X200 vs X301

Message

stylinexpat · #1 Post by **stylinexpat** » Sun Sep 21, 2008 10:12 pm

I have been looking at some reviews and been trying to compare the performance between the X301 and the X200 both using a 64 GB SSD. It seems like the X301 seems to boot faster then the X200 even though it uses a slower processor. Can anyone here explain? trying to debate between the two laptops. I prefer to get the X200 but found that they were able to get the X301 to load in about 28 seconds while it took 32+ seconds for the X200 to load up.

The above #'s were from what i read on Notebookreview's website review for both notebooks. I assume that those numbers included all the bloatware that comes with the laptops as well..??

Jmmmmm · #2 Post by **Jmmmmm** » Sun Sep 21, 2008 10:52 pm

It's because boot time is more dependent on the harddrive than the processor (and the SSD will be faster than a regular harddrive). In processor-intensive tests, the x200 will do much better. For some reason the guy in the x301 review didn't do a wprime 32m test, but for some reference, the x200 (2.4ghz) got 32.119 seconds, while the x300 (1.2ghz) took 98 seconds. The x301 would probably be a little faster, but I doubt by that much.

Supermans · #3 Post by **Supermans** » Mon Sep 22, 2008 3:22 am

Jmmmmm wrote:It's because boot time is more dependent on the harddrive than the processor (and the SSD will be faster than a regular harddrive). In processor-intensive tests, the x200 will do much better. For some reason the guy in the x301 review didn't do a wprime 32m test, but for some reference, the x200 (2.4ghz) got 32.119 seconds, while the x300 (1.2ghz) took 98 seconds. The x301 would probably be a little faster, but I doubt by that much.

The X200 should boot faster than the X301 with a fresh install of Vista or XP. Now the more programs you install, the slower it will start no matter what.. The X200 will always be faster as it has a more powerful CPU in the same family. The X301's advantages are the bigger nicer screen, cd-rom, touchpad, and carbon fiver body which makes it stronger in certain ways. However it is almost twice as expensive and it is slowet than the X200... So you have to choose between two small laptops, which will it be? The faster one or the one with more features?

#4 Post by **ZaZ** » Mon Sep 22, 2008 4:03 am

All things equal, a SSD will boot much faster in my experience. The pluses for the X301 would be the WXGA+ screen and built in optical drive if you need it. For everyday tasks like Office and Internet, they'll probably perform pretty similar.

stylinexpat · #5 Post by **stylinexpat** » Mon Sep 22, 2008 6:03 am

Didn't they use a SSD drive for both of these tests in both cases? I thought both reviews used a SSD drive for the tests when they did the review for the X200 and X301.

Using SSD's with their top processors on each unit, which unit will have quicker boot times and open applications better? Also which unit has better speakers?

stylinexpat · #6 Post by **stylinexpat** » Mon Sep 22, 2008 6:05 am

Supermans wrote:
Jmmmmm wrote:It's because boot time is more dependent on the harddrive than the processor (and the SSD will be faster than a regular harddrive). In processor-intensive tests, the x200 will do much better. For some reason the guy in the x301 review didn't do a wprime 32m test, but for some reference, the x200 (2.4ghz) got 32.119 seconds, while the x300 (1.2ghz) took 98 seconds. The x301 would probably be a little faster, but I doubt by that much.
The X200 should boot faster than the X301 with a fresh install of Vista or XP. Now the more programs you install, the slower it will start no matter what.. The X200 will always be faster as it has a more powerful CPU in the same family. The X301's advantages are the bigger nicer screen, cd-rom, touchpad, and carbon fiver body which makes it stronger in certain ways. However it is almost twice as expensive and it is slowet than the X200... So you have to choose between two small laptops, which will it be? The faster one or the one with more features?

According to the reviews, the X301 had better boot up times.. I found it odd since it had a weaker processor.

Jmmmmm · #7 Post by **Jmmmmm** » Mon Sep 22, 2008 11:24 am

stylinexpat wrote:Didn't they use a SSD drive for both of these tests in both cases? I thought both reviews used a SSD drive for the tests when they did the review for the X200 and X301.

Using SSD's with their top processors on each unit, which unit will have quicker boot times and open applications better? Also which unit has better speakers?

No, the x200 had a 160gb 7200rpm harddrive, as it lists at the top of the review. The x300 and x301 had SSDs. That accounts for most of the difference in boot time. It does say that in the x301 review:

"The SSD storage really goes a long way to improving certain aspects of performance, the all important boot-up time is a fast 28-seconds from the push of the power button to the Windows hourglass disappearing."

If they both had the same harddrive, the faster processor in the x200 would probably make the x200.... faster.
According to the review, the x301's speakers are much better than the x200's single speaker.

maciejs · #8 Post by **maciejs** » Mon Sep 22, 2008 11:27 am

i for one think that 4 seconds difference is totally negligible, i mean come on, 4 seconds?? if we were talking 15+ seconds, then yeah, that's a difference but not 4 seconds - you won't be able to feel it in a day to day usage...

just my 2 cents

stylinexpat · #9 Post by **stylinexpat** » Mon Sep 22, 2008 12:43 pm

Jmmmmm wrote:
stylinexpat wrote:Didn't they use a SSD drive for both of these tests in both cases? I thought both reviews used a SSD drive for the tests when they did the review for the X200 and X301.

Using SSD's with their top processors on each unit, which unit will have quicker boot times and open applications better? Also which unit has better speakers?
No, the x200 had a 160gb 7200rpm harddrive, as it lists at the top of the review. The x300 and x301 had SSDs. That accounts for most of the difference in boot time. It does say that in the x301 review:

"The SSD storage really goes a long way to improving certain aspects of performance, the all important boot-up time is a fast 28-seconds from the push of the power button to the Windows hourglass disappearing."

If they both had the same harddrive, the faster processor in the x200 would probably make the x200.... faster.
According to the review, the x301's speakers are much better than the x200's single speaker.

So the x200 Booted in 32 seconds using a 7200 RPM HDD?

Jmmmmm · #10 Post by **Jmmmmm** » Mon Sep 22, 2008 1:27 pm

stylinexpat wrote:So the x200 Booted in 32 seconds using a 7200 RPM HDD?

I'm not seeing any boot times for the x200 listed. The only one I can find is here, listed at "under 55 seconds"

http://reviews.digitaltrends.com/review ... conclusion

The 32 seconds I listed before for the x200 is not a boot time, it's a measurement of processor speed by the program wprime, which has nothing to do with boot speed.

stylinexpat · #11 Post by **stylinexpat** » Tue Sep 23, 2008 4:22 am

Jmmmmm wrote:
stylinexpat wrote:So the x200 Booted in 32 seconds using a 7200 RPM HDD?
I'm not seeing any boot times for the x200 listed. The only one I can find is here, listed at "under 55 seconds"

http://reviews.digitaltrends.com/review ... conclusion

The 32 seconds I listed before for the x200 is not a boot time, it's a measurement of processor speed by the program wprime, which has nothing to do with boot speed.

So if the X301 booted in 28 seconds then it booted in nearly half the time of the X200...

X200 vs X301

X200 vs X301

Re: X200 vs X301

Re: X200 vs X301

Re: X200 vs X301

Who is online