T43p graphics obsolete?

[bert]

It seems that before the T43p has even started to ship in volume, it's graphics accelerator has become obsolete. You can no longer find the Mobility FireGL V3200 on the ATI web-site. And no wonder, it has been replaced by the Mobility FireGL V5000 that is significantly faster while drawing no more power.

The V5000 has 6 geometry engines and 8 pixel pipelines compared to 2 and 4 on the V3200. And the V5000 is manufactured using a 110 nm process compared to the 140 nm process used for the V3200, so it is smaller and thus runs cooler.

The V5000 is used in the HP nw8240 mobile workstation. Do any of you guys that are close to IBM know if it will be offered in the T43p?

[Steve007]

The T4x series will have a minor refresh around May. Perhaps the new machines will include the newer chips?

[trikster2]

Will the T43ps even be here by may?

With the 9600/T2 based graphics on the T42's IBM was hanging in the midrange of what was available for laptop graphics (at the time).

Perhap's they've lost interest with the beijing buyout but for the T43's they've sunk to the very bottom of the PCIe based laptop graphics.

Amazing how little 3 grand will buy you.....

[beeblebrox]

actually, all Radeon chips are plug-and-play. You can exchange a Radeon 7500 with a 9700. Same socket, all using flexfit technology.
You only need the appropriate driver.

More than stupid, that IBM decided to save a few pennies by skipping the socket and solder the chip on board.

Not sure about the ATI x-series, but I assume the same technology here.

[wn0x]

How does the V3200 compares to the ATI X300/X600 in terms of performance?

[K. Eng]

You've made a few assumptions that need to be considered. First, a smaller fab process does not mean that the processor will run cooler. If all things are equal (say, a Radeon 9800 shrunk from 0.15u to 0.13u, with core clock and memory at equal speed) this might be true. However, we don't know the core clock speed of the V5000 against the V3200, nor do we know the memory speed. Second, extra hardware burns extra power. Three times the geometry units and twice the pixel pipelines is going to burn a lot of extra power. Those millions of extra transistors consume power and dissipate heat every time they switch.

Without more information, it would be foolish to conclude that the V5000 consumes less power than the V3200 based on smaller fab process alone. That would be like claiming a Prescott Pentium 4 runs cooler than a Coppermine Pentium III simply because the former is fabbed on a 90nm process.

It may be that the V5000 consumes more power than IBM would like and would decrease battery life by a significant amount. Maybe the cooling systems in the T4x can't handle it yet.

The V5000 has 6 geometry engines and 8 pixel pipelines compared to 2 and 4 on the V3200. And the V5000 is manufactured using a 110 nm process compared to the 140 nm process used for the V3200, so it is smaller and thus runs cooler.

The V5000 is used in the HP nw8240 mobile workstation. Do any of you guys that are close to IBM know if it will be offered in the T43p?

[K. Eng]

Assuming a 128MB memory configuration for both, it should be about the same as the X600 generally, and completely demolish the X300.

How does the V3200 compares to the ATI X300/X600 in terms of performance?

[trikster2]

Demolish? I thought X300 was equal to the 9600 and the X600 was equal to the 9700. Better sure but it does not sound like it demolishes it?

Here's some comparisons on the dells that are out now with X300 and X600 graphics:

http://notebookforums.com/showthread.php?t=68910

[bert]

Some more info. The V3200 is a version of the x600 whereas the V5000 is a version of the x700. Some data:

Chip Transistors Core clock Memory clock Process
x600 75M 400MHz 250MHz 0.13u
x700 120M 350MHz 350MHz 0.11u

So which one draws more power? Hard to tell. Other things that influence heat dissipation is that notebook manufacturers may elect to run the chips at lower than max clock speeds and implementation of various power saving schemes. All I wanted to say was that the V5000 is not necessarily a power hog compared to the V3200 and that in fact it may even run cooler. Some early benchmarks indicate that the V5000 may be close to twice as fast as the V3200.

[wn0x]

Thanks.

I was actually looking at a Dell D600 (Forgive me; the serial port would be handy and my Boss owns stock in the company . Its top end graphic option was the X300.

The Dell D800 has a X600 option and a wide screen format.

I didn't appear to me that many other lap-top vendor had a significantly faster PCIe option than the V3200 in their current lap-top line up, except possibly the Aliens.

[wn0x]

I should have noted that I have a T43P 2668G1U on order, so this is a moot point, unless other notebook manufactuers were including something significantly better.

I gathered from a previous post that the graphics adapter is soldered to the MB? I really doubt I would ever replace it, but one of the significant advantages I saw to the PCIe technology was the ability to update the graphics adapter on the laptop if something new came along.

[danny_isr]

Demolish? I thought X300 was equal to the 9600 and the X600 was equal to the 9700. Better sure but it does not sound like it demolishes it?

Here's some comparisons on the dells that are out now with X300 and X600 graphics:

http://notebookforums.com/showthread.php?t=68910

from that table looks like the 9600 is faster then the x300. is it really the case ?
did anyone actually compared them ?

