a X60 for around $1460. Trying to decide if the performance of the X60 will be worth the extra $400. If I ask on the x60 board, I figure I'll get a fairly predictable answer.

My top priority is battery life. Second is weight. Speed is a lesser concern. I'm a writer, so I'm doing word processing, surfing, Adobe Acrobat and maybe a spreadsheet simultaneously. I'm a little nervous about the odd drive on the X40, but don't find it neccessarily a deal breaker. Don't care about fingerprint readers, bluetooth, evdo.

Here's some specs.
Lenovo Thinkpad X60 Core Duo T2300E 1.66GHz 12.1 1024x768 40.0G 512MB optional 56K Ethernet 10/100/1000 802.11a/b/g Bluetooth 3.6lbs 3 years WXP Pro SP2 Fingerprint reader 8-cell battery Verizon EVDO New

2371H9U Lenovo Thinkpad X40 Pentium M 738 1.4GHz 12.1 1024x768 40.0G 512MB optional 56K Ethernet 10/100/1000 802.11a/b/g Bluetooth 3.2lbs 3 years WXP Pro SP2 8-cell battery New

Any insights? Thx!

getlow · #2 Post by **getlow** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 10:42 pm

if you would have posted this on the x60 board, i would have recommended that you to get the x40. i kind of wish i went with an x40 or x41 and saved the extra cash, because everything that i do on my x60s could easily be done on an x40 or x41..

i think x60s provides a bit better battery life.. not sure on the exact numbers but probably around an hour more at most..

i'd say go with the x40, if fingerprint reader, evdo, and speed are not critical for your purposes

asiafish · #3 Post by **asiafish** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:02 am

The X60 series tends to get better battery life than the X41s, about the same as the X40 ULV, not sure where the X40 1.4GHz (not ULV) compares.

I'm very happy with my X41 and have no significant complaints. Battery life with the 8 cell is about 6 hours with the screen moderately dim and wireless off, a bit better if I dim it all the way (still very usable) and set aggressive PM. Full bright with wireless drops it to about 5 hours, 4 hours watching a DVD, which isn't bad at all in my book, though not up to the X60s.

Size and weight are about the same, though the X60s will have much better processor speed.

The biggest area where users complain about the older models is the hard drive. If you can get a 60GB drive it will be noticeably faster than the 40GB (higher density platters = faster read and write), though even the 40GB are adequate. If you are used to workstation laptops like the T-series "P" models or others with super-fast 7200 RPM drives you will be dissappointed in an X40, but if you are coming from regular consumer-grade laptops, which almost always are equipped with 4200 RPM drives, you won't have any complaints about the X40's performance.

Build quality on the X40 series is top-notch, and in addition to the lower price, accessories can be had very cheaply both here and on eBay. I got my extra batteries (another 8 cell, a 4 cell and the extended battery) for about half retail, all new, and an extra ultrabase with combo drive for about $100 (thank Brainpicker). In short, for about the price of an X60s with one battery and one ultrabase, I have an X41 with 4 batteries, 3 AC adapters and two ultrabases.

Gustavo · #4 Post by **Gustavo** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 3:51 am

If it were up too me, I would take the X60. Then you get Core Duo and get much better upgradeing possibilities.
With an X60 you have an machine that will last you a long time, but with the X4x series you will be thinking of upgradeing in about 2+ years as newer programs and apps demand more power. And off course Windows Vista will be much snappier on an X60.
I think the 400$ more is well worth it considering that this is an investment that you will most likely be using every day.

Then there is also the option of getting an X32, thats also a machine that outperforms the X4x series. As the X32 uses regular laptop drives and Ram. And has CPUs up to 2.0Ghz.
But its an tough decision too make.

getlow · #5 Post by **getlow** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 6:15 am

but remember, higgins is not looking to do stuff that does not require cutting edge technology.. why not save the 400 or so dollars and buy a cheap desktop for other tasks that can't be done (or done efficiently) on an ultraportable..

asiafish · #6 Post by **asiafish** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 10:28 am

X32 and X40 take THE EXACT SAME RAM. Why are people always talking about taking regular RAM as an X32 and X60 advantage? X40 and X40 take regular RAM too, no proprietary modules here.

devilsrejection · #7 Post by **devilsrejection** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 1:36 pm

x60

1. better, easier to replace (as in more parts are out there) hard drive

2. dual core, nuff said

3. better battery life

4. lighter

5. intel gma 950 supports aero glass

6. i can't stress the HD issue enough, it's bearable, but i'm a weeeee bit hesitant to see what vista is going to be like on this thing.

pianowizard · #8 Post by **pianowizard** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:03 pm

devilsrejection wrote:x60

4. lighter

The X60 higgins is considering is 0.4 lbs heavier than the X40.

If I were higgins, I would get the X40, assuming that the $1,000 includes 3-year warranty. The X60 is overkill.

Website · #9 Post by **tfflivemb2** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:23 pm

One thing to keep in mind, is that the X40 uses a 1.8" hard drive, which is currently limited to 4200rpm. The X60 takes a 2.5" SATA drive, which if I am correct, is available in 5400rpm and 7200rpm.

For some, the biggest downfall of the X40 is the "slow" hard drive.

asiafish · #10 Post by **asiafish** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 3:07 pm

For those used to high-end fast hard drives the 1.8" drive is a definite weakness. For those coming from typical consumer-grade laptops, however, the drives in the X40 series are the same speed as what they have always used.

