If you buy a new ThinkPad, save $$ on the CPU...

[none]

This is just a general tip for new ThinkPad buyers... One of the best cost-cutting trade-offs out there is a lower speed CPU. Every aditional 0.1GHz can (and often does) make a ThinkPad several hundred dollars more expensive, with all other specs being the same between the models.

Most people will not even be able to tell between a 1.8GHz or a 2.0GHz model, as the difference is very minimal. As in <one digit>% minimal. There are many other things which cost less to get, and actually make a significant and noticeable difference in performence.

These include a faster hard drive, extra RAM (which can easily be bought outside of IBM, for even more saving) , or a better video card (not really cheap, but will certainly make more difference from one model to the next than a slightly faster CPU).

Each time I see someone pick a faster CPU over a better screen or video card, I just cringe, lol... The processor should be one of the last specs you look at, honestly.

[Plinkerton]

That's good advice. I just picked the highest processor, with the lowest added cost and went with the 1.7. Going to the 1.8 just wasn't worth it.

The thought of having the 1.7 does make me feel better than having a 1.5 though...

Adding ram from somewhere else is probably the easiest and best way to save a little cash.

[jdhurst]

I see a difference between a 1.4 Banias and a 1.8 Dothan. I wanted to try it, but if money were an object, I could have lived without it. I agree that a faster hard drive and more memory are more effective. I have long been a proponent of the 7200 rpm hard drive. ... JDHurst

[muffd]

I agree with the OP. More RAM and a 7200 rpm hd upgrade would do the trick if you already have the SXGA display. Just adding the hard drive makes using my thinkpad about as fun as using my desktop. Now all I need to do is figure out how to get my T40 to work with a KVM switch and my mini-dock.

[kjarrett]

There is something to be said for having "the biggest and baddest on the block," but, I came to the same conclusion and ordered a KXU instead of a Q1U. I am *SO* happy with my decision. My laptop is now as fast as my desktop, I love the screen and form factor, and the performance is unreal. Gotta love IBM!!!

[rrungta]

Hi,

I recently bought the KXU instead of Q1U as was feeling bit insecure as to whether I took the wrong decision hence reading the good reviews have made me feel better . However immediately after havng placed the order and received the laptop I noticed IBM having put Q1U on sale .

Thanks

Rashmi

[kjarrett]

Rashmi did as I did. I love my KXU. There is something to be said for "buying top of the line" however looking for the best price doesn't enter into it.

My KXU was .1ghz slower, has no fingerprint reader, and has the Gen 1 MultiBurner (Q1U has a Gen 2). Otherwise they are identical.

Funny reading about all these quality problems. In all my years of owning laptops (almost exclusively Thinkpads) I rarely had major problems. Those I did encounter were usually solved with a call for a replacement part. My T30 was the exception, but, even that was a fine machine.

Rashmi, you will enjoy your KXU!

-kj-

[rrungta]

Hi KJ,

Is there a major difference b/n Gen 1 DVD burner and Gen 2 burner, would you have an idea, is it like slow to burn DVDs on your laptop ? Although the laptop's been delivered I still need to get my hands on the same hence just curious to get as many feedbacks as I can to be sure of my decision.

Thanks a lot

Rashmi

[Ghostrider]

I see a difference between a 1.4 Banias and a 1.8 Dothan. I wanted to try it, but if money were an object, I could have lived without it. I agree that a faster hard drive and more memory are more effective. I have long been a proponent of the 7200 rpm hard drive. ... JDHurst

The difference between a 1.4GHz Banias and the 1.8GHz Dothan is a little bit more than .1 or .2GHz It's somewhere between 1/3 and 1/4 of additional clock speed compared to the 1.4GHz plus the additional cache!
I thing the original post claimed differences like 1.8GHz compared to 2GHz or 2GHz compared to 2.1GHz.
I had the chance of buying a 2GHz or 2.1GHz model instead of the 1.8GHz I selected but there were several things that made the decision easy:
- I bought the computer for office tasks / math calculations / basic simulations. A 1.4GHz LV Pentium M would have been enough for it as well.
- The 2GHz modell was much more expensive than the little speed increase would have justified.
- The 1.8GHz modell is even more than fast enough for games (I did not buy the notebook for but now can do it)
- It's almost top of the line.
I would not have bought a 1.5 or 1.6GHz CPU right now because these CPUs have been around for quiet a long time and I would have had the feeling of buying something old fashioned. IF there would have been a 1.6GHz LV or even 1.8GHz LV Pentium M this would have been my first choice.

The original poster was right that .1GHz or even 0.2GHz speed difference is (most of the time) not worth the extra money for the high-end CPUs.
On the other hand: If you have that much money to burn -> Why not. ) For me the Notebook is not that important. My primary system is a dual Opteron with 4GB memory that outperforms the notebook in every task at least twice. So I just wanted to have a fast but not "the fastest" available.

I solved it quite good. For most applications there is no difference between running them at 600MHz or full speed. Even Joint Operations can be played at 600MHz..... it seems as if CPU-speed is one of the least important factors as long as the whole system is quiet powerful. The 1GB of memory, 60GB 7200rpm (7K60) HDD and the FireGL T2 with 128MB help a lot