x61s Support for 800mhz Memory

[dstrauss]

Can the x61s use 800mhz memory modules? I just can't seem to find a definitive answer. I know it has an 800mhz FSB, but only 667mhz memory was available from Lenovo, and I've already got a couple of 2gb sticks of those on hand.

[Marin85]

Can the x61s use 800mhz memory modules? I just can't seem to find a definitive answer. I know it has an 800mhz FSB, but only 667mhz memory was available from Lenovo, and I've already got a couple of 2gb sticks of those on hand.

Yes, it can use 800 MHz memory (provided all other specs are correct), but you won´t see any benefit of it since it will downclock to 667 MHz due to the Santa-Rosa chipset (yes, despite the 800 MHz FSB).

Marin

[dstrauss]

Hmmmm...okay, might have known it wouldn't work. Since I'm going with Vista Business 64 bit, now I just want to max out to the 8gb level, but with 4gb at $60 and 8gb at $550, that's going to wait a while for my $721 treasure.

[Marin85]

I remember someone asking the same question if 800 MHz memory would work in his/her X61 because for some reason the 800 MHz 2x4 GB modules were cheaper than the 667 MHz ones...

[dstrauss]

Shifting gears a bit - where can one find an 8gb kit of either 667mhz or 800mhz? I can fill up 2x2gb for $60 or less, but can't find any sources of 2x4gb for less than $550...rough pricing when you only paid $721 for the notebook...

[bluesceada]

Yeah 4GB modules are still very expensive... Aren't 4GB in total not enough? What do you need 8gb for, on a Notebook with not much processing power?

[Marin85]

Yeah 4GB modules are still very expensive... Aren't 4GB in total not enough? What do you need 8gb for, on a Notebook with not much processing power?

I´m asking myself the same question... There are so many users with X200/X30x ThinkPads with ULV cpus looking for 8 GBs of system memory

[dstrauss]

bluesceada and Marin85

I believe it is mostly a question of future-proofing. At every level (since my mega 640kb Toshiba 1100 plus) I ended up maxing out memory on the system unit. If you're not careful, you will find yourself missing the sweet spot as memory always starts high, tapers quickly, and then spikes back up as the newest format arrives and supplies dry up. Sure, I'm not maxing out my 4gb now (just saying that makes me quesy - you couldn't get a 10mb HD in that old Toshiba), but I just like knowing the option is there. Having gone through the whole 1mb limit - expanded vs extended memory - and finally the freedom of the flat address space, I want to keep my options open.

Sorry to have troubled you.

[Marin85]

No, no problem with troubling us, in the end that´s why this forum and this discussion are here But to me 8 GB is a LOT of RAM. Excluding RAMdisk, I´m not aware of any application that require so much RAM and would run at reasonable performance with that cpu and gpu of X61. On the other hand, looking at the trend in the M$ OSes, having the option for more RAM open may indeed turn out very future-proof...

[hausman]

Here's my strategy. On a ThinkPad that comes with 1GB like my X61s, I added a 2GB DIMM to get 3GB. That's all my 32-bit OS can use in any case. When I need more, I'll replace the 1GB with a 4GB, doubling total memory to 6GB. And if my system is still useful beyond that, I'll replace the 2GB with 8GB, again doubling total memory to 12GB. This way I only have to replace one DIMM at a time.

[bluesceada]

Here's my strategy. On a ThinkPad that comes with 1GB like my X61s, I added a 2GB DIMM to get 3GB. That's all my 32-bit OS can use in any case. When I need more, I'll replace the 1GB with a 4GB, doubling total memory to 6GB. And if my system is still useful beyond that, I'll replace the 2GB with 8GB, again doubling total memory to 12GB. This way I only have to replace one DIMM at a time.

I think that's not a good idea, as the Thinkpad can do Dual Channel if you have two identical sized DIMMs inside... So with your "Strategy" you have more RAM, but less speed... (and Speed is more what you are missing)

To Microsoft OSes: If a future Microsoft OS does suck up so much RAM (for nothing), I would just not use it...

