NVIDIA Quadro : NVS 3100M vs FX 570M

Hi there,

As I was looking for performance tests, I realized that the good old FX 570M on the T61p seems to be better than the new NVS 3100M on the T510... Am I wrong ??

It's hard to believe since the Core Speed and Memory Speed are higher on the NVS 3100M...

But the Memory Bus Width is 64bit for the NVS 3100M and 128bit for the FX 570M. Is it what makes the difference...

Finally, what card is better for gaming according to you...

Thank you

alber

 

The NVS 3100M is an entry-level GPU whereas the FX 570 is a mid-level GPU - the FX 570 has significantly better performance than the NVS 3100, which is one of the major complaints of the latest Thinkpad T510. Lenovo is probably using this weak GPU (the same as the one used in the T410) to distinguish the T510 from the W510.

So, to answer your questions: the memory bus is a large part of the difference, in addition to the NVS 3100's less powerful core. The FX 570 is much better for gaming.

 

Yeah, you're right... It's clearly to distinguish the T510 from the W510. It's sad though

 

I agree. If Lenovo had managed to include a switchable ATI Radeon 5650 in the T510, that would have been a very compelling option.

 

I think it's their business tactics: keep the customer reasonably happy, but not too happy that they're ready to cling on their system for years and years.

 

Darn, I hope that there is going to be another good deal for gaming performance Thinkpads sometimes soon...

EDIT: For a good price... Since the W510 is a powerful machine, but more expensive..

 

After a T61p (2007) and a W500 (2009), I didn't want another 15.4" beast to lug around. Sure, they warmed my heart and made me happy, were solid as rocks and yet performed brilliantly, but they were also a pain to carry around between lectures and labs all day, every day. I ended up leaving mine at home for mostly. So this time round, come the May sales, I went for a T410 instead of a W510 (even though the W510 is a very impressive machine, sigh).

I love the size. I don't mind that it's heavier than similarly sized competitors, because I know it's built well. I can learn to love the design changes, it's still adorable, though I'd still like to play with a T400. The one thing that bugs me though, is the graphics performance. The NVS 3100m just makes me grit my teeth and hide away in shame.

Oh Lenovo, you make it so hard to love you. But I must.

 

As I understand things, Lenovo marketing dept. created the W prefix specifically because the "p" suffix was causing too much product confusion. If the "p" was supposed to be a workstation replacement--battery life being a secondary concern--than a more powerful GPU makes sense.

The T400/410 & T500/510 are designed to balance battery life and weight with performance. The FX 570M may consume too much power to fit the product design specs. Something has to give. A marketing person would say, "If graphics are important to you, go to a workstation replacement, the W series."

IMO, the X, T, W product grouping makes sense. X targets the ultra-portable market. The W targets workstation replacement, and the T is a more balanced trade-off between the two. Based on what I've read about build quality, the R is a better "small business" target. The SL & Edge series are not really business-targeted computers because a business would look at total costs over a period of several years rather than just acquisition cost. Again, I look at it from a marketing perspective. Some of the IT guys may have a different viewpoint.

Since I've been stuck with Dell, HP and Compaq for the last decade, I may well be reading the Lenovo part numbering system wrong.

 

Yeah, and if you wanted real graphics horsepower, you needed to go right up to the W700 previously, seeing as the W500 had a worse GPU than the T61p, and it's supposed to be classified as a mobile workstation.

 

Is that way so many people are still clinging on to their T60 laptops?

 

I have no problem with the breakup from T to W series, my problem however is that the line in the sand is drawn in the wrong spot. The 3100 is weak, and the 880 isn't anything to brag about. I wish they had gone more with Dell's breakdown, where you could get the 880 mated with a dual core cpu, and move up to the 1800 with quad core. That would more align with the workstation/mobile computer line of thinking IMO then what they went with.

 

I agree. It would be best if they'd offer the choice between 3100 and 880 in the Ts, and 880 and 1800 (or something else fat) in the Ws.