T520 Config Opinions Wanted before I buy

[mlemon]

Ready to drop some cash for two T520s w. 4GB, 7200rpm desktop replacements to run MS-Office, Skype w. video, browsing, some Photoshop. Have some configuration questions that I hope folks here can share opinions on:

1. 520i/i3 vs. 520i/i5 vs. 520/i5 - will I notice?

2. Intel HD Graphics 3000 is the only card available today. I'll get a mini dock for each to support 1-2 extra monitors. What max res will the integrated graphics support? Does anyone know why the NVIDIA® NVS3100M 512MB disappeared from the config options?

3. If I upgrade to the T520 w. NVIDIA 4200M card, it costs $400 more. Other than a faster CPU, what does that really buy me?

4. Thinkpad b/g/n vs. Intel Centrino Wireless-N 1000, 6205, 6300, WiMAX. What is the sweet spot on this list?

Thanks in advance.

Mark

600, 600X, T40, Z61m

[ThinkRob]

1. 520i/i3 vs. 520i/i5 vs. 520/i5 - will I notice?

My general advice on the Core i3 vs i5 vs i7 question is this: if you have to ask, your workload doesn't require anything above a Core i3. Save your money for more RAM, which you *will* appreciate.

Intel HD Graphics 3000 is the only card available today. I'll get a mini dock for each to support 1-2 extra monitors. What max res will the integrated graphics support? Does anyone know why the NVIDIA® NVS3100M 512MB disappeared from the config options?

Unless you game, I'd go with the Intel GPU. It's got good compatibility and good power efficiency. The Intel GPU can definitely drive an extra monitor (I've run my T420 with a UXGA external). Not sure about two external monitors, but I can't imagine why it wouldn't work.

Thinkpad b/g/n vs. Intel Centrino Wireless-N 1000, 6205, 6300, WiMAX. What is the sweet spot on this list?

Personally, I'd recommend the cheapest Intel card. If you're often using 802.11n or frequently need maximum throughput in adverse environments or at extreme distances, get the 6300 -- but IMHO for most users the $40 difference is better spent on RAM upgrades, etc.

One thing is certain: don't get the ThinkPad b/g/n card. It's a RealTek card. RealTek's NICs suck. A lot. They're buggy and unstable, and the drivers appear to have been coded by the proverbial thousand monkeys behind a thousand keyboards.

[Colonel O'Neill]

An i5 would probably benefit multitasking and probably application load times. Loading programs for me sometimes maxes out my CPU especially when I've got a bunch of stuff going on.

More RAM would be helpful if you Photoshop intensively or with rather large or detailed files. I've gotten by on 2.5GB of RAM for the past while, but my Photoshop usage is very light. That said, when I run VM's it's gotten tight on memory before, but is generally okay until I start intensive diskops on either side of the VM while it's running.

I'd buy whatever base HDD that is offered, then get the 500GB Scorpio Black aftermarket.

My ThinkPad b/g/n RealTek adapter works well at home, but constantly drops at school in the presence of many other laptops (unless I mess with the beacon interval, whose optimum value varies with time and place ). If you do lots of stuff simultaneously through WiFi, the 6300 is probably a good bet. (The 5300 I have holds 3-4 bars of 5 where other laptops get 1-2 and transfers data better.)

The GPU probably gets you more troublesome drivers (NVidia's Optimus is a bit flaky) and reduced battery life. If you don't need it, probably avoid it; the integrated card is more than enough for most purposes.

[blackomegax]

the nvidia gets you 48 cuda cores.
But if you're getting it for CUDA, you might as well get the 96/192 in the W.

[ThinkRob]

An i5 would probably benefit multitasking and probably application load times.

In my experience if it's multitasking you're after, more RAM will be a better upgrade than an i5.

[Colonel O'Neill]

Whether or not the higher-end CPU would be dependent on OP's definition of multitasking. Photoshop is not fun with slow CPUs.

Running an intensive task and switching to other programs while the other one is doing it's thing is more so affected by CPU speed. i.e. Issuing some sort of processing command to Audacity, while surfing the web with multiple pages set to auto-reload, and typing things up likes to lag (in some cases, you can actually notice each letter being drawn as you type).

For basic computer usage, 2GB is sufficient. For many users, 4GB of RAM is more than enough.

