Quantcast T400s vs. x200s - Page 3

Closed Thread
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 45

Thread: T400s vs. x200s

  1. #21
    NBR Transmogrifier
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    3,245
    Rep Power
    27

    Default Re: T400s vs. x200s

    Quote Originally Posted by mehraan View Post
    Lenovo's Canadian website offers T400s with SL9400 CPU's. (SL9600 for a $125 upgrade)
    What do you think about the idle power consumption of those? Does the 2" display difference matters a lot in the power consumption?
    That depends on your definition of "A LOT". Both displays are WXGA+ LED backlit displays of comparable brightness. As such, I would expect the 14.1" model to consume 0.5 to 1.5 watts more than the 12.1" model. This can be rather significant when you consider the idle power consumption for the x200s with SSD and SL9400 is between 6 and 9 watts (depending on display brightness and radio status).

    The biggest difference though is still battery capacity. The x200s offers a 4 cell at 28WHr, a 6 cell at 56WHr, and a 9 cell at 84WHr. Conversely, the T400s only offers a reduced capacity, albeit flush, 6 cell at 44WHr. Therefore, even with identical power consumption the x200s 6 cell should get 27% better battery life than the T400s (56/44 = 1.27).

  2. #22
    Notebook Evangelist
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    369
    Rep Power
    18

    Default Re: T400s vs. x200s

    my t400s can barely make it 4 hours when used in realistic conditions.
    -----
    Macbook Pro 2011 2.2 HR, 2012 Lenovo Thinkpad W520

  3. #23
    Newbie
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    4
    Rep Power
    0

    Default Re: T400s vs. x200s

    Quote Originally Posted by jonlumpkin View Post
    That depends on your definition of "A LOT". Both displays are WXGA+ LED backlit displays of comparable brightness. As such, I would expect the 14.1" model to consume 0.5 to 1.5 watts more than the 12.1" model. This can be rather significant when you consider the idle power consumption for the x200s with SSD and SL9400 is between 6 and 9 watts (depending on display brightness and radio status).

    The biggest difference though is still battery capacity. The x200s offers a 4 cell at 28WHr, a 6 cell at 56WHr, and a 9 cell at 84WHr. Conversely, the T400s only offers a reduced capacity, albeit flush, 6 cell at 44WHr. Therefore, even with identical power consumption the x200s 6 cell should get 27% better battery life than the T400s (56/44 = 1.27).
    My main question was about the difference between SP CPU's and SL CPU's. Earlier you mentioned the 0.5-1.5 W difference between X200s and T400s with SP CPU's. My question was more about the break down of power consumption difference between CPU and display.
    Actually I'd better ask my question as: How much lower is the power consumption of a T400s with the LV CPU, than one with the SP CPU?

    Regarding the battery, with T400s there's also the option of using the "Advanced UltraBay Battery II" which is a 29Wh 3-cell battery. That makes a total 73Wh in comparison with X200s's 84Wh 9-cell. (84/73 = 1.15)

  4. #24
    Notebook Evangelist
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    372
    Rep Power
    27

    Default Re: T400s vs. x200s

    In my T400s config w/full CPU performance, battery life is close to 4 hours. Keep in mind, it’s more practical to use ultra-bay for 2nd hdd rather than battery in this case.

    - T430s :: i5-3320M (2.6GHz) : 8GB DDR3 : 14" HD+ : Intel HD Graphics 4000 : 256GB (Sam 830) SSD + 500GB 7200 rpm (ultra bay caddy) : Intel Ultimate-N 6300 : backlit kbd : 4-1 card reader
    - T400s :: SP9600 (2.53GHz) : 4GB DDR3 : 14" WXGA+ w/LED : Intel GMA 4500 MHD : 128GB SSD + 500GB 7200 rpm (ultra bay caddy) : Intel 5300 : 2MP webcam : 5-1 card reader
    - 600x, T23, T42, T60 (14"), T60 (15")

  5. #25
    NBR Transmogrifier
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    3,245
    Rep Power
    27

    Default Re: T400s vs. x200s

    Quote Originally Posted by mehraan View Post
    Actually I'd better ask my question as: How much lower is the power consumption of a T400s with the LV CPU, than one with the SP CPU?
    Again the spread between a low voltage (17W TDP) and medium voltage (25w TDP) CPU is going to be about 0.5-1W at idle. At load the LV CPU should be about 5 watts more efficient (although the MV CPU will complete CPU bound tasks in less time and offset some of the advantages).

