Thinkpads Forum

Hi,

I'm considering buying a X100e after reading experiences here, it seems that the X100e is worthy of the Thinkpad name.

What doesn't look clear to me is how fast is the little bugger's CPU, how does it compare to an old CPU like a P4 at 2.6? or a Pentium M at 1.6 (X40)?

Can anyone please benchmark it?

It is clear to me that the graphics are more than OK for a laptop that cheap as it comes with an ATI Radeon HD3200, does Aero run smooth? I guess so isn't?

If the CPU compares well to the aforementioned P4 at 2.6 I'll get a X100e tomorrow! I'm quite excited about it, I have an X40 and I would like to give it to my wife (who loves it) and get me the new X100e .

Many thanks in advance

Many thanks, quite funny I found the Passmark software and did not spot they publish CPU comparisons

I'm convinced now the machine is worth it, but I would like to hear more from the day to day experiences, I'm quite interested to know if the machine gets sluggish when running Outlook 2007, my exchange mailbox is huge >10gb.

I know it is not the machine to run Photoshop nor Crysis, but we know it can play HD video and it does not struggle with Aero... but does it feel snappy, or appropriate on the day to day?

Does it need (or comes with) any special movie player? or does it play HD using good old Videolan?

Is the hard drive as slow as the one in the X40? (had to put an SSD on mine)

I am also considering buying an ultraportable laptop, these days or in few months.

I own a Thinkpad R51 (2004, Pentium M 1,6Ghz), which isn’t used anymore, and a Macbook unibody (2009, Core 2 Duo 2Ghz).

First I was looking for a 12”/13” to pair off with my Macbook. I need something lighter and maybe smaller, useful for advanced office tasks (MS Office with VBA macros) and with the ability to easily handle big external screens. 11,6" is an interesting form factor.

I have the same question about the CPU performance: In terms of performances, is the AMD Neo MV-40 1,6Ghz closer to a Pentium M 1,6Ghz or a Core 2 Duo 2,0Ghz? Am I going to lost lots of power for multitaskings?

And also another one about the AMD Vision Pro: Is the laptop convenient to plug on a large external monitor with a bigger resolution ? How do the x100e react in terms of fans and heat (from the Radeon chip)? I think this is the purpose of the AMD Vision Pro ... ?

Otherwise I also take a look at the HP ProBook 5310m (13”).

Danoc wrote: I have the same question about the CPU performance: In terms of performances, is the AMD Neo MV-40 1,6Ghz closer to a Pentium M 1,6Ghz or a Core 2 Duo 2,0Ghz? Am I going to lost lots of power for multitaskings?

As to whether it's suitable for you: there's no way to tell without knowing what your typical workload consists of.

Compared to a C2D, it's inferior, without a shadow of a doubt. There's simply no contest.

Another thing to consider is the lack of HDMI output. The X100e really doesn't sound like a good choice for you.

Do you mean VGA isn't enough?

Danoc wrote:Do you mean VGA isn't enough?

HDMI is superior, but really it's just the icing on the cake. If you're wanting performance more like a 2 GHz Core 2 Duo, the X100e won't deliver.

I understand that the CPU is lower than a Core 2 Duo. But even with less performances, the question is if the user can feel it or not on office tasks and web browsing. Someone wrote on jkontherun's comments:

The Athlon Neo MV-40 is roughly equivalent to a 1.4 GHz Core 2 Solo, much faster than a single core Atom.

http://jkontherun.com/2010/03/16/kickin ... /#comments

That doesn't seem bad.

Anyway, James Kendrick from jkontherun likes it.

Danoc wrote:I understand that the CPU is lower than a Core 2 Duo. But even with less performances, the question is if the user can feel it or not on office tasks and web browsing. Someone wrote on jkontherun's comments:

<quote>The Athlon Neo MV-40 is roughly equivalent to a 1.4 GHz Core 2 Solo, much faster than a single core Atom.</quote>

http://jkontherun.com/2010/03/16/kickin ... /#comments

That doesn't seem bad.

Anyway, James Kendrick from jkontherun likes it.

I like it too. And I would agree it seems much faster in use than my father-in-law's Atom netbook, and felt a lot faster in use even before I did my hard drive swap. My biggest worry is that I'll give an impression it is a good performer (which it is for me), you'll get one, and do more multitasking where it'll bog down more than you expect.

