MSI Megabook S271: a Look at AMD's Turion X2
by Jarred Walton on October 16, 2006 12:05 AM EST- Posted in
- Laptops
Compatibility and Stability Testing
When we first received the S271, the system worked fine in all of our tests, although as we mentioned it felt a bit sluggish due to the amount of memory. The first order of business was to upgrade the memory, and after determining that the system came with one 512MB DDR2-667 SO-DIMM from Transcend with 5-5-5-15 timings, we figured we would just pick up another generic SO-DIMM online. We went to Newegg and picked what seemed to be a reasonable choice, a budget module from Gigaram. Unfortunately, it appears that the MSI notebook was totally incompatible with this particular memory. Lesson learned: if you want to upgrade your memory in a laptop, you probably shouldn't get the cheapest memory available.
We contacted Corsair and Crucial to see about getting some sample memory after the bad experience with generic RAM, and they were happy to oblige us. One interesting note is that when we mentioned our memory incompatibility problems to MSI, they told us that the laptop didn't support DDR2-667 memory. This is somewhat interesting, considering that's what the laptop had when it arrived. Corsair sent us both a 1GB (2x512MB) kit and 2GB (2x1024MB) kit of DDR2-667 memory. The laptop did manage to POST with both memory kits, and initially we thought everything was fine. Then we started trying to run benchmarks....
After having zero issues with the included 512MB of Transcend memory, we rapidly discovered that we had severe instability problems once we upgraded to 2x512MB of Corsair memory. The laptop does seem to run a little warm when being fully stress tested, so that might seem like a potential cause, but oddly enough that's not when we had the most problems. The biggest problems seemed to occur when the laptop was idle or at least not under heavy load, and frequently it would just lock up and we would have to remove the battery and unplug the system in order to reboot. After the incompatibility with the Gigaram module, we figured there might be a problem with memory compatibility and the initial BIOS. The original BIOS was also an engineering version with a lot of debugging options and the ability to manually specify timings, although even with many attempts at tweaking the timings and memory speed we were still unable to run the system with full stability using the Corsair RAM.
At this point, we did what any sensible person would do: we updated the BIOS to the latest release. The new v1.17 BIOS release removed a bunch of the options from the CMOS setup screens; for example we no longer had the ability to specify memory speed or timings, and the debugging options were gone. So far so good, and at first the system did seem more stable. As we began to run more benchmarks, however, we eventually determined the laptop was still unstable with this memory configuration.
We contacted MSI about our problems, and eventually they gave us a new test BIOS. This test BIOS doesn't appear to be publicly available right now, but the major change seems to be that support for DDR2-667 memory is removed. Our Corsair memory is now running at DDR2-533 speeds, at 5-4-4 timings. While that is slower than the memory is supposed to run, after all of the stability issues we had encountered we were ready to take anything that would keep the laptop from crashing. We are happy to report that ever since the last BIOS upgrade the MSI S271 has been running perfectly stable in all of our tests.
Late in our testing, we also got some memory from Crucial, only this time we had them send us both DDR2-533 and DDR2-667 modules. We then went back to the latest public BIOS as of this writing. We were particularly interested in determining whether the problem was with the Corsair memory or if it was the laptop's support of DDR2-667. We started with the 1GB DDR2-533 modules, which booted at 4-4-4 timings. During a limited amount of benchmarking and testing, the Crucial memory appears to be fully stable without the beta BIOS, at least when using DDR2-533 SO-DIMMs. Having verified this, we moved on to the 2x512MB DDR2-667 Crucial memory, which has so far been running stable at 5-5-5 timings.
So what exactly is to blame for the poor memory compatibility of the S271 laptop? Given that an updated BIOS was at least able to address the issues we experienced when using the Corsair DDR2-667 memory, it seems likely that further BIOS improvements could solve the problems. If you're interested in getting one of these laptops, the best course of action for now appears to be getting DDR2-533 memory, preferably from one of the more well-known memory manufacturers. Of course, Corsair is a very well-known memory manufacturer, which is why it was particularly surprising that their memory didn't work properly with the MSI notebook.
