Category Archives: Benchmarking

First TB5 NVMe SSD Enclosures Drop

OK then, I knew it was coming. The Thunderbolt 5 (TB5) and USB5 (aka USB4V2.0) specs got released in September 2023. We’d been expecting 80Gbps devices (including docks, SSD enclosures, dongles, and  so forth) to hit the market by late 2024. Now it looks like that crop is starting to come in. I see an NVMe enclosure model available from Acasis at Newegg (MSRP: $279, limited time deal for $239 — it provides the lead-in graphic image above). I also see a Trebleet model available at Amazon ($199). So as these first TB5 NVMe SSD enclosures drop, I find myself asking: “When will I get a test PC with an 80 Gbps USB-C port?” Good question!

Impact When First TB5 NVMe SSD Enclosures Drop

According to the device info a Newegg and Amazon, these new enclosures offer double the maximum read/write speeds from external NVMe connections. But remember, the whole chain — that is, port to cable to enclosure to embedded SSD — must be ready to accommodate those blistering speeds. Right now, it seems that cables (which usually ship with high end enclosures), enclosures and NVMes (which should ideally be PCIe Gen 4×4 or better) are becoming available.

There’s a bit of a problem on the port side of the chain right now, though. At the moment, only the very newest laptops incorporate USB5/TB5 80Gbps capable USB-C ports. Basically, you’ll have to go out and buy something new to take this I/O chain into your Windows processing stable. And indeed, Qualcomm has not yet incorporated USB5/TB5 controllers into its chipsets, so such a laptop will not come from that branch of the Copilot+ PC family tree, either. Indeed, Copilot tells me the same is true for Intel and AMD based Copilot+ PC hardware right now, too.

Does anybody else see a possible mismatch emerging? I can’t help but believe that leading-edge AI capable PCs should also accommodate the fastest USB-C ports and related I/O chains. It could be that the PC market is about to get more interesting than Microsoft and OEMs want it to be… Who wants to choose between AI-capable and blistering fast I/O: buyers want both!!!

Stay tuned: I’ll keep digging!

Facebooklinkedin
Facebooklinkedin

ThinkBook Plus G5 External Storage

I’ve been messing about with an interesting (and covetable) Lenovo hybrid laptop lately. it’s got an x86 PC for the keyboard deck, and a plug-in 15″ Android tablet that also doubles as a laptop display when docked with that deck. I plugged my fastest external USB storage devices into the free TB4/USB4 rated USB-C port and ran CrystalDiskMark. That gives me some basis to talk about ThinkBook Plus G5 external storage. I’m checking outUSB4 NVMe, TB4 NVMe, USB3.0 Msata, and USB 3.0 HDD storage devices.

ThinkBook Plus G5 External Storage Capability

I’m running CrystalDiskMark version 8.0.6 through its standard testing paces to see how these various devices all compare, in the same USB-C port and using the same USB4 rated cable. So far, what I’ve seeing is not bad, but not on par with other high-end Lenovo laptops or mini-desktops. (FWIW, I’ve also noticed that Snapdragon X Copilot+ PCs offer excellent USB-C USB4/TB performance, but only 5 Gbps capability on their built-in USB-A 3.2 Gen 1 ports.)

The internal SSD in the ThinkBook Plus G5 (I’ll abbreviate that as TB5 for brevity) gets reasonable performance. It’s a Samsung OEM NVMe MZAL81T0HDLB-00BL2 (vintage 2022, Gen4x4 M.2, middling performance). It does pretty well on large data transfers (~6GB read/4.7GB write queue depth 8; 3GB read/2.9GB write queue depth 1). On Random 4K reads, it’s somewhat less thrilling: 337.7MB read/264.5MB write queue depth 32; 60 MB read/113MB write queue depth 1). Those CrystalDiskMark (CDM) results provide the lead-in graphic for this story.