I've used nice and fast 7200 RPM and 5400 RPM drives in many laptops, and currently have a fast 80GB 5400 RPM drive in my X22, but the 60GB in my X41 doesn't perform badly, certainly not at the deal-breaker level.

pianowizard · #11 Post by **pianowizard** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 3:24 pm

I use my X40 for the exact same applications that Higgins will use his laptop for. My X40 (1.2GHz PM/1.5GB PC2700/40GB 1.8" HDD) is more than fast enough for these applications. In fact, I don't even use the full 1.2GHz, because I am using the "maximum battery" power option even when plugged in to slow down the system and reduce the palm rest heat a little bit. What might be a bigger issue is that 1.8" HDD's are much more expensive to replace than regular ones. However, if Higgins is getting a 3-year warranty with the purchase, he can get it replaced for free if something goes wrong with it.

renhui · #12 Post by **renhui** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 4:32 pm

I would pick the X60 if it'll be your only computer. The x40/41/41T is fine for daily tasks, but it sucks big time when it comes to harddrive-intensive applications.

gunston · #13 Post by **gunston** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 3:20 am

proud of my X60s,
better performance and hard drive access compared to X40.

pianowizard · #14 Post by **pianowizard** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 12:41 pm

But Higgins doesn't care that much about speed. What he really needs to know is how much longer the X60's 8-cell battery lasts compared to the X40's. It looks like no one has provided a definite answer yet!

asiafish · #15 Post by **asiafish** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 12:53 pm

Its already been answered many times in many threads, both X40 and X60s can provide up to about 8 hours, though there are many variables.

pianowizard · #16 Post by **pianowizard** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 1:54 pm

asiafish wrote:though there are many variables.

Exactly, and that's why Higgins would like to get the answer from someone who has timed both batteries. If the comparison is done by the same person who uses both laptops the same way, then the number of variables is reduced to one. Very few people own both models, unfortunately.

What we know for sure at this point seem to favor the X40:

1) It's fast enough for what he needs;
2) It's about 0.4 lbs lighter;
3) It's about $400 cheaper

He said he's aware of the X40's 1.8-inch HDD but that's not a big turn-off for him.

The only thing he still needs to know is an accurate comparison of the batteries's durations, one that's done under identical settings.

asiafish · #17 Post by **asiafish** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 2:14 pm

There are so many varieties of X40, there is also the age of the battery to consider, as well as other equipment. Both X60 and X40 battery life vary with the amount of RAM (swapfile access), which wifi card is present (Atheros or Intel) and which screen (X60 has an ultralight screen option). For the X40 there are LV processors of varying speeds and even ULV processors.

To make things more difficult, factor in production variation. I have two identical 8-cell Sanyo batteries for my X41, both purchased new, both with 10 cycles now and charge to the same full capacity, but one of them lasts a good 20 minutes longer than the other. I'm sure there are similar production variations on other components as well.

The simple answer remains, the X40 and the X60 get about the same life from their 8 cell batteries.

pianowizard · #18 Post by **pianowizard** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 2:40 pm

asiafish wrote:The simple answer remains, the X40 and the X60 get about the same life from their 8 cell batteries.

You wrote earlier that you were "not sure where the X40 1.4GHz (not ULV) compares", and Getlow said "x60s provides a bit better battery life.. not sure on the exact numbers but probably around an hour more at most". Also, I remember a recent thread where someone was surprised that the X60 battery actually could last slightly longer than the X60s'. From all these, I got the impression that the X60 battery lasts longer than the X40's (unless you consider a difference of ~1 hour insiginificant), though it's not a huge difference.

asiafish · #19 Post by **asiafish** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 2:48 pm

1.4GHz LV will be about an hour less than an X60s. X40 1.2GHz ULV will be about the same life as an X60s.

Most X40s are the 1.2GHz ULV, forgot he was talking about a 1.4GHz.

pianowizard · #20 Post by **pianowizard** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 2:53 pm

And I bet your estimate is quite accurate. For me, I don't think one additional hour of battery life is worth paying $400 more!

cj3209 · #21 Post by **cj3209** » Thu Sep 28, 2006 6:45 pm

I have to chime in here. I use both an X40 and an X60s. Frankly speaking, after using the X60s, it's hard to go back to the turtle-like X40.

Maybe I'm just used to fast hard drives but the X40 is slow in just about everything it does:
- boot-up time;
- hibernation time averages 3 minutes...that's 3 MINUTES (my X60s takes 20 seconds);
- shut-off time

For casual surfing and word processing, it's adequate. But I would stil recommend paying the extra $400 for an X60s as my time is valuable and the clicking HD noise drives me nuts.

My two cents...

Cheers,

CJ

asiafish · #22 Post by **asiafish** » Thu Sep 28, 2006 8:26 pm

Sounds like your biberfil.sys is severely fragmented if it takes you 3 minutes to hibernate. My X41 takes all of 20 seconds to hibernate, and thats will a full 1.5GB of RAM.

Oh yeah, no HD clicks on either of my two hard drives (60GB 1.8", one with Windows XP, the other with Ubuntu Linux).

pianowizard · #23 Post by **pianowizard** » Thu Sep 28, 2006 9:41 pm

My X40 (also with 1.5GB RAM) likewise hibernates within half a minute, maybe even 20 seconds. Has it been a while since the last time you used Shut Down to turn off your X40? If that's the case, Shut Down once and see whether that speeds up subsequent Hibernation.

The hard drive does click a lot, which annoyed me at first but I have gotten used to it.

cj3209 · #24 Post by **cj3209** » Thu Sep 28, 2006 11:09 pm

I have a 1.2 processor with 1.5 GB of RAM. You know, you may be right; I haven't shut down in a while; maybe that's it.

asiafish · #25 Post by **asiafish** » Fri Sep 29, 2006 1:44 am

Using a good defrag utility will help too, one that allows defragmenting the hiberfil.sys file (meaning a commercial program like Diskeeper or PerfectDisk).

My X41 won't set any HD speed records, but its certainly no worse than other 4200 RPM drives.

X40 Vs. X60

X40 Vs. X60

Who is online