Easy way to distinguish 14" widescreen vs 4:3 display?

[catback]

Hi,

I understand the T61 is available in the 14" size as either a widescreen or 4:3 display option. Is there an easy way to distinguish the two based just on a picture? I noticed the display is off centered in the bezel on some models. Is this only true on one of the display options?

[Neil]

Well...the wide screen is...umm...wider, and not as tall as the 4x3 screen of the same diagonal measure, so it's fairly easy to tell at a glance which is which. Also the keyboard bezel is thicker to the sides of the keyboard on the wide models. And, yes, I believe it's the keyboard that's off center on the wide screen models, but the screen maybe offset a little too.

Here is a side by side of the wide vs the 4x3:

[dr_st]

Both models have offset screen. The wide model has a significantly thicker bezel on the sides of the keyboard and above the screen, as one can see from the above pictures.

[TuuS]

Actually the thick bezel on the sides of the keyboard is on the 15.4 widescreen model, the 14.1" widescreen has a rather slim bezel, only slightly larger then the 4:3 model.

The 4:3 screen is easy to spot just by looking at it though, and the 14.1 wide has speaker grill on the sides of the keyboard, the 15.4"wide has the grill above the keyboard.

The 14.1" wide is also a smaller chassis.


Hope this helps

[miro_gt]

14 wide has its speakers on the side of the keyboard, while you will not see those on the 14 standard as the speakers are up front on the bottom.

[duke1]

which is the better?

[rumbero]

which is the better?

None, and at the same time any of them. It largely depends on your taste in form factor and your expected usage.

Personally, i couldn't accept any display with less than 1050 pixels vertically, so the only options for me are the T61 14.1"/4:3 and the T61 15.4"/16:10. The latter is differing from the former only by adding some horizontal width to both chassis/screen, and it also adds a Firewire connector and an already built in SD-Card reader, which is very useful.

But then again, if wide screen is preferred, i'd rather try to get hold of an even more modern T500 (or the 14.1" equivalalent T400) for only slightly more money. As i already outlined elsewhere, with a T500/T400 you "finally get rid of the legacy ATA interface of the Ultrabay and also have already builtin SATA-II on both HDD connectors. Then the availability of much cheaper DDR3 RAM modules is a definite plus, because upgrading to 8GB RAM has thus become very economic. Furthermore, the Intel graphics is much more improved and capable than any of its former varieties, and even the dreaded nVIDIA issue which plagued the T61's is gone for good."

[RealBlackStuff]

Only problem is that these were the last models with a Standard 4:3 LCD (T61/R61 14.1" and R61 15" [EU only]).
Ever since, all Lenovo laptops have changed to widescreen LCDs.

AFAIK the only company that still makes laptops with 4:3 LCDs is Panasonic (Toughbook = really exPENsive!).
But let's not go into this discussion here, there's another thread already open about this!

[TuuS]

which is the better?

I agree with most of the above opinions, there is none that is better then others.

I'm not a fan of the T500 though. I find the T61p is far superior to the T500. Its true that the T500 supports sata2, which is only going to make a noticeable difference if you use SSD system drive, but a simple bios update will enable this on the T61 series. The cheaper DDR3 ram that the T500 uses IS the only major factor in it's favor, but I really like the discrete graphics of the T61/T61p, if you have one produced 08/08 or later. Prior units are still an option though, if cared for properly they can be very econimical, perhaps half the cost of a T500 that has lesser performance, so even if you do have to replace the board, you'd still not be worse off, and there are millions of these nvidia units that still work as good as they day they were made.

As for the Intel graphics being better on the T500, I don't have any confirmed data on that, but I won't dispute it. I have a T500 and it works well, but falls short of the T61 or T61p in terms of performance.

Lastly, the "nVidia" scandal has ironically lowered the resale values of even unaffected unit, such as the cheaper 14.1" with intel graphics that you seek. If you want one of these, I can probably help you. I do sometimes build them to order, but if you're looking for a cheap off-lease or used system, they are avaiable for about $200, perhaps less, but if you want one that's been truly refurbed, cleaned out, tested, upgraded or whatever, then it would be higher.

