T400s vs. x200s

Which should I choose?

I read that the battery life for T400s (6-cell) is only about 6.5 hrs (max). Well, in real world (normal usage), what does that translate to? 4 hrs? Is there any review that actually shows the true battery life?

I'm impressed by x200s reviews stating that the real world usage for x200s on 9 cell is at least 9 hrs. That really win my heart.

So should I choose x200s or have some faith that the T400s can at least last what it advertised - 6.5 hrs? It might change my mind!

Comments folks??

 

I think you'll find that's not enough information for us to really make a recommendation between the two. On strictly battery life, the 9 cell on the x200s seems like a no-brainer. If you'd also benefit from a larger screen, integrated optical drive, faster processor, etc. then the situation changes.

 

The x200s is easily going to beat the T400s on battery life.

The T400s has a below average capacity, albeit flush, 6 cell ( 44WHr IIRC) battery as the ONLY OPTION. This should provide 4+ hours of real world usage and may allow achieving the rated 6 under ideal circumstances (would need to AVERAGE 7.33 watts).

Conversely, the x200s offers a 4 cell battery at 28WHr, a 6 cell battery at 56WHr, and a 9 cell battery at 84WHr. The 9 cell should easily achieve 8-9 hours of real world usage and 12+ should be attainable under ideal conditions.

In addition, the x200s uses either a ULV or LV CPU and has a 2" smaller screen. As such, power consumption will be slightly lower than the T400s (likely 0.5-1.5 watts difference at idle).

If your top concern is battery life and/or ultimate portability then the x200s is obviously a better choice. However, if you want a very light laptop with a 14.1" WXGA+ LED display, DVD burner (or 2nd HDD), medium voltage Penry CPU, and decent battery then the T400s is tough to beat.

 

Same dilemma here.
Pluses for T400s: the latest thinkpad cosmetics, which I find sort of cool. 14 in screen and dvd.
Pluses for x200s: full size keyboard, similar performance due to same integrate graphics and cache size, lighter, and 500 dollars cheaper!

essentially, is the bigger screen, dvd player, and new cosmetics worth 500?

Do you think there's going to be substantial back to school discounts around august for either computers?

 

You forgot faster processor in T400s vs. X200s (2.53GHz vs. 2.16GHz) and the ability to use another HDD in the ultrabay slot)
Don't get me wrong, the X200s is a nice machine, but the T400s is formidable on its own.

 

That's very good for a 14" six-celled battery notebook. Show me something else that's better.

 

T400s, for me the deal breaker is T400s only takes 1.8" HDD. No 2.5 support.

 

You can use a 2.5" HDD in the optical bay with an adapter. This gives the option for hybrid storage (1.8" SSD AND 2.5" HDD) that the x200s lacks.

 

There is always a solution.

 

Surely it depends entirely on how you plan to use it and for what you plan to use it.
As an example, Bzhang talks about the bigger screen being worth something, but from where I stand, the bigger screen and thus the increase of size in the T400s is a negative, something that has a negative influence in the perceived value.

Since you're basically asking "which is better", it's important people know what you'll be using it for and perhaps even more important, how you'll be using it. Consider filling out the faq.

 

okay... i forgot the t400s only support 1.8" drives... so, no go for me cos i've the 2.5" intel ssd oreadi.

><"

well i just want a light and easy to use lappy to carry around with good battery life so that i don't have to lung along the power cable all day round.

thx folks

 

Yes, definitely go for x200, because it has longer battery life, it is smaller and lighter, and for the remainder of money you can buy 22" monitor to use in your office or at home...But, for carrying around always go for 12, or 13 inch models...Although, personally I would probaby prefer x301 (I know it is expensive!),because some people can not imagine using a laptop without DVD drive...But really, x200 will not disappoint you...

 

yea I've kind of prepared to lug along an ultraslim external dvd writer to go with the x200s...

i wonder if i should wait for the next big sale or just use the existing ecoupons. also, they're not going to push for SL9600 for x200s right?

 

/rant mode ON.

/rant mode OFF.

 

Another vendor has a unit which combines some of the features of both the X200s and X400s.

12.1" HP 2530P combines features of 12.1" X200s and 14.1" X400s

12.1" HP 2530P uses ULV SU9xxxx or LV SL9xxxx has 1.8" drive drive, and can have a 2.5" SATA SSD/HDD via a hotswappable optical bay caddy/optical drive setup. Great for 1.8" SSD+ 2.5" HDD hybrid storage. Has 3/6/9 cell battery options, with a touchpad and touckstyk. It's built to mil-spec business standards, no mikey-mouse plastics. SU9300 specced version has gone for $650US on ebay with remainder of 3yr onsite warranty

Weight comparison

12.1" Dell E4200: 1.8" SSD. 1.2kgs with 6-cell
12.1" Lenovo X200s: 2.5" HDD. 1.47ks, 6-cell
12.1" HP 2530P: 1.8" HDD + optical drive. 1.64kgs (optical drive is 190grams, so is 1.45kgs without it).
14.1" Lenovo T400s: 1.8" HDD + optical drive. 1.77kgs.

 

Hi nando4,

For those who require more grunt from their processor to do the heavy lifting AND battery endurance, the X200's specs, value, weight and quality is hard to beat.

Swappable bays and caddies have their place for those who want such option.

Nevertheless, bay batteries invariably come with only 3c so their endurance is limited.

