Thinkpads Forum

Hi everyone,

So finally Lenovo has come out with the first ever 17" widescreen Thinkpad. It's pretty expensive at around $3,500 with the configuration I'd want (the WUXGA upgrade, a faster processor, amongst other upgrades).

They advertise that the WUXGA panel has 400NITS. I'm a total screen, and resolution junkie, and I'm still loving my AFFS IPS Flexview display.

Unfortunately, IPS screens are no longer made, as the demand for these high-end LCD's is apparently just too small.

Does anyone know what NITS means (I think it has to do with brightness), and since they're advertising that it has 400NITS, it must be something "special". lol...

Does it ONLY mean brightness, or is there something else that is special about it?

As for the CPU. I upgraded my T2500 to a T7600 early this year, so I have a Core 2 Duo @ 2.33GHz. If I went with a T9400, I'd gain in 2MB of additional L2 cache (6MB vs. my current 4MB), as well as the higher FSB (1,066MHz vs. my current 667MHz).

Some of the CPU's also have integrated graphics. However, it comes with an nVidia video card with at least 512MB, with an option to go all the way up to 1GB! I have 256MB right now. How would I benefit from that?? I can play Bluray 1080 movies without them skipping even once! Hmm...

Finally, 802.11n. On Intel's website, I read the new Centrino 2's have some kind of wireless-N support "built in". How would that make my 802.11n network better?? I have the Atheros a/b/g/n card, which continues to perform phenomenally. I don't understand as to how one would benefit from both an N card, as well as the Centrino 2's "11n support", whatever that means.

I run Vista x64, and everything runs fast. Is it worth the upgrade? I am mostly concerned about the quality of the screen.

I'd like to make an informed, educated decision.

Thanks all...

NITS is just a measure of brightness. 400 is a whole lot for a laptop.

You won't notice a difference in CPU performance. The benefit of the faster bus and more cache is marginal - in the 10-15% range tops.

The 3D capabilities are spectacular - especially for the 1G GPU - at least twice as fast as any prior Lenovo solution. This will help in 3D games and in 3d apps like CAD or studio work.

The bigger, higher res display and the faster 3D are the only major improvements over what you have. Is that worth $3500? Depends what you do. If I was upgrading, I'd splurge for a faster CPU as well.

Thanks Andrew...Would you, or anyone else, happen to know who manufacturers the screens for this high-end model? I recently saw an LG, and a Samsung side-by-side, and the LG beats the Samsung hands down.

Also, the keyboard. Is it an Alps leyboard? If not, is it of high quality? I need to have a high-quality system since I work online, and I want to be as close as possible as far as being comfortable working with my beloved T60p that I have now.

As for CAD applications, I don't work with graphics at all. I'm in sales and management. I don't really play games either.

One thing about the CPU I don't understand is how the CPU can somehow help in the 802.11n department!??

Besides the T9600, they now have the Core 2 Extreme processor X9100 (3.06GHz 1066MHz 6MBL2), and the Core 2 Extreme processor QX9300 (2.53GHz 1066MHz 12MBL2)

Wow, 12MB of L2 cache. That one wasn't there only a couple of weeks ago when I last checked the site. The QX9300 is a lot more expensive than the X9100, even though the clock speed of the X9100 is over 500MHz less. Is the only difference the add'l 6MB of L2 cache? Which one would benefit me more compared to the T7600 I have now?

If I got the NVIDIA Quadro FX-3700M (DVI-DL+DisplayPort+ST) with the 1GB GPU, would that have an effect on the quality of the screen somehow? What does the DisplayPort+ST mean?

Again, I don't mind spending the money. I just need a high-quality system with a screen that doesn't strain my eyes, and a machine that will be a pleasure to work with on a daily basis.

I guess I was hoping the 400nits would be close to IPS, but I guess those screens are history.

Are the Thinkpad screens at least better than Dell's, Sony's, etc.?

