Is W510 to T430 an upgrade?

[serpico]

I've got a W510 spec'ed as follows: i7-720QM(1.6GHz) quad-core, 8GB RAM, 240GB SSD, 15.6" 1600x900, 1GB nVIDIA Quadro FX 880M

I no longer need the extra screen real estate that a 15" (actually 15.6") offers over a 14" screen since I mostly use the laptop with an external monitor. Since I travel occasionally with the laptop, I'm thinking of switching to a T430 and lightening the load - smaller laptop and smaller power supply (the 135W power supply the W series uses is a beast).

Should I expect a significant performance hit (even though the T430 came out a year later (2012) than the W510 (2011) with the same 8GB of RAM and SSD since the W510 has a quad-core processor and discrete graphics? If so, which Thinkpad 14" models should I be looking at to stay at roughly similar performance level? Use case is mostly spreadsheets, programming, web browsing, some streaming video, etc. No gaming, no video editing, no CAD.

[brchan]

Actually, a T430 will be around 33% faster overall than your W510, even with integrated graphics. So you are actually getting a nice upgrade (besides the screen, of course).

[serpico]

Actually, a T430 will be around 33% faster overall than your W510, even with integrated graphics. So you are actually getting a nice upgrade (besides the screen, of course).

Thanks. That's impressive given the W510 is quad-core and has discrete graphics. I guess the boost comes from having the next generation CPU?

Screen resolution would be the same (1600x900), unless I'm missing something. Though I guess squeezing the same resolution into a smaller physical screen (i.e., smaller pixels) can be considered an upgrade.

[w0qj]

We are still daily using our T410 (Win7 Pro 64-bit) because of its excellent 16:10 LCD aspect ratio (read: more vertical space, much better readability),
and for its built-in DVD/CD tray for very convenient use as needed!

The W510 and T410 series are the last of its breed to have this 16:10 LCD aspect ratio.
All newer models (from ThinkPad and other brands) have 16:9 LCD aspect ratio, which is a major downgrade in our eyes

[dr_st]

Actually, a T430 will be around 33% faster overall than your W510, even with integrated graphics. So you are actually getting a nice upgrade (besides the screen, of course).

Thanks. That's impressive given the W510 is quad-core and has discrete graphics. I guess the boost comes from having the next generation CPU?

It does. The CPU is more efficient clock-per-clock, core-per-core. However, for heavy CPU-intensive applications that can use >2 cores, the W510 will still be faster. You are not likely to hit these scenarios, based on the use cases you mentioned.

The W510 and T410 series are the last of its breed to have this 16:10 LCD aspect ratio.

Actually, T510 and W510 are already 16:9.

[TPFanatic]

The W510 and T410 series are the last of its breed to have this 16:10 LCD aspect ratio.

Actually, T510 and W510 are already 16:9.

And there is only a 3.75mm difference in vertical height between 15.6" 16:9 and 14.1" 16:10, meaning the W/T510 have practically no more physical height than a T410 and are just wider. At least 15.6" and modern 14.0" can get the usable 1080 screen option, while T410 is stuck at stupid 900p.

[hhhd1]

the T430 can be upgraded to a quadcore processor, many old threads discussing this.

The CPU is more efficient clock-per-clock, core-per-core. However, for heavy CPU-intensive applications that can use >2 cores, the W510 will still be faster.

not true, even the average i5 dual core ivybridge will beat the i7-720qm (1.6ghz) in both scenarios, single threaded and multithread.


https://cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=In ... GHz&id=851

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cp ... 40+2.60GHz

[dr_st]

the T430 can be upgraded to a quadcore processor, many old threads discussing this.

That's a good point, but we were comparing the stock configurations.

The CPU is more efficient clock-per-clock, core-per-core. However, for heavy CPU-intensive applications that can use >2 cores, the W510 will still be faster.

not true, even the average i5 dual core ivybridge will beat the i7-720qm (1.6ghz) in both scenarios, single threaded and multithread.


https://cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=In ... GHz&id=851

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cp ... 40+2.60GHz

I don't trust CPUBenchmark when it comes to specifics. They give you one number, and obviously it can only be an average number, and not something that reflects every particular scenario.

When it comes to a particular multi-threaded benchmark (see here), I see that the i7-3520M outperforms the i7-720QM, but the i5-3210M falls behind it. The i5-3320M will probably be comparable. The difference is smaller than I thought, though. The low frequency of the i7-720QM when all 4 cores are used plays a big role.

[edik]

In my humble opinion cpubenchmark.net whilst giving a rough estimate in the form of one number does translate into actual performance characteristics.

I use a multiple number of i5/i7 systems of various generations and types and the speed of compilation (IDEA Java) and general snappiness roughly equates to the overall index.

That's just me though on five machines.... not a great sample admittedly.

Stuff like power consumption some folk really matters - my iT450 i5-5300U might be relatively slow (around 3800 I think) but with Linux and powertop I get seriously good balance between battery and performance... sometimes 3.9W per hour under light load and low screen brightness!

[dr_st]

In my humble opinion cpubenchmark.net whilst giving a rough estimate in the form of one number does translate into actual performance characteristics.

It does, however when comparing CPUs with different number of physical cores, a single number, by definition cannot reflect all scenarios, because there will always be a big difference between single- and multi-threaded benchmarks.

[edik]

I agree.

Another factor of course that needs to be considered is stuff like BUS speed/RAM speed/Disk Speed etc. I have an old Dell Precision T5400 with Xeon QC (x2) and 32GB of DDR2 RAM and a few fast SSD. This is a *TEN* years old system.

Ten years old and can still handle anything today thrown at it.

For many years I have suspected that we have vast Processor overkill for the majority of tasks (outside of Games/CAD etc).

[w0qj]

OK, we stand corrected
(Now we will treasure our 16:10 ratio T410 even more!)

Actually, T510 and W510 are already 16:9.

[bit_twiddler]

They are 2 completely different types of machines, and each can do things that
the other cannot.

The T430 with a dual core is probably equivalent to the i7-720QM in the W510,
but because the W510 can take 32gb of ram it is more suitable for certain
tasks, such as software development.

You could always get a T430 to use on the road, and keep the W510 on a dock,
hooked up to an external monitor.

[serpico]

The T430 with a dual core is probably equivalent to the i7-720QM in the W510,
but because the W510 can take 32gb of ram it is more suitable for certain
tasks, such as software development.

I believe max memory for the W510 is 16GB (4 slots, but each limited to 4GB).

[bit_twiddler]

If you have a W510 with a quadcore, it should have 4 slots, and it will take 32G of ram.
(I have one with this configuration.) I also have a W701, with the same generation
of CPU, and have upgraded it to 32G.

In all likelihood, 8GB sodimms were not available when the machines were released,
so that's why Lenovo only specs them as expandible to 16GB (4X4G).