When I shift to external storage via USB, the story gets darker quickly:


Type   1TibRWQ8  1TibRWQ1   4KRWQ32  4KRWQ1
USB4   3062/447  1692/521   337/8    11/4
TB4    2615/530  2211/491   345/14   62/10
mSATA  465/331   436/121    138/20   23/2
HDD    118/117   117/52     1/1      0.4/0.4

On the whole, I’d have to say that I/O performance with external storage is NOT a strong suit for the otherwise interesting and occasionally excellent/amazing TB5. I see at least 15% better performance across the board for all those devices on the 2022 vintage Lenovo ThinkPad P16 Gen 1 Mobile Workstation and the 2023 vintage Lenovo ThinkStation P3 Ultra mini-Workstation. For example, here are the internal drive results from the 2022 vintage P16:

The Internal NVMe on the P16 is mostly 15+% faster across the board. Only 4KR/QD=1 is slightly less.

Note: the P16’s internal drive is a WD SN810 2TB NVMe (PCIe Gen4 x4 drive with performance nearly equal to the TB5’s Samsung OEM drive).

Space and Cost Are at a Premium, So…

In a hybrid device like the TB5, I have to believe that space and device costs are important elements to control. My best guess is that Lenovo went with more compact and possibly lower-cost USB circuitry than they put into those other two devices. Then again, the internal SSD could be slower than those used in the other devices as well. Both will impact overall I/O performance.

On the other hand, as I use the TB5 for surfing the web, doing workaday tasks, installing and running all kinds of software and tests, and more, I’ve not really noticed I/O as a bottleneck. Perception is vital to user experience, so these numbers I’ve shared may paint this fascinating two-in-one less positively than they should. Bear that in mind as you consider “buying this dream.” I’m reading that MSRP will be right around $2K for a 22-core Ultra 7-155H, 32GB, 1TB SSD model. It just may be worth it.

Next up: I’m going to take the Android tablet for a ride on its own, to see how it does as a detached tablet. Stay tuned!

Facebooklinkedin
Facebooklinkedin

Strange Yoga Slim 7 USB4 Behavior

Seems like I’ve been messing about more than usual with USB ports of late. That’s why an apparent anomaly on my latest Copilot+ PC review unit — the Intel-based Yoga Slim 7i Aura Edition (15ILL9) — didn’t phase me for long. It delivered mSATA-level CrystalDiskMark results for a known, good, working Konyead USB4 NVMe enclosure. That is, when plugged into the right-side USB-C port. In the left-side port, its outputs ran somewhat under what I originally expected. What gives, you might ask? I’ll make some educated guesses…

More details on Strange Yoga Slim 7 USB4 Behavior

Even the Port 1 (left side) results weren’t fabulous for a USB4 NVMe device, but they’re within the realm of the expected. Here’s where things get interesting though: when I unplugged the enclosure from the left side, and plugged it into the right, the next set was much closer to expectations (and those recorded from the other side). The lead-in graphic shows left-side and right-side CrystalDiskMark results, each where you’d expect them per that ordering. Again I ask: what gives?

I can’t say with certainty, but I can guess with reasonable confidence that the device did not get properly detected the first time I plugged it in. The top 2 rows of CDM values were under 1K at left, and under 200 at right. The bottom 2 rows show random access to 4K segments, and seldom differ much across 5, 10 and 40 Gbps ports.

I do find the write values uniformly disappointing and significantly slower than what I’ve seen from Snapdragon X-based Copilot+ PCs. Could it be that Intel — the co-inventor and a major manufacturer of USB4/Thunderbolt 4 USB-C port controllers — isn’t as good at this as Qualcomm? Perish the thought. I’m thinking it may just be a lesser-grade part that’s not as fast as its Qualcomm counterpart.

Indeed, a quick jump into Settings > Bluetooth & devices > USB > USB4 hubs and devices lists the external NVMe as “Intel – USB4.0 SSD” and bandwidth as “40 Gbps/40Gbps (Gen 3, dual lane).” That’s exactly what it should be. So any performance differences seeming come from the parts themselves.

When in Doubt, Try a Different Device…

Just for grins I tried a different NVMe enclosure and SSD in the right-side port, then ran CrystalDiskMark again. Results initially came in nearly identical. As CDM continued through its read sequence, so did that similarity. Ditto for the write side of things with some slight improvements in the top 2 rows. I can only suggest that Qualcomm USB4 ports and controllers offer more balanced read/write performance than their Intel counterparts and better overall throughput. Isn’t that a surprise!

