Thinkpads Forum

Just picked up a T420 for a song (didn't have an OS or a product key). I5-2410M at 2.3GHz and Intel HD 3000 graphics, 1600x900 display. Loaded Windows 7 professional and updated all of the Lenovo and Microsoft updates.

Identical image on my T430 (i5-3320M at 2.6GHz + and Intel HD 4000 graphics, 1360x768 display) but the T430 aero graphics performance index is 4.8 and the T420 performance index is 5.7.

I would have thought the HD4000 graphics would be about twice as fast as the HD3000, not slower???

There could be multiple reasons:

1. Bad drivers.
2. Power management settings (BIOS and in Windows)
3. Performance Index testing was a fluke and needs to be re-run
4. Overheating causing throttling.
5. Different graphics settings in Intel driver.

Thanks Brchan:

1. Bad drivers. The display driver for the T430 is November 2013 while that for the T420 is Cctober 2013. Both updated through Lenovo update program
2. Power management settings (BIOS and in Windows) Have to investigate this further.
3. Performance Index testing was a fluke and needs to be re-run. Re run on both computers several times.
4. Overheating causing throttling. No evidence of this(?)
5. Different graphics settings in Intel driver. See 1.

I first thought it was the drivers but I'll look into the power management settings .

If you have Acronis or Clonezilla or similar, why don't you copy one disk to the other?
but first try the T420 HD in the T43o and v.v. and run/check each HD's performance in the other.
Then make the appropriate fastest copy to run in the other machine.

WEI is a terrible performance index tool. So terrible that MS have abandoned it with Win 8/8.1. A result for 3dMark would be more useful.

Cigarguy wrote:WEI is a terrible performance index tool. So terrible that MS have abandoned it with Win 8/8.1. A result for 3dMark would be more useful.

I don't disagree in absolute terms. But I would have thought as a relative measure, it would be OK.

I've checked that all drivers are identical now and that all power management settings are the same - no joy, still lower aero graphics score for the T430 than the T420. I'm going to try one of the other video benchmark programs and if that doesn't work, try swapping hard drives. May take a while though.

OK, something definitely wrong here...... 3dMark scores fro the T420 was 2700 while for the T430 was 470! I might just do a complete re-image of the T430 as the existing image is almost a year old while the T420 image is just a couple of days old. Not what I expected from the T430, though.

Let me guess, the T420 has 8GB of RAM and the T430 has 4GB?

Actually, quite the opposite - the T420 has 4Gb and the T430 has 8Gb. More importantly, possibly, the T420 has 2x2Gb and the T430 has 1x8Gb. With a dual channel system, this might favor the T420 slightly(?)

EDIT: Just ran the WEI on my kids' T430 laptops - Aero graphics score is 6.5. So there's definitely something amis with mine. Each of theirs have 2 matching SODIMMS (4 Gb x 2). So I'm thinking I'll first try installing a second memory module, then re-image the system. All hardware specs/settings are otherwise the same.

Dual Channel makes up to a 50% difference on those models.

Why don't you swap T430 RAM (your 1x8GB with their 2x4GB) and run the same WEI again on both machines?
Cheaper than buying another 8GB...

Indeed, you probably won't even use more than 4 GB of RAM at all, unless you work as a graphic artist or have other specific purpose for it. Even for computer games 4 GB is enough for now and probably will still be in the nearest future.

Well, one kid is in Chicago, the other in Easton, PA, and I'm in NC! In googling this today, it appears that you get 64 bits of memory bandwidth per channel in a dual channel system. So by having only a single SODIMM in the system, I'm only using half the potential 128bit memory bandwidth. Whether this is the entire explanation, I don't know but I'll see if I can get 2 matched SODIMS somewhere and try them.

kony wrote:Even for computer games 4 GB is enough for now and probably will still be in the nearest future.

Well, kinda, not really. But for anything that will run on a T420, that may still be true. On the T420, the GPU will limit you before the RAM does for most practical purposes.

Well, wiped the hard drive last night and did a clean install........... no difference whatsoever. So I bought an 8Mb 1600Mhz DDR3 SODIMM identical to the one that's in there now. Will post an update when it arrives.

OK, so here's the final scoop! Installed the 2nd 8Gb memory module today and "Hey Presto!" - graphics speed increases 1.6 points on the (dubious) Windows Experience Index. While I realize this is not a very good absolute measure of performance, it should be an acceptable relative measure, which it appears to be. The scores of my T430 are now the same as those of my 3 kids' T430s (similar configurations). Here are the scores of my T430:

T430 (8/0Gb) T430 (8/8Gb)
Memory 7.2 7.5
Aero graphics 4.9 6.5
Game graphics 6.4 6.5

So what do we learn from this exercise: Having 2 memory modules makes a significant difference in a T430 with a typical configuration, presumably because of the dual channel memory architecture.

Such thing is known for years... I think all SDRAMs work much better in dual-channel (or quad-channel), it surely was the case with DDR, with DDR2 and so is with DDR3. DDR4 will change in that regard though, as the way it is made will make it work efficiently with individual sticks, so there will be no longer need to have even number of sticks as odd numbers will be just as efficient.

Also, for Dual Channel to work in newer machines, you no longer need equal-size RAM modules.
2GB+2GB works the same as 2GB+1GB.

Yes, from my reading, that's my understanding, too. However, I believe only the matched memory will operate in dual channel mode (in your example only 2Gb total - the first 1Gb of the 2Gb module with the 1GB of the 1 Gb module). Not sure where that leaves the remaining 1GB on the 2Gb module (?)

sktn77a wrote: However, I believe only the matched memory will operate in dual channel mode (in your example only 2Gb total - the first 1Gb of the 2Gb module with the 1GB of the 1 Gb module). Not sure where that leaves the remaining 1GB on the 2Gb module (?)

Not quite.

2GB+1GB will run in asymetric dual channel mode, which is still faster than the single-channel operation.

Good point, if the chipset can handle asynchronous mode.

sktn77a wrote:Good point, if the chipset can handle asynchronous mode.

Huh...even T43/p could do that, and these are one step away from collecting SSDI nowadays....