How fast is the L7100?

Message

ulrich.von.lich · #1 Post by **ulrich.von.lich** » Thu Feb 28, 2008 6:20 pm

According to the review, it took only 98 seconds for the L7100 (1.20Ghz) to complete the wPrime 32M calculation. I downloaded the program and tried it with my T43 and it took 157 seconds for the PM 780 (2.26Ghz).

I can't believe how fast these new CPUs are. The fastest Pentium M CPU is almost caught up by the CPU used in Asus Eee PC. (200 seconds) It seems those days when CPU's speed was reflected by its frequency is over. The 1.20Ghz L7100 can easily outperform a 5.00Ghz Pentium IV I guess.

How fast is the L7100 compared to a regular C2D processor? Is the wPrime calculation accurate? Or is there some other way to know the true power of a CPU?

aaa · #2 Post by **aaa** » Thu Feb 28, 2008 7:13 pm

Nothing's changed. They're the same Core 2's as always, albeit with 800mhz fsb.

Keep in mind that the eeePC is also a Pentium M (well the Celeron version), just like your T43. So that would imply that you ran the test wrong, as you should also get in the neighborhood of 100 secs.

FragrantHead · #3 Post by **FragrantHead** » Thu Feb 28, 2008 7:30 pm

I presume the L7100 is dual core, whereas the Pentium M is definitely not. Would this explain the speed difference? Also I presume you turned off SpeedStep on both?

mikehh · #4 Post by **mikehh** » Thu Feb 28, 2008 7:54 pm

I tested my desktop and portable computer.

Here is a screen shot, take a look

http://img181.imageshack.us/my.php?imag ... e32za3.jpg

Note from Moderator: No images without a warning in the subject line.

ulrich.von.lich · #5 Post by **ulrich.von.lich** » Fri Feb 29, 2008 2:54 pm

So that would imply that you ran the test wrong, as you should also get in the neighborhood of 100 secs.

You are right. I just realized the version of wPrime used in the review was v1.55 while the version I tested the PM 780 was v1.60. So I downloaded the older version and tried it again and this time the old PM CPU used only 82 seconds to complete.

Also I presume you turned off SpeedStep on both?

No, I don't know how to do that. But I did set the power plan to maximize the CPU performance.

And btw, is the L7100 in the X300 similar to the L7300 used in the test of mikehh? Or is it some sort of shrinked version (reduced size/power consumption)? I see it's also called SL7100 sometimes.

mfbernstein · #6 Post by **mfbernstein** » Fri Feb 29, 2008 8:25 pm

83 seconds on the Intel T7300 (2.0GHZ Core 2 Duo) in my X61. 44 seconds if I let it do 2 threads. So either 20% faster than the L7100 or 60% faster, depending on whether it was tested multi-threaded or single-threaded on the X300.

ducky2802 · #7 Post by **ducky2802** » Fri Feb 29, 2008 9:04 pm

58 secs on the 1.6 core 2 duo x61 tablet, both threads.

jamess · #8 Post by **jamess** » Sun Mar 02, 2008 5:31 am

Does X300 "accept" 4 GB of ram on Vista B32 or do i need 64-bit version to be able to actually use all 4 GB of installed RAM ? This way I could compromise a bit for "slower" processor on the system.

aaa · #9 Post by **aaa** » Sun Mar 02, 2008 8:24 am

jamess wrote:Does X300 "accept" 4 GB of ram on Vista B32 or do i need 64-bit version to be able to actually use all 4 GB of installed RAM ? This way I could compromise a bit for "slower" processor on the system.

You always need 64 bit to use more than 3-3.5gb of ram.

jamess · #10 Post by **jamess** » Sun Mar 02, 2008 1:14 pm

I did not know that was a general "limitation" for 32-bit systems.

I guess that having 3 GB total on 32 bit Vista is the top limit and there is no real sense in spending money for 4 GB as I will never be able to actually "use" full 4 GB on 32 bit system.