In terms of performance, the 2GB Corsair kits was slightly slower than the Crucial 2GB kit, due to the slightly better timings which were used with the Crucial memory. The Corsair RAM should have been able to use the same 4-4-4 timings at DDR2-533, but the "compatible" BIOS revision didn't set the timings appropriately according to the SPD values, and there was no option in the BIOS to manually set timings.
In the end, performance and stability was excellent once we had the proper memory/BIOS installed, and we didn't experience any further issues. However, it would have been much better if we could have used any of the memory modules without the need to jump through hoops. This article was delayed for well over a month as we tried to determine why exactly our laptop was having so many problems, and once again we have discovered the importance of having an optimal BIOS.
When we first received the S271, the system worked fine in all of our tests, although as we mentioned it felt a bit sluggish due to the amount of memory. The first order of business was to upgrade the memory, and after determining that the system came with one 512MB DDR2-667 SO-DIMM from Transcend with 5-5-5-15 timings, we figured we would just pick up another generic SO-DIMM online. We went to Newegg and picked what seemed to be a reasonable choice, a budget module from Gigaram. Unfortunately, it appears that the MSI notebook was totally incompatible with this particular memory. Lesson learned: if you want to upgrade your memory in a laptop, you probably shouldn't get the cheapest memory available.
We contacted Corsair and Crucial to see about getting some sample memory after the bad experience with generic RAM, and they were happy to oblige us. One interesting note is that when we mentioned our memory incompatibility problems to MSI, they told us that the laptop didn't support DDR2-667 memory. This is somewhat interesting, considering that's what the laptop had when it arrived. Corsair sent us both a 1GB (2x512MB) kit and 2GB (2x1024MB) kit of DDR2-667 memory. The laptop did manage to POST with both memory kits, and initially we thought everything was fine. Then we started trying to run benchmarks....
After having zero issues with the included 512MB of Transcend memory, we rapidly discovered that we had severe instability problems once we upgraded to 2x512MB of Corsair memory. The laptop does seem to run a little warm when being fully stress tested, so that might seem like a potential cause, but oddly enough that's not when we had the most problems. The biggest problems seemed to occur when the laptop was idle or at least not under heavy load, and frequently it would just lock up and we would have to remove the battery and unplug the system in order to reboot. After the incompatibility with the Gigaram module, we figured there might be a problem with memory compatibility and the initial BIOS. The original BIOS was also an engineering version with a lot of debugging options and the ability to manually specify timings, although even with many attempts at tweaking the timings and memory speed we were still unable to run the system with full stability using the Corsair RAM.
At this point, we did what any sensible person would do: we updated the BIOS to the latest release. The new v1.17 BIOS release removed a bunch of the options from the CMOS setup screens; for example we no longer had the ability to specify memory speed or timings, and the debugging options were gone. So far so good, and at first the system did seem more stable. As we began to run more benchmarks, however, we eventually determined the laptop was still unstable with this memory configuration.
We contacted MSI about our problems, and eventually they gave us a new test BIOS. This test BIOS doesn't appear to be publicly available right now, but the major change seems to be that support for DDR2-667 memory is removed. Our Corsair memory is now running at DDR2-533 speeds, at 5-4-4 timings. While that is slower than the memory is supposed to run, after all of the stability issues we had encountered we were ready to take anything that would keep the laptop from crashing. We are happy to report that ever since the last BIOS upgrade the MSI S271 has been running perfectly stable in all of our tests.
Late in our testing, we also got some memory from Crucial, only this time we had them send us both DDR2-533 and DDR2-667 modules. We then went back to the latest public BIOS as of this writing. We were particularly interested in determining whether the problem was with the Corsair memory or if it was the laptop's support of DDR2-667. We started with the 1GB DDR2-533 modules, which booted at 4-4-4 timings. During a limited amount of benchmarking and testing, the Crucial memory appears to be fully stable without the beta BIOS, at least when using DDR2-533 SO-DIMMs. Having verified this, we moved on to the 2x512MB DDR2-667 Crucial memory, which has so far been running stable at 5-5-5 timings.
