No IPS for W520?

Can any of you classy thinkpaders tell me why the w520 don't have the IPS option?

 

while I can't answer this one for you, I can say that if the W520 had the IPS panel that Dell and HP are using, that it would lose the Optimus capability that is the biggest advantage the Thinkpad has over the EliteBook.

(Dell's M4600 has Optimus if not using the IPS panel, so I'd have to think of some other advantage for the W520 to have over the M4600)

 

They will have them in the W / T 530.


I wish lol

At least I HOPE they will

 

That would be very expensive.

 

From what I heard this is because the Intel graphics can't drive the 10-bit IPS panel the 8560w and M4600 use, while the Nvidia graphics can.

 

There's some debate as to whether the dream color is 10 bit.

 

Has nobody looked at the datasheets for the panel(s) in question?

 

False advertisement?

 

I think it's been confirmed long ago that it's 10 bit.


Unfortunately, if you try to run it in 10 bit mode, you lose Aero.

Yup. Dedicated video only. Although, I don't see why it couldn't run in 8 bit mode on integrated, as 10 bit is a feature you have to specifically enable in the drivers (on the FirePro, don't know on the Quadro).

 

Why Lenovo doesn't offer it boggles the mind. Both the 15.6" mobile workstations from Dell and HP offer an option RGBLED IPS screen, while the W520 does not.

Being on the Dell subforum, I can tell you some people are driven away from the W520 by not offering the IPS screen.

 

From what i heard, Lenovo offers part list based on what their major customers want, so if there are major customers whom want IPS on the W520 and commits to it, then Lenovo will source it. But they do not offer parts on their machines unless there are mass commitment by the end party.

The IPS on the X220 was probably due to the result of the X200's aftermarket LCD upgrade, which showed how many people are willing to commit to the upgrade with actual purchases and doing the upgrade themselves. So it was a no brainer for Lenovo to capture that revenue stream and source these parts as in-purchase upgrade option.

But to me it would seem Lenovo should offer it on the W520, since they are the workstation powerhouse. But i think Lenovo is probably worried that there are too many different variants of screens on offer (HD, HD+, FHD), so offering the IPS option would add to confusion and they can't offer an IPS option for every resolution. This means that IPS would be a niche of a niche option and not worthwhile. Whereas, X220 you either choose IPS HD or TN HD, so the amount of parts need to be stocked is lot less.

 

My personal opinion is the IPS on the X220 is the iPad effect.

Not offering it on the T series is probably a result Lenovo's larger customers telling them they didn't have much interest in them. They're the one who hav the most sway.

 

So basically the customers didn't care for the IPS display for the W520?

 

The big customers like corporations, governments and education, who buy 10,000 or 25,000 laptops at time, those are the ones who don't really care about IPS. They care want notebooks to be inexpensive, they'll argue tooth and nail over a $25 increase in unit cost. They also want compatibility with their current systems. IPS is low on the priority list for them and those are the customer who have the most influence with Lenovo.

Being here sort of skews the perspective. The people here really want IPS, but we're not really representative of Lenovo's customer base or buyers.

 

Lot of the IT purchase officers in large organisations probably don't even know the difference between a TN or IPS LCD. Only in specific organisations where they work with graphics work then would they be interested in the IPS LCD (i.e. design studios). Otherwise, they just want something for the lowest cost. If these purchase officer can save 10 dollars from each machine, then it would amount to significant saving for a 10,000 units order.

 

Oh ok Gotcha.

 

Do you guys think even without a IPS, The W520 is overall a better mobile workstation than the Precision M4600?

 

I just configured two very similar systems on the W520 and M4600, it turns out the M4600 was slightly more expensive. With that said, I think W520 is better overall.

 

if you multiscreen setup, the ATI eyefinity on the M4600 with dock can support up to 5 screens i think. Other than that there should very little differences, obviously the casing design also plays a significant role in all this.

 

Cool, so you are getting a W520?

 

very likely, but I am still waiting on Ivy Bridge.

 

I do think that the very good fhd screen is a major selling point of the w520. It is not ips, but it does not cost that much either. From reports I read it is better then the normal fhd of the m4600 and 8560w. So I would call that a good compromise.

I thought long, before deciding if I want a 15,6 or a 17,3 machine. W520 would have won in the 15,6 race. But I just could not resist the dark side with the pure power of the basic m6600's gpu (and the bigger screen).

 

The m6600 stealing the w520 costumers.

 

Coming directly from an IPS-equipped X220, I can't honestly say I miss it much, only because I've found the FHD screen on the W520 to have a very usable and stable vertical viewing angle (compared to other TN panels, anyway.) While I would certainly appreciate the option, having a high-quality TN panel (or relatively high, as I'm sure there's no shortage of complaints over this display) is enough for me.

Now, compared to other TN panels, say, on lesser-equipped T-series machines or non-IPS X-series... well yeah, the IPS option on the X220 is a necessity, and to be honest it's embarrassing at this point that they would even both offering a non-IPS option on the X220.

 

do note the X220's IPS screen is a very LOW quality compared to the ones found in the 8740W, 8760W, 8540W, 8560W and the Dell workstations. the bigger panels in these models rival high end ones on external displays.

 

So it seems to get a really good IPS laptop one needs to spend at least $3000.

 

Yeah, is sure do seem like it.

Mr.KCETech1 could you post a screenshot of your Elitebook 8740W with you MBP or x220 to compare a IPS screen to a non IPS screen.

 

I don't need greatness, just something better than what's used in most notebook these days. At a 1/3 the cost, I'd say the X220 offers much better value.

 

its Mrs actually. but here is a review aikimox did beside a high end Alienware screen ( same one found in Dell worksations and a bit better than the MBP 17" ) as I dont have my 220 with me on this business trip just the 8740W and 8760W see posts one and 2. photos compliments of m80 and Aikimox.

