240, 400Mhz, 320Mb or 240X, 500MHz, 192Mb: which is faster?

[icebag]

I have got both machines, but the 240 only has 192Mb at the moment. Is it worth getting 256Mb low density memory for it to take its memory to 320Mb, or will the 240X be quicker with its maximum of 192Mb?

[pianowizard]

As documented in this thread, for some reason I didn't see any gain in performance after upgrading my TP240 from 192MB to 320MB. I later had a 240X with 500MHz PIII and 192MB RAM, and it felt much faster.

BTW, digging up that thread reminded me how I had found this forum over two years ago: I was Googling around to look up whether the TP240 can take a 256MB stick.

[whizkid]

It will depend on what you actually do with the machine. If you need more than 192MB RAM, then the machine with only that much will spend a lot of time swapping to disk and it will be much slower.

If the dataset you need will fit into 192MB most of the time, then you won't swap much and the 500MHz will be faster.

[icebag]

Thank you for that. I am intending to keep one machine and sell the other. It sounds like I should keep the 240X as I use it mostly for internet and a little light word processing and spreadsheets.

[pianowizard]

Smart decision. When you start doing more demanding tasks, you can upgrade the hard drive to 7200rpm.

[tim S]

I had also wondered which was faster, the 240 or the 240X?

The 240 with a 400Mhz Celeron processor was the fastest.
There were also 240X models with Celerons but the flagship model had a 500Mhz Pentium III.
The difference between these two is obviously100Mhz, which is very little. However the Pentium III has twice the L2, or on chip cache, which is a lot.
The front side bus was also a little faster for the PIII.
But factor in 192Meg maximum ram, versus 320Meg for the 240 and I think the nod goes to the 400Mhz Celeron; or at best they should be even.
The ideal would be to put a PIII into a 240 but it’s just too much work!

Unfortunately I only have a 240 model, so the Pentium III is pure conjecture on my part.
I can say that my 320Meg, 400Mhz, 240Thinkpad with a 7200rpm drive runs XP very well and plays movies, in both full or wide screen, without frame loss.

Tim S

[icebag]

Hmmm. That does put a different slant on it. Perhaps I should get the 240 up to full memory and do some comparisons. I know what will happen: I will end up keeping both machines!

[tim S]

In order to made a real world speed comparison you’ll need a top
of the line 240, I know you own a Pentium III 240X but I don’t think anything less than a Celeron 400 in a 240 will make for a fair comparison.
If you have a 400 in your 240 then by all means max it out with memory.
As long as both drives are the same speed and you are running the same OS, you should be able to make a definitive judgment as to which is faster.
Or, if you are running XP in your Pentium III then post start up time from push on to the XP log on screen (no BIOS password). Mine slows a bit after that because of the built in ABG wireless. I still think it's in the 90 second range though.
Tim S

[pianowizard]

I failed to mention that I owned three 240's: 300MHz Celeron, 366MHz Celeron and 400MHz Celeron. The 500MHz PII 240X was by far the fastest. However, I think I only had 192MB RAM in the 400MHz Celeron 240.

[icebag]

I have just discovered another 240X in my collection. It has a 450MHz Celeron in it. Would that take 320MB memory?

(I had thought that 240 meant Celeron and 320MB max, while 240X meant PIII and 192MB max. Clearly it's not so simple.)

[phool@round]

Something noteworthy. The 240 Celerons are 66Mhz front side bus speed and the 240X's PIII/Celeron are 100Mhz.

A PIII 500 with 256 L2 isn't a barn burner neither.......

I think the pump's effeceincy was increased using the same electrical specs as the original 240 hence less memory address space. The battery design capacity wasn't changed (as far as I know) between the two.

[tom_k]

The 240x chipset cant take more than 256MB,
although it counts up to 320MB if you insert a 256MB PC 100 cl2 16chip
afterwards it usually freezes ;)

I also think a fast 7200harddrive would be the best choice.

If you can desolder the onboard ram (or find someone to do that job, thx@alibaba1001nacht)
IBM FRU33l3070 (256MB module) is fully recognized and working stable.
i have two 240x500, can`t say the the one with the ram-mod is running xp much faster than the other,
but i really like FrankenPads ;)

there are 3 different battery sizes for TP240 : small,
"normal" extended /double capacity of small
and the longer extended /triple capacity (usually in japan)

[phool@round]

All true.