For those users who need max performance from external USB media, these differences might be worth considering as part of a purchase decision. Others are neither likely to notice, nor care.

 

Facebooklinkedin
Facebooklinkedin

Exploiting ReFS Speed Advantage

I’ve been reading articles online about a supposed speed advantage for the Resilient File System, aka ReFS, in Windows. But I’m observing some caveats when it comes to exploiting ReFS speed advantage. Let me use a speed check from the Lenovo ThinkStation P3 Ultra as an example, mounted in a USB 3.1 Gen 2 (10 Gbps) NVMe enclosure. Quick examination makes the point nicely: one sees no difference vis-a-vis NTFS. Indeed the speeds shown are entirely typical of any UASP devices at nominal 10 Gbps speeds.

Exploiting ReFS Speed Advantage Requires 20 Gbps or Higher

Do the math: 982.75 MBps = 7,862 Mbps = 7.67 Gbps. That’s about as fast as a USB 3.1 Gen 2 (10 Gbps) device can go in a real-world situation, such as running the CrystalDiskMark benchmark. My basic point, therefore, is this: Don’t switch to ReFS for performance gains unless you have a device that can deliver 20 Gbps (or higher) performance. That means USB 3.2 Gen2 (20 Gbps) or USB 4/Thunderbolt 3 or 4 (40 Gbps).

So I tried the same enclosure, same SSD, same cable (all of these factors count) with both ReFS and NTFS. I found it easiest to use the “Create a Dev Drive” option in the Dev Home app to start the former. Disk Mgmt worked find for the latter. Here are those results, which do show ReFS has a speed advantage — but it’s pretty small.

If you compare the big block write speeds (upper 2 left cells) that’s where the advantage is noticeable. For the rest of the cells, it’s barely there.

True, But Nugatory

I’m going to have to mess around with faster SSDs and see if that helps. But so far, I don’t see the uptick as big enough to be worth a lot. That said, as 24H2 goes final I should try again. The P3 Ultra isn’t getting that update offer yet, and that’s usually for good reason. If this changes, I’ll update this post accordingly. Right now, it’s mostly a ho-hum level of added performance.

OK, so I tried it on a different PC — a ThinkPad P16 Gen 1 Mobile Workstation — running 24H2 preview version. It shows modest improvements over the P3 Ultra but nothing spectacular. I’ll keep checking and reporting back here. It’s possible there’s more to see than I can tell just yet. I’m going to run a Macrium Reflect Backup next…

 

Facebooklinkedin
Facebooklinkedin

USB Adapter Beats Down-level Port

In seventh grade, my math teacher was named Wayne Mackey. He had an amazing way of cutting and complimenting at the same time. I vividly remember him telling me “Mr. Tittel, you have an AMAZING grasp of the obvious” and puffing up, then collapsing. In today’s blog post, I’m returning to those roots as I observe that it’s better to pay the translation penalty involved in using a Type-A female to USB-C male adapter into a 40 Gbps connection, than to plug into a 5 Gbps Type-A port directly. Duh, but that’s why I lead off with USB adapter beats down-level port.

By How Much USB Adapter Beats Down-level Port?

The throughput difference one versus the other is easily obtained, using CrystalDiskMark as a means for comparison. Plugging the Kingston Data Traveler Max into the ThinkPad T14s Copilot+ PC, I get close to typical UASP rates when I plug its USB-A end into an $8 A-to-C adapter plug. To see that difference, check my September 6 blog Fast UFDs Need Fast USB Ports.

When I plug the device into the 5 Gbps USB-A port on the other side of that selfsame laptop, I get throughput numbers that are  much lower than those values. The adapter numbers appear left, and the direct plug-in results appear right, in the lead-in graphic above.