Thecla · #11 Post by **Thecla** » Mon Mar 03, 2008 3:39 am

I got 76 secs with 1.55 wPrimeand a 2.16GHz T7400 Core2 Duo (I guess single threaded---I just ran wPrime) so the X300 seems really fast for an ultraportable and it's hard to believe the CPU will limit its performance.

Is there any point to getting more than 2GB of RAM though, or getting a single 2GB DIMM to allow for adding more down the road? 2GB is plenty for Vista, and without doing major video editing etc (which the X300 isn't really meant for) it seems like you're unlikely to need any more.

Edit: rechecked and found that wprime didn't recognize dual core with vista -- putting in the dual core manually it ran at 38 secs (same as the dell m1330 listed in the review) so I guess the X300 cpu is significantly slower.

Nickolai · #12 Post by **Nickolai** » Mon Mar 03, 2008 7:30 am

What is this (S)L7100 processor I wonder ?
Here in Wikipedia, where I used to look up processors, I can't find it.

Maybe it's just an L7300's younger brother? Can it be that Lenovo made it's latest generation notebook with not-so-latest generation processor, efficiently making a step back in CPU power? I'm not a much of a fan of processing power; in fact I think any notebook made in the last few years has more than enough power for me anyway, but I am deeply unsatisfied with notebook industry's offerings in battery working time.

I expected that for it's latest generation of notebook Lenovo will use the latest generation CPU to max out on battery life. I keep grumbling that IBM/Lenovo keeps using LV CPU's when there are ULV ones. Can it be that in X300 we have just slowed-down Core 2 ?

aaa · #13 Post by **aaa** » Mon Mar 03, 2008 9:15 am

Nickolai wrote:Can it be that in X300 we have just slowed-down Core 2 ?

Yes.

If they went for the latest generation, the X300 would have been delayed for months. If you're patient, I wouldn't be surprised if they started using the newer CPUs a month or two from now.

It would have been nice to get a 1.6/1.8 like the Macbook Air, though.

experttease · #14 Post by **experttease** » Mon Mar 03, 2008 11:55 am

any idea how this might compare to an R51 with a 1.5GHz PM, 1.3GB RAM(@333MHz) etc.?

jamess · #15 Post by **jamess** » Mon Mar 03, 2008 1:18 pm

I know it's a speculation... BUT, does anyone have a slight feeling if any additional "higher speeds" of CPU will be available - soon?

Because with X61 Tablet for instance, it's still "only" 1.6 C2D and that's it as far as i know.

I've just ordered X300 and am thikning whether I should stall... however, with the tests performed and knowing that all that i need (office, light photoshop) will run smoothly, I see no real reason waiting. Would however be grateful for a few words of wisdom from you guys.

bylogic · #16 Post by **bylogic** » Mon Mar 03, 2008 7:04 pm

Rumor has it that X300(Kodachi 2) will be using Penryn Intel® Core™ 2 Duo CPU SL9300/SL9400，1.6GHz/1.8GHz，6MBL2Cache，128GBSSD.

beq · #17 Post by **beq** » Mon Mar 03, 2008 7:25 pm

^ Are the SL9300/SL9400 the standard-size Penryns (which I hear will arrive starting June) or the upcoming SFF version Penryns (which I hear will arrive later in Q3)?

Will the X300 be able to drop these in the current motherboard, or will it have to be upgraded to one based on the Cantiga chipset from the Montevina platform?

Come to think of it, I think someone else had implied that the upcoming integration of the WiMax into the X300 will have to wait for the Montevina refresh??

qviri · #18 Post by **qviri** » Mon Mar 03, 2008 7:34 pm

beq wrote:Will the X300 be able to drop these in the current motherboard,

I'm pretty sure the X300 has the CPU soldered to the board.

How fast is the L7100?

How fast is the L7100?

SL71000

Re: SL71000

Who is online