Of course on the other hand, more RAM is always nice when the OS uses it for Buffers and Cache, and might even help to increase battery runtime, as the disk doesn't need to spin up so often. (In Linux one good step is to make /tmp a tmpfs)

[Esben]

Most people using XP have little use of more than 1 GB of memory, and using Vista/7, 2 GB should be enough for 95+% of the population. It would make far more sense to upgrade to 2 GB RAM and add a SSD drive.
There is very little benefit in having unused memory installed.

A little tip: When you feel you're really using the machine, lots of programs open etc. try opening Task Manager and see how much memory you're actually using. Often it's way less than you'd think. If I open XP, Outlook/Word/Excel 2007, Maple 12, MATLAB, Photoshop CS4, Chrome 9 tabs, Azureus, Foobar2000, Live Messenger and the other small applications, I'm still only using 1.3 GB memory. I'd then prefer 2x1 GB dual-channel memory over 3 GB single-channel memory.

[bluesceada]

There is very little benefit in having unused memory installed.

It won't be unused.... Like I said earlier, the OS can use it for buffers and cache of the harddrive, so it could increase battery runtime as the harddrive doesn't need to spin up that often.

At least Vista should utilize the memory which is not needed for programs as buffers and/or cache....

I'd then prefer 2x1 GB dual-channel memory over 3 GB single-channel memory.

Me too, I would also prefer dual-channel in this case.

[Esben]

It won't be unused.... Like I said earlier, the OS can use it for buffers and cache of the harddrive, so it could increase battery runtime as the harddrive doesn't need to spin up that often.

At least Vista should utilize the memory which is not needed for programs as buffers and/or cache....

I agree that unused memory can be used for readbuffers, which can in the case of Vista be used for quickly launching applications. But the SSD has a much bigger benefit on application launch times. I've never had any luck with keeping harddrives spun down, no matter how much memory I've had free. Even inspecting all processes running on the system and shutting down the unused ones, I haven't managed to getting a system do anything with spun down drives.

[bluesceada]

That depends on what you want speed/battery runtime. Just the recently new Intel SSDs do need less power than mechanical harddrives.

And if you always use suspend on your laptop, and not shut it down, the shared libraries should stay in memory (if memory is big enough), which will speed up application startup from the second start of the application on.

For getting and keeping your drives shutdown, you could use Linux and optimize there! (it's also not much better by default, but you can optimize quite much there, by using intel's powertop program you have much help in getting more battery runtime)
Firefox or other browsers are some quite high battery killers (all the flash and javascript on websites...) as they cause a lot of wakeups per second.

[Marin85]

Just to clarify the dual-channel thing:
1. If both RAM slots in a (recent) ThinkPad are occupied with memory modules, then the memory does operate in dual-channel mode
2. If the RAM modules have equal capacity, then they operate in symmetrical dual-channel mode. If both RAM modules are different in capacity, then the system memory operates in asymmetrical dual-channel mode.

The performance gain difference between both dual-channel modes (over non-dual-channel mode) is about 2 percent points.

Cheers,

Marin

[hausman]

I think that's not a good idea, as the Thinkpad can do Dual Channel if you have two identical sized DIMMs inside... So with your "Strategy" you have more RAM, but less speed... (and Speed is more what you are missing)

As Marin85 points out, while this is technically correct, in practice you're not likely going to appreciate such a small difference.

My strategy is intended to minimize cost and maximize the value I get from adding more RAM. When I bought my T60p it cost over $150 for a 1GB module. Today that same module sells for less than $15. Why buy two 4GB modules now, when they're very expensive, when if you wait until you really need the second one, you can buy it for 1/10th the price?

[dstrauss]

I have done some "checking" with Task Manager, and so far 2.2gb seems to be the sweet spot of program use, as even multiple Word windows, Outlook, and a browser or two soak that up; but dig a little further, and you'll see the system uses ALL BUT 70mb, using the other nearly 2gb as system cache. I can see as we steam off into real 64-bit processing (say Office 2012 - ha ha), then RAM will indeed continue to speed up the system. Granted, right now, no overhead problem. But I harken back to those DOS/Toshiba days, and I had a T1000 with 512k PLUS a segregated 128k "ram disk" which made WordPerfect 4.2 fly, but before I got rid of the T1000, the 128k had to be reallocated to system ram for the full 640 to be available for operating overhead.