About the batteries/choice of chipsets. What I simply meant was that the two systems would approximately run the same length of time using the same size battery even though they are different speeds.

If anyone has 95/98/NT4/2000 with a 240 and 240X they can run this benchmark tool; http://www.softlookup.com/download.asp?ID=9140
to find out if one's faster than the other. It's Winbench 99 and it's not the one for 3D benchmarking.

I only have a 240X with XP........

[tim S]

A more definitive test!
I just received a 240x with a Pentium III installed! That means I own the fastest 240 and the fastest 240X. Lucky me!!
Both have Windows XP SP2 installed and all updates.
The 240 is fully loaded with the programs I use, but the startups (through msconfig) are lean and mean.
The 240X just has XP SP2 and not much else yet.
So my Celeron 400Mhz, 240 with Pentium II BX architecture and 320Meg of ram is up against a PIII 240X with MX Pentium III architecture but only 128Meg at this point. The 240 also has a 7200rpm drive vs a 4200rpm in the 240X and there is no contest….. The X wins hands down!
The difference is the following:
The X’s BIOS is ‘better’ than the 240. There is only a short (typical) delay between the startup screen and boot, not the long delays associated with the 240.
In spite of the RAM difference, the X seems to jump between programs and mouse clicks while the 240 is quick but there is a definite pause between operations while it kinda ‘thinks’ about it!
Talking about total RAM. The Celeron 240 takes 320Meg (64 onboard + 256 on chip) along with 64K on the CPU, accessed with four (?) pipelines.
The PIII 240X has a total ram of 192Meg (64 onboard + 128 on chip) plus 128K on the CPU, accessed with 8 (?) pipelines. The 64K and 128K on CPU my not sound like much but it makes a massive real world difference, especially with double the access pipelines.
Tim S

[pianowizard]

tim S, thanks for the report.

In spite of the RAM difference, the X seems to jump between programs and mouse clicks while the 240 is quick but there is a definite pause between operations while it kinda ‘thinks’ about it!

How many programs were you running, and how demanding were these programs? I'd think that with lots of programs running simultaneously, the 320MB 240 would perform somewhat better than the 192MB 240X. For simple internet and Office stuff and minimal multitasking, 192MB of RAM is plenty and of course the 240X would outperform the 240.

[tim S]

II rarely keep more than one program open at a time. The 'slowness' of the 240 is noticeable to me when clicking on the start button for example (XP) and waiting for the menu to open, or clicking on a program shortcut and waiting. It’s only a short delay admittedly, but the 240X is the clear winner in this regard.
My 240 has an internal a/b/g card in place of the modem with antennas behind the screen. My 240X uses a PCMCIA 'G' card for now. Both connect to a wireless G router, the X not only logs on faster (software?) but scrolls and links more smoothly.
I can't wait for the128Meg chip I just ordered to get here!
Tim S

[icebag]

Thanks, tim S, this is a really interesting report. I certainly agree that a 240X seems faster than a 240, but then I have never used a 240 with 320MB. Like you, I tend to keep as few programs open as possible -- it just feels tidier that way. The 240X sounds like the winner.

[tom_k]

...The difference is the following:
The X’s BIOS is ‘better’ than the 240. There is only a short (typical) delay between the startup screen and boot, not the long delays associated with the 240...

This sounds to me as if the harddrives geometry is not correctly installed,
(hit esc at startup to see the post messages and how long the hd needs)
not "really wrong" but bios needs longer to translate it.
I watched this behaviour in many ThinkPads.
In most times Partition magic alerts with a partition table error eg Nr118.

DO NOT ALLOW PM TO REPAIR THIS ERROR!

..if you are not going to install your HD from zero,
because usually, after several errors and "repairs", PM ends up with error 105,
unable to repair any further and leaving you in a mess.

Another cause can be the mini pci card, so take it out and give it a try.

However, many thanks for the report tim s
it confirms me that it was no mistake to remove the 64MB onboard;)
Next step should be an xga for the 240x,
but i think thats gonna be much more difficult;)

[pianowizard]

Next step should be an xga for the 240x,
but i think thats gonna be much more difficult;)

Oh yeah, that would be a great upgrade but the cable and inverter are extremely hard to find, and the LCD is very expensive.

[tim S]

All my 240's exhibit the same long delay at boot. It's probably the newest (2003) BIOS' fault. IBM had moved on by then, so the delay was never addressed. The 240X has no such delay.
TIm S