OT note: the RGBLED screen in that R2 Alienware in post 2 calibrates about 10% better than the MBP 2011 17"


http://forum.notebookreview.com/notebook-news-reviews/503121-hp-8740w-review-full-metal-jacket.html

oh I agree fully. it is a great screen compared to most of the TN offerings. unfortunatly is isnt quite good enough for production level photo editing and video editing for me personally. its one of the main reasons other than battery life and the CPU that makes me far prerfer it over any other 12-14" laptop

 

Well the x220's IPS screen is also 40 dollar upgrade vs 550 to get the RGBLED IPS screens on the M4600/8560W from their base 1368x768 or 1600x900 screens. The x220's IPS screen is one of the best, if not best display for a Sandy Bridge ultraportable laptop that can be had under 700 bucks.

 

And/or an external monitor.

Nothing comes close to NEC's high-end panels. Then again, they cost more than a couple laptops...

 

Eizo LCD should give NEC LCD a run for their money. But as said they cost so much more than the normal LCD range.

 

Thanks you Mrs.KCETech1.

 

some of the HP's and ALL the Eizo IPS screens I have seen calibrate out better than the NEC's. but your quite right that they are expensive. some high end Eizo's are in excess if $3K

 

yeap for the 24 and 30 inch LCD.... but they are used in CT and MRI a lot, given a CT machine costs >$100,000 and MRI >$500,000 up, this is a small investment.

 

I don't do any color-sensitive work any more and haven't for a good few years now, but that's good to know. I always thought the NEC monitors were towards, if not the top -- but as I said, my knowledge is both limited and dated.

On that note, any experience with the Eizo CG211? I don't need the accuracy it offers, but the prospect of a good-looking, new 4:3 UXGA panel is quite appealing...

 

the Eizo CG211 are brilliant.. i got two for a friend for 100 dollars from a bankrupt design studio three months ago.... if you can't get them cheap then get the Dell 2007FP.

 

for the price it's not that impressive.

for 1/3rd you can get this: http://www.necdisplay.com/p/desktop-monitors/lcd2090uxi-bk-1

this conversation is WAY off-topic btw.

 

I wanted Lenovo to bring back IPS displays, but then they got a bad one for the x220, and the crowds did not rejoice, but instead started multiple threads here. I do want lenovo to bring back IPS displays, or better yet real 8-bit displays, if they IPS ones they use are not.

 

I need to make a poll for this thread.

 

Everyone wants better technology, but it's always a balance between cost and features. I don't have a single complaint about my IPS panel. I'm sure, should they decide to, Lenovo could offer better IPS panels, but that will cost more and in today's notebook world, not enough are willing pay the premium. I think at $50, the IPS screen on the X220 offers excellent value. It's better than all but a handful of notebook screens. I think that's pretty amazing.

 

Given the fact that the X220 was released at a lower price point then X201 and it offers a comparable (if not better build quality), i am not sure whether some of the criticisms against the X220 are warranted.

Furthermore, Lenovo did not charge an arm or a leg for the IPS LCD upgrade, so i don't think one should expect Eizo quality. Obviously, image retention, ghosting, and backlit bleeding is a problem, but we have to adjust our expectation slightly to give credit where it is due given what it costs.

 

that's understandable.

 

Even without a IPS screen, I'm mostly like going to get the w520.

 

The "crowds" do that for every thing. And have since the labels started reading "manufactured for IBM". Every new change is a sign of "quality going downhill" or IBM (and later Lenovo) "dropping the ball." The only difference is that we now do our complaining here instead of on IRC and Usenet.

True 8-bit IPS panels? I believe that would be not so much "bringing back" as "introducing for the first time".

 

ThinkRob do you think that an IPS panel in general is overrated/overhyped.

 

I'm more than fine with the FHD TN.

 

An interesting thread - i haven't paid much attention to what happened after T/W500, but i'm still a bit surprised to see that they haven't offered an IPS option in anything but the ultraportables, despite the fact it has been on the wish list for such a long time now.

I'm also disappointed with 16:9 in so small form factors. So haven't really made my mind up on what to do, so i didn't vote.... I miss 16:10 and especially 4:3 in laptops.

Sorry, not really to criticize or anything, but it is incorrect that they "rival" high end external displays.
The DCII has - at best - got a 10 bit LUT to cover a huge color space - far from good enough, if you want a precise emulation of for example sRGB.
Professional displays feature 10-12 bit tables even for native sRGB panels, and these are programmable tables. The reason i said "at best" is that i don't know if they actually feature a 10 bit programmable look up table or if it is just fed by the video card output directly as a 10 bit value. I personally hope the former to be the case.
For representation of the limited gamut of the X220, the native X220 would undoubtly look much better than a one-dimensional DCII or similar wide gamut panels trying to emulate the same color space.

Hehe... or to keep it apples to apples, the NEC LCD2190UXi ($1600 MSRP) which sports the same NEC-made panel as the CG211 ($2800 MSRP) and still with the same features. Generally, there's no reason to consider an Eizo, when the much cheaper (and many times better) alternative exists.

 

The DCII LUT configuration is in fact not really the case. STDP8038 only supports 10 bit Internal Processing instead of full 10 bit LUT. Furthermore, look closer at the Dreamcolor Display Subsystem Diagram and you will find out the so-called Dreamcolor Display Subsystem is more or less DELL U2410/U2711/U3011 level monitor with relatively better grayscale.

Here is the DreamColor Subsystem Diagram.

Do you ever consider buying Colorimunki Photo or i1 Pro? This is my calibration results as per 12.5 IPS represents color accuracy respectively.

 

Bring back the FlexView! (And the internal 56k modem, while we're at it.)