2.4 GHZ with 2GB RAM or 2.2 GHZ with 3GB RAM?

Message

rayZR · #1 Post by **rayZR** » Wed Oct 03, 2007 2:54 am

people... am planning on buying a new T61P however because of budget concerns... only one of the following can be bought

2.4 GHZ with 2GB RAM or 2.2 GHZ with 3GB RAM?

need your knowledge on which combination would make a better machine for:
1. 3d modelling applications like MAYA
2. &

Gaming

some pronto advice will be much appreciated.
cheers

rayZR · #2 Post by **rayZR** » Wed Oct 03, 2007 2:55 am

also i forgot to mention... I will be running XP professional on either of these machines

rayZR · #3 Post by **rayZR** » Wed Oct 03, 2007 2:58 am

OR even a 2.6 GHZ with 2 GB RAM

... sorry for the disconnected msgs

#4 Post by **erik** » Wed Oct 03, 2007 8:09 am

more memory is always better for 3D apps like maya, 3Dsmax, solidworks, etc. newegg has crucial 2GB DDR2-667 modules for $115.49 each. my vote would be a T7500 + 1GB purchased with the thinkpad + 2GB purchased separately.

in vista ultimate x64 i'm currently using 2594MB with photoshop, illustrator, and excel open. opening one more major app (like solidworks with a complex model) will push me close to and sometimes over 3GB. like i said, more memory is always better.

rayZR · #5 Post by **rayZR** » Wed Oct 03, 2007 11:47 am

sounds like a plan,
Thanks mate..

SLoweCSL · #6 Post by **SLoweCSL** » Wed Oct 03, 2007 2:19 pm

I would go with the faster processor. Adding ram to the system later down the road is much easier that trying to upgrade a processor on a laptop.

rayZR · #7 Post by **rayZR** » Thu Oct 04, 2007 6:34 pm

does anyone know the ' company make' of the RAM the T61p uses?
Is it KIngston?

rayZR · #8 Post by **rayZR** » Thu Oct 04, 2007 6:39 pm

From this list...

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductLi ... gesize=100

......could someone suggest the 2GB dimm to install on a new T61p?
I am taking your advice and getting a machine with 1 GB RAM and will buy a 2GB DIMM from the above list based on your suggestions and install it to complete 3GB.

Thank You

#9 Post by **erik** » Thu Oct 04, 2007 7:59 pm

rayZR wrote:does anyone know the ' company make' of the RAM the T61p uses?
Is it KIngston?

typically it's infineon, samsung, or micron.

rayZR wrote:From this list...
......could someone suggest the 2GB dimm to install on a new T61p?

i'm sticking with my original suggestion posted above; crucial 2GB DDR2-667.

Altadena_Mark · #10 Post by **Altadena_Mark** » Fri Oct 05, 2007 10:28 am

Can anyone advise me as to whether a DIMM with a heat spreader will fit into a X61s and whether heat spreader really work and are worth the effort/cost. Thanks.

rayZR · #11 Post by **rayZR** » Fri Oct 05, 2007 4:07 pm

Hi ERIK
OKKAY.. I am going to order my machine.... BUT I hope you're sure that I can add more RAM to a new T61 with complicating any of the warranty mumbo-jumbo

thanks.

DAH · #12 Post by **DAH** » Fri Oct 05, 2007 4:23 pm

Even if you order the ram from IBM at the same time as the T6x you are likely to find the ram in a small brown box, not inside your T6x! I believe I'd order the fastest machine you can get. The 2.6GHz, T6x and then I would consider getting two of the crucial 2GB DDR2-667 sticks. I believe having two of the same sticks adds to the performance and to the reliability of the machine.

rayZR · #13 Post by **rayZR** » Sat Oct 06, 2007 12:51 am

Hey DAH and Erik,

OKKK the 2.6 GHZ is OUT and IBM will not offer it yet.

Now the important question is this....

IS it worth the 235 bucks , performance-wise to get the 2.4 GHZ rather than the 2.2GHZ? remember both machines will finally be on 3GB RAM.