Those results definitely help me answer this question: is it worth $6-8 to buy a USB A-to-C dongle? I can’t help but answer that one in the affirmative. Yes, I know I’m showing an amazing grasp of the obvious here, but sometimes it helps to see what that means in vivid, undeniable detail. It was true in 7th grade algebra, and it’s still true today (59 years later).

Choose Your Ports Carefully…

There’s at least one other lesson to take away from this side-by-side comparison. It’s what I said in the preceding heading. According to the user manual, the USB-A ports on the ThinkPad T14s are USB 3.1 Gen 1, rated at a speed of 5Gbps (translates to 0.625 GBps or 640 MBps, much higher than what you see in CrystalDiskMark). Sigh.

The other item I take away from this encounter is to ask Lenovo: why put only 5 Gbps USB-A ports on that PC? I’m guessing the answer may be something like “Because that’s what Qualcomm gave us in the Snapdragon X chipset environment.” Sigh again…

Facebooklinkedin
Facebooklinkedin

Fast UFDs Need Fast USB Ports

I just learned something amazing. I’ve long known that performance depends greatly on USB port selection. Indeed I posted about this nearly two years ago to the day: USB-C Port Choice Really Matters. Amusingly, it wasn’t until this morning that I figured out this caution applies to USB-A ports as well. Indeed, fast UFDs need fast USB ports for them to deliver their fullest capabilities. The speed difference is shocking, too: more than 20X faster for large read/writes; 2-10X faster for small ones. Let me show you…

CDM Shows That Fast UFDs Need Fast USB Ports

Check out the lead-in graphic at right. It shows CystalDiskMark (CDM) results for the same Kingston Data Traveler Max 256GB UFD I just had delivered from Amazon yesterday. It’s rated at 1,000 MB/s read, and 900 MB/s write on that purchase page. As you can see, CDM reports better numbers than those for queue depth of 8 on a 1 GiB object, and somewhat less for a queue depth of 1.

What’s fascinating, however, is the results shown on the left. These popped up in a pretty new ThinkPad T14s Gen6 Copilot+ PC I received from Lenovo last month. As the user manual confirms, both of its USB-A connectors top out at 5 Gbps, which makes them plain-vanilla USB 3.0 (aka USB 3.2 Gen1). As you can see given that I’m testing the same device in two different USB-A ports, the difference is down to the port. And that difference is MAJOR!

Here’s a Potential Workaround

You can purchase a dongle/adapter that is female USB-A on one side, and male USB-C on the other. It will let you plug a fast USB-A UFD into a presumably faster USB-C port. I bought a 2-pack of these from Amazon back in 2021. You can see there’s some pass-through loss (compare upper right results, and you’ll see what I mean) when taking this approach. But gosh! It’s still MUCH faster than a 5Gpbs connection. ‘Nuff said.

If you buy a fast UFD and your laptop or PC has only 5 Gbps USB-A ports, spend the extra $5-6 that a USB-A to USB-C adapter will cost. You’ll get a major performance boost as a result, even if it’s not as good as a native 10 Gbps USB-A port. Cheers!

Facebooklinkedin
Facebooklinkedin

Comparing USB4 40 vs 20 Gbps

My rationale for keeping the terrific Lenovo Yoga Pro 9i for a couple of extra weeks comes from a recently acquired Maiwo 40 Gbps USB4 NVMe enclosure. Handily, the 9i has two USB-C ports side-by-side. One is rated 40 Gbps, the other 20 Gbps. The lead-in graphic has me comparing USB4 40 vs 20 Gbps via CrystalDiskMark. As you can see, the port speed makes a difference, especially for large block transfers (upper half of each chart).

Comparing USB4 40 vs 20 Gbps: What’s the Diff?

As you can see in the lead-in graphic, the 40Gbps port is faster than its 20Gbps counterpart in 3 out of 4 rows in CrystalDiskMark. It’s double or better for the top 2 rows which involve large (1MB) block transfers. It’s also faster on random writes of 4K blocks, and slightly slower in random reads of such blocks.

Copilot explains these differences as follows (and I am convinced it’s correct because of fundamental principles involved):

  • Large reads and writes benefit more from the higher speed . . . because they involve continuous data transfer.
  • Smaller reads and writes may not fully utilize the increased speed, resulting in smaller differences.

