SPONSORED LINKS
Steve is right.
The System performance increase in a 701 will be even less. ;-{
1 The AMD will only run at 100 Mhz in a TP 701 as the System clock is 25Mhz. If they change
the crystal to a 33.3 Mhz one (overclocking) that's a 25 % increase. Most attempts at overclocking
can't increase the system clock by 25 %. Maybe the TP 701 is well under speced.
2 PC Mag noticed only a very small increase in Winstone from a DX2-50 to the DX4-75 on the
TP 701.
Note : This is rather odd since the 75Mhz part should have been an Intel DX-4 . This means a bigger
cache 16KB vs 8 KB and write-back-cache enabled.
Since these 2 significant features helped very little .....it is sane to assume that a DX4-100 would NOT add much.
AND certainly NOT $400 worth
If you visit pc-mag's web page the article should still be available.
..peter..
PS ..Ask Evergreen for a REAL benchmark
----------
From: Robert Munzenrider[SMTP:rfm@psu.edu]
Sent: Friday, October 17, 1997 10:53 AM
To: thinkpad@cs.utk.edu
Subject: Re: Thinkpad upgrades
Everything Steve says about upgrading seems upgrading accurate, but
still.... I have a 2-year-old TP701 (Butterfly model) with a SLOWWW
486/75 processor. Evergreen Tech will install an AMD P5 chip (I forget the
model specs) for $400. The AMD chip is rated at 133 mhz, but they say that
the effective speed is equivalent to a Pentium 75. With Win95 & Office97
in my machine now, I'm "seeing" slow operating speed, especially when
multi-tasking - even with 24 megs of RAM.
I don't have $1500-2500 or more to buy a new system, but I might could
maybe squeeze out $400 for the cpu upgrade. The 701 seems in fine shape &
should have a couple more years of life in it. Maybe more with a cpu
upgrade. Although my upgraded system would not be the
latest/greatest/fastest around, would I pick up enough "Bang for the Buck"
to make the upgrade worthwhile??
BobM
Penn State Harrisburg
-----------------------------------
>
>Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 14:36:36 -0700
>From: Steve Parker <sparker@torgo.punk.net>
>To: Rob Friedman <rhfriedm@law.harvard.edu>
>CC: thinkpad@cs.utk.edu
>Subject: Re: laptop upgrade?
>
>On Thu, 16 Oct 1997, Rob Friedman wrote:
>
>> I have a Thinkpad 755c 486/75 and am looking into an upgrade with a firm
>> called Portable Enhancements.
>>
>> Has anyone had any experience with upgrades and/or Portable Enhancements?
>> If so, did you feel it was worth it, or would you just as well suggest
>> buying another computer?
>>
>> Any help would be greatly appreciated.
>
> PEP used to continually post advertisements on this mailing list. They
>seem to have a habit of using useless benchmarks like Landmark to generate
>performance numbers for their CPU upgrades. If you are looking into CPU
>upgrades make them give you benchmark numbers from something reliable and
>trustworthy like Winbench before commiting to anything.
>
> I've looked at things like their hard drive upgrade pricing and thye
>seem to run about 2x the cost of the drive and they stick you with the
>cost of useless [at least to me] things like virus scanning the drives
>contents.
>
> If your upgrade [whatever it is] starts to cost $300-$500 or more you
>should really look into what is available in modern Pentium systems for
>$1500 or so. Your old unit has to be worth at least a few hundred
>dollars. Some friends of mine just picked up Sharp Widenotes
>[P133/256K L2 cache/16MB/1024x600 active display] for about $1500 and they
>even have built in 28.8 modems.
>
> PEP's pricing always seemed high to me, and they finally left this
>mailing list after several people constantly demanded real benchmark
>numbers every time they tried to foist their products upon us. BS
>benchmarks that fit entirely in L1 cache don't cut it. They will give you
>numbers that increase roughly linearly with CPU speed and that is far from
>the case in the real world.
>
> If any of PEP's sales drones are reading this feel free to provide
>honest benchmark comparisons of, say, the TP701 upgrade to a 5x86-100 you
>said was significantly faster than a stock unit. Using other systems
>speed increases as a comparison is not allowed, give us a nice honest
>TP701-50 or TP701-75 before and after.
>
> The dirty secret about that upgrade is that since that unit doesn't have
>a L2 cache you'd be hard pressed to get more than 30% out of it, and they
>charged roughly $500 for that privelege. You get very rapidly
>diminishing returns as the CPU's clock multiplier increases. The regular
>Pentium 200 [3x66.6] typically benchmarked at 5% faster than the Pentium
>166 [2.5x66.6] and cost quite a bit more. Moving from 3x25 to 4x25 is
>insignificant.
>
>============================================================================
>==== Steve Parker ==== San Luis Obispo, CA ==== Multi-OS & Multitasking ====