14.1" or FlexView? 64MB 9600 or 128MB FireGL? Help!

Message

Matt · #1 Post by **Matt** » Mon May 17, 2004 10:38 pm

Trying to decide which flavor of T42 is for me, somebody help me out here: do the FlexView displays live up to the hype? I think I'd really prefer the smaller form factor with the 14" screen, but if FlexView is mind-numbingly better, I'm open to it.

Also, I'm wondering how the 64MB 9600 and the 128MB FireGL T2 graphics controllers really compare...I presume the FireGL will scream for OpenGL applications, but how 'bout DirectX9 support for games? Pretty much the only games I'll play on it are X-Plane (OpenGL), and MS Flight Sim 2004 (DX9).

JeffNT326 · #2 Post by **JeffNT326** » Mon May 17, 2004 11:04 pm

Also, I'm wondering how the 64MB 9600 and the 128MB FireGL T2 graphics controllers really compare...I presume the FireGL will scream for OpenGL applications, but how 'bout DirectX9 support for games? Pretty much the only games I'll play on it are X-Plane (OpenGL), and MS Flight Sim 2004 (DX9).

Regarding the vid card, the FireGL brand uses the same core in the 9600. What sets these cards apart are the set of drivers used to run each card. The drivers for FireGL are optimized for accuracy and reliability (think AutoCAD), whereas the drivers for the 9600 are optimized for speed (games).

Both are capable of playing games supporting DX9. The FireGL is optimized for OpenGL as well.

csv96 · #3 Post by **csv96** » Mon May 17, 2004 11:06 pm

To see a FlexView/IPS screen, just go to the local computer store and take a look at a 20" UXGA LCD. Then compare the viewing angles, contrast, and brightness to the 15" and 17" LCD screens nearby.

Gamewise, the FireGL T2 is really just a Radeon 9600 with more memory. Even the ATI website shows they have identical performance (23x the Mobility Radeon).

http://www.ati.com/products/brochures/M ... t_Line.pdf

#4 Post by **BillMorrow** » Tue May 18, 2004 1:37 am

mind numbingly better..?

a subjective thing..!

some of the 14 inch displays show in the specs to be flexview and some do not..

all 15 ich displays are except the 1024x768 versions..

for me, flexview is worth the effort and expense..

akerman · #5 Post by **akerman** » Tue May 18, 2004 4:20 am

The fireGL card is physically exactly the same as the radeon 9600... the difference lies in the drivers - so if you install 9600 drivers, you would get similar performance. If you use the FireGL drivers, you keep openGL functionality, but you lose 5-10% performance-wise. The 64mb extra ram shouldn't make any noticeable difference... depends on how your games work.

Lmax · #6 Post by **Lmax** » Tue May 18, 2004 7:33 am

akerman wrote:The fireGL card is physically exactly the same as the radeon 9600... the difference lies in the drivers - so if you install 9600 drivers, you would get similar performance. If you use the FireGL drivers, you keep openGL functionality, but you lose 5-10% performance-wise. The 64mb extra ram shouldn't make any noticeable difference... depends on how your games work.

Are you sure akerman? I see similar performance between my friends laptop that has a 9600 and my T41p with FireGL in the same game. The FireGL wins even though our computers have very close specs for everything else.

As for professional graphics though, the FireGL kills. Accurate colors, good tonal range, perfectly crisp in OpenGL where it counts. You do CAD Matt? You might want to be thinking about that FireGL.

As for Flexview I have seen both and yeah, FlexView is nice but I am not about to spend $3500+ just to have it when I can get a similar TP 14.1" without it and save a chunk. Flexview is good if you do a lot of on laptop presentations with people huddled around, but if it is just you using it the standard 14.1" are very nice as well. Lets all not forget how nice the standard displays look, they are still a noch above a lot of other manufactuers if you ask me (I know they are made by Samsung and IDTech).

IMO, I am like you and like the smaller (much smaller to me) size of the 14.1" and I like how it saves me footprint and *weight* over the R50p. The T42p 15" is going to bear and aweful resemblance to its R50p brother, maybe not as heavy but in my day to day work a few ounces more means a lot.

You might be just as well to go with a T41p and save a little cash, IMO, Dothan may not be worth it. The T41p has a FireGL, blazingly fast, it is quieter than the T41, and is awesome. If you get the T41p get a standard battery because it comes with the high capacity that sticks out on the back, somewhat annoying in some cases. That way if you get a standard batt you can switch to it if you don't need as much power and you want a lighter smaller computer for the day.

IBM has T41p's on sale right now, or I am sure Bill can get you a great price on one, check it out.

BTW, I am a MS Flight Sim 2004 fanatic, great great sim, love how it runs on my desktop, don't have a chance to play it on my laptops, I should give that a try.

