Making sense of the T540P processor options?

Which processor offers the best price/performance ratio? What are the drawbacks of going with any given processor (IE: Battery life). Is a faster 2 core or a slower 4 core better for the same price?

I'm thinking the sweet spot on this list is i7-4700MQ, but I'd like your input.

Intel Core i3-4000M Processor (3MB Cache, 2.40GHz)
Intel Core i5-4200M Processor (3MB Cache, up to 3.10GHz)[add $50.00]
Intel Core i5-4300M Processor (3MB Cache, up to 3.30GHz)[add $105.00]
Intel Core i5-4330M Processor (3MB Cache, up to 3.50GHz)[add $155.00]
Intel Core i7-4700MQ Processor (6MB Cache, up to 3.40GHz)[add $205.00]
Intel Core i7-4600M Processor (4MB Cache, up to 3.60GHz)[add $295.00]
Intel Core i7-4800MQ Processor (6MB Cache, up to 3.70GHz)[add $345.00]
Intel Core i7-4900MQ Processor (8MB Cache, up to 3.80GHz)[add $585.00]

 

Is the current best discount for ordering a T540P the barnes and noble discount?

 

So Lenovo does not sell a SSD directly through their system.

What is the best option to add it? Should I just grab a samsung 840 and toss the built in HDD? Or does this laptop have a spot/way of adding a SSD without tossing my HDD?

 

Please only make 1 thread on the same topic.

 

They were different questions... I don't think a purchasing question asking about discounts belongs grouped in with a question about what SSD interfaces a laptop has. People knowledgeable about the technical topics but not purchasing and vice versa are likely to overlook the topic.

 

I had the same concerns as you. I'm building out my T540p with the i7-4700MQ, but want to know how much this will affect battery life. On the geek bench results the 4700mq is pretty damn fast compared to some of the lower options.

It also depends what you plan to do with the extra cores. I'm going to be running lightroom and photoshop, which can take advantage of those cores.

 

Demanding office productivity. Poorly written slow java apps, over-bloated quickbooks file that takes forever, creating large PDFS, and the likes. No photo/video creative elements though.

I'm starting to lean towards the 4600M. The factor is when I configure the MQ + 730M, it forces me to use a 135 watt power supply. I'm not sure if I want to carry that brick -- and I'm not sure what other thermal/battery life penalties having this combination will entail.

However, I suppose it would not be impossible to drop the 730M and keep 4700MQ (90 watt combo).

i5 + onboard graphics = 65 watt brick
i7 dual core + onboard = 90 watt brick
i7 dual core + 730M = 90 watt brick
i7 quad core + 730M = 135 watt brick
i7 quad core + onboard = 90 watt brick.

Choices, Choices.

 

I went through that process trying to decide on the cpu for my t440p (which will hopefully ship in 2 weeks)... At any rate... I chose the 4800mq in the end because..

I think Intel doesn't specifically create chips to be 4700 or 4800 or 4900... I think they probably create all to be 4900's (or maybe 4700's) and ones that can operate at the higher clock and base voltage are deemed the higher speed chips.... soo... using that logic I picked the 4800 because it might be slightly more power efficient then the 4700...

And as far as to get a gpu or not... with optimus enabled, if you aren't using the gpu it should be off.. and the 730m is only a 35 watt part... so if you had the cpu and gpu completely loaded you will still be drawing less than (but maybe very close to) 90 watts...

So... what I've done is order the notebook with the 135 watt adapter, then got the ultra dock with the 90w adapter and I'll keep the 90w in my bag but use the 135 with the dock....

btw... I'm coming from the m6600 whose power supply is 240 watt... I was going to start a thread of ridiculous comparisons to the m6600... starting with the size difference of the power supplies

 

Extra $50 for the 4800MQ would yield you roughly 10% raw improvement over the 4700MQ. Thats good value IMO, but your usage may not see noticable benefit.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

 