Let me repeat my primary uses again.
1. Run 3d modelling software like Maya and MAX and do some hardcore modelling and rendering.
2.Play Games.. hopefully some of the new ones...

Another question: as DAH mentioned, its better to run two RAM chips from the same company. then should I rather get the total 3GB from IBM itself?

Thanks for your help guys.... i wouldve been at sea with all this without you all.

#14 Post by **ryengineer** » Sat Oct 06, 2007 2:21 am

rayZR wrote:snip...........BUT I hope you're sure that I can add more RAM to a new T61 with complicating any of the warranty mumbo-jumbo........snip

Will installing RAM by meself void the warranty?

rayZR · #15 Post by **rayZR** » Sat Oct 06, 2007 8:33 am

coul some one please help with the previous question????

#16 Post by **erik** » Sat Oct 06, 2007 8:50 am

rayZR wrote:OKKK the 2.6 GHZ is OUT and IBM will not offer it yet.

i was told that the 2.6GHz C2D mobile extreme processor would be available within the next few weeks. obviously this depends on intel's supply so that might be what's causing the hangup.

rayZR wrote:IS it worth the 235 bucks , performance-wise to get the 2.4 GHZ rather than the 2.2GHZ? remember both machines will finally be on 3GB RAM.

in my opinion, no. the difference between 2400MHz and 2200Mhz is only 9%. only you can decide if a 9% gain in speed is worth $235 but i highly doubt you'll notice anything. the only reason why i got the T7700 over the T7500 is because i got a smoking deal and thought, "what the hell, why not?"

3GB of ram will be a much better investment. processor speed is much less important when running memory-heavy apps since even the fastest processor will slow to a crawl without enough physical memory.

danny_isr · #17 Post by **danny_isr** » Sat Oct 06, 2007 12:18 pm

erik wrote: the difference between 2400MHz and 2200Mhz is only 9%. only you can decide if a 9% gain in speed is worth $235 but i highly doubt you'll notice anything.

and that is 9% CPU speed.....how much REAL speed we are talking here ..who knows but much less.
IMO ...NOT worth it.
Heck i don't see even gain from my T43- 2Ghz Single CPU to my Current T61p-2.2Ghz Core 2 Duo ....

real life performance always disappoint me

#18 Post by **erik** » Sat Oct 06, 2007 12:35 pm

danny_isr wrote:Heck i don't see even gain from my T43- 2Ghz Single CPU to my Current T61p-2.2Ghz Core 2 Duo ....

real life performance always disappoint me

agreed. my T61p doesn't seem all that much faster than the T42p (2.1GHz + 2GB) that it replaces. processes that require a lot of memory are faster but that's because i doubled the memory, not the processor speed.

my next upgrade won't be until we can install and use 8GB+ physical memory, regardless of processor speeds. and, if the T61p platform ends up being compatible with upcoming 4GB SODIMMs then i probably won't upgrade for years to come -- or at least until IPS panels make a comeback.

rayZR · #19 Post by **rayZR** » Sat Oct 06, 2007 2:26 pm

Thanks people.... MUCH help...

appreciate it very much

rayZR · #20 Post by **rayZR** » Sat Oct 06, 2007 8:34 pm

guys...
do you think it will be worth the money to go for the full 4GB ?
I read somewhere,... that win XP does not recognise 4GB and only shows a max of 3GB.

Is this true?

your thoughts please on this.....

#21 Post by **erik** » Sat Oct 06, 2007 8:43 pm

refer to my article stickied at the top of this forum:
T61/p memory limitations -- the definitive answer

it's locked so if you have any specific questions you'll need to ask them here. however, the results are pretty straightforward.

rayZR · #22 Post by **rayZR** » Sat Oct 06, 2007 9:15 pm

a stupid question :

If xp pro sp2 32-bit sees only 3GB out of 4GB... then Is the other 1 GB being used?

so would you suggest I get 4 GB on the T61P?

#23 Post by **erik** » Sat Oct 06, 2007 10:11 pm

the last 1GB in XP/vista 32 is mapped out of the addressable memory space and cannot used whatsoever. this is an OS limitation.