Max

dclee012 · #7 Post by **dclee012** » Tue May 18, 2004 9:27 am

personally, i'd rather save the $ and get 64mb instead of firegl. they're the same thing, the difference being the drivers (optimized differently) and 64mb of ram. i rather do cad and video edits on my desktop, which has faster cpu and vid card, not to mention a much much bigger screen. i guess if your thinkpad is going to be your main machine, then by all means, go with firegl.

i don't think there's anything the 64mb can't do that the firegl can do. at the most, it'll just be a little slower when dealing with graphics intense apps. (im not a video expert... i could be wrong).

and i would rather get a 15" rather than 14" b/c the 1400x1050 is too small on 14" for me. i've also had bad experience with stuck/dead pixels on the 14" models. i'm hoping that the 15" (being newer technology) will have less pixel errors... even though there are more pixels..

#8 Post by **BillMorrow** » Tue May 18, 2004 9:29 am

the T41p is on sale here, too.. the 2373-GEU..
$2599.99 + shipping..
cash price..
BTW, i DO take credit cards, but i must add a handling charge to the price and i know you guys want to avoid that fee..

remember, it is sales of hardware that help keep the doors open, here..

Lmax · #9 Post by **Lmax** » Tue May 18, 2004 11:03 am

dclee012 wrote: i've also had bad experience with stuck/dead pixels on the 14" models. i'm hoping that the 15" (being newer technology) will have less pixel errors... even though there are more pixels..

dclee012, Which 14" model did you have pixel problems with, a regular T41 or a T41p? Reason I ask is because I am trying to see if the "p" version continually has the least problems, then maybe we can see if there are more different parts than we think (perhaps some IBM special treatment).

Also, I think it is safe to assume that you are more likely to have pixel problems on a 15" FlexView display because manufacturing precision is even tighter and room for error is higher. A 15" display has many more pixels and that is many more that could be burnt. I don't think anyone can make the assumption that just because 14.1" displays are not FlexView that they are just automatically going to have pixel errors. There are many people with 14" displays that don't have problems.

IMHO, FlexView may be a bit overrated (don't wanna start a fight).

Max

#10 Post by **BillMorrow** » Tue May 18, 2004 11:13 am

i have not had a problem with stuck pixels..
not many..
but if its important, send it back and get another one..
but don't expect me to pay that freight..

for me, flexview is better..
YMMV..

dclee012 · #11 Post by **dclee012** » Tue May 18, 2004 11:27 am

max, i realize it's a foolish assumption to make (that 15" flexview might be less problematic that 14"). you are right. i am just crossing my fingers one that one. it's always a gamble with pixel issues. but hey, maybe the pixels are so small that i can't even find the broken ones.

to answer your question, it was t41p. three of them in a row (weird, i know). one of them i even took in to an ibm service center, and they replaced it with one with even more stuck pixels. which is beyond me. i ended up sending it back to ibm.

keep in mind, there are also a ton of thinkpads in my workplace w/o these problems.. t40, t41, and t41p machines are all fine.

Mofongo · #12 Post by **Mofongo** » Tue May 18, 2004 11:55 am

In any LCD manufacturing process that I am aware of, there are always some units with dead pixels. It basically the same as with CPUs: every CPU fabrication process produces some fraction of defective units...you just never see them because Intel and AMD identify them and throw them away. The reason is that at some point, it becomes less expensive to throw away a certain percentage of defective units than to make the manufacturing process more stringent. I have heard that for some Intel processors in the past this fraction can be very high...even more than 50%!

For the consumer, the only difference is how many dead pixels does it take before the manufacturer prevents those units from entering the supply chain, and how many dead pixels have to appear after you purchase the unit for them to replace it under warranty. This has been the subject of much discussion and research among buyers of LCD desktop displays.

Most manufacturers have historically been very cagey about their dead-pixel policy. Due to public pressure, some of them have been opening up. There has been an ISO standard (ISO 13406-2) for several years that defines how many dead pixels is acceptable. Most consumer monitors are class II, which generally allows for 2 dead pixels per million (See http://www4.tomshardware.com/display/20 ... ls-06.html for more info). Even so, most manufacturers claim that they obey the ISO standard, but when you actually try to get the monitor replaced under warranty, they each have their own, um, "interpretation" of what the standard actually says. If you call them and ask, they mumble something incoherent about "each situation is evaluated individually". A few good manufacturers, like Samsung, actually have an official policy that you can look up on the web (or call and ask them) that essentially mirrors the ISO class II.

