Thinkpads Forum

About to pull the trigger on a W520 with FHD video. Video card options are the Nvidia Quadro 1000M or 2000M. The ONLY difference from a Nvidia product chart is the number of CUDA cores (1000M=96 cores, 2000M=192 cores). Doubling the CUDA cores increases not only the power consumption (45W v 55W), but also adds $250 to the W520 purchase price.

I'm not into gaming, at all, nor am I a graphic artist/designer. But I do need the FHD's extra screen space for my work with many open windows updating concurrently in real time.

Wikipedia explains that CUDA cores are devices for multiprocessing video data to render faster video.

Anyone know where the 96 CUDA core Nvidia 1000M adapter fails to deliver with FHD? Trying to neither waste $ nor be penny wise and pound foolish.

I bet the 1000M is pretty similar, a little less powerful perhaps, than the 880m in the W510. I think you'll be perfectly fine. I know the whole CUDA thing has got everyone excited, but how much of a difference is this really going to make to the average user, even when editing video? I would think a fast hard drive/SSD would be more important.

caonen wrote:I'm not into gaming, at all, nor am I a graphic artist/designer.

Then I would get the less expensive card. Usually the better the GPUs generate more heat and drain the battery more quickly. You might even want to look at the T520 with the Intel GPU, which is more than enough to drive the FHD screen for most uses. Why pay extra for something you're not going to use? Multitasking and general responsiveness are more related to the memory and hard drive.

It seems unanimous (including Lenovo's sales techies) there is no good reason for my needs to pay for the extra CUDA cores.

re. T520 v W520. I configured both to look for savings, but surprisingly, after adding the few extras I needed, the T ended up $150-200 more than the W model.


Thanks to all.

I've always thought that CUA is nonsense, overall. Unless you are buying the $1500 graphics card, it can't possibly make a difference in your day to day computing.

is there any other difference that these CUDA cores? I checked some chart on nVidia site and the 1000M and the 2000M looks the same, expect the 1000M is 35W than 45W on 2000M. Are any differences at external displaying or OpenGL power?

I work too as a graphic designer, so I use InDesign, Photoshop, Illustrator, Acrobat and Bridge. I checked Adobe, and they told me that only Premiere is using CUDA. So if the OpenGL power is the same, it is pointless to have 2000M for my use. Can anybody confirm these information?

commander,

Looking at Nvidia's mobile product comparison chart, it corroborates the chart you reference, except the power reqm'ts of the 1000M (45W) and 2000M (55W). As you observed, aside from power draw, the ONLY differences btwn these 2 adapters are the number of CUDA cores (192 vs 96). The chart lists OpenGL for both adapters at 3.3. Not sure if any other measures in the chart refer to external displaying, but they are absolutely identical between the 1000M and 2000M.

The url for the chart I see is: http://www.nvidia.com/docs/IO/11761/com ... -final.pdf

thanks. It is strange how these basic information are hidden. Can you imagine that you will buy a graphic card and the manufacturer doesn't tell you the clock speeds, monitor supports, etc?

commander wrote:Can you imagine that you will buy a graphic card and the manufacturer doesn't tell you the clock speeds, monitor supports, etc?

Can you imagine you will buy a graphics card and the manufacturer doesn't tell you which commands the card accepts from the host system so you can write your own interface code if you want? All you get from NVidia is a piece of hardware and a binary-only driver; A few years down the road their driver will stop supporting your hardware and you'll be stuck with an old driver that may or may not work with OS updates.

I just ordered the Quadro 2000M setup with my W520. I use video editing/creation software that is aware of how many cuda cores you have and the process gets speeded up if you have more cores. Granted, it's not as many cores as a GTX 590, but it's twice what the 1000M has.

Oliver26n wrote:I've always thought that CUA is nonsense, overall.

Yeah, pure nonsense... Some people use it to help cure cancer, some other to help in stopping global warming, etc. - but who would care about stuff like that?

Well sticking strictly to the original poster's requirements then yes, the 1000M is the way to go. Your FHD will be perfectly fine.

The main reasons I am going with the 2000M are threefold; the first two are mentioned in the previous posts -

1) video processing
2) CUDA-based "charity computing" scientific research projects I do like Folding@Home

and then, of course,

3) gaming. This sucker should be able to run virtually any game I throw at it for the next couple years.

In terms of pure computational oomph per dollar, the $250 to move from the 1000M to 2000M is a fairly decent deal in this market segment, and WAY better than coughing up $500 (minimum) to upgrade to the Extreme Edition CPU.

