Onboard graphics vs ATI fireGL128 ??

[seaweedsl]

I'm seeing that the cost of keeping these great thinkpad R5X and T4X s running is periodic motherboard replacement.

OK fine. Motherboard failure is not trivial but nor is it fatal to the machine. Just has to be swapped out. I can handle $100-200 and a day of notebook maintenance every year or three.

I havean R50p and intend to stick with it and/or T42p for a while. I currently need to replace the motherboard and I 'm wondering if I really want/need to get the one with the discreet FireGL 128 graphics over the cheaper and more common onboard Intel graphics.

So, I see three points to compare them on:

- Performance hits - obviously the FireGL 128 is the better for graphics. My question is- how much, and will I notice any lag or issues in daily performance apart from games using the Intel at 1600x1200.

Also, I can imagine that having discrete graphics takes a load off of the processor. But with a centrino 1.7, say, how much? 10%-40%?

And there's the shared memory, but with 1GB in XP, I feel like that's a non issue.

-Reliability- Seems that the onboard graphics one is less likely to fail than the discrete.

-Cost & availibilty- A system board with FireGL 128 costs at least $100 more. There are many more R51 boards around than the R50p or T4Xp.


It comes down to performance though. If a motherboard with onboard graphics is wheezing through tasks on UXGA, or even shows noticable lag in common tasks, then that's that.

I know that at least one person here has used an R51 board with UXGA panel.

So, given plenty RAM, can anybody with experience or testing give me an idea of how much performance hit it is with onboard graphics and UXGA?




...

[aaa]

Don't forget about the lower-spec'd ATi boards, like the 7500 or 9000, They are about the same price as the Intel boards. You lose the reliability advantage but they are still a bit faster than Intel. (don't actually know how they'd handle UXGA, leaning towards it not being a problem for either).

[ajkula66]

You'd need 2Gb of RAM to off-set the Intel board compared to ATi 128, and that kills any saving that you might make buying one over another...

Brand new boards with ATi FireGl can be found in a $200-225 range...but one has to look and be on top of things...

You can run an UXGA LCD off integrated graphics, but it's a sin to do so in my opinion...people have run it even with Radeon 7500...how well is a whole another matter, or with what amount of performance loss...

Good luck.

[seaweedsl]

Found this:
http://www.cotsjournalonline.com/home/a ... 0119&pg=2

The Intel 855GME GMCH .... has four display ports, one analog and three digital. ....GMCH can provide support for a progressive scan analog monitor, a dedicated dual channel LVDS LCD panel and two digital video output (DVO) devices. ...

The analog display port can support pixel resolutions up to 1600 x 1200 (UXGA) at 85 Hz refresh and up to 2048 x 1536 at 75 Hz refresh, while the integrated dual channel local flat panel (LFP) Transmitter interface can support LVDS LCD panel resolutions up to UXGA.

Another: http://www.linuxdevices.com/articles/AT5006522831.html

[855GME] system video can only be described as stellar. You can, for example, use mplayer to decode MPEGs of Lance Armstrong winning his fifth Tour de France scaled to full-screen resolution, while compiling kernels in the background, without any jerkiness to speak of at all. UXGA resolution (1600 x 1200) is supported with 24-bit color, and looks great.

....As for 3D performance, glxgears runs just under 12 frames per second at UXGA resolution (1600x1200), and much faster at more normal gaming resolutions -- about 60fps on a lightly loaded system at 800x600.

[seaweedsl]

More info:
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Ext ... 179.0.html

Intel Extreme Graphics 2. It is hardly suited for 3D-games. 3D Mark 05 does not start due to the lack of pixel shader support.

It does not support Windows Vista Aero.

[ajkula66]

You're puzzling me here, and that takes a lot...

What are you trying to accomplish?

Self-justification for possibly taking the cheap way out, or repairing the unfortunate R50p...

Bottom line is very simple: yes, the Intel board will power your gorgeous FlexView. No, it will not be anywhere close to ATi GL2 that you're used to.

If you need me to find you a new ATi board here and ship it to Mexico, all you have to do is drop me a line...I would really like to see that machine back to its full glory, but hey, you're the one paying for it..

[seaweedsl]

Sorry if it seems pointless. I'll try to explain myself again and then drop it!

I started the thread because I thought people might be able to share some concrete experience and help me determine if it makes any difference at all in daily use. We assume it does, but sometimes assumptions are false.

The thing is, I've lost three Thinkpad motherboards down here in 24 months . A T23, R51 and R50p. I parted out the T23 but plan on staying with R5x/T4x for a while.

Since replacement parts are not nearly so easy or cheap to get as when in the US, and motherboards are what go out on these, I intend to keep a spare onhand to maintain our (soon to be 3) family Thinkpads. Plus my two friend/neighbor's. A mix of R50p and R51s.

So, besides my R50p replacement MB, I also want to have a MB around for general backup purposes. That will be an R51 board. For me, buying TWO FireGLs is just too expensive right now, and would be overkill for a failed R51. But I'm learning that it could serve in a pinch for an R50p to keep it up and running.

Thanks for the offer of help, George. I considered asking you about a replacement, but have been offered a nice T42p MB already so I think I'm set for my R50p.

Just now I won an R51 MB on Ebay. $75.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vi ... :IT&ih=023

If I ever end up installing it in a UXGA machine, I'll share my impressions.

Steve

[sjthinkpader]

I think T40, T41, R50s are susceptible to the GPU detaching problem. T42 and R51 are slightly lower risk.

T43 and R52s are best because they use DDR2 and being later designs, also the lowest risk on the GPU issue.

I am using a 7500 (A31) matched to an UXGA and it works fine for general use. I don't doubt that some graphics function may not work in this machine.

[seaweedsl]

I think T40, T41, R50s are susceptible to the GPU detaching problem. T42 and R51 are slightly lower risk.