In general, the trend seems to be that most LCD manufacturers will not let any unit with dead pixels leave the factory, since this is a worthwhile tradeoff in expense for them to insure customer satisfaction. But after that, they will only replace the LCD under warranty if it has a certain number of dead pixels (usually 7 or more for a 1600x1200 display). Keep in mind that a pixel could go dead while it is in the supply chain before it ever gets to you.

With laptops, the situation gets even more complicated. No laptop maker that I know of actually has a dead pixel policy. The problem is that you cannot return just the screen...you have to return the entire laptop which is much more of a cost burden to the manufacturer. Consequently, I would buy a laptop from a vendor that offers a 30-day money-back guarentee, or at a minimum a 30-day exchange policy, so that if your laptop arrives with dead pixels you can return or exchange it. Statistically, if it arrives with zero dead pixels, it is unlikely that it will develop more than 2 dead pixels per million during the warranty period.

Mofongo

Mofongo · #13 Post by **Mofongo** » Tue May 18, 2004 12:34 pm

As far as Flexview vs. non-Flexview, it is amazing to me how different everybody's perception of monitors is. With some people you can stick them in front of a Flexview-quality (i.e. IPS, MVA, PVS, CASV, etc) monitor and they never in a million years will be able to detect the difference between that and a standard one. Likewise, you can put them in front of a $1500 high-quality high-contrast Trinitron or Diamondtron CRT monitor and they will see no difference between that and a same-sized $200 one. Quite frankly I wish I was one of these people.

On the other end of the spectrum are people like me...I personally am *very* picky about monitors. For me the Flexview screen is a no-brainer. I am willing to put up with the extra bulk of the 15" T42 because whenever I look at the screen, it will bring a smile to my face. On the other hand, I *wish* I did not care about the screen because the 14.1" model is precisely the form factor that I want.

I do not know why there is such a huge difference in monitor perception between people. Perhaps some folks have a more advanced visual system that removes the effects of blurriness and lower contrast so that they perceive the same sharp image no matter which monitor they look at (whereas my brain is just too lazy to do this).

The key is to figure out your personal threshold of perception. One thing I have found that really works well is if you have a Fry's near you (or any store that carries Fujitsu laptops...I like Fry's because they always have lots of Fujitsu models to look at), go there an look at any model that has a "Crystal View" display (these include the N5000, S6000, and C2300 series) and then compare these to models that do not. IBM's Flexview may or may not be quite as nice as Fujitsu's Crystal View, but it will be in the same ballpark and this will give you an idea as to how big of a difference this will make for you.

If you are not near a Fry's, the second best thing is to go to your local computer store and compare laptop displays (I recommend the Sony PCG-Z1VA since to me this looks about the same the T41 display) to any quality (e.g. Samsung, Sony, Viewsonic, Mitsubishi, etc.) 19" or greater LCD monitor. These monitors are all made using technology similar to the Flexview IPS technology...although their greater power consumption allows them to achieve slightly better brightness/contrast.

Mofongo

xtypestereotype · #14 Post by **xtypestereotype** » Tue May 18, 2004 1:22 pm

Excuse my ignorance but what is the difference between a FlexView and a normal LCD?

Lmax · #15 Post by **Lmax** » Tue May 18, 2004 9:31 pm

FlexView is IPS which means that you can see a clear sharp image from just about all angles, left/right, over/under. As such it also has a higher density in the construction making it, in theory, sharper and higher contrasted. It may also be brighter, but i doubt that. It comsumes more battery power, it is bigger, there is more room for pixel error, and whether or not you want them to the people sitting next to you can see what you are working on.

The good and the bad.
Max

Mofongo · #16 Post by **Mofongo** » Tue May 18, 2004 11:04 pm

xtypestereotype wrote:Excuse my ignorance but what is the difference between a FlexView and a normal LCD?

T40/41/42 14.1" SXGA+ display:
Contrast: 250:1
Brightness: 150 cd/m^2
Viewing angle: 20/40/45/45 up/down/left/right
Power: 4.3W avg, 5.6W max

T42 15" SXGA+ display:
Contrast: 400:1
Brightness: 200 cd/m^2
Viewing angle: 85/85/85/85
Power: 6.6W avg, 7.2W max

A further difference is that in general the clear plate in front of older LCDs is grooved slightly to reduce glare and enhance contrast, but this has the effect of making the pixels appear a little fuzzy. Flexview-type displays typically have a smooth plate that make the image appear sharper.

Mofongo

EnsignRicki · #17 Post by **EnsignRicki** » Mon May 24, 2004 5:59 pm

Is it true that the response time for Flexview screens is more than the non-Flexview screens? If that's the case would it better to get the non-Flexview screen for gaming purposes?

Conmee · #18 Post by **Conmee** » Mon May 24, 2004 6:12 pm

EnsignRicki wrote:Is it true that the response time for Flexview screens is more than the non-Flexview screens? If that's the case would it better to get the non-Flexview screen for gaming purposes?