So what exactly is to blame for the poor memory compatibility of the S271 laptop? Given that an updated BIOS was at least able to address the issues we experienced when using the Corsair DDR2-667 memory, it seems likely that further BIOS improvements could solve the problems. If you're interested in getting one of these laptops, the best course of action for now appears to be getting DDR2-533 memory, preferably from one of the more well-known memory manufacturers. Of course, Corsair is a very well-known memory manufacturer, which is why it was particularly surprising that their memory didn't work properly with the MSI notebook.
In terms of performance, the 2GB Corsair kits was slightly slower than the Crucial 2GB kit, due to the slightly better timings which were used with the Crucial memory. The Corsair RAM should have been able to use the same 4-4-4 timings at DDR2-533, but the "compatible" BIOS revision didn't set the timings appropriately according to the SPD values, and there was no option in the BIOS to manually set timings.
In the end, performance and stability was excellent once we had the proper memory/BIOS installed, and we didn't experience any further issues. However, it would have been much better if we could have used any of the memory modules without the need to jump through hoops. This article was delayed for well over a month as we tried to determine why exactly our laptop was having so many problems, and once again we have discovered the importance of having an optimal BIOS.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
31 Comments
View All Comments
JarredWalton - Monday, October 16, 2006 - link
First, the "closed system" as such is not something we would recommend. Dual core with only 512MB of RAM? I already covered that. Second, the system *is* available as a barebones (MSI MS-1058), as I mentioned in the review. Memory compatibility aside, this isn't a great laptop. It's okay.The memory issues are something worth mentioning, even if we got them worked out. Even if everything had worked without issue, the laptop would have still only been okay - there are quite a few competing notebooks in the same price range, and this one fails to stand out from the crowd in any meaningful way.
Furen - Monday, October 16, 2006 - link
Sounds like you had huge memory compatibility problems, though. Personally, I always buy Crucial because when I used to buy other RAM (Kingston, etc), more often than not, I had some sort of memory compatibility problems (probably because I mixed brands but I've never had ANY problems at all with Crucial stuff).DrMrLordX - Monday, October 16, 2006 - link
I know the Core Duo is now an old product that is being replaced by the Core 2 Duo in the mobile sector, but it would have been nice to see the Turion X2 benchmarked against a Core Duo laptop as well. Surely a similarly-configured Core Duo machine exists out there somewhere.IntelUser2000 - Monday, October 16, 2006 - link
One thing is the Core 2 Duo laptop has 7200RPM HDD while the Turion X2 has 5400RPM. It shouldn't impact is greatly but it'll make a difference.IntelUser2000 - Monday, October 16, 2006 - link
Uhh. No. Clearly no. Explanation?? Turion X2 system uses integrated graphics, while Core 2 Duo system uses a powerful video card. Do you guys really think idle power of video card+chipset is equal to chipset alone??
IntelUser2000 - Monday, October 16, 2006 - link
http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/hardware/grafik...">http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/hard...hnitt_le...Integrated graphics power is clearly lower than even super low-end discrete. Now on this AT review we are talking about a mid-range part.
Sorry for triple post, but I must get my point across.
Two laptops, each possessed by one of my friends, both a Dell:
Pentium M 765 2.0GHz/533MHz FSB
1GB DDR2-533
120GB 5400RPM HDD
Geforce Go 7800GTX 128MB
15.4 inch wide-screen
70WHr battery
2.5 hour battery life with internet surfing, usage
2. Pentium M 1.6GHz/400MHz FSB/Dothan
512MB DDR2-533
Intel GMA900
60GB 4200RPM HDD
14 inch screen
45WHr battery
3.5 hour battery life with internet surfing, light usage
Is there a reason some high-end laptops are featured with integrated/discrete graphics card option?? You can turn one off?? Cause video cards in laptops suck huge amounts of power.