T43 and R52s are best because they use DDR2 and being later designs, also the lowest risk on the GPU issue.

I am using a 7500 (A31) matched to an UXGA and it works fine for general use. I don't doubt that some graphics function may not work in this machine.

Thanks for the input. I suspect that the 7500 with 64 dedicated will outperform an intel extreme 2, but they are probably in the same class, anyway.

And I appreciate the info/opinion about which are more likely to fail. I had figured that IBM must have at least tried to reduce the failure rate as they released new models. Perhaps they dealt with it in the manufacturing process as the design was probably fixed long in advance.

Steve

[sjthinkpader]

This should be an ATI problem. IBM likely relied on ATI's test data, which may be flawed.

The intel northbridge and southbridge are both large BGAs and they have no such problem.

Incidentally ATI is now part of AMD. I wonder if you bought the liability or not.

[ajkula66]

IBM changed the soldering process late in the life of T4x series. T43/p units have different solder joints (even the colour) than the rest of them. These can also be found on some late T42 boards with ATi 9600.

I would imagine that 7500 has the highest failure rate, but then again, it's the most common GPU around. Boards with Intel integrated GPU are generally deemed safe.

I'd stick with original design board, as flawed as it may be...

My $0.02 only...

[sjthinkpader]

The later solder is RoHS compatible. But leadfree solder is actually harder (less eutectic) than the lead containing solder.

The problem lies with silicon coverage area is more than other single die BGAs. Silicon has a much smaller TEC (temperature expansion coefficient). So as the chips got hot, the FR4 substrate material expands more than the chips does. The solder then eventually fractures after many heating and cooling cycles.

The 7500 used in A31 are single die packages but 7500 used in T40/T41 are multi-chip packages. GPU problems are much less in A31s.

[seaweedsl]

Oh... ATI based problem, yes. That one must have cost IBM. In repair and reputation.

Oh well, there's always a weak link. And I suppose it's likely to be found due to flexing or heat issues in a "thin and light" notebook.

That's why the R series seems like a safer bet for reliability.

But as prices go down, I'll soon be able to afford to maintain a T42-3p anyway.

[sjthinkpader]

I think R series are better simply due to coming to market later. The GPU package structure is very similar.

Please see my comments here.

Flexing vs temp cycling

[seaweedsl]

I think R series are better simply due to coming to market later. The GPU package structure is very similar.

Please see my comments here.

Flexing vs temp cycling

OH ! That's a different point of view. If it's not flexing due to thinness, then the R50p should show about the same MB failure rate as the T42P ?

Checking my info, it seems that they didn't come out at the same time, though. I see the R50p availible in 2003 and the T42p in 2005 - so the T42p should actually have the advantage ?

I'm confused, I must admit. Can anyone comment on whether the R50p failure rate tends to be higher/lower/same as T42p?

[aaa]

I've tried this, and it did not work for some reason.

Tried to use an SXGA+ screen with an R51's Intel graphics, and nothing showed on screen (booted up though). Odd, given that Intel says that it should work with up to UXGA. Maybe it was the cable? It was the T4x SXGA cable.

[seaweedsl]

Considering that the intel graphics on the R51 board are rated for UXGA and that others have reported that it works, I wonder if you don't have some other problem.

Graphics driver not installed.
Cable loose or bad?
Um, bad MB? bad screen?

Please post if any more news. I would like to know for sure how this goes....

Steve

[seaweedsl]

This other thread looks to be possibly similar?

http://forum.thinkpads.com/viewtopic.php?t=63205

[sjthinkpader]

I've tried this, and it did not work for some reason.

Tried to use an SXGA+ screen with an R51's Intel graphics, and nothing showed on screen (booted up though). Odd, given that Intel says that it should work with up to UXGA. Maybe it was the cable? It was the T4x SXGA cable.

I have a R52 with intel graphics and SXGA+ LCD. I do have a UXGA LCD but no cable to try it.

[aaa]

I've tried this, and it did not work for some reason.

Tried to use an SXGA+ screen with an R51's Intel graphics, and nothing showed on screen (booted up though). Odd, given that Intel says that it should work with up to UXGA. Maybe it was the cable? It was the T4x SXGA cable.

I have a R52 with intel graphics and SXGA+ LCD. I do have a UXGA LCD but no cable to try it.

There's the 855gm versus 915gm issue there.

[underclocker]

Below is some info from Intel's website. I'd really like to see if this can be figured out. I have been able to use R51 Intel GPU mobo's in T4x chassis with XGA LCDs (http://forum.thinkpads.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=65505), but if SXGA+ will work, that would be very attractive for more people.

I will soon post some benchmarks that I ran between ATI 7500 (from a T41) and the Intel 855 integrated (from an R51). The preview is that performance is quite close. I would imagine that the ATI 9000, 9600, Fire GL, and Fire GL T2 do a lot better in video test, as they should.

I have two good SXGA+ assemblies from a T41 and a T42, I'll test them soon on the R51 Intel board.

(Judging by the info below, UXGA, 1600 X 1200, should work.)

Intel's site indicates that either the BIOS/EC or the EDID info must provide support for the SXGA+ resolution, since SXGA+ 1400 X 1050 isn't a native "static mode".

Specifically, Intel (855) graphics drivers support:

Display modes reported by the monitor’s EDID (Extended Display Information Data). Only plug and play monitors can provide EDID information to a computer.

Custom display modes defined within the Video BIOS Table (VBT) by the computer manufacturer.

Static modes for non Plug and Play monitors without an EDID. The set of basic static display modes (at 60Hz and up to 32bpp colors) include 640x480, 800x600, 1024x768, 1280x1024, and 1600x1200.

http://support.intel.com/support/graphi ... 022544.htm