There is noticeable ghosting and shadowing in gaming. I've been using a 15" Flexview SXGA+ now for a few days, and ghosting is quite apparent, and in fast action situations, kind of annoying (the response time is not much slower in absolute terms, but it's quite noticeable in real-world use during game play). I'm actually about ready to send my T42 in and just getting a T42p. The faster response time of the standard LCD and the extra 64MB VRAM to handle larger textures are becoming more tempting to me every minute. lol I just hate to relinquish my T42 so soon after receiving it, only to be back in the queue waiting for a T42p. But I'm leaning that way.

Daniel

feamster · #19 Post by **feamster** » Mon May 24, 2004 6:36 pm

The easiest way to decide about the resolution diference is find a decent quality 15 inch crt that can display 1600x1200 and see if you like that option. I understand that the DPI of the UXGA is higher than SXGA in this context so letters would be smaller at the same font but at larger fonts the letters would be better defined. And of course with pictures more dots is a better picture. Also games at the native resolution on a 14in screen will be faster because there are less pixels to push around when using the same graphic chip. Plus 15in will use more power having some impact on battery life.

JaimitoBond · #20 Post by **JaimitoBond** » Mon May 24, 2004 10:38 pm

Mofongo wrote:...Statistically, if it arrives with zero dead pixels, it is unlikely that it will develop more than 2 dead pixels per million during the warranty period.

Mofongo

Ha, nice stat.

durjaya · #21 Post by **durjaya** » Wed May 26, 2004 4:34 pm

In my opinion - I was *really* dissapointed in the lack of sharp, bright, contrasty color in the standard 14.1 SXGA screen (no flexview).

It was too dim, the colors were washed out and the viewing angle was lousy.

Now - that said - the screen size and resolution were perfect

It just wasn't a great LCD *in my opinion* - I'm sure there are lots of folks that like them just fine and think I'm full of bull-feathers...

GXCross · #22 Post by **GXCross** » Wed May 26, 2004 5:21 pm

The new T42's with ATI 9600 and the Fire GL T2 both support 1600x1200 on the DVI connector (through dock). Whereas the T41 didn't support 1600x1200 except on the T41p. It was a big deal for me, as I use the Dell 2001FP's for 2nd monitor.

dclee012 · #23 Post by **dclee012** » Wed May 26, 2004 6:43 pm

gxcross,
i don't think the dvi in the dock 2 and mini-dock will support 1600x1200 even if the card can.

DVI pass-through port ( will support resolutions up to 1280x1024 based on attached system).
http://www.pc.ibm.com/us/accessories/docks.html

i never tried to force it.. (i don't have a dell 2001fp) maybe it will work. but you might have to go with the vga out instead of dvi if 1600x1200 is what you really want.

GXCross · #24 Post by **GXCross** » Wed May 26, 2004 8:00 pm

You can, as the DVI connector is just purely pass-thru. It supports whatever the card supports.

dclee012 wrote:gxcross,
i don't think the dvi in the dock 2 and mini-dock will support 1600x1200 even if the card can.
DVI pass-through port ( will support resolutions up to 1280x1024 based on attached system).
http://www.pc.ibm.com/us/accessories/docks.html
i never tried to force it.. (i don't have a dell 2001fp) maybe it will work. but you might have to go with the vga out instead of dvi if 1600x1200 is what you really want.

Conmee · #25 Post by **Conmee** » Wed May 26, 2004 8:19 pm

GXCross and DCLee..

You'll still need to hack/mod the video drivers IBM supplies, since they won't let you go greater than SXGA through the DVI... it's a software limitation, not a hardware limitation. You can check somewhere else in the forum for the thread that discusses this, or check www.rage3d.com which is a site dedicated to ATI graphics users, and it has links to the latest mods, etc.

Daniel.

GXCross · #26 Post by **GXCross** » Tue Jun 08, 2004 12:32 am

Thanks Daniel.. just got my mini-dock, and you're absolutely correct.. the IBM drivers dont allow more than 1280x1024 on the DVI port.

Conmee wrote:GXCross and DCLee..

You'll still need to hack/mod the video drivers IBM supplies, since they won't let you go greater than SXGA through the DVI... it's a software limitation, not a hardware limitation. You can check somewhere else in the forum for the thread that discusses this, or check www.rage3d.com which is a site dedicated to ATI graphics users, and it has links to the latest mods, etc.

Daniel.

14.1" or FlexView? 64MB 9600 or 128MB FireGL? Help!

14.1" or FlexView? 64MB 9600 or 128MB FireGL? Help!

Try this ...

FYI regarding the DVI connector

Who is online