Indeed it makes sense to me that the 4K transfers (which means such reads involve 8 512-byte sectors per read or write) would be less sensitive to bandwidth than 1 MB transfers (2,048 512-byte sectors per read or write, as in 211 transfers overall for each such operation). There’s a lot more time for the speed difference to manifest for those larger transfers. The smaller ones are so fast, the channel speed differences don’t matter much (or at all).

Comparing Backup Times

But CrystalDiskMark is a synthetic benchmark, so it’s not entirely clear how accurately it reflects speeds when performing various operations. For me, the ultimate test of an external USB storage device is how fast it can complete an image backup of the PC’s boot/system drive. Indeed backup and restore top my list of “things to use external USB storage for.” So let’s compare those numbers, shall we?

Because my fave backup tool — namely, Macrium Reflect — is no longer free, I installed and used EaseUS ToDo Backup Free instead. I ran two complete backups with the same drive, same cable: one thru the 40Gbps port, the other thru the 20 Gbps port. File Explorer reports the size of the C: partition at 73GB; other partitions on that drive weigh in at over 1GB total (interestingly, EaseUS reports backup size at 119.5GB). I used 120GB as my backup size in the following table.  I also checked Settings | Bluetooth & devices | USB | USB4 hubs and devices to confirm that the first timing used the 40Gbps and the second the 20Gbps USB-C ports.

Port    Total Time    GB/min
40Gbps  03:22 (202)   35.64
20Gbps  05:11 (311)   23.15

As you might expect the difference is not linear. The 40Gbps backup averages about 35% faster, not 100% as a purely linear ratio would dictate. Even so, this saves 109 seconds (01:49) on backup time. As the backups get bigger, the gap widens. Very interesting!

More for Less

Right now a 40Gbps NVMe enclosure (with cooling fan) costs  (US$70) about fifty bucks LESS than what I paid for a 20Gbps device two years ago (sans fan). Thus, I’d say the difference was definitely worth it.

If you’re buying new, there’s no reason to consider an older 20Gbps device. The real question for those with PCs or laptops 2 years old or older is: does this speed difference justify buying a newer computer? Only you can decide for yourself. For me, it’s pretty compelling . . . but for now, I’m using a loaner unit from Lenovo to measure this capability. I haven’t shelled out to buy a brand-new machine with my own cash recently, either. But I’m thinking about it, hard.

Facebooklinkedin
Facebooklinkedin

USB4 Means Yoga Pro 9 Stays On

I have to apologize to the review team at Lenovo. I’d told them I’d be sending back their splendid Yoga Pro 9(i) last Friday. Then I got an assignment from AskWoody to write about external, USB-attached NVMe (and other SSD) storage devices. So of course I had to a buy a current-gen 40 Gbps USB4 drive enclosure. Also, its inbuilt USB4 means Yoga Pro 9 stays on here at Chez Tittel while testing is underway. Sorry, Jeff and Amanda: I need to keep this beast a bit longer…

Why USB4 Means Yoga Pro 9 Stays On

Short answer: it’s my only PC/laptop with USB4 capability. And I want to research and write about same. And on the Yoga Pro 9i the first thing I observe is that while it has two USB-C ports, only one of them supports 40 Gbps throughput (the other is USB-C 3.2 and tops out at half that). This makes a big difference in read/write speeds. Ditto for cables: for best results you need a cable marked 40 Gbps or Thunderbolt 4, too. The device info for the MAIWO 40Gbps enclosure shows what needs to appear for fastest I/O:

USB4 Means Yoga Pro 9 Stays On.Settings-USBdevinfo

The salient info is at the bottom: 40Gbps. It also detects a Gen3 NVMe SSD.

Over the next 10 days or so, I’ll be comparing enclosures, drives, and cables with related measurements. This should be interesting. But for now, let me observe that I paid US$70 for a 40Gbps NVMe enclosure yesterday. When I bought the previous generation (20Gbps) enclosures, the cheapest ones cost US$120 or thereabouts. It’s good that the technology is getting both faster and cheaper. I’m very interested to see how quickly Macrium Reflect can back up the Yoga Pro 9i with a fast SSD and this fast enclosure. Should be fun!