[ThinkRob]

Whether or not the higher-end CPU would be dependent on OP's definition of multitasking. Photoshop is not fun with slow CPUs.

Running an intensive task and switching to other programs while the other one is doing it's thing is more so affected by CPU speed.

Here's the thing though: the main feature that the i5 brings over the i3 is Turbo Boost. Turbo Boost is great if your workload consists of a single-threaded app or two, but for everything else it's not that useful (as the i5 won't ramp the core speed on all cores simultaneously.) So if you multitask with, say, one CPU-hungry single-threaded app and a few others it'll help a bit. On the other hand, a workload like mine (where peak usage consists of several parallel builds) would not benefit from Turbo Boost much if at all.

Photoshop is CPU intensive, but the i3 is plenty fast for recent versions (I've tested CS3 on mine, but unless there are massive efficiency issues with later ones that should still hold.)

Issuing some sort of processing command to Audacity, while surfing the web with multiple pages set to auto-reload, and typing things up likes to lag (in some cases, you can actually notice each letter being drawn as you type)

I've only ever experienced input lag on a Core Duo laptop with a load average of about 8. That shouldn't (and doesn't) happen even under heavy normal use.

For basic computer usage, 2GB is sufficient. For many users, 4GB of RAM is more than enough.

2GB is sufficient, but with Vista or 7 it won't be all that comfortable. 4GB is comfortable for those, and 8GB is not a bad choice if you regularly have a heavy multitasking load.

[Colonel O'Neill]

Turbo Boost is useful for sudden spikes in CPU demands. That said, when stress testing my friends' T510's with four threads, one turbos up to 2.80 from 2.53 even at 80C, and the other 2.67 from 2.53 at 70C (dunno why the other one stops turboing early).

It's some of the more complicated filters one might apply that gets irritating to have to wait for, especially when it's by trial and error to see the effect. AFAIK, Photoshop only offloads some basic rendering to the GPU, and is still heavily CPU dependent.

The input lag might just be my system recently; funny things have been happening to it, although I've seen it occasionally elsewhere (notably my X100e if and when Firefox decides to hog CPU).

2GB was pretty usable on my T400 with Windows 7. Played through Crysis and most of Shadow of Chernobyl with 2GB, and normal usage had no issues. Currently running at 2.46GB, played through the Crysis 2 campaign with little (but not none) noticeable paging, and general usage snappy enough until the VM's get going or something like that.

[mlemon]

Thanks everyone for the comments. Here's my takeaway:

T520i w. i3-2310M
Windows Home 64
1600x900 Display
Intel HD Graphics 3000
4Gb RAM
720p Camera
320 GB 7200rpm drive (KISS for troubleshooting)
6 cell battery
Bluetooth
Intel Wireless 1000
$1,069.

Anyone see any glaring problems before I pull the lever (I'm buying 2 of these!) Is the 10% coupon and free shipping the best discount I'm going to find in the near future?

Thanks again,

Mark

[Colonel O'Neill]

Nothing glaringly wrong there.

Although ordering the HDD from Lenovo, there's a chance you'll get a Seagate drive; a WD drive is way better (aftermarket drives are cheaper than their CTO upgrade counterparts, as is RAM), IMHO.

[Q-Ball]

I hope you haven't ordered yet.

Because it would be cheaper to get 2 GB of RAM and the 9-cell battery, and just add another dirt-cheap stick of 2 GB RAM later.

Otherwise it looks good.

[ThinkRob]

Turbo Boost is useful for sudden spikes in CPU demands. That said, when stress testing my friends' T510's with four threads, one turbos up to 2.80 from 2.53 even at 80C, and the other 2.67 from 2.53 at 70C (dunno why the other one stops turboing early).

It's some of the more complicated filters one might apply that gets irritating to have to wait for, especially when it's by trial and error to see the effect. AFAIK, Photoshop only offloads some basic rendering to the GPU, and is still heavily CPU dependent.

My bet would be that the second core can't clock up without pushing the thermal envelope too much. If the die temp is at 80 C it doesn't have much headroom, hence the more-conservative scaling.

I guess my advice is basically this: if most of your work consists of single-threaded, CPU-heavy tasks and you're willing to pay the extra cost, and you're willing to deal with the slight potential decrease in battery life, get the i5. Otherwise, get the i3 and put the money you save towards, say, an SSD (the effects of which will be vastly more appreciable for any user than the i3/i5 difference.)