t4220 sxga??

Discussion in 'Fujitsu' started by kureshii, Jun 7, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Freeman

    Freeman Scribbler - Standard Member

    Messages:
    253
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    31
    Well, the laptop design is almost no change at all. Seriously, it's like a motherboard redesign to fit a new chipset, and a new bios. That's all I see. And that's why I think this is just a marketting ploy. Personally I think Fujitsu took a wrong approach. They shouldn't have canceled the orders that already placed, even though it's within their right to do so. But that's not how to keep customer happy, especially this is consider a pre-sale customer service. I'm not a lawyer, and this is not a legal advise but I think it's still possible to seek a remedy if Fujitsu already charged your credit card. You have to check the terms of sale, and see if they are allow to do that. It's kinda like a breach of contract.
     
  2. SilverIce74

    SilverIce74 Pen Pal - Newbie

    Messages:
    18
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6

    Not quite... DDR2-667 runs at 333Mhz
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDR2

    Using dual-channel you get the "667". Making the RAM the bottlneck not the FSB. Nobody would put 1334Mhz RAM in a computer with an 800Mhz FSB unless they were going to OC the crap out of it.
     
  3. stever

    stever Pen Pal - Newbie

    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    5
    (Not quite)^2 : I was being a little fast and loose and using Hz as a substitute for "transfers per second", but the point is correct. DDR2-667 does run at 333 MHz, but you get a transfer on each clock edge (rising and falling), hence 667M transfers per second.

    For completeness, let me point out that the "800Mhz" FSB is not 800MHz either; it's 200Mhz but it's quad-pumped (4 transfers per clock), so you get 800M transfers per second.

    And both the DDR2 DIMMs and the FSB are 64 bits wide, so you get 8 bytes per transfer in either case.

    So a dual-channel DDR2-667 memory system has a theoretical peak bandwidth of 2 x 667M x 8 bytes/sec, or 10.7GB/s, while a Santa Rosa "800Mhz" FSB has a peak bandwidth of 800M x 8 = 6.4 GB/s.

    But don't get too worked up about the mismatch, as DRAM has longer latencies and potential bank conflicts that make it harder to achieve peak BW than on the FSB. The FSB won't achieve peak bandwidth either due to addressing overheads, bus turnaround, etc., but those effects are typically smaller.

    Also, even though the dual-channel DRAM looks like it has "too much" bandwidth, the latency is also a factor; you wouldn't want to go with DDR2-400 just to "match" the FSB bandwidth, as then your latency would suffer as well (and latency is typically even more important than bandwidth).

    The reality is far too complex to just look at peak numbers and say that this one is the bottleneck, or that that value is "fast enough". The bottom line is that bigger is better in both cases.
     
  4. SilverIce74

    SilverIce74 Pen Pal - Newbie

    Messages:
    18
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6

    I was just going to add the quadpumping to my post ;)

    I don't agree with your arrival at 10.7GB/s though. It's called PC2-5300 because it has a bandwidth of 5.336 GB/s not 10.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDR2

    It's 2x333x8 = 5.4GB/s

    Edit: I just saw the dual-channel part in your post :) You ment 2x2x333x8 :)

    I think the reason intel has gone to 800Mhz (I just changed my eariler post) is that the extra 133Mhz can be used to access the other devices if memory is being accessed at full speed.

    But your right, adding dual-channel to the mix you could still pin the 800Mhz FSB, and force waits for the other devices.

    So bigger is better, but not always ;)
     
  5. Charles P. Jefferies

    Charles P. Jefferies Administrator Super Moderator

    Messages:
    425
    Likes Received:
    70
    Trophy Points:
    41
    See stever's post above:
    I don't think you understand what I mean by resolution. I don't care about DPI - XGA is XGA no matter what size screen it is on. I need space - I need room to fit multiple windows across my screen. I can't do that on XGA with only 1024 pixels of horizontal space and 768 pixels of vertical space.
    I am already aware of the increased heat with the new platform. I will be getting a Santa Rosa-based computer regardless. Also, the battery life offered in the Santa Rosa machines I am looking at is plenty so that is not a concern. I don't agree about the higher failure rate with the new platform - there is no evidence to support this. Yes it will run warmer, but it needs to get scorching hot before you damage the computer chips. It's not going to happen.