Top of the Heap? You tell me…

FWIW, Cale Hunt over at WindowsCentral just anointed the Lenovo Yoga 9i as the #1 best laptop for 2024. I’ve found it to be pretty stellar in my 5 weeks working with it so far. It’s been great at handling complex programs, lots of VMs, and both compute- and graphics-intensive workloads. Too bad it came out before Copilot + PC requirements were known. It’s close, but not quite at that level. Sigh.

Facebooklinkedin
Facebooklinkedin

Yoga Pro 9i Shows Incredible SSD Speed Variations

I’m digging into the behaviors of the svelte and powerful Yoga Pro 9i I’ve had for two weeks today. It’s a speedy and powerful beast of a laptop. It’s half the thickness (30.23mm/1.2″ vs 19.4mm/0.77″ on average) and ¾ the weight (2.95kg/6.5 lbs vs 2.23kg/4.9 lbs) of the Lenovo P16 Mobile Workstation (Gen1). But it’s either on par with or faster than that bigger beast of a desktop replacement. All this said, though, running various NVMe drives and enclosures, I’ve observed that the Yoga Pro 9i shows incredible SSD speed variations.

Why Say: Yoga Pro 9i Shows Incredible SSD Speed Variations

The first set of CrystalDiskMark (CDM) results for the Yoga Pro 9i serve as the lead graphic up top here. These come from the internal SSD inside the unit’s M.2 drive slot. According to Device Manager that drive is an SKHynix_HFS001TEJ9X115N (1TB PCIe x4 NVMe 1.4). Those are pretty respectable results, and serve as a point of reference against external drives.

What makes the Yoga Pro 9i interesting is its two USB-C ports. One is labeled USB-C (20 Gbps) and the other is labeled Thunderbolt 4 (which means 40 Gbps) [see the ports diagram from this April 29 post]. Theoretically that means port 3 (USB-C 20 Gbps) tops out at half the speed of port 4 (USB-C Thunderbolt 4 40 Gbps).

And indeed my only Thunderbolt 4 NVMe enclosure — an Acasis TB-401u claims to support that 40 Gbps top rate. The on-the-ground reality is, however, something quite different with a Sabrent Rocket 1TB NVMe 1.3 SSD  installed therein. Much of this comes from an older v1.3 SSD inside a 1.4 enclosure with access to TB4/USB4 compatible ports. But these results fall far short of what I’d expected to see:

Yoga Pro 9i Shows Incredible SSD Speed Variations.acasis

This looks like results for a typical USB 3.x UASP device IMO

In fact, I got at least some better results from a less-capable Crucial CTP2000P3SSD8 (2TB, NVMe 1.3) inside a less capable enclosure (Sabrent EC-NVME: USB 3.1 Gen2) in the slower USB-C 20 Gbps port. Here they are:

Yoga Pro 9i Shows Incredible SSD Speed Variations.sabrent/crucial

Big bulk reads (top left) are much faster, but everything else is (mostly) slower.

There’s a lot of interesting stuff going on here. What I take from it is that for the fastest backups and big file transfers (video, AI models, and the like) you’re better off spending more on a faster enclosure and a faster SSD to get the most out of the connection. I’m going to have to systematize this, and run some more tests. Great fun!

Facebooklinkedin
Facebooklinkedin

Lenovo Yoga Pro 9 Intake

When I got home from a visit to a dental lab around lunchtime on Friday, the Boss asked “Were you expecting a package?” I’d asked Lenovo to send me a Yoga Pro 9 earlier that week, so my answer was a tentative “Maybe…” And sure enough, that’s what it was. Over the weekend, I had time to get through all steps in the Lenovo Yoga Pro 9 intake process. It proved more interesting — and educational — than I expected…

What I Got for Lenovo Yoga Pro 9 Intake

There were some interesting surprises in what showed up. Basics of the unit’s configuration include:

  • Intel Core Ultra 9 185H (Meteor Lake/13th Gen+)
  • 32 GB LPDDR5x-7467 (soldered)
  • Hynix 1TiB NVMe SSD PCIe x4
  • 16″ Lenovo LEN8BAI Monitor 3200×2000 resolution monitor
  • Intel Wi-Fi 6E AX211 network adapter
  • Intel AI Boost NPU & Copilot key

There’s more, but I’ll get to some of that in the next section. The main reason I requested a short loan of this formidable PC was for access to a machine with NPU and Copilot key to take them for a spin. Looks like this unit retails for around US$2,100 at the Lenovo Store.

