T42p (2373GRU), T42 (2373CYU), T42p (2379DYU) Reviews...

[K. Eng]

All I have to say is that ID Tech panels suck. And I hope IBM never uses them ever again.

[Daniel]

Too bad for you because IBM owns a part of IDTech.

You must also remember that their Flexview screens are from ID Tech.

[Conmee]

2379-DYU Benchmarks:

Specs are 2379-DYU (5400RPM) vs. 2373-GRU (7200RPM). Both have 1.8GHz Dothan.

SiSoft Sandra 2004:

CPU-Dhrystone ALU: 7626 MIPS vs. 5650 (!!)
CPU-Whetston iSSE2: 3148 MFlops vs. ??
CPU-Int: 16830 vs. 17135
CPU-Flt: 18576 vs. 18870
Mem-Int diSSE2: 2258 vs. 2282
Mem-Flt diSSE2 2236 vs. 2263

HDD BufferedWrite 74MB/s vs. 72MB/s
HDD BufferedRead 89MB/s
HDD SequentialWrite 31MB/s
HDD SequentialRead 32MB/s
HDD RandomWrite 22MB/s
HDD RandomRead 22MB/s
HDD Total Drive Index: 28MB/s



3DMark03: 2566 vs. 2580 (no tweaking). Core and memory speed are the same on mine as for the 2373-GRU.

For each test, I disabled all networking, virus protection, and APS.

Mofongo

Mofongo,

I guess I should be very specific about benchmarks, so they are apples to apples, so to speak. lol

I used the initial release of SiSoft Sandra 2004. But I just went to the SiSoftware site and installed the latest Sandra 2004 SP2 (Ver. 2004.7.9.129). My test scores are more in line with expected results... see below. Can you double-check if you have the same version, Mofongo, since my memory scores are consistently coming in lower than what I got with the original tests. I've run Sandra 2004 SP2 a few times now, and my memory is consistently scoring lower. I wonder if you have SP1?!?!...

Following Mofongo's format....

Specs are 2379-DYU (5400RPM) vs. 2373-GRU (7200RPM). Both have 1.8GHz Dothan.

SiSoft Sandra 2004 Ver. 204.7.9.129 for the 2373GRU Test results:

CPU-Dhrystone ALU: 7626 MIPS vs. 7765 MIPS (that's better! )
CPU-Whetston iSSE2: 3148 MFlops vs. 3205 MFlops
CPU-Int: 16830 vs. 17136
CPU-Flt: 18576 vs. 18916
Mem-Int diSSE2: 2258 vs. 2185 (memory test looks worse than previous test)
Mem-Flt diSSE2 2236 vs. 2052 (ditto)

HDD BufferedWrite 74MB/s vs. 72MB/s
HDD BufferedRead 89MB/s vs. 88MB/s
HDD SequentialWrite 31MB/s vs. 34MB/s
HDD SequentialRead 32MB/s vs. 35MB/s
HDD RandomWrite 22MB/s vs. 25MB/s
HDD RandomRead 22MB/s vs. 26MB/s
HDD Total Drive Index: 28MB/s vs. 31MB/s (10ms avg. access time)

I basically turned off all my networking adapters (IEEE1349, Loopback, gigabit, bluetooth, wifi), disabled anti-virus, set power mgmt to High Performance, and turned off APS.

While the buffered reads and writes show a slight advantage with the 80GB drive (did you defrag and run the benchmark from a reboot right after logging in? do you have indexing on? I don't), which could be due to some differences in drive cache, etc (I think both drives have 8MB caches), the speed difference is more noticeable in the sequential and random reads/writes where the 60GB 7200RPM drive shows its advantage, along with the higher overall throughput score.... I'm thinking that's why the 60GB boots faster because it isn't relying on the cached reads at that point but the random/sequential reads, correct?

At any rate, very comparable systems. Just double-check the Sandra version you have Mofongo, since I would expect our CPUs to be much closer, differing by no more than 5-10 points, not 140! Did you have high performance set in power mgmt?

