T420. Which graphics card do I need?

[andyems10]

I have decided on my new laptop. I'm getting the T420 with +HD screen, i7 processor, Windows 7 Pro. My only questions is which graphics card would be best for me. I really know nothing about what a graphics card does for a computer, so therefore I'm torn on whether to spend the extra cash or not. I've basically built my laptop to the max with the best processor, display, etc. I'm not rich, and this is spreading me thin, but if I'm buying it I might as well get the best.
Here is where my problem starts. I don't do any online gaming. I use my laptop for half business, half pleasure. I do Microsoft Word/Works, photoshop stuff, internet with youtube videos. I don't do any gaming on my computer, on or offline. My laptop now is almost 8 years old and I can count on one hand the times I've used the DVD player for a movie. I don't do Netflix, Hulu, etc. The most intense stuff I watch on the display would be some youtube videos a few times a week.
When I ask Lenovo reps which graphics card to get, they all tell me to upgrade and get the Nvidia NVS4200 because "it's better" and makes the computer "future proof". It also adds another $250 to the laptop. That cost is more than the combined cost when I added when I upgraded the processor to a i7 and the hard drive to a 500 GB.
I'm not saying they are not being truthful, but the uograde will add more money to the company pocket, and they can't exactly tell me why it's better. No one can explain to me why I should spend that much money on the higher end graphics card when I don't do gaming or videos. The Intel HD3000 gets really good reviews anyway. If any one here could help shed some light on this, please chime in. Except for the graphics card I'm ready to order this new machine. I just want to get everything right. Thanks in advance to all.

[pipspeak]

AFAIK the newest intel integrated graphics cards are much better than the previous generations and fine for video playback and even some gaming. If you don't plan to do any hardcore gaming and don't plan to use multiple high-resolution monitors I would say stick with the intel card and save some moolah (and maybe put some of that towards more RAM).

but I'm no expert, so hopefully those with more specific knowledge will chime.

[richk]

If you don't play full-motion games, you would not notice any difference. Integrated will work fine. (cooler and less power) Please note that it is a chip on the motherboard, not a card. Once you choose, you cannot change, as you can on a desktop.

[ThinkRob]

Heck, for what you do the 4500HD from a couple years back would be fine. The latest Intel GPUs are several orders of magnitude better than those chips were and will be more than sufficient for your uses.

Summary: get the Intel integrated GPU, and spend the extra money on RAM or an SSD.

[blackomegax]

The nvidia has vastly better drivers than intel, for gaming, and is roughly 2x as fast.

The bottom line difference is that the 4200m can run xbox360 level graphics and beyond thus runs 360 ports and most games just fine at decent settings and 720p, while the intel is slower than an xbox 360 level and does not run 360 ports too well, if at all (GTA4 is a difference of 30+fps or 0-5fps(intel))

[ThinkRob]

The nvidia has vastly better drivers than intel, for gaming, and is roughly 2x as fast.

I disagree. Intel's drivers IMHO are far less buggy and far more consistent. Intel also has far better Linux support, and (IMHO) do a much better job of supporting GPUs after they're no longer the latest and greatest.

The NVIDIA GPU's performance is better, yes, but as the OP said: he doesn't plan on gaming, so that really doesn't matter. If you're not going to be gaming, there's no reason to get a more expensive, more power-hungry dedicated GPU.

The HD 3000 is actually better than the NVS 3100M of yester-year: http://www.notebookcheck.net/typo3temp/ ... 4ae76a.gif

[blackomegax]

OP doesn't mention linux, and within windows, nvidia's drivers still win. Plus CUDA support(photoshop!). Which is actually pretty blazing on the 48 pipe 4200m

[ThinkRob]

OP doesn't mention linux, and within windows, nvidia's drivers still win.

I only mentioned Linux support off-hand. My comment re: supporting older cards still stands, even for the Windows drivers.

CUDA support would indeed be a plus for NVIDIA GPUs if you use apps that use it. Most people -- the vast majority -- don't. I kinda figured that if the OP was asking for graphics card recommendations, he wasn't going to be doing any CUDA programming.

