T400 1280x800 vs. T500 1680x1050

[ricard]

I'm trying to choose between a T400 1280x800 vs a T500 1680x1050 . The former has ATI 3470 graphics, whereas the latter has 3650 graphics. Now, on paper the 3650 performs much better than the 3470, on the other hand, the machine has a higher resolution so there are more pixels to drive. So in practice, does the T500 in question still have better graphics performance than the T400, or does the change in resolution even itself out? Both machines have 2.4 GHz processors.

I'm also a bit worried that text on the 1680x1050 screen will be too tiny for me. Even a 14" 1280x800 is on the small side, and the slightly larger display I don't think compensates for the fairly large increase in resolution.

Opinions?

[Neil]

While no one can choose which is best for you, except for you, if physical size and weight are not an issue, I would choose the T500 because I like higher rez screens. I don't really like 1280x800 on any size screen just because I have to scroll too much to read anything. The more vertical lines the better for me. But, that's just me, and other people see things differently.

[wolfman]

I agree with neil., although I feel compelled to note I'm typing this on my Google Nexus 7 tablet with... 1280x800 resolution...

[ZaZ]

Opinions?

I think the 125 pixel density on the T500 is fine for most users unless you've got eyesight issues. The WSXGA+ screens to tend be a bit better quality wise too.

[ricard]

While no one can choose which is best for you, except for you,

How very true.

if physical size and weight are not an issue, I would choose the T500 because I like higher rez screens. .

Currently I've got a T61 with the 1024x768 screen which I find completely adequate resolution-wise. I was really thinking in terms of graphics performance, given that one has a better graphics card but higher resolution screen. Of course any thoughts such as yours as to what resolution you prefer is also interesting input.

In general I find it hard to understand the craze for higher and higher resolution; while it's nice to view pictures and films without any hint of seeing individual pixels, text gets very small. If the screen size follows suit it makes sense, so I can understand it for stationary machines with large displays. It would also make sense if there was a system-wide setting which rendered the desktop independently of the actual resolution, so you actually could get the same size desktop but with higher resolution when it comes to fonts and graphic objects. True, the font size can be adjusted, but in practice it's awkward to do on a system-wide basis as different applications will have different views as to what size they actually want to display. At least on my personal laptop, being able to use it without constantly having to reach for my glasses is a great boon for me, although that is of course a very personal opinion.

But this machine will also be used to play some (slightly older) games by several members of the family, so graphics performance is an interesting parameter to be considered.

Any thoughts as to how well a T500 performs if the screen resolution is set to, say, 1280x800 ? In general non-integer scaling of the resolution on an LCD tends to result in a blurry image, don't they?

[dr_st]

In general I find it hard to understand the craze for higher and higher resolution; while it's nice to view pictures and films without any hint of seeing individual pixels, text gets very small. If the screen size follows suit it makes sense, so I can understand it for stationary machines with large displays. It would also make sense if there was a system-wide setting which rendered the desktop independently of the actual resolution, so you actually could get the same size desktop but with higher resolution when it comes to fonts and graphic objects. True, the font size can be adjusted, but in practice it's awkward to do on a system-wide basis as different applications will have different views as to what size they actually want to display. At least on my personal laptop, being able to use it without constantly having to reach for my glasses is a great boon for me, although that is of course a very personal opinion.

I fully agree with you. Given that Windows, which is the OS that most of us use, scales text and visual elements in non-optimal ways, the question is where the balance between resolution and text size passes. IMO, 1680x1050 on a 15.4" laptop screen is still quite usable and strikes a good balance for the majority of users. 1920x1200 may be very nice for some but too much for others,

But this machine will also be used to play some (slightly older) games by several members of the family, so graphics performance is an interesting parameter to be considered.

Any thoughts as to how well a T500 performs if the screen resolution is set to, say, 1280x800 ? In general non-integer scaling of the resolution on an LCD tends to result in a blurry image, don't they?

The 3650 is somewhat more powerful for sure. Furthermore, in games I find the importance of native resolution to be not as great. Most games scale and interpolate images anyway.

[pianowizard]

Currently I've got a T61 with the 1024x768 screen which I find completely adequate resolution-wise. I was really thinking in terms of graphics performance, given that one has a better graphics card but higher resolution screen. Of course any thoughts such as yours as to what resolution you prefer is also interesting input.

When you play games on the T500 in question, if you reduce the resolution to 1280x800, it would definitely perform better than the 1280x800 T400. But for everything else, since you are fine with 1024x768 and since you don't want "tiny", I think the 1280x800 T400 would make more sense than the 1680x1050 T500.

