x61 Motherboard into x61s???

[Fixed_Rider]

I was curious if anyone has done the following or sees a problem trying to do it.

I have a pristine x61s with a 1.6ghz on it way to me and I see every now and again x61's with the 2.2ghz cpu's go for cheap.

My thought was to swap boards. Get all the benefits of the x61s with a bit more oomph of the 2.2cpu.

Thoughts?

[ajkula66]

Get all the benefits of the x61s with a bit more oomph of the 2.2cpu.

Thoughts?

What would these benefits be? Unless you have an "ultralight" LCD in that X61s...

[Fixed_Rider]

From trolling the interwebs mostly size and weight, Since both of mine have the WWAN antenna I am making to call that neither has the ultralight display.

[Raceboy]

You can only use Penryn X61 boards on X61s chassiswith good success as with Meroms it will overheat easily (you have to use heatsink from the X61s system board which is thinner, that itself makes it effectively an "s").

[Fixed_Rider]

Raceboy, thanks for the head up on the Penryn board. Now for the noob question.
How can I tell if a given board is Penryn or Merom???

Edit: Never mind, I figured it out....LOL

Thanks

[EOMtp]

...Since both of mine have the WWAN antenna I am making to call that neither has the ultralight display.

Both the regular and the UltraLight displays had WWAN antennas that looked identical externally, and there is no way to know which display you have on the X61s without checking inside. Granted, it is a small chance that it is an UltraLight display, but that you have a WWAN antenna on it is no indication one way or the other.

Separately, X61 motherboards run hot no matter what. To make them run hotter still by using an X61s fan on an X61 board makes little sense, unless your hearing is so bad that you will not be bothered by a fan which runs at full speed full time! YMMV!

What is worth doing is moving an UltraLight screen (the entire "top" of the machine) from an X61s to an X61 -- not so much because it is lighter, but because it is noticeably brighter.

[Fixed_Rider]

So how do I tell if I have the ultralight display, the display looks phenomenal but I'm not certain it is the UL.

I found a broken up Penryn 2.1 x61 that I think I'll grab and see if the mobo works in the x61s without getting too hot. This unit is is really good shape.

Thanks

[raket]

I tried this to set a X60 mobo in a X61s chassi, and a X61 in a X61s chassi.

Problem is that the fan connectors is not the same, so wont work :/

[Fixed_Rider]

Raket,

Thanks for the input. I decided to switch gears because my recently acquired x61s is SOOOO clean. I'm leaving intact other than an SSD upgrade.
I will keep on the lookup for a Penryn board to put into my x61.

Later

[Pete B]

OK, I am also interested in putting an X61 motherboard with a 45 nm T8100 processor in an X61s for increased speed. I'll also add an SSD.

At a glance the L7700, in my X61s is a TPD 17W part whereas the T8100 is a TPD 35W part so it seems as if the smaller technology T8100 is, contrary to logic, a much higher power part. However I believe that the TPD is the power dissipation capability of the package since the T8100 at 2.1 GHZ and with a small cache has the same TPD as the T9900 which is a 3.07 GHz part.

If we assume, as a worst case, that the T9900 uses the full 35 W capability and that power scales linearly with clock then: 35 * 2.1/3.07 = 23.9W which seems much more reasonable for the X61s.
Certainly, if one downclocked the T8100 to 1.8GHz I'd expect it to be very close in power to the L7700.

I'm just speculating here and I could be far off, but I would like to try this since I prefer the 45nm Penryn processors and I'll take all the speed I can get.

[axur-delmeria]

At a glance the L7700, in my X61s is a TPD 17W part whereas the T8100 is a TPD 35W part so it seems as if the smaller technology T8100 is, contrary to logic, a much higher power part.

It's TDP or "Thermal Design Power" (though I personally prefer the alternative "Thermal Design Point"). It means that the cooling solution should be able to dissipate the specified amount of heat for normal operation.

In the T8100's case, the heatsink must be able to handle 35 watts during normal operation, but the CPU itself can dissipate up to 53.89 watts at full throttle.

The L7700 is a low-voltage CPU (lowest VCore is 0.85v in contrast to .925-0.95v on the T8100), and has a specified TDP of 17 watts, but it can consume up to 27.6 watts at full tilt.

The T8100's power consumption can be reduced through undervolting, but I doubt that it will come even close to the L7700.

To be honest, I don't recommend this type of conversion. The heat output difference between the two CPUs is significant, and unless you live in a cold region of this world, it's very likely that your converted Thinkpad will experience overheating issues.

.