[craigg]

I ran the 3DMark on my T43 (2668-72U) and I received a score of about 750. I am not sure if I had all of the power management features off or not but this figure seems low compared to the benchmarks in the previously mentioned link. If anyone has suggestions as to what to enable / disable to get a more accurate result, let me know. I don't use my computer for gaming but would be happy to run the benchmark if it will help others.

[beeblebrox]

I should have noted that I have a T43P 2668G1U on order, so this is a moot point, unless other notebook manufactuers were including something significantly better.

I gathered from a previous post that the graphics adapter is soldered to the MB? I really doubt I would ever replace it, but one of the significant advantages I saw to the PCIe technology was the ability to update the graphics adapter on the laptop if something new came along.

I assume you would not notice the difference between PCIe and AGP because the chips are usually soldered on the board anyway.
Flexfit gives the manufacturer the ability to use one common motherboard and simply switch the GPU for the different models.
As far as I know, most ATI chips with PCIe are soldered as well, and ATI will do anything but adopt to the NVidia standard of exchangeable graphics cards.

I never figured out why GPU are not put on a socket like the Pentiums. There is no reason. However, Mobility Radeons are not on the market either, only sold to manufacturers. I am still wating for ATI to come out with a useful graphics PCIe card.

[awolfe63]

More than stupid, that IBM decided to save a few pennies by skipping the socket and solder the chip on board.
.

My guess is that it was more for better cooling and reliability than anything else. Sockets are huge contributors to failure rate. They also add to power consumption.

[xcountryrower]

Anyone know what the VR3200 can be compared to?

[aamsel]

You don't see that chip on the ATI website, because ATI and nVidia build a false sense of obsolescence into their product offerings.
ATI and nVidia are engaged in a fierce battle to win the money of PC gamers, most of whom are very young, and who want the fastest chip with the highest framerate to play the latest game, so that they can frag their enemies faster than they can be fragged.
Their goal is to get young gamers to buy new video chip technology at least twice a year, and as often as every 3 months.
How do you sell a new chip without marketing that the previous chip is obsolete?
What does any of this have to do with video chips on Thinkpads...not much!
IBM is still selling Radeon 7500 chip-based notebooks quite happily.

Andrew
Austin, TX

It seems that before the T43p has even started to ship in volume, it's graphics accelerator has become obsolete. You can no longer find the Mobility FireGL V3200 on the ATI web-site. And no wonder, it has been replaced by the Mobility FireGL V5000 that is significantly faster while drawing no more power.

The V5000 has 6 geometry engines and 8 pixel pipelines compared to 2 and 4 on the V3200. And the V5000 is manufactured using a 110 nm process compared to the 140 nm process used for the V3200, so it is smaller and thus runs cooler.

The V5000 is used in the HP nw8240 mobile workstation. Do any of you guys that are close to IBM know if it will be offered in the T43p?

[baraider]

very well said, aamsel,

also, i think i talk to myself here but IBM DESIGNED THINKPADS WITH BUSINESS CUSTOMERS IN MIND.

Any video card that IBM has on its T lines are more than good for any business customer needs.

Because the T lines and thinkpads in general become mainstream, regular customer (gamers, media users....) voice the need for better video,media features but from IBM point of view, it's a not the top of their list.

[aamsel]

Precisely.
You don't need "top-shelf" graphics to run Windows and Microsoft Office.
And the T series, as you said, is the flagship model which outsells all other Thinkpads, and generally made the Thinkpad what it is today.

Andrew
Austin, TX

very well said, aamsel,

also, i think i talk to myself here but IBM DESIGNED THINKPADS WITH BUSINESS CUSTOMERS IN MIND.

Any video card that IBM has on its T lines are more than good for any business customer needs.

Because the T lines and thinkpads in general become mainstream, regular customer (gamers, media users....) voice the need for better video,media features but from IBM point of view, it's a not the top of their list.

[trikster2]

I ran the 3DMark on my T43 (2668-72U) and I received a score of about 750. I am not sure if I had all of the power management features off or not but this figure seems low compared to the benchmarks in the previously mentioned link. If anyone has suggestions as to what to enable / disable to get a more accurate result, let me know. I don't use my computer for gaming but would be happy to run the benchmark if it will help others.

Craig. You need to be using 3DMark 2005. If you are using an earlier version the numbers won't match

[trikster2]

Precisely.
You don't need "top-shelf" graphics to run Windows and Microsoft Office.
And the T series, as you said, is the flagship model which outsells all other Thinkpads, and generally made the Thinkpad what it is today.

Andrew
Austin, TX

very well said, aamsel,

also, i think i talk to myself here but IBM DESIGNED THINKPADS WITH BUSINESS CUSTOMERS IN MIND.

Any video card that IBM has on its T lines are more than good for any business customer needs.

Because the T lines and thinkpads in general become mainstream, regular customer (gamers, media users....) voice the need for better video,media features but from IBM point of view, it's a not the top of their list.

This thread is about the T43P

According to IBM: "The IBM ThinkPad T43p is suitable for use as a very powerful mobile workstation, especially for demanding CAD applications. "

Critisizing the graphics on a laptop IBM is selling as a CAD workstation should not be dismissed because "You don't need "top-shelf" graphics to run Windows and Microsoft Office"

Anyone know what the VR3200 can be compared to?

