The Notebook Review forums were hosted by TechTarget, who shut down them down on January 31, 2022. This static read-only archive was pulled by NBR forum users between January 20 and January 31, 2022, in an effort to make sure that the valuable technical information that had been posted on the forums is preserved. For current discussions, many NBR forum users moved over to NotebookTalk.net after the shutdown.
Problems? See this thread at archive.org.

    Pixel size - T510 FHD display

    Discussion in 'Lenovo' started by wordsworth, Jul 30, 2010.

  1. wordsworth

    wordsworth Notebook Guru

    Reputations:
    0
    Messages:
    61
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    15
    I'm currently using a 1600x1200 UXGA display. I'm curious how much smaller the pixels are on the T510 FHD display. I'm comfortable with UXGA, but I'm not sure I'd want to go any smaller.

    I'm interested in hearing from anyone that has used both and that has some qualitative judgment on the matter.

    Also, is the FHD display 1920x1200 or 1920x1080?
     
    wordsworth, Jul 30, 2010
    #1
  2. lead_org

    lead_org Purveyor of Truth

    Reputations:
    1,571
    Messages:
    8,107
    Likes Received:
    126
    Trophy Points:
    231
    1920 x 1080 = FHD.

    PPI of FHD in 15.6 inch format is 137.
     
    lead_org, Jul 30, 2010
    #2
  3. erik

    erik modifier

    Reputations:
    3,647
    Messages:
    1,610
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    55
    erik, Jul 30, 2010
    #3
  4. aadadams

    aadadams Notebook Deity

    Reputations:
    78
    Messages:
    954
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    30
    From a user perspective, purely subjective here: I've made that transition UXGA>WUXGA>FHD and the difference is negligible. See my sig for the pathway...
     
    aadadams, Jul 30, 2010
    #4
  5. wordsworth

    wordsworth Notebook Guru

    Reputations:
    0
    Messages:
    61
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    15
    Thanks. I'm looking hard at the W series.
     
    wordsworth, Jul 30, 2010
    #5
  6. StevenD

    StevenD Newbie

    Reputations:
    0
    Messages:
    6
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    5
    Hi, Wordsworth,

    I know this is an old thread, but did you ever get your hands on a W-series with the FHD display? I've got a T60p, 1600x1200. Wanted to upgrade to a T61p, but the display was terrible. I've been avoiding upgrading ever since, but I was wondering if the newer FHD displays are finally as good as the old T60p's. Any info would be appreciated.

    --Steve D.
     
    StevenD, Mar 4, 2011
    #6
  7. Kaso

    Kaso Notebook Virtuoso

    Reputations:
    744
    Messages:
    3,546
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    116
    I own a T43p 1600x1200 Flexview, am using a T510 1920x1080 (AUO) and has direct access to a W510 1920x1080 (AUO) and other models. Among these, the "old" Flexview display is still better. But among current-generation T/W/X models, the 1920x1080 AUO panel is the best. (To my eyes. :) )
     
    Kaso, Mar 4, 2011
    #7
  8. edit1754

    edit1754 Notebook Prophet

    Reputations:
    1,475
    Messages:
    5,145
    Likes Received:
    71
    Trophy Points:
    216
    I was that way with my QXGA-modded T42p. I simply refused to step down in resolution. I used that computer as my main system for a long time, even over half of a semester into college before I got an E6510 w/ FHD which I then returned to get a 16:10 WUXGA M4400 because the 4:3 -> 16:9 change was just too abrupt for me. I wanted something in between that, though still powerful, wasn't as excessively wide, in order to ease the transition a bit.
     
    edit1754, Mar 4, 2011
    #8
  9. antskip

    antskip Notebook Deity

    Reputations:
    146
    Messages:
    795
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    30
    I didn't notice much difference due to greater pixel density going from 1600X1200 to 1920X1200, and there should be even less a difference going to the 1920X1020 of the FHD.

    But the different aspect ratio has huge consequences. The 1600X1200 15" screen is about as tall as the wide-screen 17". I find this is markedly inferior for most web sites. For word processing, it is probably better, as it is so much wider.

    Another variable might be screen brightness (e.g. The WUXGA on the W500 has always had a brightness problem, hugely inferior to my previous Dell WUXGA, but even more so compared to my even earlier Dell UXGA - the best high density 15"/15.4" screen I have used). I have heard the latest Thinkpad FHD screen is very bright.

    I have also found marked variations in screen quality with different hardware/software combos (e.g. I use 32bit Win7 with my WUXGA W500 because of problems with the 64Bit gpu drivers)
     
    antskip, Mar 4, 2011
    #9