I have no performance problems at all with mine, though. In fact for productivity tasks, I'm fine using it on battery, no issues at all.

Ok, thanks for the feed-back.

Can you confirm that the hinges aren't in plastics?

The hinges are metal, and quite stiff. I understand the machine doesn't have a roll cage, but you'd never know it; the whole body is nice and stiff, and in general build quality appears to be first-rate. In fact I'd rate the build quality as better than the T6x series so far.

I am not a heavy multitasker, but thought I'd share my results nonetheless. With 9 windows of Google Chrome open, two Word documents, one Notepad text file, Windows Media Player playing an HD movie, two Windows Explorer windows, Adobe Reader 9 opened to a large PDF file, and Warcraft III-- RAM usage was around 1.2 gigs, and processor use hovered around 60-70%.

I still don't have Photoshop loaded on this machine. I think that's where the processor's shortcomings would be most noticeable, processor- and ram-hungry applications like that. But this is not a slow machine IMHO.

I also don't think most people would need more than 2 GB of RAM, unless using something like Photoshop where they wanted better performance. Simple multitasking that most people would do probably wouldn't need more than 2 GB. Even with music running in the background, a slew of browser windows, etc. I just don't see how it could stack up to 4 GB. It seems to be an increasing practice to load a machine with 4 GB or even 8 GB of RAM, but I wonder how many eager buyers realize that the RAM they're buying will never be used.

Of course, I am running Windows in a minimal way. I guess some OS features could consume extra RAM, although I wouldn't know what they are. I tend not to like a lot of crap running in the background, unless it will actually help me run my programs or the machine.

jvarszegi wrote:I am not a heavy multitasker, but thought I'd share my results nonetheless. With 9 windows of Google Chrome open, two Word documents, one Notepad text file, Windows Media Player playing an HD movie, two Windows Explorer windows, Adobe Reader 9 opened to a large PDF file, and Warcraft III-- RAM usage was around 1.2 gigs, and processor use hovered around 60-70%.

I still don't have Photoshop loaded on this machine. I think that's where the processor's shortcomings would be most noticeable, processor- and ram-hungry applications like that. But this is not a slow machine IMHO.

I also don't think most people would need more than 2 GB of RAM, unless using something like Photoshop where they wanted better performance. Simple multitasking that most people would do probably wouldn't need more than 2 GB. Even with music running in the background, a slew of browser windows, etc. I just don't see how it could stack up to 4 GB. It seems to be an increasing practice to load a machine with 4 GB or even 8 GB of RAM, but I wonder how many eager buyers realize that the RAM they're buying will never be used.

Of course, I am running Windows in a minimal way. I guess some OS features could consume extra RAM, although I wouldn't know what they are. I tend not to like a lot of crap running in the background, unless it will actually help me run my programs or the machine.

If you have windows vista, or 7, it will use every last drop of ram as cache.
i have 8GB, 3 firefox tabs, and pidgin with a few chats, task manager says physical usage is roughly 1.6gb, plus another 6gb of cache with 268mb "free" (6400mb "available")

So, yes, 2gb would run perfectly fine, but it'd hit the HDD a ton more for OS files and stuff it couldn't otherwise have in cache ram.

blackomegax wrote: If you have windows vista, or 7, it will use every last drop of ram as cache.
i have 8GB, 3 firefox tabs, and pidgin with a few chats, task manager says physical usage is roughly 1.6gb, plus another 6gb of cache with 268mb "free" (6400mb "available")

So, yes, 2gb would run perfectly fine, but it'd hit the HDD a ton more for OS files and stuff it couldn't otherwise have in cache ram.

Not necessarily. I am running Windows 7 and it is not using every last drop of RAM as cache; the numbers are reported above. What you are probably seeing is "superfetch" or "readyboost" (can't keep all these Microsoft terms straight any more), which is actually disabled when you install Windows onto an SSD, at least a fast one.

This makes sense, since there's not really a need to cache a bunch of possibly unused files in RAM if your disk is fast enough.