Sorry for the 20 questions. I'm psyched about getting a new Thinkpad, and any and all help, suggestions, and advice is highly appreciated!!

As much as I object to 17" "laptop" monsters, the W700 looks very interesting. Very powerful system, keyboard with a keypad, lots of expansion capabilities, a writing pad even!

Insanely expensive though.

Hey, Crunch, I believe the QX9300 is a Quad-Core cpu That´s why it has 12 MB of L2 cache.
Off topic: you don´t play games (anymore)?! I´m not gonna buy this

Cheers

Marin

the W700 hardware maintenance manual isn't out yet so details on the display manufacture aren't publicly known.

the keyboard is the same luck-of-the-draw mix between alps, chicony, and NMB.

for what you do, you'll never, ever notice the difference between any of the processor and video card options.   during daily tasks i can't tell the difference whatsoever in my D10 between on one or two processors.   most of the time the second chip sits idle until i do 3D rendering or real-time rendered part rotation where the extra four cores make a marked difference.   startup, normal app, and shutdown times are completely unaffected between using four or eight processor cores.

unless you're doing 3D CAD, neither the quad core processor nor the FX 3700 will net you a benefit.   all you'll have is bragging rights on equipment that will be lucky to see 25% load twice a year.   the FX 3700 might help with games but since it's a quadro and not a geforce, i can't speak as to how compatible the workstation GPU will be with games.   every report i've read about desktop cards is that a $100 geforce will kill a $1000 quadro in 3D games.

the term "nit" is equivalent to cd/m^2 (candelas per meter squared).   it's a measurement of luminance and is irrespective of color quality or contrast.

hope that helps answer a few of your 20 questions.

Erik, not quite true.
The FX3700, like ALL Nvidia Quadros is nothing more than a consumer card, with different microcode, and driver path. This enables features that specifically accelerate workstation apps, however, the raw performance remains the same. A simple driver hack can turn it back to its consumer brethren. In this case, since it uses the identical Nvidia G92 processor, its going to be an 9800GT mobile, with similar performance (identical with hacked drivers). The question I have is..with 1GB of VRAM, is this the ultra rare 9800GTX SLI version? If so..expect amazing gaming performance.

I speak from experience here. Both the Quadro 570M in my T61p, and the Quadro FX5600 in my desktop are every bit as fast as their Geforce counterparts in gaming. Of course, they do cost a lot more, but the hardware is identical.

Another point that isn't quite true, with no offense meant to Erik:
There are other applications out there other than 3D CAD that take advantage of the multi core architecture, such as DAW (Digital Audio Workstation) software.

The number of tracks, instruments and samples available for live playback without quality issues (pops, clicks or dropouts) scales quite nicely with each available core. The W700 would probably be a killer DJ rig with Ableton Live. Too bad it's also a killer on the wallet...

proteus - i'm fully aware that the hardware is identical.   every single benchmark test i've read online comparing the 8800GT to the FX 3700 shows the geforce better in games and 3700 better in 3D apps.   keep in mind that i'm an industrial designer and not a gamer whatsoever so i can only go off of what i've read on various respected test/benchmark sites.

jmshep - i'm sure there are hundreds of professional applications where a multi-core processor would be of benefit besides 3D apps.   i mentioned 3D because it is one of the most taxing examples and the one which i understand the most.   with that said, i'd venture to bet that 99.9% of consumers would never notice the difference between any of the W700's processor options.   professionals, however, would.

but, in the end, it's crunch's money and he can spend it how he sees fit.

I had the Dell with the 17" screen and my god it will put yopu legs to sleep from the weight! Just kidding !

It is good if you are replacing your desktop but 17" is bigger that I would call portable and that is why I have a laptop.'

Enjoy.

There are different degrees of portability.

I also have the 17" Dell. I primarily use it for confidential information. When I go home - I can lock it in a secure cabinet. Occasionally, I also take it to a client's site.