    Overall it really depends on what you want. If battery life is a top concern then LV or ULV parts are desirable. However, for most users in most situations the differences are relatively minor if you set both CPUs to adaptive (allow SpeedStep).

  6. #26
    Notebook Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    45
    Rep Power
    15

    Default Re: T400s vs. x200s

    Quote Originally Posted by bigbulus View Post
    T400s, for me the deal breaker is T400s only takes 1.8" HDD. No 2.5 support.
    1.8 is good way to regardless capacity AT THE MOMENT, you can always have 5 external hard drive, each one has capacity of 1TB.

    And 1.8" is what makes the computer thin, "if you are buying thin laptop people shouldn't give you the thick one".

  7. #27
    Notebook Nobel Laureate
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    10,411
    Rep Power
    60

    Default Re: T400s vs. x200s

    Thinner notebooks use the 2.5", so it's not like they couldn't have chosen that size to use in their notebook.
    Current laptop: Lenovo W520, previous laptops: MBP 15, Acer 6920G, Dell Inspiron 8200.

    M4600 vs. W520 vs. 8560w

  8. #28
    Notebook Evangelist
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    698
    Rep Power
    16

    Default Re: T400s vs. x200s

    Quote Originally Posted by jonlumpkin View Post
    However, for most users in most situations the differences are relatively minor if you set both CPUs to adaptive (allow SpeedStep).
    Random question: is speedstep already part of Vista's power management schemes? Or does enabling it involve some other step?

    I've noticed that the factory settings for "power-save" on my machine cap CPU performance to 50% capacity. That doesn't seem very adaptive, though...
    The desktop: 13.3" Toshiba Portege R705, Core i3-370, 8GB RAM, 160GB Intel X25-MG2, W7Pro & Linux Mint 11
    The traveler: 12.1" Hannspree SN12 Intel SU4100, 4GB RAM, 96GB Kingston V+ SSD, Linux Mint 11 & Windows Home Premium

  9. #29
    NBR Transmogrifier
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    3,245
    Rep Power
    27

    Default Re: T400s vs. x200s

    Quote Originally Posted by chris-m View Post
    Random question: is speedstep already part of Vista's power management schemes? Or does enabling it involve some other step?

    I've noticed that the factory settings for "power-save" on my machine cap CPU performance to 50% capacity. That doesn't seem very adaptive, though...
    SpeedStep must first be enabled in the BIOS (it almost always is by default). Then it is a question of your power plan.

    The Vista "Balanced" profile should utilize SpeedStep in all states. However, the profiles specified by Lenovo tend not to use it at all. Most of the profiles are set to either be maximum all the time when plugged in and minimum (800MHz in my case) when on battery.

    I suggest creating another power profile that is adaptive when plugged in (there is little to no performance penalty, but you can substantially reduce heat, noise, and electrical consumption when your machine is fairly idle) and possibly adaptive when on battery as well. Adaptive is simply another way of saying SpeedStep.

    The main risk of using an adaptive profile on battery is if you run across websites with lots of Flash or some other poorly coded application that will max out 1 or both cores (thus forcing your CPU to the max) when it really isn't necessary (this undermines battery life). Alas, there are tradeoffs with everything.

  10. #30
    Notebook Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    18
    Rep Power
    13

    Default Re: T400s vs. x200s

    1.8" is no longer an issue with the advent of SSDs. It used to be a problem years ago.

    That having been said, I believe in the smallest, lightest notebooks and the biggest most powerful desktops. If I really need to do something CPU bound it can be done on the desktop. Remote desktop helps you control things on it while not at home.

    That's just what I believe in and thus I only buy X-series. Others may have different needs.

    I started 5 years ago with the same question: x31 vs. T40. I'm glad I got the x31.

    Who uses optical discs for anything these days? Even your OS can be installed with a USB flash drive.

 

 
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:32 PM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2
Copyright © 2014 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1