Thinkpads Forum

The tabook says that the W500 can only output 2048x1536 @ 75Hz.

Most graphics cards are capable of 2560x1600, so this output limitation concerns me as I want to plug it into a 2560x1600.

The tabook also claims only 175nit brightness for the WUXGA while the Lenovo advertisement says 200+ nit. Is this WUXGA screen the same crappy one that was in the T61 series.

Thanks,

Paul

Paul386 wrote:Is this WUXGA screen the same crappy one that was in the T61 series.

Very likely.

On the other hand - there is nothing "special" about these graphics chips or the way lenovo uses them that would limit the graphics resolution. I think the specs are just presented in a strange way.

I think that over DisplayPort they can do 2560x1600@60Hz.

Mine should be here tomorrow or so. Anybody want to lend me a 30" DisplayPort monitor to test

2048x1536 @ 75Hz is almost certainly referring to analog VGA.

Other modern Thinkpads support 2560x1600 out of the DVI, and I'd be willing to bet that the W500 can as well.

But - apparently only in "ATI" mode. The help file says that DVI on the dock and DisplayPort only work if the switchable graphics are in "ATI" mode.

I can't get switchable graphics to work at all - no control panel. I don't know if I need an update to the power manager or if it is not supported under XP.

According to the blog here (emphasis added by me):

...Using switchable graphics allows a user to have the best of both worlds – power savings plus power when you need it. Many people who use this technology set it to run on discrete graphics when plugged into electricity and on integrated graphics while mobile.

The major drawback is that this technology uses architectural improvements in Windows Vista to do its magic and will not work with XP systems. There have been many requests to make this so, and the team is studying whether this would be feasible in a future release....

That matches what I've seen. On the other hand - the T400/T500 reviews from Notebook Review indicate that the discrete graphics only draw an extra 2W when not gaming (I'll measure mine when I get all set up). Vista seems to draw 1-2W more than XP anyway - so I'm not sure it's worth switching to Vista just to get switchable graphics working.

If anyone has real numbers, I'd love to hear about it.

You should be able to check the max resolution in the dock just by unchecking that box in the display settings that says "show only supported modes". Does 2560x1600 show up?

I'm thinking about getting the W700 with a WUXGA display. If the W500's screen is crap, does that mean the same about the W700? I noticed on lenovo.com, that the 17" WUXGA has 400NIT.

Being that I only know IPS Flexview screens, how does it compare to those?

Another laymen question. What's the difference between 200NIT and 400NIT?

Thank you!

Crunch wrote:I'm thinking about getting the W700 with a WUXGA display. If the W500's screen is crap, does that mean the same about the W700? I noticed on lenovo.com, that the 17" WUXGA has 400NIT.

Being that I only know IPS Flexview screens, how does it compare to those?

I'm not sure anyone has seen a W700 screen yet - maybe a few reviewers. It is clearly different than the W500 scre3en. Better? Probably - but yet to be seen.

No current 17" laptop screen has the viewing angle of IPS.

Another laymen question. What's the difference between 200NIT and 400NIT?

Thank you!

Um - 2x.

200 Nit is slightly brighter than a typical Thinkpad. 400 Nit is twice that bright - almost good enough for outdoor use.

jonathanmedwards wrote:You should be able to check the max resolution in the dock just by unchecking that box in the display settings that says "show only supported modes". Does 2560x1600 show up?

Nope - 2048x1536.

Bummer. That's on a W500, right? Sort of pathetic on a "workstation class" machine. T61p could do it. I'll have to think about canceling my order.

awolfe63 wrote:

jonathanmedwards wrote:You should be able to check the max resolution in the dock just by unchecking that box in the display settings that says "show only supported modes". Does 2560x1600 show up?

Nope - 2048x1536.

I still wonder if the right monitor driver will change that.

Yes, good point. I remember when the T41 first came out it wouldn't do 1920x1200, but a modded ATI driver enabled the mode. But WQXGA requires dual-link DVI, and if those wires aren't connected then no driver will fix it.

awolfe63 wrote:I still wonder if the right monitor driver will change that.

With the W700 and the WUXGA option which is what I want to get, they use nVidia graphics of 512MB of dedicated VRAM. The option of doubling it to 1GB (wow) VRAM is another $400 or so.

Am I correct in assuming that this is mostly for hard core gamers, and graphics specialists? I have 256MB now, and I'm happy with it, so getting double should suffice?

The attraction of the W700 is the 17" WS obviously, but if there is a difference between 1/2 a gig, and a full gig that I don't know about and will notice somehow, I'd be happy to shell out the money.

One thing is great. The GPU is now replaceable, so maybe I can upgrade at a later point, if I would benefit from the add'l VRAM.

What say you, folks?

There are much better choices out there for hard-core gamers. For $3-5K you can get far more graphics horsepower in a 17" machine from Voodoo, Alienware, and others.
The W700 is for design and content professionals who need an ISV certified solution with a big screen, high performance, and high reliability.

jonathanmedwards wrote:Yes, good point. I remember when the T41 first came out it wouldn't do 1920x1200, but a modded ATI driver enabled the mode. But WQXGA requires dual-link DVI, and if those wires aren't connected then no driver will fix it.

awolfe63 wrote:I still wonder if the right monitor driver will change that.

But DisplayPort is supposed to be able to do WQXGA on a single link.

Yes, I see the latest Dell supports DisplayPort. Current docks don't, though. This may take a while to shake out.

awolfe63 wrote: But DisplayPort is supposed to be able to do WQXGA on a single link.

awolfe63 wrote:There are much better choices out there for hard-core gamers. For $3-5K you can get far more graphics horsepower in a 17" machine from Voodoo, Alienware, and others.
The W700 is for design and content professionals who need an ISV certified solution with a big screen, high performance, and high reliability.

How does the Quadro FX 3700 compare to the gaming graphics cards from nVidia and ATI? I mean, thats nVidia's most powerful workstation card, which means it probably blows most games away completely, am I right?

I've found this siteto be pretty reliable.


It shows the 3DMark06 score for FX3700 to be 10,000 - which is actually much better than I expected. Right up there with the best single chip mobile solutions. Previous top-of-the-line mobile workstation products have not been as competitive. BTW - this is about 2-2.5X the frame rate of the T500/W500.

You can probably get 2 comparable chips in an SLI configuration in a gaming machine - but they seem to be a generation behind so you only get about 25-30% better performance than a W700.

You can get well equipped gaming notebooks for about $1000 less than the W700 - but now that I look at the numbers, the W700 is probably a pretty competitive gaming machine.