    And yes there will be a new platform next year and this one will be considered 'outdated' - you can't keep up with technology, and if you keep waiting for the 'next big thing', you will never get anything. I'm already well behind on technology and I can really use a dual-core processor to my advantage so I see no reason not to buy now. The key of computer buying is to buy the computer when you need it. I need it now, so I'm buying it.
     
  6. kureshii

    kureshii Scribbler - Standard Member Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,478
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    56
    If you need higher resolutions you could wait for the SXGA models to come out; however, those are mainly up to 1280X960 (if I'm not mistaken) and probably won't be enough space for more than 2 windows. If you really need those multiple windows and are in an office environment, dual desktop is the best way to go, you can do your handwritten editing on the tablet and reading material goes on the extended desktop. If you need that on the road then I'm afraid tablets might not be an ideal way to go.

    The screen size trend seems to be moving towards 12.1" as 14" tablets are being phased out.

    That's a good philosophy to follow. If the pain of waiting for a new platform to come out exceeds the benefit you gain from getting an earlier platform now, go ahead and buy it first. How often will your tablet be pushed to the point when you need all 800MHz from your RAM anyway? From the reviews I've read the Santa Rosa platform does not offer such a great performance increase over the current Centrinos that it would be worth waiting a few months for its release, but perhaps there are people who will really benefit from the extra 133MHz so I will try to refrain from making sweeping statements.
     
  7. Charles P. Jefferies

    Charles P. Jefferies Administrator Super Moderator

    Messages:
    425
    Likes Received:
    70
    Trophy Points:
    41
    Actually an SXGA+ resolution (1400x1050) is enough for me, I am very comfortable with that resolution. Thanks for the idea though - I have a desktop-like setup with my current laptop and I am trying to get rid of it all because I want mobility. My laptop right now is basically chained to my desk and it rarely moves.
     
  8. matts22

    matts22 Pen Pal - Newbie

    Messages:
    26
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    5
    Chaz, I'm kind of in the same boat. I need a new laptop for school, and SXGA+ would definitely be nice for doing research while at school. I'm not concerned about it at home, because I plan to get a 24 inch widescreen monitor from Dell (1900 x 1200) and possibly run dual desktop if I need to.

    I was fairly set that I was just going to buy the 4215 with the older technology because of better battery life and negligible performance differences with Santa Rosa (based on reviews). However, I am reading about problems with the chipset recognizing 4gb of RAM, which I really want to have. Apparently the PCs with the Santa Rosa platform are not having this problem.

    So now I guess it is either settle for XGA or wait for the 4225 to be released.

    I'm almost to the point of not getting a tablet and possibly going with the new Dell XPS M1330 that will be released soon. If it offers SXGA, I know I could get everything I want in that computer (well, except a touch screen).
     
  9. SilverIce74

    SilverIce74 Pen Pal - Newbie

    Messages:
    18
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    My point was that you could just zoom out on the XGA screen, and fit the exact same amount of information without noticing the difference in quality. It's true that font 11 on both will look larger on the XGA but that's just because computer's are not well designed. If you take say font size 8 on the XGA and 11 on the SXGA you'll get the same physical size. The SXGA will be a bit clearer, but as noted from 24" away the human eye can not easily distinguish between the two.


    I didn't say there was a higher failure rate. There simply could be. Adopting new technology is always risky. Sometimes its better then the old technology and sometimes its actually worse. You can't tell when its only been out for a month :)

    That being said, I tend to buy the newest myself anwyay ;) Though I probably shouldn't.
     
  10. Clodius

    Clodius Pen Pal - Newbie

    Messages:
    38
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Don't forget that another benefit of Santa Rosa is the updated on board graphics chip, which will help increase performance, especially as Vista and other software programs increase in complexity. A 950 can run Vista, but it had significantly more diffculty running apps in conjunction.

    Also, it means you can run old games well. That's why I'm getting a 4220 XGA =P
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page