In general I find it hard to understand the craze for higher and higher resolution

This is what I usually do: I personally prefer super high res on huge desktop monitors and moderately high pixel densities on laptops. BUT, when making recommendations for other people, I consider their needs and experiences. I think blindly recommending high-density screens to everyone is irresponsible. In this particular case, I really think you should opt for the T400. Get the T500 if the main thing you do is gaming, although I get the impression that you plan to do other things as well.

[ricard]

Thanks for the advice. What I would like to come to grips with though is how much of a difference there is regarding graphics performance, or rather, achievable frame rates, between the two. Basically, does the 3650 card in the T500 more than make up for the difference in resolution (= more pixels to render and shuffle about) than the 3470 in the T400? I've tried to google on the different cards but have come up with slightly conflicting answers (from "they are about the same at the machines native resolution" to "the T500 graphics would be 50% faster due") which is why it would be nice to hear if anyone has any other input.

For non-gaming use it comes down to how "bad" the 1680x1050 screen will look when set to 1280x800 resolution. My experience has been that operating an LCD at its non-native resolution can lead to blurry images, but I don't know about this particular machine. It would be nice to hear from someone who does this on this particular (or a similar) machine.

Portability is not a big issue, and besides the 15" screen seems to make the machine only marginally larger, as the bezel is wider on the 14" machine.

[dr_st]

For non-gaming use it comes down to how "bad" the 1680x1050 screen will look when set to 1280x800 resolution.

Don't do it.

[LegendaryKA8]

Don't do it.

Agreed on this. For general desktop use scaling back to 1280x800 will look absolutely terrible. Text will be fuzzy, you lose much of the great real estate the 1680x1050 offers, so on and so forth.

Using the old static benchmark 3DMark06, the HD3470 in the T400 scores around 2,500, while the HD3650 in the T500 scores around 4,300. In comparison to modern mid-end and gaming rigs this is pretty poor, yet it is still enough oomph to game. Far Cry 2 is decently playable at mid-high settings at 1440x900, I can play WOW at mid-high settings at 1680x1050, Skyrim plays okayish at 1680x1050 as well... older games like Fallout 3, Oblivion, and the Modern Warfare series also do pretty well. For an older machine that's not a dedicated gaming rig it works pretty well, enough for me to break it out if I don't want to mess with my 17" primary laptop. The only games I seem to have trouble with are the Mass Effect series, but I haven't messed with the resolution settings yet(very limited playtests). I would consider dropping own to 1440x900 before going all the way back to 1280x800 if you're having any issues with framerates.

[ricard]

Thanks for the note on running at less-than-native resolutions, it's what I would have expected, but then again you never know if there for some reason would have been some clever solution implemented.

As it happens, the same company that was offering the T500 1650x1050 also got in a T500 1280x800 with a 2.66 GHz processor, 4 megs of ram and 320 GB hard drive, for not very much more money about two weeks ago. Since it was the resolution I wanted, and a slightly faster processor, more memory and larger hard drive, I jumped at it, even though the difference in processor speed (2.4 vs. 2.66) was marginal, and I didn't really need the extra RAM and hard drive, although no doubt it will come in handy at some point.

Got the machine home the other day, and it really is quite nice. The 15" 1280x800 screen has almost the same height as my 14" T61 screen (in fact the depth of the actual computer with the lid closed is identical to the T61) so text is fairly easy to read at the native resolution. The machine is slightly larger than a T400 of course, but in true Lenovo style it doesn't feel clumsy. The sound seems quite good, so I think they've put the extra width to good use and put better speakers in. I remember trying a 14" widescreen T61 once and found the sound abysmal.

The Linux ATI proprietary fglrx video driver seems to be working nicely, even suspend seems to work which I know can be an issue with this driver. Minecraft under Linux reaches frame rates of 30-40 fps with video settings at maximum performance, and 125 fps with video settings turned down. Civilization V runs fine under Windows, but I wasn't expecting less, as it runs fine on my wife's Macbook with a 2.0 GHz dual core processor and Nvidia 9400M graphics.

Final trivia: as it turns out, the T400 on sale did not have the 3470 graphics, the company that was selling it got the configuration mixed up, so it was never an option in actual fact. It seems not many people buy these machines with gaming anywhere on the map, so the companies selling them don't seem to be to careful about the graphics specs. Weird in a way, as it's very easy to determine the exact factory configuration by checking the machine type number at Lenovo's support site.