Deciding on an X Series

Hey everyone,

I'm deciding upon an X Series computer, so am wondering how the CPU's in each compare:

X301 - Intel Core 2 Duo SU9400 processor ULV (1.40GHz 800MHz 3MBL2 )
X200s - Intel Core 2 Duo SL9400 processor LV (1.86GHz 1066MHz 6MBL2 )
X200 - Intel Core 2 Duo processor P8400 (2.26GHz 1066MHz 3MBL2)
X200t - Intel Core 2 Duo SL9300 processor LV (1.60GHz 1066MHz 6MBL2) <-highest available in Aus config

From my uneducated point of view, it seems the X200 is the obvious king, but do any offer any advantage over the others for general work? (Office, Web, Multimedia watching)

Thanks
Michael

 

Obviously, the P8400 in the X200 will be the fastest, which will help improve boot speeds and application launch speeds. But, the other processors run at a lower voltage, giving better battery life - especially the SU9400 in the X301. This of course comes at the cost of being the slowest processor of the bunch (and it has a lower FSB).

For your work, I would probably venture to say that the SL9400 is your best bet - minimal performance loss from the P8400, with longer battery life.

 

Also, I don't think the x200 comes in 1440x900 as the x200s.
Personally, and for completely different reasons than you, I'm currently trying to find me a WXGA+ X200s.
The reasons: It comes with an expresscard-slot, is lightweight, has the most battery time and it comes with 1440x900. Well, it's almost in that order, to be honest.
The thing is, if you're merely going to watch movies and play music, the processor speed (among the ones you have chosen) should be quite low on your list.
I mean, wouldn't you like to have an optical drive, for one? Or as much storage as possible (i.e. no SSD, but a "proper" harddrive? Or how about a screen with higher resolution than 1280X800?

Or what about a proper docking system and/or proper ports to connect to your telly?

 

Unfortunately, in Australia we can't get 1440x900 on the x200s, which is why I am considering the x200t.

Will the slightly slower clock speed of the SL9300 make a sizeable difference?

 

The x200's processor would normally run at about 800mhz (and a lower voltage) if you have the energy star power setting and are on battery. That being said the only issue I could see is your multimedia playback, if you're watching HD (but you can also accelerate with the x4500 video card).

Aside from the video...all the processors will be fine for office and internet usage.

A more notable upgrade would be a fast hard drive vs worrying about the processors too much.

 

It's difficult to get it here as well (Denmark), but it's possible. Im propably getting it from somewhere else in europe, though.

Hmm, this might be a good time to tell you that I'm a mac-user, and the X200s will be my "switcher machine".
However, for what you're going to do, it will be plenty.

Hell, and granted this is on the mac side of things, but the following would be plenty of power for what you intend:

It's from here:
http://www.apple.com/macmini/specs.html

and it's all (yesteryear's) laptop parts, as you can tell.

I'm going to be using the X200s for audio work (and browsing, emails, light-duty photoediting in lightroom) and a wee bit of video editing for web. I was a little worried at first that it wouldn't be fast enough for that, but I'm confident it will. If I was smart, I'd go for the even "slower" one, but I'm thinking it will be difficult to get ahold of, and even more difficult to return (buying from another country et al).

Anyway, as a computer for media playback and websurfing, 1.86 C2D is fast. In fact, I doubt you'd be able to tell the difference between a 1.2ghz C2D and 2.2gHz in everyday settings (well, exaggerated, but still).

P.S. I'm typing this on 2.33GHz MacBook Pro, and these recent years I have come to realise that processors these days are very fast. So fast, in fact, that they're not the bottleneck of most systems, unless you have specific needs. Better to spend money on battery life, connectivity (in your case, that would include an optical drive, methinks), and not least: Fast drives.

Btw, why are you considering the tablet? Is there something you do - or want to do, that I missed? Well, apart from the resolution? You should know it weighs more.

 

As I've said before, based on the applications you are going to run, the processor isn't really that important.

Tasks that are CPU bound will certainly complete in less time on the x200, but the difference is not that large and any application that can run on the x200 should also run on the x301.

I say you pick one of the low voltage parts.

If you want an optical drive and a 13.3" WXGA+ display get the x301.
If you want the highest quality display, tablet features, and don't mind the weight, get the x200 Tablet.
If you want the lightest machine with the best battery life, go for the x200s.

Get the SSD in any of the above if you are concerned about performance and/or responsiveness.

 

Apologies for jumping on Morien's thread, but about to make the same decision. After considering the additional weight and price of the x200t, I think I'm opting for the x200s.

One question I do have is, how long will the 6 cell battery last? I'm considering purchasing this instead of the 9 cell, as it doesn't have the protrusion and I read it has the best weight to performance ratio.

 

Your battery life is highly dependent on settings and usage patter.

If you have very light usage, allow the CPU to downclock, and lower the brigthness to 40% or less, you should be able to break 8 hours with the 6 cell.

Conversely, if you max out the brightness and have a heavier usage pattern, 4 hours may be all the more that you get.

It simply is a matter of use. On my x200 Tablet, I can get under 6 watts with low brightness and light usage (e.g. reading an eBook), however if I max out the brightness and play back some h264 videos I am lucky to be below 12 watts.

 

The most important factor for boot times is the throughput of the hard drive. How fast an applications open is mostly due to the hard drive's seek time, how fast data can be found and read. It's why SSDs rule in these areas. Their throughput is much faster than conventional hard drives and seek times are almost instantaneous. The CPU is relatively unimportant in these areas.