There are other ways I could do this, but the 17" is a good solution for me.

My mom has one as well. She likes to work at the kitchen table then put the machine on a shelf when she is done.

erik wrote:<snip!>
jmshep - i'm sure there are hundreds of professional applications where a multi-core processor would be of benefit besides 3D apps.   i mentioned 3D because it is one of the most taxing examples and the one which i understand the most.   with that said, i'd venture to bet that 99.9% of consumers would never notice the difference between any of the W700's processor options.   professionals, however, would.

but, in the end, it's crunch's money and he can spend it how he sees fit.

You are not kidding. I've spent some small amount of time designing and rendering with Rhino-3D and its add-ons, so I can certainly see your point of view, although I never had any trouble working with it on my old T40, it just took a very long time for some operations. I can also speak from experience that a Digital Audio Workstation rig (software, hardware controllers, FW and/or USB Audio Interface) is also quite capable of bringing any system to its knees, so to speak.

I use Ableton Live as my DAW, and after an upgrade from version 6 to version 7, it was pretty much impossible to work with it on my old T40 (Pent-M 755, 2Gb DDR, 100gb e7k HD, XpPro sp2) with anything more than one live guitar or keyboard track with 1 instrument or effect and 6 tracks of pre-recorded or sequenced material using 1 software instrument or effect per track.

On my self assembled mini-tower (Asus PK5C with a E6750, 2Gb DDR2, XpProSp3,) the signal starts degrading at around 4 live tracks and 20 tracks of recorded/sequenced material using software instruments. I've created a 20 track Project that utilizes 7 instruments that I've created by chaining multiple single instrument models and effects, with several midi sequences to drive them. on multiple tracks. I then record and loop 4 tracks of live stereo guitar, (1 clean and 3 with processing and effects.) All controlled with 4 USB control surfaces (3 with fader/pot automation.) The resulting sonic miasma holds up pretty well up to the point that I try to add in an 8th chained modeling instrument, or feed the live guitar through an effects chain on either of the Returns.

It will be interesting to see how my T9600 4Gb W500 VistaBiz64 holds up to this test...

And I've just realized that I've completely hijacked this thread and gone utterly off-topic... oops! Sorry for rabbiting away like that!

Anyway to bring it on home, I'd love to have a W700 for live music performance, as I would be willing to bet that it would take pretty much what ever was thrown at it, especially configured as a quad core monster, but for approximately same money, I could have an Eventide 8500HFW digital signal processor. That's a pretty easy choice, the Eventide would always win, assuming I've still got a working ThinkPad!

Now if I could just talk the CPA into getting both... nah, better not push it with her, she's still using the 600x! '

Crunch wrote:they now have the Core 2 Extreme processor X9100 (3.06GHz 1066MHz 6MBL2), and the Core 2 Extreme processor QX9300 (2.53GHz 1066MHz 12MBL2)

So the latter is supposed to be faster? I'm kinda lost here.

The W700 sounds nice but with that kind of money (assuming the retail price is 3500EUR here) I can get an Alienware m17x with two Geforce 8800M-GTX (SLi) and a cool alien head, which would make me feel hardcore.

But it's not a ThinkPad, and I don't have that kind of money for now

The second processor has a lower clock speed but has 4 cores instead of 2. So if you just running one process or task it will be slower, but if you running a bunch of jobs at once, then the quad core will get the work done faster.

Yeah the Q in QX9300 stands for quad. Each core might be 0.5ghz slower, but it has four cores to the X9100 2 cores. QX9300=10ghz total, X9100=6ghz total.

QX9300=10ghz total, X9100=6ghz total.

Unfortunately and fortunately , it doesn´t work like that. Core frequencies cannot be summed up to determine the cpu frequency as a whole. 10 GHz for a cpu would be for now far too much due to power consumption and heat production


Marin


EDIT: It wasn´t my intention to kill other people´s tech enthusiasm