JarredWalton - Monday, October 16, 2006 - link
There are multiple issues involved with testing comparable laptops. Short of going out and purchasing a laptop, it's very difficult to pull off. At this point, there's not much reason to get a Core Duo notebook instead of a Core 2 Duo notebook, other than price. So we're doing our best to compare laptops that are similar, and we wanted to get this review out the door before it got any older. Obviously, we're still not recommending the MSI S271 over other laptops.In regards to Inteluser2000, he makes several comments. I have now reworded the page on power consumption to clarify a few points. However, not all of his points are entirely valid either. For example:
I don't think he was reading clearly, because I had just explained that at maximum CPU load MSI Turion X2 is consuming MORE power than ASUS Core 2 Duo. In other words, even with integrated graphics versus discrete graphics and with all of the other variables involved (7200 RPM hard drive versus 5400 RPM Drive, 14 inch LCD versus 12.1 inch LCD, etc.), without putting a load on the GPU one would expect the ASUS system to draw more power than the MSI system, and it doesn't. At idle, all of the variables can explain why the ASUS consumes more power, but when I put 100% load on just the CPU Turion X2 clearly requires more power.
I have no idea what he is trying to say with his comment about Dell laptops. Comparing a high-end system with a GeForce Go 7800 GTX to one that uses IGP is far worse than comparing something that uses GeForce Go 7700 to IGP. Different battery sizes, different display sizes, different processors, different hard drives, memory, etc. -- of course they're going to have different results. However, in this case are not drawing any final conclusions about idle power, other than to point out some interesting trends. What I am concluding is that if we were able to isolate just the CPU power use, a Turion X2 TL-60 at 100% load would require a lot more power than a Core 2 Duo T7200 at 100% load.
The ASUS system is there more as a frame of reference, particularly on the power requirements page. I really can't say for certain whether Turion X2 uses more power or less power at idle, but I am positive that it requires more power when it's placed under 100% load. Hope that explains things.
IntelUser2000 - Monday, October 16, 2006 - link
Nonono. I don't care about the load power, I care about your conclusions regarding idle. Even if you don't put load on the GPU, it consumes power. In laptop standards, lots of power. Its not a coincidence some laptop manufacturers put dual video card solutions(integrated/discrete), because they realize discrete cards affect battery life in idle, not just load. What I don't like is the explanation that its the CPU and chipset that contributes to idle power consumption and less battery life at DVD playback, Mobilemark, etc.
Check this out: http://www.trustedreviews.com/article.aspx?page=50...">http://www.trustedreviews.com/article.aspx?page=50...
(Dual GPU machine)
DVD playback
IGP: 164 minutes
Nvidia Geforce Go 6600: 112 minutes
MobileMark 2005 general battery life test
IGP:128 minutes
Geforce Go 6600: 92 minutes
30-40% battery life difference. Looks like video card is quite a big drain on battery life. I bet significant battery life difference between my friend's two system lies in the video card.
This is really a laptop review rather than a CPU review. Of course, due to laptops peculiarity of outperforming one with what looks like similar specifications, the idea of a CPU comparison on a laptop is far-fetched.
JarredWalton - Monday, October 16, 2006 - link
I did reword the rest of the page in regards to power use. I have used an ASUS W5F and found that it used about the same amount of power as the S271 (at idle). It was slightly more, so the remaining conclusions (i.e. Turion X2 in low power mode uses a bit less power) seem to be consistent. Tough to say 100% without nearly identical laptops - and you still have chipset and mobo components that can have an impact.IntelUser2000 - Monday, October 16, 2006 - link
You can find otherwise similar looking laptops that have different power consumption. How did you test out the W5F?? Just dropped in a Core 2 Duo in replacement of Core Duo?
Otherwise nice test.