I have some rare late production date nVidia units too. 1 specific unit I just got in looks like it's brand new, with original box and is one of the last T61 units ever made with all original documents and discs. It's an October 2008 unit, one of only 3 that I've ever seen or heard of.

[rumbero]

Its true that the T500 supports sata2, which is only going to make a noticeable difference if you use SSD system drive, but a simple bios update will enable this on the T61 series.

Don't forget that the Ultrabay in the T61 is still slow legacy ATA, and even Middleton's patched BIOS can't help with that. The T500's SATA II enabled Ultrabay therefore helps a lot for faster data transfers between a system HDD and an Ultrabay HDD. This is a nice boost for e.g. regular backup purposes and can't be praised enough as a major advantage over any T61.

[miro_gt]

Don't forget that the Ultrabay in the T61 is still slow legacy ATA, and even Middleton's patched BIOS can't help with that. The T500's SATA II enabled Ultrabay therefore helps a lot for faster data transfers between a system HDD and an Ultrabay HDD. This is a nice boost for e.g. regular backup purposes and can't be praised enough as a major advantage over any T61.

see the problem with that is that now-a-days HDDs are not as fast so that they would need SATA 2.

you only notice SATA 2 if you have SSD (a good one though), therefore who cares what the ultra bay SATA mode is. Unless you have SSD as primary and want to back up to SSD in the ultrabay. But I dont see the problem of using eSATA expresscard in this case, though slightly slower it still surpasses the ultrabay SATA 1 capabilities by quite a bit.

I have eSATA card like that, works fine.

[dr_st]

Well, the discrete GPU on the T500 is far superior to that on the T61, and only slightly inferior to that on the T61p. However, the CPUs on a T500 can go higher, so overall I would not expect the T61/p beat the T500 hands down...

[rumbero]

you only notice SATA 2 if you have SSD (a good one though), therefore who cares what the ultra bay SATA mode is.

The sequential SATA speed is completely irrelevant for the actual random access acceleration benefits of an SSD. It doesn't even matter if the SSD is on SATA I, because the speed increase in random data access is obvious anyway due to not being related to the SATA revision. It is actually a very common misconception to mix these two rather unrelated features, as if they were depending on each other. SATA II only starts to make real sense for data transfers between two separate storage devices, but the Ultrabay ATA connection of the T61 is unfortunately not capable to compete in this game.

Unless you have SSD as primary and want to back up to SSD in the ultrabay.

That's the point: The sequential SATA speed only starts to become actually relevant if both ends support it. In the T61 this is not possible, but in the T500 it is. And it actually does make a difference for big sustained data transfers even between two crappy old SATA II HDD's if the bottleneck ATA has finally been eliminated.

[TuuS]

Well, the discrete GPU on the T500 is far superior to that on the T61, and only slightly inferior to that on the T61p. However, the CPUs on a T500 can go higher, so overall I would not expect the T61/p beat the T500 hands down...

I've yet to see a T500 with discrete GPU. I've owned several, all had integrated graphics. I'm disputing they exist, but everyone I've seen doesn't have it, and I'm not talking about cheap low-end units.

So what kind of discrete graphics do they have that is far superior the the nVidia NVS140m?

ps. I'm not disputing the T500's merits, I like mine, but I think both my T61 and T61p with 2.5ghz will outperform my T500 with 2.53ghz. The T500 has a faster FSB and uses cheaper RAM, but I think I'd need to go with a W500 to compete with the T61/T61p in performance, and the T500 are selling much higher, even higher then one with a generation 2 nvidia chip.

Also thank you to those who pointed out the ultrabay sata advantages. I tend to agree that it won't make much difference for me, since if I do use a ultrabay drive it's only for storage, not for running an OS, or anything where speed is going to be of great concern. If I was building a gaming rig, I might want a fast sata2 platter drive in the ultrabay to complement an SSD, but before I invest that kind of hardware, I'd want some powerful discrete graphics, so I think I'd start with the cheaper T61p, or move upto the W500.

