Thinkpads Forum

I am looking at purchasing a new notebook in the next week or so, and I am quite enamored by the X301's portability and 13.3"/WXGA+ display. My only reservation (besides the obvious one - price - I'm still trying to talk myself into it) is that I have no idea how the SU9400 processor will fare with the tasks I perform on a regular basis.

I'm not concerned at all with the typical processor-intensive tasks of audio/video procesing, 3D rendering and such. Though I will do these from time to time, it won't bother me if it takes a bit longer than it might on a more powerful processor. My main concerns lie with the development tools I use: Microsoft Visual Studio 2008 and a virtual machine running Microsoft Windows Server environments with IIS and SQL Server. Typically, I would only need the one VM running, but on those infrequent occasions when I need to do some SharePoint development, I would have to run two concurrently.

Honestly, when the host OS is working the most, any VM's running at the time would be idle, the only resources used being the RAM they are allocated. When the VM's are actively working, activity on the host OS would be minimal. It would be the typical client-server relationship contained on one machine, basically.

So, is anyone else using an X301 for similar purposes? Anyone else have any personal insight that might help me with the decision?

Thanks!

You might consider getting the x200s which also has a higher screen resolution (1440x900) so you'll see more on the screen. It has a faster processor with a larger cache (making it faster still) and will cost you less money.

I've seriously considered the X200, but a 13.3" display is about as low as I feel I'd be comfortable going. Thanks.

Thought I'd throw in some resource monitoring results. This merely covers activity within Visual Studio and doesn't involve anything that might be happening in a virtual machine. However, I did have a virtual machine running a client OS environment while these readings were taken.

This is the mere act of loading a sizeable project in Visual Studio:



This is performing and actual build/compile of the project (the actual build process is represented in the first 50% of the graphs):



It doesn't look like the processor is being taxed much at all. However, this is on a Core 2 Quad 2.67GHz processor. I'll need to run a similar test at home on my Core 2 Duo 1.83GHz to get a better idea.

Do your existing machines perhaps allow adjusting the FSB and/or CPU multiplier downwards in the BIOS? That, and perhaps setting processor affinity masks on the Quad, might allow you to simulate the performance at 1.4GHz dual-core.

I read a post about 1.25 - 1.5 years ago from a programmer who said compiling using his SSD took about 3 times as long as a conventional hard disk. He blamed the (then) poor write performance of the SSD for the many small files produced by the compiler. SSDs seem to be coming on by leaps and bounds and, as far as I can make out, the SSDs in the X30x are good ones, but it might be another variable to consider. FYI I don't own nor have I used an X30x.

That's a good idea, FragrantHead. I'll have to give that a shot on Monday. I'd do it at home, but the best test case would be at work where my larger projects are at the moment.

I've also reconsidered the X200 series. I've decided that I could do a 12.1" display, but it's the WXGA resolution that gives me pause. The WXGA+ on the X200s may be an option for me.