Yes, I am too hind-bound, but live and learn; I just don't think there is any limit to MS and its developer's ability to solve any bottleneck with more code and bigger, beefier, iron...

[Marin85]

I have done some "checking" with Task Manager, and so far 2.2gb seems to be the sweet spot of program use, as even multiple Word windows, Outlook, and a browser or two soak that up; but dig a little further, and you'll see the system uses ALL BUT 70mb, using the other nearly 2gb as system cache. I can see as we steam off into real 64-bit processing (say Office 2012 - ha ha), then RAM will indeed continue to speed up the system. Granted, right now, no overhead problem. But I harken back to those DOS/Toshiba days, and I had a T1000 with 512k PLUS a segregated 128k "ram disk" which made WordPerfect 4.2 fly, but before I got rid of the T1000, the 128k had to be reallocated to system ram for the full 640 to be available for operating overhead.

Yes, I am too hind-bound, but live and learn; I just don't think there is any limit to MS and its developer's ability to solve any bottleneck with more code and bigger, beefier, iron...

I guess that´s the question, and I really hope you are right. BTW, it´s still possible to create RAM disks especially on the new laptop platforms that allow such "excessive" amounts of memory (up to 8 GB as of now, as the max module capacity is 4 GB). I´m too looking forward to real 64-bit Office and real 64-bit Acrobat Pro (not just some "add-ons").

[loyukfai]

I have done some "checking" with Task Manager, and so far 2.2gb seems to be the sweet spot of program use, as even multiple Word windows, Outlook, and a browser or two soak that up; but dig a little further, and you'll see the system uses ALL BUT 70mb......

I have less than 20MB out of 3GB of physical memory free even though I have only Outlook and a few Chrome tabs running as the main applications. The fact that Windows Vista will use as much free memory for caching means that the meaning and implication of "free physical memory" in Task Manager is less than direct and clear as before.

http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000688.html

As for 64-bit... Office...? I'm not a serious coder but I would rather them making the codes lean and light versus just throw in the 64-bit compiler and then write even bloater codes.

I'm just exaggerating. Anyway, the next Office should come in a 64-bit version according to some previous "reports".

Cheers.

[dstrauss]

I've been reading numerous reviews of the "leaner, tighter, and faster" Windows 7, and I'm holding my breath in anticipation (but as noted previously, willing to stock up on RAM in teh off chance that Windows 7 bloats as usual?)

[bluesceada]

So, I made a test with Memtest86+ how much asymmetric and symmetric dual channel modes differ in transfer speed:
Asymmetric:
Memory: 3046M - 2716MB/s (mean out of 3)
Symmetric:
Memory: 4022M - 2836MB/s (mean out of 3)

So that is 2836/2716 = 1.04418
Which means symmetric dual channel ist about (just?) 4,4% faster in terms of transfer speed than asymmetric dual channel.

Used were 2x 2GB Kingston CL5 modules for the symmetric test.
1x 1GB Samsung CL5 and 1x 2GB Kingston CL5 for the asymmetric test.
The 1GB was put in the second slot for the Asymmetric Test.

[hausman]

about (just?) 4,4% faster in terms

I doubt anyone could "feel" the difference in practical terms, e.g. snappier response. Even with long-running activities like reformatting videos, it would take a stopwatch to appreciate any difference. So one might as well save their money.

[bluesceada]

I doubt anyone could "feel" the difference in practical terms, e.g. snappier response. Even with long-running activities like reformatting videos, it would take a stopwatch to appreciate any difference. So one might as well save their money.

Yeah it's just transfer speed so for the whole system that might make just 1%....
Anyway, I now have the 4GB RAM, a decent amount, and it was quite cheap...