I'm curious what the price/performance ratio is for the 4700MQ and the 4600M. Why is the dual-core 4600M a significantly more expensive upgrade than the quad-core 4700MQ? I know the clock speed of the 4600M is higher, but it also only has two cores so I'd expect it to be about the same price as the 4700MQ (faster per-core performance offsetting lower number of cores to make it a wash)

 

I am having the same processor dilemma: i5-4330M vs i7-4700QM

I am a graduate student and most of what I do is multitasking rather than run big CPU intensive programs. Most days I am working simultaneously in ArcGIS, word, excel, endnote, have a couple of databases open, looking at a few pdfs, a few tabs in web browser, some video streaming, running some calculations in a stats program, and maybe editing an image in photoshop. I would like to be able to play some lower end games, but mostly I want to buy something that will be slightly more future proof since this is a higher base price than I paid for my last laptop (which I hate). I know I can easily upgrade ram and add an SSD later, but the processor and graphics I need to be happy with.

I was going to go with the i5 but the cheap upgrade to the quad core looks good when you compare the reviews of the two processors. I was also concerned about the heat output and bigger power adapter. I am plugged in most of the time but would have to haul that adapter back and forth every day.

Does anybody have a realistic idea about battery life and heat output differences between these two options? Is the bigger power adapter a huge pain? Are both such overkill for me that I will never care?

 

It looks like the i5 is sufficient for your needs. How big are your stats calculations? Most of your tasks aren't really CPU-intensive, so a quad-core wouldn't be used.

 

I use Systat to do general kinds of things like cluster analysis, principal components, discriminant analysis, etc. I'm learning r right now. Most of my data sheets have 10,000-50,000 entries and in the ballpark of 20-100 columns.

 

Sorry to dig up an old thread. I'm having the same debate right now about getting the i5-4330M vs i7-4700QM in a T540p. It's a $50 price difference between them. Actually it's less because I'm getting a 25% discount through corporateperks.com (which is higher than the 20% off through Barnes and Noble Gold) so it's really only a $37.50 price difference. I'm thinking it's worth it for that price difference to get a quad core over a dual core even though I'm not really doing anything that CPU intensive with it. I figured I could get longer use out of the T540p over the long term by having a quad core processor. Below is the CPU World comparison link of the 2 processors. What does everyone think?

Intel Core i5-4330M vs i7-4700MQ

 

That's a cheap upgrade... I always thought the 4700QM was hundreds more than the i5 options.

Bear in mind that the quad-core processors use more power, which means lower battery life and a larger power brick. I have a T440p with a 4700QM, but if I were not doing anything particularly CPU-intensive I'd probably go for a dual-core i7

 

Well, for those only $37.5 (+tax) you essentially gain two cores but lose hardware virtualization. So if you don't need to run any virtual machines I'd go for 4700MQ and skip few trips to bar/restaurant, otherwise it's either i5-4330M or a more expensive model of i7 that supports VT-x and VT-d.

 

Thanks pipspeak and moonwalker.syrius.

pipspeak, Just for clarification to go from the cheapest i5 the i5-4200M to the cheapest i7 the i7-4700MQ is a $155 upgrade (-25%). The i5-4330M is the most expensive i5 and the i7-4700MQ is the cheapest i7 so the price difference is only $50 (-25%). I'm assuming you meant that you'd go for the only dual core i7 option available on the T540p which is the i7-4600M. I'm also assuming that the i7-4600M won't require the larger power brick of the quad core i7 processors because the i7-4600M is dual core. Is that correct? The price difference between the i5-4330M and i7-4600M is $140 (-25%) but I'm not sure it's worth it.

moonwalker.syrius, I'm not running any virtual machines but I did the following search on Intel and learned that only the i5-4300M, i5-4330M, i7-4600M, i7-4800M and i7-4900MQ all support VT-x and VT-d. The only i7 option that doesn't support them both is the i7-4700MQ which is probably one of the reasons why it's a lot cheaper.

ARK | Processor Feature Filter

Because of the lower battery life and the larger power brick you guys got me debating whether I should stick with a dual core processors like the i5-4330M or i7-4600M or go for the extra cores in the i7-4700MQ.