Anyhow, two great systems all the way around. I don't think folks can go wrong with either system.

Daniel.

[Mofongo]

Hmm...The version of SiSoft Sandra is the exact same as yours: 2004.7.9.129.

I have power management set to High Performance, and Bluetooth, Wifi, gigabit, anti-virus, and APS off. I just reran the CPU benchmarks and got exactly (within 2 points) of what I posted earlier. That is indeed very strange. Maybe tomorrow I will go hunting for other things to try and deactivate. The only other factor I can think of is heat...maybe my CPU was running a little hotter when I ran the test...I had had the system on for a couple of hours by that point. As for memory, how much system memory do you have? I have just the 512MB SODIMM. More memory could potentially load the northbridge down a bit.

I was surprised that out hard drives where so similar. The difference in the sequential stats are about right where they should be. At one point I figured out the data density per track of the 5K and 7K series drives...its higher for the 5K series. This means that you actually see less of a difference than the 5400 vs. 7200RPM would suggest. i.e. the 5K stores more data in a single revolution than the 7K, so if both were spinning at the same speed, the 5K would actually win. Where the 7K should win out is random access, since it has to wait less time for the disk to spin round to a random location of the cylinder. Even so, it's less than a 15% difference. I actually ran all the tests right after a defrag, but the system had been up for quite awhile.

In any case, I say it's all pretty [censored] good for a laptop.

Mofongo

[Conmee]

Mofongo,

Yeah, I have 1GB (2x512MB) so I'll take one SODIMM out and test again. I was thinking about the density issue as well with the drives. I believe the 80GB drives use the so-called 'pixie dust' technology and that might close some of the gap in performance that we would expect to see between the 72k and 54k drives. I'm also wondering if the firmware upgrade for the 72k drives might have slowed the drive down a bit to keep it from failing, or slowed down the head movement. Probably never know unless someone still has an original 60GB 72k drive to test that a) still works and b) still has the original firmware. I'd be interested in knowing.

At any rate, both machines are excellent. I'll play some games for a bit to get the system running at full temp, then reboot and try some benchmarks again. Also, there's a handy utility called "EndItAll" from PCMag that kills off all non-essential background processes. After you turn off networking, try running "EndItAll". Then run the benchmarks.

http://www.docsdownloads.com/enditall.htm

Daniel.


I don't think its readily available off the

[Mofongo]

At any rate, both machines are excellent. I'll play some games for a bit to get the system running at full temp, then reboot and try some benchmarks again. Also, there's a handy utility called "EndItAll" from PCMag that kills off all non-essential background processes. After you turn off networking, try running "EndItAll". Then run the benchmarks.

http://www.docsdownloads.com/enditall.htm

Daniel.

Neat utility! Very handy before defrags and such. I tried using that and running first thing after I turned the machine on. I only get about a 10 point increase in the CPU benchmarks.

At this point, it beats me why mine is slightly slower. What altitide are you at? Maybe the air is thinner in Pittsburgh. (just kidding) Or maybe my academic discount meant I got the slower version.

But seriously, the only thing is my screen had more pixels, but I don't see how that would affect the benchmark unless the graphics subsystem somehow affects the CPU. I don't know how these things work, but perhaps if the CPU has to redraw the screen every n microseconds, it could conceivably take mine a slightly longer time. Or if you have your graphics chipset clocked up a bit. But this is complete conjecture.

Mofongo

[Mofongo]

Hmmm...so I reread this thread and noticed that there was also a bigger discrepancy between your 2373CYU and your current GRU, even though they, too, should be the same (except for graphics).

