Why T never used P4M? Why there isn't T5x, X5x

Message

ribbonfish · #1 Post by **ribbonfish** » Sun Jul 16, 2006 9:07 am

My none T series or X series ever used P4M CPU? I was wondering.

Any thing wrong with it? All the T and X series they jumped from PIIIM directly to PM

Was also wondering why they skipped 5 in the series number also.

Can any one give a hint? Thanks.

Website · #2 Post by **tfflivemb2** » Sun Jul 16, 2006 10:11 am

First, I moved this topic to the General Thinkpad Questions conference, since it is asking questions in general about Thinkpads, not just specifically the T or X series.

I don't know why the T series didn't use the P4, aside from the fact that they aren't as powerful (dare I say as stable) as the PM cpus. Maybe it was a cost factor for the R series, to use a cheaper processor.

As for the lack of a T5x/X5x....I think that IBM tested the waters with the R5x series, and then decided to hold off until the new Dual Core Processors were available. Once the Dual Core processors were available, they released a T6x, X6x and an R6x....keeping them on the same level, so to speak.

The above is strictly an opinion, and not necessarily based on fact.

Puppy · #3 Post by **Puppy** » Sun Jul 16, 2006 10:20 am

Pentium 4 is probably the worst Intel's product at all, regardless of destkop or mobile edition. That's probably why they have skipped it.

#4 Post by **JHEM** » Sun Jul 16, 2006 10:25 am

The T30s as well as the A31 series have P4-M processors. Many of the G40 series have P4 (non-Mobile) processors.

Regards,

James

Website · #5 Post by **tfflivemb2** » Sun Jul 16, 2006 10:31 am

JHEM wrote:The T30s as well as the A31 series have P4-M processors. Many of the G40 series have P4 (non-Mobile) processors.

I forgot all about the T30....yep, it has a P4-M.

#6 Post by **AlphaKilo470** » Sun Jul 16, 2006 12:08 pm

Puppy wrote:Pentium 4 is probably the worst Intel's product at all, regardless of destkop or mobile edition. That's probably why they have skipped it.

Not if you set them up right. I will be among the first to say that Intel could have done better but none the less, the 1.4ghz chip in my desktop computer runs everybit as well as it would have back in 2001 and despite all the wear and strain I've put on it, it's finally just no starting to show age. This chip has definitley outlasted all the Athlons I've purchased. While Intel has the stigma of reputation for high price on average products, I find that their chips will, in most cases, last way more than long enough to pay themselves off. I wish I could say the same for the few Athlons I've owned that died after 3 or 4 years.

christopher_wolf · #7 Post by **christopher_wolf** » Sun Jul 16, 2006 4:26 pm

AMD used to have several stigmas attached to them as well; primarly, for being cheapskates when making the chips. Anybody remember the AMDs that would fry when the heatsink got taken off while the Pentium 4s would just clock themselves back? Tom's Hardware and various other sites had pretty funny videos showing that. AMD just worked alot more and came up with some pretty darn good desktop chips awhile after that.

The depths of the P4 came with the ill-fated Prescott cores and their associated issues. They were a serious step down from the Northwood as the Prescotts generated more heat and had no real advantage for all the "enhanced" features that Intel put on them. Not only that, but it they couldn't even cling to the "more GHz is better" idea any more since an FX-55, clocked lower, could beat a Prescott core running at a significantly higher clock. Ironically, Cedar Mill, which was the last revision of the P4, managed to solve just about all the problems of the Prescotts even though there were no feature deletes and it was simply a shruken die process of the same chip. Right now, Intel is far better off with their Core Duo and Core Solo lines as well as the Pentium M.

DIGITALgimpus · #8 Post by **DIGITALgimpus** » Sun Jul 16, 2006 11:13 pm

I had an A31... excellent performance for battery life. Fan noise was about on par with my loud T43.

Aroc · #9 Post by **Aroc** » Tue Jul 18, 2006 7:12 am

ribbonfish wrote:Was also wondering why they skipped 5 in the series number also.

The reason was number parity. There was already a R5x-series. When the Z-series was released, it debuted as Z60 (z60m and z60t). When the T, R, and X series were refreshed, they used the 60-level (T60, R60, X60) to bring those lines in line with the Z60 and the (soon to be) R60.

christopher_wolf · #10 Post by **christopher_wolf** » Thu Jul 20, 2006 4:24 pm

Aroc wrote:The reason was number parity. There was already a R5x-series. When the Z-series was released, it debuted as Z60 (z60m and z60t). When the T, R, and X series were refreshed, they used the 60-level (T60, R60, X60) to bring those lines in line with the Z60 and the (soon to be) R60.

Err, that is pretty far after they stopped using P4-Ms in the Thinkpads.

Aroc · #11 Post by **Aroc** » Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:45 am

Sorry, I'm not following your comment Christopher.

christopher_wolf · #12 Post by **christopher_wolf** » Fri Jul 21, 2006 3:37 pm

Oh, nevermind.

#13 Post by **JHEM** » Fri Jul 21, 2006 4:59 pm

tfflivemb2 wrote:I forgot all about the T30....yep, it has a P4-M.

To make things fair, I forgot about the R32s which were all P4-Ms.

Regards,

James

Why T never used P4M? Why there isn't T5x, X5x

Why T never used P4M? Why there isn't T5x, X5x

Who is online