T400: LED vs. WXGA+ CCFL ugpgrade

On the CPP site when configuring a new T400, the price for upgrading to either a WXGA LED w/camera or a WXGA+ screen is the same price. Thoughts on which would provide a better overall experience over WXGA CCFL?

 

Do you want the camera?

 

My current laptop does not have a camera and that's been ok.. Some of my friends have cameras and that seems to have been a fun novelty for them. I'd say that's more of a bonus than something that would tip my decision one way or the other. I'm more concerned about the screen. Thanks!

 

WXGA LED regular nit seems like a new option that wasnt available before. I just got a t400 with no camera as a i rarely use it. go for the better panel if anything.

 

so which one is better? the high nit LED WSXGA or other one?

 

There is no WSXGA available for the T400. Depending on availability, you have the following options:

1. WXGA (1280x800) CCFL
2. WXGA (1280x800) LED
3. WXGA (1280x800) LED HIGH-NIT
4. WXGA+ (1440x900) CCFL

(1) is your run-of-the-mill base screen. As the lowest-resolution option available, 1280x800 is what you want if you generally like text and icons to be of a similar physical size to a "normal" desktop display. You don't get as much desktop, but everything is a bit bigger.

(2) Same resolution, but with an LED instead of CCFL backlight. It's brighter (noticeably but not significantly) and uses newer technology. It also costs about the same as (1) so this is the one you want if you prefer the above resolution.

(3) Again, same resolution, but about twice as bright as #2. It's really, really bright. Blinding indoors. You will run it at less than 50% for use inside. If you really want a screen this bright (i.e. you spend a lot of time computing in the park or on a patio), get this. If not, it's much more expensive than #2 and you will never need it.

(4) This is the only T400 screen currently available at WXGA+ (1440x900). It has a higher pixel density, so everything appears smaller than on a regular desktop display, or on any of the above. I have this on my T61 and prefer it, as icons/text are not ridiculously small, and the extra real estate is useful. Unfortunately, it only comes in CCFL at the moment (there are LED WXGA panels - Dell currently has them - but not Lenovo. Too bad). On the other hand, it's still plenty bright for indoor use, and ThinkPads are comparatively good with battery life in general, so there's very little real-word difference between an LED or CCFL in that regard (I've seen numbers like 10 minutes or so out of 4 hours thrown about).

In general, all of the T400 screens are of a similar quality other than the above differences. Which is to say, they are pretty much at the market average for contrast ratio, color correctness, backlight evenness, lack of leakage, viewing angles etc. So what you should get depends on what you prefer in terms of 1-4 above.

I just spent a month exhaustively researching the state of notebook panels currently on the market, so I hope this helps.

 

WXGA is 1280 x 800

 

Duh, asleep at the keyboard. Fixed, thanks!

 

I do luvs my 1440x900 LED screen... Although It IS dying and I DO need it replaced, i just cant deal with the 1280x800 LED screens nor the CCFL screens. Hence, waiting until they make their glorious return.

 

the conclusion is
if the thinkpad is going to be use outdoor choose the high nit LED ,
if indoor use the CCFL and the LED

which one consume more battery energy ? or these all just about the same?

 

Great summary Snowkarver!! My T400 should be arriving tomorrow. After a few days research, which revealed that the LED primarily offers a much brighter display and supposedly better battery life, I went with the WXGA+ CCFL for the higher resolution. Another benefit of the LED is that it's supposedly thinner, which, overall, makes the laptop slimmer and a bit lighter. I still think the option of a higher resolution, over brightness, makes more sense.

 

Indeed, that was a well thought out summary. Thanks for the advice. I wish the WXGA+ LED panels were in better supply. It's a tough choice between the two, especially if the LED makes the laptop thinner. Any confirmation on this?

 

Technically speaking, LED backlights have a higher lumen/watt efficiency than a comparable CCFL - but, and this is a big but, the effect on battery life is usually quite overstated. Years ago, displays were the biggest power consumer in a laptop. Today, with more efficient CCFLs coupled with CPUs and GPUs that draw in excess of 25, 35, 50+ watts, plus multiple wireless radios, the screen takes up a much smaller percentage of battery life than in the past.

As I stated previously, ThinkPads are generally quite good at power conservation already, so in most real life scenarios, the difference between LED and CCFL backlighting would not be noticeable. We're talking about maybe 5 minutes or so every three hours. Throttling down the CPU, turning down the brightness (no matter what the BL) or switching to integrated graphics would have much more of an effect.

LED backlighting is more compact than CCFL units because the latter has bigger luminaire units plus a power inverter. However, it only makes the notebook thinner if the manufacturer makes two different casings. For example, Dell makes two screen bezel assemblies for my m1330 so the LED is thinner than the CCFL model. For the Lenovo T- and W- series, unless I am mistaken, there's only one lid - so the backlight technology has no impact on size. It might be like an ounce lighter.