Here's a table (apologies for poor formatting):

Benchmark___________2379DYU_____2373GRU_____2373CYU
========================================================
CPU-Dhrystone_ALU:__7626_MIPS___7765_MIPS___meaningless
CPU-Whetston_iSSE2:_3148_MFlops_3205_MFlops__N/A
CPU-Int:____________16830_______17136_______16518
CPU-Flt:____________18576_______18916_______18233
Mem-Int_diSSE2:______2258________2185________2184
Mem-Flt_diSSE2:______2236________2052________2193

HDD_BufferedWrite____74MB/s______72MB/s______69MB/s
HDD_BufferedRead____89MB/s______88MB/s
HDD_SequentialWrite___31MB/s______34MB/s
HDD_SequentialRead___32MB/s______35MB/s
HDD_RandomWrite____22MB/s______25MB/s
HDD_RandomRead____22MB/s______26MB/s
HDD_Total_Drive_Index:28MB/s_____31MB/s


So mine kind of falls in between the CYU and the GRU. Strange.

Actually, it looks like the more expensive the machine, the faster it is...even if you have the same processor.

Mofongo

[Daniel]

Actually, it looks like the more expensive the machine, the faster it is...even if you have the same processor.
Mofongo

Not when you have an academic discount

I'll be sure to post to this thread as soon as I receive mine. Hopefully it'll fall in line with what's considered normal.

[RaysMD]

2373GEU results

SiSoftware Sandra
Benchmark Results

Dhrystone ALU : 6834MIPS
Whetstone FPU : 2327MFLOPS
Whetstone iSSE2 : 2976MFLOPS

RAM Bandwidth Int Buff'd iSSE2 : 2214MB/s
RAM Bandwidth Float Buff'd iSSE2 : 2220MB/s

Drive Index : 33MB/s
Buffered Read : 89 MB/s
Sequential Read : 37 MB/s
Random Read : 28 MB/s
Buffered Write : 77 MB/s
Sequential Write : 37 MB/s
Random Write : 27 MB/s


Not too shabby for a 1.7GHz Banias. Mine's a keeper at 60% the price.

[GoyoNeuff]

Hi All:

I've got this:
2379DJU results

SiSoftware Sandra 2004
Benchmark Results

Dhrystone ALU : 6344MIPS
Whetstone FPU : 2255MFLOPS
Whetstone iSSE2 : 2817MFLOPS

RAM Bandwidth Int Buff'd iSSE2 : 2160MB/s
RAM Bandwidth Float Buff'd iSSE2 : 2162MB/s

Drive Index : 24MB/s
Buffered Read : 79 MB/s
Sequential Read : 26 MB/s
Random Read : 20 MB/s
Buffered Write : 77 MB/s
Sequential Write : 28 MB/s
Random Write : 22 MB/s

[Daniel]

My HDD readings were similar to the other 7k60 scores but for some reason when I tried to get another score again later today, the file was too fragmented. It was a 33MB drive index.

SiSoftware Sandra

Benchmark Results
Dhrystone ALU : 8551MIPS
Whetstone FPU : 2759MFLOPS
Whetstone iSSE2 : 3529MFLOPS


Integer x4 iSSE : 18860it/s
Float x4 iSSE2 : 20821it/s

[RaysMD]

2373-KTU, 2.0 GHz Dothan, 1 Gig Samsung RAM


SiSoftware Sandra SP2 .131


Dhrystone ALU : 8513MIPS
Whetstone FPU : 2746MFLOPS
Whetstone iSSE2 : 3514MFLOPS


RAM Bandwidth Int Buff'd iSSE2 : 2247MB/s
RAM Bandwidth Float Buff'd iSSE2 : 2061MB/s

[Kingwulf]

Hi,

I had 2373GRu and the right palm rest is getting hot (more like warm actually) so easily.

I heard that its because the video chip which located near the touchpad.

From the forum I see that 2373GRU may have short fan that may cause the laptop to be warm.

Is this correct?
I thought I had a perfect laptop

[awolfe63]

They all get pretty warm sometimes - but the GPU chip is just to the left of the touchpad. (at least if you hold the computer the same direction I do )

[plucky duck]

The physical size of the 14" T42p is a tight fit on the plane. For those who travel a fair bit I don't think a 15" T42 would be used comfortably on the plane. Unless you're flying 1st class

I'm glad I went with the 14" rather than the 15".