Given the OP's usage, I think performance wise either CPU is fine. The reason to go with the X200s is if you want the LED screen, which should offer better battery life, or you want the higher resolution. As noted usage and settings will play a large role in battery life.

 

Ok, I'm about to bite the bullet with the X301.
Just reassure me
I've read that the onboard gpu decoding is only compatible with Blurays in PowerDVD (or CyberDVD, I forget which one), and so that is pretty much irrelevant to me. The only HD I'll be watching are 720p h264 mkv.

So tell me once more, just to humour me, the Intel Core 2 Duo SU9400 processor ULV (1.40GHz 800MHz 3MBL2 ) will play these, yes?

Thanks
Michael

 

Yes, the x301 will play these just fine. The onboard GPU works fine in VLC and MPCHC just fine. The CPU shouldn't even be close to load when you are playing back 720P h264 MKVs as the GPU is taking over.

 

Indeed. I use MPCHC and gpu accelerate 720p x264 mkv files. If you have it set up correctly you should not have to be very CPU bound. You might run into filter issues that you need to play with though .

 

These days, battery power play a larger part of cpu speed than cpu limits itself. I have a x61 2.4ghz but I run it at lowest cpu frequency (1.4ghz) setting most of the time anyway for longer battery life. I hardly notice the difference for my uses: web browsing, word doccing, chatting, etc.

I would save money and gets the slowest cpu. All good laptops these days downclock themselves anyway to save battery power and no one notices because they are still plenty fast.

 

I myself am having great difficulty trying to figure out which Thinkpad X-series laptop i would like to get. I currently own an X300 and would like something smaller. I love the laptop but i seem to find its dimensions a little to big. Ive been leaning towards the X200s however, I cant just seem to justify the price in comparison to the X200. For example:

If I were to choose the X200:

I can get the X200, with the fastest processor (2.4GHZ) , 4GB of RAM, WXGA, Wimax, FP & BT, 5 in 1 card reader, 128GB SSD, Camera, WWAN, 4 cell battery

If I were to choose the X200s:

For the same price i would get the X200s, with the fastest processor (1.86GHZ), WXGA+, 160GB HDD, 2 GB RAM, Wimax, FP & BT, 5 in 1 card reader, 4 cell battery.

Now I know that there is an advantage with the higher resolution WXGA+ and the LED. I do own the x300 which has the same resolution with a higher nit than the x200s and i can say that the viewing angles is not spectacular either on this machine Im assuming the viewing angles on the x200 is just as bad. Battery life on the X200s is definitely better than the x200 but with the 9 cell battery on both would make it more than enough for me. Besides the thickness of these machines with the 6 cell or 9 cell are going to be the same. Even though I dont use the camera a lot, probably like 4 times a year, i still find it convenient to have it integrated on the laptop. Also, you get gps on the X200 and no gps on X200s (US model). The X200s has roll cage and Carbon fiber, lighter weight in its construction which i agree will probably be more durable than the x200, however, I've owned the X60s and the magnesium alloy case is very sturdy.

I just cant seem to make up my mind. I love everything about the x200s but the lack of WWAN (don't care about the network, just the ability to have gps) and no Camera bothers me a lot. I know i can probably buy an mini bluetooth GPS receiver and a small webcam but that would mean to carry them around with me at all times just in case i needed it. The X200 is great but its not a an X200s. It doesnt have WXGA+, no roll cage, and no carbon fiber.

Someone help me?

 

If 8 ounces of weight and 1440x900/LED is critical to you, get the x200s. Also note that the x200s with 6 cell gets very nearly the battey life of the x200 with 9 cell (and is about 12 ounces lighter this way).

If you would rather have WWAN, a Webcam, and an extra 540 MHz, just get the x200.

Both are good choices, but only you can decide which model is best for you.

You are correct about the viewing angles. The x200 has a very narrow vertical viewing angle, the x200s is probably similar; conversely the x200 Tablet has superb viewing angles, but that is due to the AFFS+ display.

 

I think you'll be fine with the x200 unless the resolution bugs you a lot.

 

Thank you guys for your valuable input. I think I'm going to end up purchasing the X200s. Even though I would have loved the Camera + WWAN. I still think the X200s is built better (structurally) and has a phenomenal battery life.

Also, shouldn't the updated Intel processors, like the SL9600 (2.13GHZ LV) be out soon? I believe Intel just announced the availability of their ULV 1.6 GHZ processor. I was wondering if I should wait till then or just get the SL9400 since I probably wont notice much difference since I wont be using this machine for CPU intensive programs.

 

Given the usage, I doubt the better CPU makes much of a difference.

 

The x200s is a solid choice. I wouldn't worry about the CPU either, a 1.86GHz C2D is fast enough for almost anything.

 

jon,

Does the "roll cage" in the x200s offer a substantial increase in build quality over the x200?

 

I wouldn't call it substantial, but it's nice to have.

The main reason for a roll cage is to reduce chasis/motherboard flex. This can be a serious problem in 14 and 15" notebooks (e.g. the T4x with the GPU soldering issue as a result of flex). However, 12" notebooks are far less prone to flexing due to the smaller surface area.

The main reason to go for the x200s is weight, battery life, and the WXGA+ LED screen. The build quality on both the x200s and x200 is very good.