Thinkpads Forum

Here is my problem.

I want to get the 14'' standard , and i built a system that came to around $1359.
i was not planning on playing much games on my thinkpad, but i remembered SC2 is coming out. so after researching tons of benchmark scores for the Intel X3100, i was pretty disappointed to see it only hit about 470 in the 3dmark06 test.

So i was considering getting the 14'' standard + Quadro 140M,
and the price came to $1454. i looked up some more scores, and the Quadro got 1461 on the 3dmark06.
$1454 seems a little too pricey, so i built another system.

If i sacrifice down to 14'' Widescreen, + Quadro 140M, the price drops to $1283.

now , the only reason i would like a better video card is to handle SC2. so my questions are

1. Would the integrated X3100 be sufficient to handle SC2?

2. how drastic is the change from going 14'' standard to widescreen?

3. Is losing almost 2 hours of battery life worth the video card upgrade?

also, if you currently have a T61 with either integrated or quadro video card, can you tell me what kind of frame rate you're getting for warcraft 3, or Counter Strike, Counter strike Source / HL2 , or world of warcraft. any of these would help ALOT!


right now im leaning towards going widescreen + quadro, but im a little reluctant about widescreen >_>.

I'm a gamer newbie. SC2 means "Soul Calibur 2" or "Strategic Command 2" or something else.

I was in a somewhat similar situation.

I'm no big gamer, and I wanted a 15.4" widescreen, so I went X3100. Of course, now they have a 15.4" with the Quadro, and a WUXGA to boot, but realistically I couldn't afford them anyhow.

Considering the game names you're dropping in your post, I'd say you game more than I, and even I was looking at the Quadro. I'd say to go for it, but remember, if you really think you'll be gaming away from an outlet you [blasphemy] might want to consider a non-ThinkPad. [/blasphemy].

barrywohl wrote:I'm a gamer newbie. SC2 means "Soul Calibur 2" or "Strategic Command 2" or something else.

I think the OP meant StarCraft II

Every game that is "just coming out" invariably bogs down even beefy desktop machines, not to mention laptops that are built with low power consumption in mind. I would go for the X3100 in the laptop and upgrade the graphics card in my desktop

yes, i meant starcraft 2. and i used to play alot of games, but after i get my laptop, the only game i'll be playing is starcraft 2. thats why im pretty much basing my whole system around that.

i dont really plan on playing while using my battery, i only planned on playing when im plugged into an outlet.


hey tholek, what are the games you have played with the X3100, and what kind of fps did you get?

Integrated graphics will never touch dedicated. Don't kid yourself. The system requirements for SCII have not yet been released, but my guess is that if you can't at least run WOW, you won't have a chance with SCII.

are benchmark scores for desktops and notebooks different?

i ran a 3dmark06 test for my desktop right now, running a GeForce 6200, (its [censored]), and i scored around 221.
i am able to run wow with all settings on low with playable framerate.

i know the X3100 is about 471 on 3dmark06.
so technically, should it be fine? or are notebooks and desktops different.

paOol wrote:hey tholek, what are the games you have played with the X3100, and what kind of fps did you get?

LOL, I just got it and I'm still shopping for RAM! I didn't buy it to game, but I might try something at some point.

paOol wrote:1. Would the integrated X3100 be sufficient to handle SC2?

While SC2 will probably run, it probably won't run well. I'd expect that you'd be disappointed. Of course, it's hard to say for sure since the game isn't released yet.

2. how drastic is the change from going 14'' standard to widescreen?

Not sure what you are asking. The machine form factor is different. You lose about 100 vertical pixels for the WS model.

3. Is losing almost 2 hours of battery life worth the video card upgrade?

Only you can answer that. How mobile are you planning to be? How long will you be away from an outlet?

foodle wrote:

2. how drastic is the change from going 14'' standard to widescreen?

Not sure what you are asking. The machine form factor is different. You lose about 100 vertical pixels for the WS model.

Depends. Are you referring to the difference between XGA and WXGA? In that case, the widescreen at 1280x800 actually has 32 more vertical pixels than the standard at 1024x768. The SXGA+ (1400x1050) beats the WXGA hands-down, but you should compare that with WSXGA+ (1680x1050), not WXGA. The issue with aspect ratio is not in the number of pixels but the physical height/depth of the machine -- a 14" screen at 4:3 is about 11" by 8.5"; the same at 16:10 is 12" by 7.5", but the widescreen has more pixels than the standard.

trent9008 wrote: Depends. Are you referring to the difference between XGA and WXGA? In that case, the widescreen at 1280x800 actually has 32 more vertical pixels than the standard at 1024x768. The SXGA+ (1400x1050) beats the WXGA hands-down, but you should compare that with WSXGA+ (1680x1050), not WXGA.

The 14" WS model does not come in WSXGA+. It is available in WXGA (1280x800) and WXGA+ (1440x900). If you compare the highest resolution 14" WS model (1440x900) against the highest resolution 14" standard model (SXGA+, 1400x1050), the standard model has 150 more vertical pixels. It also has 40 less horizontal pixels.

The issue with aspect ratio is not in the number of pixels but the physical height/depth of the machine -- a 14" screen at 4:3 is about 11" by 8.5"; the same at 16:10 is 12" by 7.5", but the widescreen has more pixels than the standard.

