SPONSORED LINKS
On Fri, 17 Oct 1997 12:43:23 -0700, tisol wrote:
>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.
Actually, believe it or not, the DX4-75 is based on a
25MHz clock, and the 100 a 33MHz clock. Go figure,
since 3*33=99, close to 100.
>
>2 PC Mag noticed only a very small increase in Winstone from a DX2-50 to the DX4-75 on the
>TP 701.
That rating should only be relative, since it seems a lot of 701 users have
also used Linux, and OS/2, which use the processor more efficiently, the same
for resources.
>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.
I thought that the DX4 had a 16K cache,
with write back also.
>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 ====
>
>
>
>