But if you want to keep your W520 below $2,000 then the 1000M will still handily get the job done (at 96 cores it's still got 3x the number of cores as the old Quadro 570M in my T61p)

One more twist you may find interesting. I'm not a gamer, but I find a high resolution crucial for my work with html, pdf, and doc. After waiting 5 years to replace my T61, I think I’ll finally go for the W520, in spite of the worse horizontal display resolution, sigh (1080 px vs. 1200).
Currently, I'm running in addition two external TFTs with a resolution of 2560*1600 each. When I get the W520, I'd like to add a third one with the same resolution. This seems to be possible with the ThinkPad Mini Dock Plus Series 3 (170W) if I use its two DisplayPorts, plus the display port from the W520. Lenovo says that I can use the three DP simultaneously, but doesn’t telling the max resolution (http://support.lenovo.com/en_US/detail. ... MIGR-76617).
Three questions:

1. Is this high resolution (4800*2560) really possible with the W520?
2. Does 1000M vs. 2000M make any difference for high resolutions? (I assume not)
3. Would the same work for the T520? They take the same Mini Dock Plus, but have only the integrated graphic card. So maybe it's possible, but really slow?

thinkbigger wrote:One more twist you may find interesting. I'm not a gamer, but I find a high resolution crucial for my work with html, pdf, and doc. After waiting 5 years to replace my T61, I think I’ll finally go for the W520, in spite of the worse horizontal display resolution, sigh (1080 px vs. 1200).
Currently, I'm running in addition two external TFTs with a resolution of 2560*1600 each. When I get the W520, I'd like to add a third one with the same resolution. This seems to be possible with the ThinkPad Mini Dock Plus Series 3 (170W) if I use its two DisplayPorts, plus the display port from the W520. Lenovo says that I can use the three DP simultaneously, but doesn’t telling the max resolution (http://support.lenovo.com/en_US/detail. ... MIGR-76617).
Three questions:

1. Is this high resolution (4800*2560) really possible with the W520?
2. Does 1000M vs. 2000M make any difference for high resolutions? (I assume not)
3. Would the same work for the T520? They take the same Mini Dock Plus, but have only the integrated graphic card. So maybe it's possible, but really slow?

1. Impossible, only 1 DVI and 1 DP port can be used simultaneously, and DVI on MDP3 supports up to 1920*1200
2. No difference
3. T520 with Nvidia card works the same

1. Impossible, only 1 DVI and 1 DP port can be used simultaneously, and DVI on MDP3 supports up to 1920*1200
2. No difference
3. T520 with Nvidia card works the same

1. Good point. Looks like I have to stick with two 2560*1600 screens as long as I don't use a separate ViDock. Curses on Lenovo for making only a SL-DVI (my 5-year old dock has DL).

3. Really? The second graphic card wouldn't even be used?

1. You can try VGA port, but I'm not sure if it supports 2560*1600 resolution.
3. T520 with Nvidia card is equipped with Nvidia Optimus by default, so two GPUs supports two external screens.

I got my W520, dock, DP-DL-DVI adapters, tried, and -- surprise -- I could run both 2560*1600 screens in full resolution FROM THE DOCK! The result is a sweet 3200*2560 desktop, plus the TP display.

This is different from what Lenovo and trustworthy people (in this forum) deemed possible. I didn't need to use the DP on the W520.

Makes me wonder if I may be able to add another (third) WQXGA screen by using the DP on the W520.

thinkbigger wrote:I got my W520, dock, DP-DL-DVI adapters, tried, and -- surprise -- I could run both 2560*1600 screens in full resolution FROM THE DOCK! The result is a sweet 3200*2560 desktop, plus the TP display.

This is different from what Lenovo and trustworthy people (in this forum) deemed possible. I didn't need to use the DP on the W520.

Makes me wonder if I may be able to add another (third) WQXGA screen by using the DP on the W520.

That sounds cool. Are you connecting the monitors on the DVI and DP port respectively?
My bad for the misleading info., as according to Lenovo, the DVI port is not DVI-D one. If it is, then it rocks

chairsky wrote: That sounds cool. Are you connecting the monitors on the DVI and DP port respectively?
My bad for the misleading info., as according to Lenovo, the DVI port is not DVI-D one. If it is, then it rocks

Unfortunately, you were right with regards the DVI ports. They are both only Single-DVI; even the dock for my old T60p had Dual-DVI. So what I use are two DisplayPort to Dual-DVI adapters. The DP on the laptop is still free.

Lenovo makes it look as if you could use only on DP from the dock at one time, that's now disproved. Taking out the Laptop with two WQXGA screens is really fast now, as is re-attaching (just take it out/drop it in). Also, it looks like the 1000M I have is not even used much; only minimal fan noise. It drives the external screens, and the other graphic card the Laptop screen. Good to have two graphic cards… I hope that also saves battery power on the road when using only the Intel graphics.

I don't have a third screen to try, but the fact that there is a free DP on the laptop makes it looks like it could drive another WQXGA? That would seriously rock!

The Quadro's are limited to a total of three screens for whatever reason.
The lesser Quadro NVS's are able to use up to four screens total.

Stupid NVidia.

3 screens WQXGA on Quadro 1000M
1 screen 1080p on Intel

Sounds possible?

I meant in total, including the integrated card.