 

Do you run around all day and work on the go with no easy access to power outlet and have to have long-butt battery life? If yes, go for 4330M, though I'd in that case go for something more ultrabook-like. If not, is your laptop bag too small to fit in marginally bigger 90W instead of 65W AC adapter? If answer to the last question is not, I'd go for 4700MQ and postpone the time when I'll be pressed to upgrade; if answer to the last question is yes, I'd get a bigger bag and go for 4700MQ and postpone the time when I'll be pressed to upgrade.

 

Thanks again moonwalker.syrius. This laptop will mostly be used around the apartment so battery life isn't that important and I'll have access to a power outlet. If the 90W power adapter is only marginally bigger than the 65W one then it's not a big deal since I'll just be moving it around the apartment anyway. Now the last question is, do I spend the extra $150 ($200 - 25%) to get the 2880 x 1620 resolution screen over the Full HD resolution screen? I'm just not sure it's necessary.

 

Yes, absolutely. That display is excellent. For $150 it's a no brainer. Set it to FHD and never look back.

Sent from my SM-N900T using Tapatalk

 

Thanks kevroc. Maybe I should have explained that it's $127.50 ($170 - 25%) to upgrade from a HD (1366 x 768) resolution to FullHD (1920 x 1080) resolution and then another $150 ($200 - 25%) to upgrade from FullHD to the 3K IPS (2800 x 1620) resolution. So if I upgrade from the base HD screen to the 3K IPS then I'll be paying $277.50 for display upgrades. That just seems like a lot to me. Maybe that's normal because I haven't shopped for a laptop in a while.

 

I would instead suggest to set it to native 3K resolution and set DPI in OS to 212 (actual DPI of that panel). Make sure that XP-style UI scaling is disabled and all those applications that support UI scaling (there slowly becomes more and more of those) will have absolutely beautiful fonts, and the older ones that don't support UI scaling should be scaled by Windows anyway to stay usable.

 

Well for me, the display is always the most important aspect of the laptop. So whatever the cost to get IPS is what I'll pay. I figure that's the single most used feature of the laptop that I'll be using since I'm looking at it all the time. The keyboard is second on my list and, well, that's another reasong I use Thinkpads is for the keyboard/trackpoint. The rest for me are options to choose from and weighing cost/benefit. But not when it comes to the screen. If I have less eye strain over the next 2-3 years because I spent a little more on a display, then I'm all for it. I also take into account that if I ever end up reselling the laptop, I'll recoup some of that cost so my true cost of having that feature may only be 1/2.

 

That's the nice thing about the display panel, you can play around with it how you want. I personally have apps that don't scale well, so I prefer FHD. But over the weekend if I'm just going to be using LightRoom or Photo editing, I'll surely pop back up to 2800x1620 mode and run with it. For my daily use though, FHD mode just works well for everything, but the screen gives you wonderful options.

Also, some mornings when I wake up and my eyes are tired / fuzzy. I'll drop down to 1600x900 mode and browse the web for a bit and again, razor sharp display with awesome contrast. After a while I'll bump it back up or dock it and away I go.

 

Thanks again. I'm trying to figure out if the FullHD display is an IPS as well but the tech specs don't say. I guess I should bite the bullet and just pay the extra $150 to upgrade to the 3K IPS display.

The trackpoint is one of the main reasons I like Thinkpads. People don't understand how much efficient you can be with a trackpoint because you don't have to constantly move your hand back and forth between a touchpad and keyboard just to move the mouse pointer.

 

It's not IPS and in fact has worse specs than the FHD panels previously found on T/W 510/520/530. Go for the 3K.

 

Thanks ajkula66. I just thought of something else that I hadn't thought of earlier during the discussion about the processors. Now that you guys have convinced me to get the 3K IPS display and the i7-4700MQ processor, is the integrated Intel HD Graphics in that processor good enough or should I spend $97.50 ($130 - 25%) for the only discrete graphics upgrade which is the NVIDIA GeForce GT 730M 1GB? After googling that graphics card, it's at least a year old which is kind of disappointing. They could have picked something a little newer/better. I'm not going to be doing any gaming on the laptop, just watching videos, looking at stock charts, etc. Do you guys think I need the NVIDIA?