[blackomegax]

Nvidia has
http://www.nvidia.com/object/feature_uda.html
Which means I can use the same installer for my 4200m, or a geforce 2 MX.
Only a few older mobile chips got left out, which a hacked ini solves cleanly because they're the same chips as the desktop counterparts anyway.

[smh]

I agree with the comments so far about getting an Intel graphics card if you are not gaming - and let's have that discussion about gaming now: the nVidia NVS (popularily called nVidia Quadro NVS) is a business oriented platform, meaning that the drivers are optimized for CAD/CAM, therefore it is not guaranteed that they perform well in games.

The future proofing is a gamble, sometimes the fields do not evolve that rapidly other times they take leaps. What I normally do first is to determine my budget and then I guesstimate my computer (processing power) need 6-12 months in the future, following which I try to balance the different components. E.g. if I need lots of processing power, CPU and RAM are prioritized higher than any other component - say I have 1000$, I would allocate 400$ for CPU and RAM. After getting the desired CPU and RAM I would use what ever is left for all the other components.

I would rather use the 250$ for something else.

PS. if you buy your laptop using the webstore you can use the 10% off ecoupon: GOOGLESHOP
PPS. the ecoupon ends July 20th

[Ladabu]

Does anyone has experience with battery life of T420 model with Intel HD 3000?
Does system Optimus Nvidia achieve longer battery life?

[ThinkRob]

Does system Optimus Nvidia achieve longer battery life?

The opposite actually. Optimus involves a dedicated GPU, and draws considerably more power.

[zern]

I thought the Optimus can shut itself off when running on battery thus drawing no more power than a config with just the Intel on board graphics?

[zern]

To get back to the OP's question - IMHO it sounds like you may be better off getting the i5 CPU and spend the money on more RAM. From what I have heard, the difference between the i5 and the i7 is marginal if you are not doing 3D rendering or heavy computation stuff. Someone even said to me the i7 on offer is technically just a faster i5 with an extra 1Mb of cache. Unlike the desktop i7 chips which are more markedly a jump from the i5 range.

Graphics card wise, it does sound like your needs will be more than adequately met by the Intel on board video. On my X60 tablet which has a ULV (ultra low voltage) processor and a much older generation of Intel on board video, YouTube and DVDs play fine full-screen (1024x768). Photoshop runs find with small files. As does Sketchup and Illustrator.

[ThinkRob]

I thought the Optimus can shut itself off when running on battery thus drawing no more power than a config with just the Intel on board graphics?

It can. But that means that under the absolute best circumstances, you've got the same power draw as the HD 3000. Hence my comment.

So for power conservation, the HD 3000 wins.

(And that's ignoring the fact that Optimus is pretty buggy...)

[zern]

[quote="ThinkRob"](And that's ignoring the fact that Optimus is pretty buggy...)[/quote]

Buggy how?

From a quick look on Google the problem seems to be mainly when running under Linux. And some around auto/manual switching when playing games. I wont be playing games nor running Linux.

Can you provide more info please?

[ThinkRob]

And some around auto/manual switching when playing games.

Well... pretty much that, only not just games (GPU-intensive apps in general). It's not really a minor issue though, since that's kinda the whole reason that Optimus exists. The automatic switching is the big selling point, and the fact that it's not great at doing it doesn't really reflect well on NVIDIA. (On a hardware level I seem to remember that it's something of a hack, done to avoid paying license fees to Intel, but I could be mis-remembering.)

But if you wont be playing games or doing other GPU-intensive work, why on earth would you want Optimus?

[zern]

Unlike the OP, I am getting the Optimus to do GPU stuff like SketchUp, other 3D and OpenGL apps, Photoshop (but not games.)

I agree - if the Optimus is buggy running this stuff there is no point getting it!

Anyone got any real world feedback on just how buggy is buggy - on WIndows 7 Pro 64bit? Are we talking visual artifacts now and then or critical stops and blue screens? Merely annoying? Or just about unusable?

[ThinkRob]

(Disclaimer: I don't own an Optimus-enabled laptop).

I've heard from a number of people that it's buggy with regards to automatic switching. Sometimes it just decides not to switch.

I don't think it's a major, "breaks things" sort of buggy.