[Pete B]

Thanks interesting points, I was aware that the L version processors run at a lower core voltage but am wondering how much the 45 nm process of the T8100 helps.
It doesn't really make sense that the T8100 and T9900 are both 45nm process with a 1 - 1.25 core voltage and are rated to dissipate nearly the same power 53.89 here for T8100:
http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Core_2/In ... 0453M.html

and just slightly more at 57.07 for the T9900:
http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Core_2/In ... 836MG.html

The point is that with full processing demand none of the clock and core voltage
reduction methods come into play, so how do they get such relatively low power
in the T9900? I also don't get how they lowered the power so much in the
L7700 since the core voltage is not very different - process tricks I suppose that
are probably also used in the T9900.

L7700 for comparison:
http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Core_2/In ... 0334M.html

Side by side, interesting that the L7700 has Turbo Boost as with the T8100:
http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/905/In ... nryn).html

I don't plan to use it for video processing or anything like that so the higher peak
speed might help. I suppose it might not be worth the effort since the L7700 is
not too bad on clock speed.

I should probably add the SSD first then see how it goes.

[axur-delmeria]

Thanks interesting points, I was aware that the L version processors run at a lower core voltage but am wondering how much the 45 nm process of the T8100 helps.

Quite a lot IMO. The 65nm 35w TDP T7xxx series ran hotter than the 45nm T8xxx, as can be attested by X61 and T61 owners alike. On paper, the T7500 actually has lower max power dissipation (53.3 watts) compared to the T8100 (53.89 watts), but note the minimum power dissipation as well: T7500 (7.1 watts) vs. T8100 (3.92 watts). Lower heat means it runs cooler at idle and low to medium frequencies (where most of the power savings happen).
Later 45nm Core 2 Duos are even better, with the P8xxx series having a TDP of 25 watts despite having a max power dissipation of around 47 watts.

It doesn't really make sense that the T8100 and T9900 are both 45nm process with a 1 - 1.25 core voltage and are rated to dissipate nearly the same power

The difference may lie in their different FSB speeds, and the fact that the T9900 uses a later revision of the 45nm process. IIRC the T8100 is part of the first batch of 45nm Core 2 Duos (early 2008) while the T9900 was introduced in mid-2009.

I also don't get how they lowered the power so much in the L7700 since the core voltage is not very different

I think the L7xxx series uses a slightly different CPU design (optimized for low voltage rather than clock speed) compared to the T7xxx (both the L7xxx and T7xxx series are 65nm, so it's better to compare the two instead of the 45nm T8100), but it's possible that they roll from the same production line, then tested for speed and power consumption, as described here: http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2 ... to-shelf/4

I've both used an L7700 (X61 Tablet, now used by my mom) and a T8100 (my first X61) and I have to say that the clock speed difference only becomes apparent when you're pushing them hard, though with the way Windows becomes more and more bloated you'd need all the CPU power you can spare--in my mom's X61T sometimes Windows 7 uses up 100% of one CPU core for some background task (svchost.exe running netsvcs) bogging down the entire system.

At least I've already escaped that trap when I switched to Linux years ago.

I should probably add the SSD first then see how it goes.

If you've already upgraded the RAM to at least 4GB, then an SSD is a good upgrade. It really improves the boot time and responsiveness of the system. My current Thinkpad is an X220 and I will tell you that an even a not-so-great SSD (Kingston MS200 60GB mSATA) is a lot better than an HDD-only setup.

[Pete B]

"though with the way Windows becomes more and more bloated you'd need all the CPU power you can spare--in my mom's X61T sometimes Windows 7 uses up 100% of one CPU core for some background task (svchost.exe running netsvcs) bogging down the entire system."

I have just been dealing with this today and on two of my systems that seemed to
have stop doing Windows updates (it seemed to be broken) they both had high
scvhost.exe processes. Under control panel, troubleshooting, there is an option
to fix windows update, ran that, it takes a long time, and updates are working
again and idle CPU utilization is back down.
One happened to be my X61S (L7700) and it really dragged it down to a crawl.
Forgot to mention that these are Win7 systems that I don't plan to do the Win10
upgrade anytime soon.

[Pete B]

I agree with most of your points about the power but I have to wonder how
they measure the power and if the T8100 is a bit higher than actual. It is
possible that the process improved with the specs applying to early runs and
the later ones being lower power. I have a friend who worked at Intel and they
continually improve the process for better specs.

Interesting to look at the Passmark benchmark:
L7700 1.8 GHz 968 (538/GHz) single thread: 563 (312/GHz)
T8100 2.1 GHz 1293 (616/GHz) single thread: 831 (395/GHz)
T9300 2.5 GHz 1693 (677/GHz) single thread: 982 (392/GHz)

Looks like the Penryn s had some architectural or microcode optimizations.
The single thread L7700 performance is surprisingly low, in fact the dual core
performance is lower than the T9300 single core performance.