 

If you don't do any gaming then iGPU should be perfectly fine. In fact, HD4600 is plenty powerful even for some light modern or some fairly heavy old games. i7-4700MQ IIRC also supports hardware vide decoding. So unless you do CAD or need GPGPU functionality (may speed up programs like new Photoshop) I'd forget about discreet video. But if you do want to go with discreet GPU I'd suggest to go with W540 with Quadro K2100M instead of T540/T540p with their anemic offering.

 

Thanks again moonwalker.syrius. It sounds like I don't need need a discrete graphics processor based on what I'll be doing with the laptop. I also didn't really want to spend more than $1250 on the T540p and I'm already exceeding that with the other options/upgrades I've chosen. The W540 is much more expensive than the T540p and the current coupon is only 15% off so I'd have to spend a lot more money to get a similarly configured W540. I actually decided to stick with the 4gb of RAM in the T540p and upgrade it on my own to 8gb or 12gb because Lenovo wants about $100 to upgrade from 4gb to a single dimm of 8gb memory. I can buy 8gb of the same memory type which DDR3 1600 (PC3 12800) for less than $80 and they want to charge $100 to go from 4gb to 8gb so for $80 more I can end up with 12gb of RAM instead of paying $100 to have 8gb. The only thing I haven't been able to confirm is the cas latency/timing of the factory memory. I think the cas latency is 11 and the timing is 11-11-11-28 based on the suggested memory upgrades I found on the Crucial and Kingston websites. I'm also going to upgrade it to a Samsung Pro SSD 256gb because their SSD upgrade is also a rip off.

The only thing I'm concerned about is the full keyboard including the number pad in the T540p. Someone in one of the reviews mentioned that because they had to position their hands more to the left side of the keyboard because of the number pad, the corner of the laptop was digging into their wrist. That would be really annoying.

 

With Windows as host OS, I don't think there is much use of VT-d. At least VMWare Player/Workstation/Virtual box/Hyper-V in Windows 8 do not benefit from VT-d.

 

I'm not using Windows as my primary system so I wasn't aware of that.

 

This is a bit off topic, I am building the T440p, and have are following the specs you have above. My problem is which hard drive do I choose, the SSD which is as you know 256 GB or the 500 GB hard drive 7200 RPM. The price difference is a whooping $320.00. I use this for Photoshop, Soapmaking software, lots of tabs open switching back and forth from internet to Photoshop. PDF file, which contain my graphic designed labels. Very little Excel, Word, etc.

 

For $320, you could buy two 256 GB SSDs. I would definitely opt for the basic 500GB HDD and upgrade yourself--that also gives you the choice of which SSD you want to go for.

 

agree... it's annoying to have to effectively buy a 500GB hard drive one will never use, but it still works out cheaper than paying Lenovo's hugely inflated prices for SSDs. I configured my T440p with the 500GB HDD option then spent $140 on an Intel 530-series 240GB SSD and an additional $60 for a 7K1000 drive for the ultrabay.

 

the only drawback is that I am not a computer techie. I can't put in my own hard drive. I assume I have reinstall all of the software and configure drivers and such? Is this correct?

Is the 500 GB hard drive going to slow down my machine?

What is a 7 K1000 drive for the ultrabay.

 

an HGST Travelstar 7200rpm 1TB hard drive. In other words, the biggest, fastest spinner I could put in there!

 

Yes and no. Technically you could "clone" the hard drive onto your new, blank SSD, although I personally prefer to do a clean install of the OS and all the software. The actual hard drive replacement in the T540p is not difficult either.

Think about it this way; you could configure it with an HDD, buy your own SSD, then gift the HDD to a techie friend who can help you install the drive and your OS... and still save money!