4GB is up to you. first you'll have to decide what OS you can run based on your current peripherals and software; XP (with 3GB), server 2003, or vista 64-bit. if you don't already know, 2003 is not a user-friendly OS and licenses start at $675. unless you need the full version of IIS6 on a workstation and can afford the license, i'd recommend against it. vista has its own list of issues so you'll have to do some homework on that. if XP is your only choice then you're stuck with 3GB for now.

rayZR · #24 Post by **rayZR** » Sat Oct 06, 2007 11:35 pm

Hey ERIK

I found this on the Crucial website:

'Why doesn't my Windows® PC recognize the whole 4GB of memory I installed?

The maximum amount of memory that your system can use is actually limited in two ways — not only is there a maximum amount of memory that your computer motherboard can accept, there is also a maximum amount of memory that your operating system (OS) can accept.

For instance, when you install 4GB of memory in a 32-bit Windows system (the most common version; 64-bit systems are typically used only by high-end users), your system will see (and utilize) only 3GB or 3.5GB. Is the problem bad memory?

Relax, there isn't a problem with the memory. Windows allows for 4GB of memory to be addressed, but this isn't 100 percent the same as having 4GB of physical memory.

What happens is that some of the addressable memory (regardless of how much you have physically installed) is reserved for use by page files or by some of the devices that you are using, such as a graphics card, PCI card, integrated network connections, etc., so it's unavailable for use as normal main memory.

The amount of memory needed for these devices is calculated by your system at startup; if you haven't maxed out the memory in your system, it's invisible to you, and all your physical memory (the RAM that's installed) is available for use. However if you've maxed out the DRAM in your system, this amount will be deducted from your physical memory, so you can't use 100% of your DRAM.

The maximum memory limitation varies by operating system; for instance, the 4GB memory limitation doesn't exist in 64-bit versions of Windows.

Memory maximums for current Microsoft® Windows OSs include:

* Windows XP Home: 4GB

* Windows XP Professional: 4GB

* Windows XP 32-bit: 4GB

* Windows XP 64-bit: 128GB

* Windows Vista Home Basic: 4GB

* Windows Vista Home Basic 64-bit: 8GB

* Windows Vista Home Premium: 4GB

* Windows Vista Home Premium 64-bit: 16GB

* Windows Vista Ultimate: 4GB

* Windows Vista Ultimate 64-bit: 128GB+

* Windows Vista 32-bit: 4GB

* Windows Vista 64-bit: 128GB+"

thought it might interest you....
however according to this the total 4GB iswhat do you think used...
slightly confusing to me...what do you think?

#25 Post by **erik** » Sun Oct 07, 2007 12:44 am

rayZR wrote:Hey ERIK

I found this on the Crucial website:

(snip)

thought it might interest you....
however according to this the total 4GB iswhat do you think used...
slightly confusing to me...what do you think?

what microsoft says their OSes can do and what they actually do are two different things. this is why i conducted my test. two factors must be in place for 4GB to be addressed on a 32-bit system; memory hoisting at the BIOS level and 36-bit addressing at the OS level. because server 2003 is 36-bit capable, the memory addresses normally allocated where that last 1GB lies gets moved (hoisted) to a higher mapping above the 4GB mark, therefore leaving all 4GB addressable. 32-bit-only OSes cannot do this and is why most or all of the last 1GB gets mapped out as mentioned in the crucial article.

i guarantee with 100% certainty that you cannot address all 4GB under XP 32 or vista 32 on a T61p. you need XP 64, server 2003, or vista 64. you're more than welcome to try this for yourself but you'd save yourself the time and headache by reading my post and seeing the results for yourself.

rayZR · #26 Post by **rayZR** » Sun Oct 07, 2007 1:11 am

I beleive you sir.

2.4 GHZ with 2GB RAM or 2.2 GHZ with 3GB RAM?

2.4 GHZ with 2GB RAM or 2.2 GHZ with 3GB RAM?

Heat Spreader

Who is online