I suppose this depends on the person. Do you care more about physical form factor? Or screen real estate? Again, for the 14" models, the highest resolution standard display has more pixels than the highest resolution WS display (~1.5M pixels vs ~1.3M pixels).

well here are the unofficial system requirements for Starcraft 2.

http://www.freakygaming.com/pc/strategy ... quirements


basically, its just a tad more than warcraft III.

im leaning towards the integrated solution just as long as i know SC2 will be playable. if not, i think im forced to go with the quadro =\.

so does anyone with a X3100 play warcraft 3 with it?

paOol wrote:are benchmark scores for desktops and notebooks different?

i ran a 3dmark06 test for my desktop right now, running a GeForce 6200, (its [censored]), and i scored around 221.
i am able to run wow with all settings on low with playable framerate.

i know the X3100 is about 471 on 3dmark06.
so technically, should it be fine? or are notebooks and desktops different.

There are identical. My desktop with GeForce 8800 GTX and Core 2 Duo E6600 (2,4 GHz) scores at more then 10 000 on 3D Mark 2006... FireGL V5200 reachs about 1600 on 3D Mark 2006. Quadro NVS 140m (some thing like 1400) is a bit weaker then FireGL V5200. Intel X3100 will never be able to run recent games.

If you want to know how laptops scores in 3D Mark 2005 :

http://forum.tt-hardware.com/fichiers/u ... Image1.gif

thanks for the chart. but it seems like a faster processor = lower benchmark scores? o_O

anywho, how does the FireGL V5200 handle games like warcraft 3 and world of warcraft?

3D Mark and games run faster with powerfull graphic then with only a big CPU. Of course, big CPU and big VGA is the best solution for high performances. But if you need compromise for any reason and your goal is gaming take the best graphic and an less powerfull CPU.

So at the top of the chart, you only find the best graphics cards...

FireGL V5200 is the same as Mobility Radeon X1600. Due to lower clock speed in laptops, it's about Radeon X1300 XT.


Warcraft 3 is a very old game according to the website, it runs on Pentium II 400 MHz. So it can even run with Intel GMA. Wow is not too graphic intensive and can run with Mobility Radeon X1400, so it will run fine with FireGL.

paOol wrote:anywho, how does the FireGL V5200 handle games like warcraft 3 and world of warcraft?

WoW on my T60p (V5200) runs fine (full 1600x1200 resolution, with most setting at or near max) at 30+ fps. Not choppy at all even in challenging areas (e.g. AH w/ a lot of players around). The only issue is the GPU overheating, but that's for another thread ...

i went to office depot and best buy today to take a look at some of the other laptops. neither carried thinkpads, but office depot had the lenovo 3000.

i noticed, EVERY laptop was widescreen. also, i tried each keyboard and most of them felt flimsy. the lenovo was clearly the best.

i guess widescreen isnt as bad as i thought, but i didnt have a standard to compare it to.

should i just go for a widescreen 14'' + quadro?

15.4" still out of your pricerange?

15'' is definately an option. in fact i think i might go with this

I just noticed this, but i saw under pointing devices, theres the UltraNav, and the UltraNav + finger print reader. I thought that all thinkpads come with finger print readers standard without paying an additiona $28?

paOol wrote:im leaning towards the integrated solution just as long as i know SC2 will be playable. if not, i think im forced to go with the quadro =\.

SC2 is NOT going to be playable at native resolution with the X3100. Get the quadro.

after much much thought, i decided to go with a 14'' standard, quadro, and gimp on the processor.

The right choice !

I hope you didn't go T7100. T7300 is the bare minimum I would go with no matter what else was being considered.

Minimum for what ? Any Core Duo or even Pentium-m is enough powerfull for any use.

Pentium M? I suppose so....not quite contemporary, though.

Choosing the T7100 seems such a waste compared to other trade-offs possible to keep this at the price he wants. The 4MB cache reportedly has a noticeable difference. I've read many a post where people say to skip the T7500 in favor of the 2.0Ghz due to the cache.

I wouldn't choose anything less considering the selection.

Yes Pentium M, it 's still a good performer for a lor of applications.

Perhpas T7300 is the bare minimum is not a best way to tell about the T7300 (or perhaps I missunderstand this expession). It's the more attractive new Core 2 Duo (Santa Rosa) because it's the first one with 4 Mo. 4Mo L2 cache helps in applications from 0 to 10%. If you don't have enough momey, choose a small processor is a nice solution. You can upgrade it later while GPU is soldered on the main board.

i went with Intel® Core™ 2 Duo T7300 (2.0GHz 800MHz 4MBL2) .
because alot of my friends seem to be getting dells at 2.0 ghz as well, so i figure its not that big of a loss.


and can you really upgrade the processor in a laptop in the future?
like later on, can i throw in a 2.4 ghz chip and take the 2.0 out?

trent9008 wrote:Depends. Are you referring to the difference between XGA and WXGA? In that case, the widescreen at 1280x800 actually has 32 more vertical pixels than the standard at 1024x768. The SXGA+ (1400x1050) beats the WXGA hands-down, but you should compare that with WSXGA+ (1680x1050), not WXGA. The issue with aspect ratio is not in the number of pixels but the physical height/depth of the machine -- a 14" screen at 4:3 is about 11" by 8.5"; the same at 16:10 is 12" by 7.5", but the widescreen has more pixels than the standard.

Well, that's the thing - the widescreen generally has less pixels than the standard.

It is follows from simple math. Out of all quadrilaterals with a dialonal of, say, 14 the largest area has the square with a side of 10 (the area is 100). The more you stretch this square preserving the diagonal of 14, the less area the resulting shape has.

My point is, for a fixed pixel size, a 14" 4:3 screen has more pixels than a 14" 16:9 or 16:10 screen. That is why I prefer the standard ones. Not to mention the issues with widescreens in some applications like Office 2007 that are totally inconvinient with a widescreen.

Yes, later, you can change your CPU. It's quiet easy to do it. There is only 3 parts to remove before reaching the fanassembly. Thus 4 screws and then you can swap the CPU.