What I  Learned During the Intake Process

TLDR answer: LOTS of things. I’ll elaborate by noting first that the unit came with Windows 11 Home installed (immediately upgraded to Build 22631.3527 Enterprise). Because I usually interact with most PCs — personal, production and test/loaner units — via RDP, sticking with Home was not an option for me. It’s OK: because I’m an MVP I get a MAK key for Enterprise as part of my Visual Studio subscription. Lenovo will destroy my image upon its return anyway. But if you decide to purchase one, you can indeed configure it with Pro for a mere US$2 extra. That’s what I’d do, for sure…

I found myself a little mystified by the new Meteor Lake Intel Core Ultra 9 185HCore Ultra 9 185H CPU. Intel refers to this CPU as “formerly Meteor Lake” but doesn’t really assign a “Generation” number. Its Intel home page studiously avoids mentioning such info. My unit was built in early February 2024 according to its outside sticker. Its Intel Ark page describes it as Intel Core Ultra processors (Series 1) so it looks like NPU endowed chips are starting a new numbering scheme instead. This should be interested to see play out, expecially with Snapdragon X systems on their way into this same niche.

I also observed that read/write speeds vary significantly by USB-C port type. As you can see in the next graphic, port3 is USB -C 20Gbps, and 4 is Thunderbolt 4. These produce “interesting” benchmark results where one is noticeably faster than the other for some values. Indeed, TB4 is faster for 1M read and 4K random writes, while USB 4 is faster for 1M write and 4K random reads. Others are more or less a wash. I’m going to have to try faster SSDs to see if that makes a difference (I suspect it will).

Lenovo Yoga Pro 9 ports (left & right sides)
Lenovo Yoga Pro 9 ports (left & right sides) [Double-click image for full-size view]

What About AI Stuff?

I can tell that Copilot runs faster on this laptop than on other, older models (even a ThinkPad P16 Mobile workstation with a 12th-Gen i9-12950HX CPU but no NPU). But other than that I haven’t really messed around enough with Copilot and other AI functions to get a sense of the differences. Stay tuned! I only get to keep this unit for a month, so I’ll be writing about it regularly over the next few weeks.

Other Observations

Here are some bullet points that reflect other stuff I noticed while unpacking, setting up and using the new Lenovo Yoga 9 Pro:

  • The shipping materials proudly proclaim “plastic-free packaging” in several places on the boxes. Two egg-crate holders supported the laptop, with one small internal cardboard box for the brick and power cord. There was some soft material labeled 22/PAP between the upper and lower decks of the clamshell. Ditto for the label on the black bag inside which the laptop itself was sitting. The material uses a plastic-recycling symbol (three arrows forming a triangle) but lookup tells me … yep, it’s paper! Even the twist-tie that held the power cord together was covered in brown paper. Good job, Lenovo.
  • For some unholy reason, Lenovo included McAfee AV on the Yoga 9 Pro. I uninstalled it right after I performed the OS updates on that PC. Defender is fine with me: I no longer use much, if any, third party security software.
  • Have to laugh: the Copilot key is a big deal on these new Windows AI-Ready PCs. But the onscreen keyboard (Ctrl+Winkey+O) does not include such a key. I bet MS will fix this before these AI-Ready PCs get into wider circulation.
  • The Open Source Snappy Driver installer (SDIO version) gives the drives already installed on this laptop its blessing. It’s not an absolute guarantee that everything’s up to date, but it’s pretty darn close. Good-oh!
Facebooklinkedin
Facebooklinkedin