[axur-delmeria]

but I have to wonder how
they measure the power and if the T8100 is a bit higher than actual. It is
possible that the process improved with the specs applying to early runs and
the later ones being lower power. I have a friend who worked at Intel and they
continually improve the process for better specs.

To be honest, I don't know of a method to directly measure the CPU's power consumption.

Looks like the Penryn s had some architectural or microcode optimizations.
The single thread L7700 performance is surprisingly low, in fact the dual core
performance is lower than the T9300 single core performance.

Well, this article from Anandtech seems to support that idea.

My 2nd X61 had the T9300, and I felt the extra 400MHz when playing back 1080p H.264 Hi 10 Profile video-- whereas the T8100 had a few dropped frames, the T9300 had none.

I love that X61 T9300 a lot, though I had to let go since I couldn't put USB 3.0 on it (no Expresscard slot), battery life isn't that great (3+ hours on an 8-cell), can't put an SSD and HDD at the same time.

[Pete B]

I'm just starting to use my X61S L7700 1.8GHz rather than work on it - has Win7 64 Bit, 3 GB ram, 120 G spinner, Middleton with the CTRL fix, and a decent battery, redid the thermal paste.
I've been using video decoding as a real world system test for years but I noticed just around the time that the Win10 eval came out that CPU loading went way down especially under IE11. In the past any HD video would usually pin even a mid range (2 GHz T7200) Core 2 CPU at nearly full load, at least 80% if not 90 to 100.
Around that time it dropped dramatically, so now if I play a 720p full screen youtube video on the X61S (L7700) in IE11 loading is high at the start but once it gets going it drops below 30% sometimes below 20, with occasional blips to 40 but not higher - no frames are dropped. In Chrome those numbers are all about 20% higher with many frames dropped.
I think they fixed up the code in IE11.

I should probably just look for a non S type X61 with the T8100 CPU and forget about the slim case.
Was the tablet slim? I've seen T8100 tablet motherboards, or claimed to be on ebay.
Even better would be a T9300 but I'm seeing just the motherboards for $250!

My X61 was VERY sluggish when it needed the Windows update fix, today CPU utilization was way down but it still felt slightly sluggish - web pages and programs took far too long to load. I ran all sorts of maleware scans finding nothing, then just did a deep clean of temp files with TFC and that fixed it - strange.

[axur-delmeria]

I've seen T8100 tablet motherboards, or claimed to be on ebay.

Hogwash. X61 Tablets have Low voltage CPUs just like the X61s.

In Chrome those numbers are all about 20% higher with many frames dropped.

Chrome is quite CPU and memory intensive due to its design (every tab runs a separate instance of chrome).
Can't test IE11 because I use Linux primarily.

My X61 was VERY sluggish when it needed the Windows update fix, today CPU utilization was way down but it still felt slightly sluggish - web pages and programs took far too long to load. I ran all sorts of maleware scans finding nothing, then just did a deep clean of temp files with TFC and that fixed it - strange.

Too many scattered temp files in your HDD. It's old and it's probably getting slower when moving the head back and forth to read files. I've seen that with similarly old laptops--one client's Toshiba A300 with 100GB HDD runs quick after a Ccleaner scan and a quick defrag, but bogs down after a month or so.

Get a 120GB SSD if you can afford it, but keep regular backups because SSD failure is like how Thomas Hobbes describes life: nasty, brutish, and short (quick in this case).

[Shredder11]

I recently bought and upgraded an X61 machine, which I detailed here http://forum.thinkpads.com/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=118576. I can also vouch for Microsoft Internet Explorer 11 being less CPU intensive on most older machines, plus on my X61 with the added Broadcom Crystal HD BCM70015 PCI-e video decoder card and Adobe Flash v10.x the CPU drops to barely anything with 1080p 50fps videos!

[Pete B]

This system was refurbed by the seller with a fresh install of Win 7 64 bit so I
don't think it is badly fragmented. It even has some sort of MS upgrade COA.
I am anxious to put an SSD in it and if I start using it a lot, more RAM.

I'm finding that I don't really like the display, overall it is a cute little system
but I've been spoiled by an IPS display.

[axur-delmeria]

Unfortunately there's no easy upgrade path for IPS LCDs on the non-Tablet X60 series. The Tablet versions have PVA and IPS LCDs available, and even the PVA panel has wide viewing angles and better colors than the TN TFT panels on the regular models.

Unfortunately, these panels are not drop-in replacements for the non-Tablet models, and require modifications to the panel (removing the protective glass layer and removing the mounting tabs) as well as the LCD cable.

It's definitely not for the faint of heart.