Thinkpads Forum

Hello I'm new here and glad I found this forum.

I just got my X60 this week and am really loving the machine. I have used T41 and T42 before so I did not hesitate one bit when I was looking at an ultra-portable for grad school.

I got the X60 1709A7U (1.66Ghz, 512MB RAM, 60G hard drive..finger print.) I also got the 8-cell extended battery and the X6 base. I will be needing this laptop for grad school so I'll be hauling it around so battery life and weight are important factors. Now, I only found out that the X60s has a longer battery life than the X60 after I bought the X60 and am now thinking of exchanging the X60 for the X60s.

Are the battery performance really noticeable on the two? For people with X60s, how many hours are you getting when browsing and chatting? I'll take it if its just 1 or 2 hours more. I read that the X60s runs about 9 hrs on the 8-cell, mine says 7:42 hours on a full charge but I think it may be half of that doing what I usually do: word processing, MSN Messenger, Browsing, and running iTunes. I'm fine setting the brightness to 3/7 but I'll pretty much have wireless on all the time. So please tell me what you guys think. The X60s I'm looking at is 17044DU (About $300 more)

Also, I'm also thinking about buying 1G RAM on top of the 512MB. Will this increase battery life as well since it'll mean less access to the hard drive?

Sorry if this question have been asked before but I really did look through most of the threads about X60 and X60s and didn't find a clear battery comparison in terms of hours (one thread posted that x60s had 20 minutes more battery than x60 but wanted to confirm)

i don't think that you'd be much better off with the x60s. i get about the same times. overall, i do think that the low voltage processor will help in the long run, but not a ton.

To add to that, it really depends on what you want to do with it. If it is job-critical that you must stay online for the longest possible amount of time and perform tasks such as Word, Excel, online collabaration, etc for a long term goal...Then you might want to look at the X60s.

If, however, you aren't that concerned about the extension of battery life and weight reduction that you would get, you are better off going with the X60.

Hi Chris, yes battery life really is my main concern as I really will be using wireless alot. As I will be in classrooms and I do not want to have to plug in an AC adaptor all the time.

The X60's battery life was not as long as I have hoped

lilminmin wrote:Hi Chris, yes battery life really is my main concern as I really will be using wireless alot. As I will be in classrooms and I do not want to have to plug in an AC adaptor all the time.

The X60's battery life was not as long as I have hoped

I think I've read in one of the online reviews of the two systems that X60 gets about 7hrs and X60s gets about half an hour more than that. You can look up the exact numbers, but I think the X60s is also about half a pound lighter (maybe less).

When I ordered a X60 last month, I went through the same dilemma of wanting to return it and get a X60s. However, when the back-to-school sale appeared, I found a X60 package that was cheaper and better than my previous one, so I returned it and got that instead. I didn't go with a X60s this time because I just didn't think half an hour increase and half a pound reduction was worth the extra $300 (although you do get the Verizon WWAN card in the model I was comparing with, but that will never be of use to me as I am too broke to pay for the monthly subscription).

Weigh your own values and decide what's best for yourself =)

I think most people only compares the "IDLE" battery life, ie the CPU is mostly 0 %. In that case, x60s and x60 doesn't really matter, they all can run 7 + hrs .

But the real question is, whats the battery life for x60s and x60 under heavy load ? the last weekend I have a lan game(WC3) party with some friends and there is a power outrage( thanks a lot PG&E ! ) , I am using x60s , my friend use x40, the other uses T42. after 2.5 hrs of gaming. The x60s still can has about 50 % of the juice left, while T42 battery is all most gone, and thats with extended battery.

Thats pretty decent battery time. I am not too sure whether x60 can last that long under this load. As the T series CPU consume a lot more power than U with 100 % load.

That's very good to know MIB....thanks!

I think I've pretty much decided that I will buy the X60s and sell my X60.

why not rma it?

lucas wrote:why not rma it?

It was an EPP purchase so all sales are final. I just found this out today.

Believe me, I would rather RMA it more than anything else....

One thing I've found that really helps increase battery life is.... disable dual-core in the BIOS. Now, of course you may say "what's the point of having dual core if you're disabling one of the cores?" If all you want is to browse the web, one core is more than enough. When you're plugged in, you have the option of enabling the other core. The biggest problem with this is that you have to reboot to do it. It would be really cool if the SpeedStep could dynamically enable/disable cores. I don't doubt that this feature will be available in the future (esp when we start seeing 4 or more cores).

Of course, YMMV as I have not performed rigorous tests to prove that disabling the other core is what resulted in the battery life increase.

trentblase, that's a good idea.

BTW, can you tell me what programs out there are better ran with Dual Core? How about playing DVDs? Is Single-Core enough?

trentblase wrote:One thing I've found that really helps increase battery life is.... disable dual-core in the BIOS. Now, of course you may say "what's the point of having dual core if you're disabling one of the cores?" If all you want is to browse the web, one core is more than enough. When you're plugged in, you have the option of enabling the other core. The biggest problem with this is that you have to reboot to do it. It would be really cool if the SpeedStep could dynamically enable/disable cores. I don't doubt that this feature will be available in the future (esp when we start seeing 4 or more cores).

Of course, YMMV as I have not performed rigorous tests to prove that disabling the other core is what resulted in the battery life increase.

I saw it somewhere that people actually said disable one core will actually increase power usage... If someone can do a test that will be gr8

trentblase wrote:One thing I've found that really helps increase battery life is.... disable dual-core in the BIOS.

I haven't done any rigorous testing either...

I tried shutting down one of the cores in the BIOS and found that I was consuming more battery power overall. It didn't make much sense. Besides things taking longer, I found that processor intensive tasks were actually drawing more power using a single core than when two cores were available.