What this helps to show is that it probably makes more sense for most people to buy an SSD rather than max out RAM, if they want to speed up performance and want bang for their buck. And if you max out the entire machine with the best RAM and SSD you can buy, you still will waste your money on that RAM unless you use a program that can take advantage of it. That means most users still shouldn't buy all that RAM; it's a waste of money. It won't speed up your system at all if it sits idle.

I think the X100e L625 is about 1/2 the cost of an X201 with similar warranties. So you are paying 1/2 the price but getting something portable but 1/2 the power of a say T7500 C2D over 2Ghz. When you could pay more and get something portable and twice the power of what you have. You would be future proof too and with the ultrabase you would have a replacement in the form of a desktop for your current Thinkpad. If you look at cost on an annual basis, then the choice of the X100e becomes also less favorable, especially if you start adding SSDs, RAM anything to try to get it to narrow the performance gap with what you have now and what you are accustomed to.

I don't think that's a bad deal, half the price for half the processing performance, if the processing performance is adequate. The machine is obviously aimed at office-type workers who want an ultraportable on a budget, and it delivers.

If you want to talk about spreading the cost over multiple years, you can apply that thinking to any purchase. Why not max out every possible option and get the most expensive machine you can afford? The obvious answer is that you don't need every last option; you buy the best value for your needs.

How is spreading a half-cost option over multiple years somehow "less favorable"? It's half the cost per year, if you like, instead of half the cost at time of purchase. Of course, actually spreading the cost of any purchase over multiple years would usually involve financing at extra cost.

There's nothing magical about a particular processor or speed. Laptops have always been offered with a range of different processing options, on a pricing continuum. Just like buying a car, you buy what you need. And just like buying a car (I believe you may be partial to Mustangs, for example), extra power may be wasted if it would not offer an actual functional advantage in day-to-day use of a machine. A car that accelerates to 100 MPH quickly is not more future-proof just because of that than a slower-accelerating car; the speed limit is the same for your Mustang and a Toyota Tercel or whatever your comparison point is.

I'm loving my X100e despite the fact it only has a single core-- that's hypothetically a quarter the processing power of your proposed competitor, which of course is simply not comparable; it's twice the price for a machine in a different class.

I think what you're missing is that enough is enough when it comes to performance. I don't use it for anything where the humble processing power of the MV-40 is exceeded, or nearly so (see the report above, showing the machine is clearly adequate for office work at least). I do a lot of office work, which is what the machine seems to be intended for. Someone with robust processing needs probably would not be best served by a stripped-down X201, either; they might be better served by maxing out the processor, RAM etc. But for the vast majority of office workers, processing needs have not increased in proportion to available processor speeds. You may have a different experience if you really do use ginormous spreadsheets that max out your current T61's processor on a regular basis; that means you need more of a workstation than a lower-performance budget machine, and should look elsewhere.

In terms of buying for an office, half the price is also a pretty compelling proposition. You can equip two workers with a Thinkpad that lets them get their work done, on warranty, instead of just one worker. Companies tend to not worry whether their workers can play the latest games. And except for a salesperson, uber-battery life is not that important. So for a lot of people, and especially the business people that form the most traditional Thinkpad market, an X100e may well be a more compelling value than even the cheapest X201. This is even more so when you factor in the excellent keyboard and the size of this smallest current Thinkpad.

In my opinion it's a bargain. It seems to be in demand, so they must be doing something right. It would be interesting to see sales figures of the X100e.

What I hear you saying, over and over on this board, is "I don't like it", in between suggesting various perceived faults of the machine. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Until you actually have at least touched one, I think you aren't getting the full picture on the actual usefulness of the machine.

BTW I'm not saying I don't like it and not slamming it. Actually still under consideration because I and others do need something portable, hence the analytical support for the opintions or thoughts. The X100e dual core has dropped in price although I think that is a result of weaning out the WWAN. BTW my bias comes from having used Atom powered netbooks where the performance was a huge disappointment despite a high ticket so I'm hesitant to make the same mistake. Fortunately I was able to return it due to a defect unrelated to performance. Venturing into these new generation of low cost lower powered notebooks/netbooks require more analysis than it does for high powered high cost notebooks as in the past where people just plunked down their hard earned pesos for the latest but they knew what they got and didn't have to guess whether the car could reach their desired speed. The replacement cycle is a factor. Just like a plant that manufacturers widgets, one needs new equipment over a certain time frame not every year.