VR3200 is based on the X600.

X600 is roughly equal to the ATI 9700 mobile

Welcome to last year IBM.

[aamsel]

Not according to the results at:
http://www.rojakpot.com/
If these are in any way accurate, the X600 is far ahead of the 9700 mobile.

I have read several "takes" on the X300:
1.) The X300 replaced the 9200
2.) The X300 is superior to the 9600 (in the article above).

Don't know which of the two are correct???

Andrew
Austin, TX

...X600 is roughly equal to the ATI 9700 mobile

Welcome to last year IBM.

[/img]

[trikster2]

Not according to the results at:
http://www.rojakpot.com/
If these are in any way accurate, the X600 is far ahead of the 9700 mobile.

I have read several "takes" on the X300:
1.) The X300 replaced the 9200
2.) The X300 is superior to the 9600 (in the article above).

Don't know which of the two are correct???

Andrew
Austin, TX

...X600 is roughly equal to the ATI 9700 mobile

Welcome to last year IBM.

[/img]

I feel like we are instant messaging!

Sorry for the bitterness at the end I was going to pick the T43/43P as my next laptop but now I'm undecided. I may wait and see if there is a mid-year refresh.

X300 benches at about the 9600. It replaces the 9200 in the sense that it now the low end offering in the ATI PCIe lineup.

http://www.rojakpot.com/showarticle.asp ... =98&pgno=0

Lists Specs not benchmarks. But take a look at the specs. The 9700 has a higher fill rate than the X600.

I'd like to find a more professional comparrison, if I do I'll post it. This thread on that other notebook forum has some comparisions of the current graphic chipsets.

http://notebookforums.com/showthread.php?t=68910

[aamsel]

Yet the memory bandwidth is higher on the X600 than the 9700.
I agree, I would like to see true test results.
Most of this stuff is just sales blurbs from the manufacturers, not really worth paying much attention to.

Andrew
Austin, TX

...Lists Specs not benchmarks. But take a look at the specs. The 9700 has a higher fill rate than the X600.

I'd like to find a more professional comparrison, if I do I'll post it. This thread on that other notebook forum has some comparisions of the current graphic chipsets.

http://notebookforums.com/showthread.php?t=68910

[strekship]

The x300 cannot be compared to a 9600. an x600 is like a 9600XT/Pro.

[aamsel]

What do you mean by "x300 cannot be compared to a 9600" ????
Again, according to the article at:
http://www.rojakpot.com/
the x300 is superior in almost every way to the 9600.

Do you have other reviews or "real world" information concerning this.

I am returning a T42 with 64MB 9600 for a T43 with 64MB X300 and had every reason to believe that it was an "upgrade".

Please share what you know with me.
I really would like to know more about this.
Thanks!

Andrew
Austin, TX

The x300 cannot be compared to a 9600. an x600 is like a 9600XT/Pro.

[craigg]

I am using the most recent version of 3dmark05, version 1.2.0. I just ran the benchmark again and I received a score of 712. I have not received my extra memory stick yet so this is basically a stock system. I am not sure if more memory will help or if there is anything I can do to increase the number but this performance seems about 300 points less than what was posted in that other link for an X300 based system.

Intel 2.0, 512mb ram, sxga+, 80gb HD (5400rpm), Multiburner

trikster2 said: Craig. You need to be using 3DMark 2005. If you are using an earlier version the numbers won't match

[aamsel]

So, which model do you have?

Andrew
Austin, TX

I am using the most recent version of 3dmark05, version 1.2.0. I just ran the benchmark again and I received a score of 712. I have not received my extra memory stick yet so this is basically a stock system. I am not sure if more memory will help or if there is anything I can do to increase the number but this performance seems about 300 points less than what was posted in that other link for an X300 based system.

Intel 2.0, 512mb ram, sxga+, 80gb HD (5400rpm), Multiburner

trikster2 said: Craig. You need to be using 3DMark 2005. If you are using an earlier version the numbers won't match

[baraider]

So, which model do you have?

aamsel, he got the t43 2668 72u model

[aamsel]

I am going to benchmark my 2378FVU T42 before it goes back with the exact same version of 3dmark05 that you used. It has the 64MB 9600. It only has 256MB in it now. I will test it with 256MB and with 768MB and post the results.
If it scores better than the x300 did, I will have a huge question mark as to whether I should swap for a T43, for slightly faster CPU and memory and slower video.
I hope it benches slower than the 712 you posted for the X300.

Andrew
Austin, TX

I am using the most recent version of 3dmark05, version 1.2.0. I just ran the benchmark again and I received a score of 712. I have not received my extra memory stick yet so this is basically a stock system. I am not sure if more memory will help or if there is anything I can do to increase the number but this performance seems about 300 points less than what was posted in that other link for an X300 based system.

Intel 2.0, 512mb ram, sxga+, 80gb HD (5400rpm), Multiburner

trikster2 said: Craig. You need to be using 3DMark 2005. If you are using an earlier version the numbers won't match