This guy has a theory that corresponds with my experience (the idea is that the L2 cache is a big consumer of power and in the duo it's shared so it doesn't shut off):
http://weblog.infoworld.com/enterprisem ... ing_d.html

MIB wrote:I saw it somewhere that people actually said disable one core will actually increase power usage... If someone can do a test that will be gr8

Ok I did a really quick test that discredits my prior "anecdotal" testing. Let me explain both "tests".

1) A few weeks ago I was reading a pdf on a really long road trip. Thinking it would help battery life, I disabled one core, set the power profile to lowest power, and turned the brightness down as much as I could and keep the text readable in sunlight. At this point the power manager told me I had over 10 hours left (8-cell battery). Since this was much higher than the expected 8 hours, I assumed the difference was due to the single-core operation.

2) Just now, I booted the OS in single and dual core mode. The power profile was lowest power, display at 6. After boot, I waited for the power manager wattage report to reach a steady state. For both modes, the steady state was around 8.5w (9 hours left). This indicates that under minimal load, there is no percievable difference between single and dual core mode.

Now, reports that indicate that power consumption goes up with one core might be explained by the test being under load. It makes sense that if both cores are always consuming power, but only one core is computing, speedstep would have to increase the clock rate to compensate for the decreased computing power. This would increase the power consumption of BOTH cores even though only one is doing any useful work. In other words:

2 cpus at 1ghz consumes 2*y units of power and does 2*z units of work. work per power is 1y/z

1 cpu at 1.5ghz consumes 3*y units of power but only does 1.5*z units of work. work per power is .5y/z, or about half as efficient as the dual core setup.

(y and z are constants represented by the amount of power 1 processor uses at 1ghz and the amount of computational work 1 processor does at 1ghz respectively. I am making an approximation when I incorrectly assume that work scales linearly with # of cores and clock speed, but in this case I think the error cancels itself out)

What this really tells us is that Intel needs to work on clock/power gating for it's cores and explains why speedstep does not dynamically change the number of cores -- it doesn't make a difference.

Thanks.

BTW, will the performance of a 1G RAM be significantly different from that of the 1.5G RAM? I do alot of multi-tasking such as running iTunes (which is a memory eater), browsing (with several tabs) and MSN Messenger

lilminmin wrote:Thanks.

BTW, will the performance of a 1G RAM be significantly different from that of the 1.5G RAM? I do alot of multi-tasking such as running iTunes (which is a memory eater), browsing (with several tabs) and MSN Messenger

Not noticeably, unless you use a program that truly warrants that level of memory. For example I had the unpleasant experience of editing HD Video in Premiere 2 on my x60s and I can easily say at that point more than 1 gig would make a difference.

Your multi-tasking sounds the same as mine and with 1 gig everything runs great. iTunes (70 mb max), Firefox (250 mb tons of tabs with multimedia), and MSN (30 mb), so there is plenty to spare. Also more ram means that hibernation takes longer.

SeanHayward wrote:

lilminmin wrote:Thanks.

BTW, will the performance of a 1G RAM be significantly different from that of the 1.5G RAM? I do alot of multi-tasking such as running iTunes (which is a memory eater), browsing (with several tabs) and MSN Messenger

Not noticeably, unless you use a program that truly warrants that level of memory. For example I had the unpleasant experience of editing HD Video in Premiere 2 on my x60s and I can easily say at that point more than 1 gig would make a difference.

Your multi-tasking sounds the same as mine and with 1 gig everything runs great. iTunes (70 mb max), Firefox (250 mb tons of tabs with multimedia), and MSN (30 mb), so there is plenty to spare. Also more ram means that hibernation takes longer.

Great, thanks for your feedback

Just found this thread. I have a (rare) Core Solo X60 with 1Gb ram. The extended 4 cell battery lasts a good 4 hours on mine. Just posting this in case anyone's wondering.

lilminmin wrote:I do alot of multi-tasking such as running iTunes (which is a memory eater), browsing (with several tabs) and MSN Messenger

If you are concerned about battery life at school then you should turn off iTunes and MSN Messenger. Not only will the battery last longer, you will also get better grades because you can concentrate on the lecture or your homework.

FredFromNYC wrote:

lilminmin wrote:I do alot of multi-tasking such as running iTunes (which is a memory eater), browsing (with several tabs) and MSN Messenger

If you are concerned about battery life at school then you should turn off iTunes and MSN Messenger. Not only will the battery last longer, you will also get better grades because you can concentrate on the lecture or your homework.

These tasks have never affected my grades...thank god!

lilminmin wrote:

FredFromNYC wrote:If you are concerned about battery life at school then you should turn off iTunes and MSN Messenger. Not only will the battery last longer, you will also get better grades because you can concentrate on the lecture or your homework.

These tasks have never affected my grades...thank god!

Just put your system in sleep mode when not in use - you'll make it through the day.

Or, God forbid, you could plug it in during lunch...

whoisjohngalt wrote:

lilminmin wrote: These tasks have never affected my grades...thank god!

Just put your system in sleep mode when not in use - you'll make it through the day.

Or, God forbid, you could plug it in during lunch...

Haha.....well wireless does eat up alot of juice...so maybe I'll turn it off when I'm not using it

X60s is the best so far

If you are concerned about battery life at school then you should turn off iTunes and MSN Messenger. Not only will the battery last longer, you will also get better grades because you can concentrate on the lecture or your homework.

I don't use MSN Messenger, so have turned it off. But I cannot find where/how to turn off iTunes which I also do not use - can you tell me how to turn off iTunes? Thanks