[miro_gt]

The sequential SATA speed is completely irrelevant for the actual random access acceleration benefits of an SSD. It doesn't even matter if the SSD is on SATA I, because the speed increase in random data access is obvious anyway due to not being related to the SATA revision. It is actually a very common misconception to mix these two rather unrelated features, as if they were depending on each other. SATA II only starts to make real sense for data transfers between two separate storage devices, but the Ultrabay ATA connection of the T61 is unfortunately not capable to compete in this game.

regular backup, as you stated above, is rather dependent on sequential speed than the random access times. The last you notice if your disk/ssd is your primary system disk, and no argument in that case about the fact that random access is the most important there.

That's the point: The sequential SATA speed only starts to become actually relevant if both ends support it. In the T61 this is not possible, but in the T500 it is. And it actually does make a difference for big sustained data transfers even between two crappy old SATA II HDD's if the bottleneck ATA has finally been eliminated.

I dont think it makes difference if you use a HDD. As I said before, you only notice the missing SATA 2 in the ultrabay if you run SSD to SSD file transfers, and not when HDD is involved.

[dr_st]

So what kind of discrete graphics do they have that is far superior the the nVidia NVS140m?

The ATI HD3650 on the T500, and the FireGL V5700 (which is the same chip) on the W500. The FireGL has double the RAM though, which does help its performance in some select cases (3DMarks scores are higher for one thing).

Most of the WSXGA+ T500 units have the ATI. It's worth noting that both T500 and W500 which have ATI, also have the Intel GMA (switchable graphics). If you install an OS that supports changing the GPU on the fly, you can enjoy both better performance and better battery life.

[rumbero]

I dont think it makes difference if you use a HDD. As I said before, you only notice the missing SATA 2 in the ultrabay if you run SSD to SSD file transfers, and not when HDD is involved.

To illustrate my former claims, and to verify for me personally if they actually have any merit, i have now performed some tests in this regard. For these tests, two Seagate Momentus 7200.4 ST9500420ASG SATA HDD's were used, one installed as /dev/sda and being the main system drive, and the other one as /dev/sdb contained in the Ultrabay. The T61 8895-WFJ has the Middleton BIOS featuring the SATA II capapilities, and my rather non-scientific tests were performed in Debian/unstable running Linux kernel 3.1.6, and with the machine running a Linux system booted from a customized USB stick.

So here we go with an average "hdparm -tT" test result, which was chosen by me from various consecutive runs. Since the "cached reads" are more or less equal for both disks, shown here is the average "buffered disk reads" result for /dev/sda on the SATA II link, and the most favorable "buffered disk reads" result obtained for /dev/sdb on the Ultrabay's ATA link:

Code: Select all

[root]~ # hdparm -tT /dev/sda

/dev/sda:
 Timing cached reads:   12952 MB in  1.99 seconds = 6506.31 MB/sec
 Timing buffered disk reads: 296 MB in  3.01 seconds =  98.34 MB/sec

[root]~ # hdparm -tT /dev/sdb

/dev/sdb:
 Timing cached reads:   12860 MB in  1.99 seconds = 6459.95 MB/sec
 Timing buffered disk reads: 220 MB in  3.02 seconds =  72.91 MB/sec

Here are the results for dd'ing a 4.4GB ISO image to /dev/null from each disk:

Code: Select all

[root]/mnt/sda # time dd if=dvdimg.iso of=/dev/null bs=4096    
1070102+1 records in
1070102+1 records out
4383139840 bytes (4.4 GB) copied, 47.5388 s, 92.2 MB/s

real    0m47.579s
user    0m0.164s
sys     0m2.468s

[root]/mnt/sdb # time dd if=dvdimg.iso of=/dev/null bs=4096 
1070102+1 records in
1070102+1 records out
4383139840 bytes (4.4 GB) copied, 62.5436 s, 70.1 MB/s

real    1m2.548s
user    0m0.468s
sys     0m9.425s

There is obviously an average speed advantage of 25% for the SATA II link over the Ultrabay's ATA link in a T61 8895-WFJ. For what i am concerned, this is plenty enough convincing to prefer a machine having a SATA II link also in the Ultrabay, and to consider getting rid of the ATA bottleneck being a major advantage. As we already know very from the amazing speed benefits gained by a SSD, in certain use contexts a system can only be as fast as its weakest link, and this obviously also applies to some very non-negligible degree if only SATA HDD's are participating in the game.

As a complement to these results, it would be interesting to see the outcome of a similar test on an actual T500.