Besides being a cheaper option, a slim ext USB DVD writer (while slightly heavier on account of its ext casing and USB cable) makes sense as it can be shared with more than one machine AND one carries it ONLY when required rather than dragging deadweight around (which is most of the time.)

The only advantage is when a user want a SSD/HDD combi set up, which the X200 cannot accommodate.

Still, users need to prioritize their needs to come to a setup that's optimum to their needs.

 

You can order the x200s with the 2.13GHz SL9600 through some retail channels at the moment. This is most notably international and some custom education/corporate portals.

I do not know why Lenovo isn't offering an SL9600 through the main US channel at present (best guess is limited supply). Also note that in the few channels were the SL9600 has been offered it has been at a rather steep $130+ upgrade over the SL9400 (quite fast in its own right).

 

Absolutely! So the HP 2530P provides a third option for those that want it.

Your point about battery life - if I had a 2530P I could report how good, or bad the battery life is. The one-gen older 9-cell 2510P using a 65nm U7600 provides 8hrs battery life when using it's very low power consumption 1.8" ZIF HDD. I dare say the 2530P with newer X4500 using 45nm CPUS that are superlfm capable, newer PM45 chipset, would extend that further. At least rmclock advanced undervolting using superlfm mode could make it extend it in any case.

A third option, which if a SU9300/2530P can be obtained for $650US on ebay is excellent value.

 

Hi nando4,

Power users who need more grunt will find LV/ULV processors unable to step up to the plate when the need arises. Battery longevity under such circumstances becomes moot.

Moreover 1.8" HDD is not a favorite among users for reason of performance, capacity, price and availability. That's why the X32 remains preferred to the X41 among those in the know.

Again, it's different strokes for different folks.

All I'm saying is: Your set up has the advantage of a twin SSD/HDD option and good battery life for users who demand less from their processor. The X200 pips it on performance @ the processor and HDD level, and is still able to have good battery life with extended battery options.

Both options have their place among users.

 

Lenovo's Canadian website offers T400s with SL9400 CPU's. (SL9600 for a $125 upgrade)
What do you think about the idle power consumption of those? Does the 2" display difference matters a lot in the power consumption?

 

That depends on your definition of "A LOT". Both displays are WXGA+ LED backlit displays of comparable brightness. As such, I would expect the 14.1" model to consume 0.5 to 1.5 watts more than the 12.1" model. This can be rather significant when you consider the idle power consumption for the x200s with SSD and SL9400 is between 6 and 9 watts (depending on display brightness and radio status).

The biggest difference though is still battery capacity. The x200s offers a 4 cell at 28WHr, a 6 cell at 56WHr, and a 9 cell at 84WHr. Conversely, the T400s only offers a reduced capacity, albeit flush, 6 cell at 44WHr. Therefore, even with identical power consumption the x200s 6 cell should get 27% better battery life than the T400s (56/44 = 1.27).

 

my t400s can barely make it 4 hours when used in realistic conditions.

 

My main question was about the difference between SP CPU's and SL CPU's. Earlier you mentioned the 0.5-1.5 W difference between X200s and T400s with SP CPU's. My question was more about the break down of power consumption difference between CPU and display.
Actually I'd better ask my question as: How much lower is the power consumption of a T400s with the LV CPU, than one with the SP CPU?

Regarding the battery, with T400s there's also the option of using the "Advanced UltraBay Battery II" which is a 29Wh 3-cell battery. That makes a total 73Wh in comparison with X200s's 84Wh 9-cell. (84/73 = 1.15)

 

In my T400s config w/full CPU performance, battery life is close to 4 hours. Keep in mind, it’s more practical to use ultra-bay for 2nd hdd rather than battery in this case.

 

Again the spread between a low voltage (17W TDP) and medium voltage (25w TDP) CPU is going to be about 0.5-1W at idle. At load the LV CPU should be about 5 watts more efficient (although the MV CPU will complete CPU bound tasks in less time and offset some of the advantages).

Overall it really depends on what you want. If battery life is a top concern then LV or ULV parts are desirable. However, for most users in most situations the differences are relatively minor if you set both CPUs to adaptive (allow SpeedStep).

 

1.8 is good way to regardless capacity AT THE MOMENT, you can always have 5 external hard drive, each one has capacity of 1TB.

And 1.8" is what makes the computer thin, "if you are buying thin laptop people shouldn't give you the thick one".

 

Thinner notebooks use the 2.5", so it's not like they couldn't have chosen that size to use in their notebook.

 

Random question: is speedstep already part of Vista's power management schemes? Or does enabling it involve some other step?

I've noticed that the factory settings for "power-save" on my machine cap CPU performance to 50% capacity. That doesn't seem very adaptive, though...

 

SpeedStep must first be enabled in the BIOS (it almost always is by default). Then it is a question of your power plan.

The Vista "Balanced" profile should utilize SpeedStep in all states. However, the profiles specified by Lenovo tend not to use it at all. Most of the profiles are set to either be maximum all the time when plugged in and minimum (800MHz in my case) when on battery.

I suggest creating another power profile that is adaptive when plugged in (there is little to no performance penalty, but you can substantially reduce heat, noise, and electrical consumption when your machine is fairly idle) and possibly adaptive when on battery as well. Adaptive is simply another way of saying SpeedStep.

The main risk of using an adaptive profile on battery is if you run across websites with lots of Flash or some other poorly coded application that will max out 1 or both cores (thus forcing your CPU to the max) when it really isn't necessary (this undermines battery life). Alas, there are tradeoffs with everything.

 

1.8" is no longer an issue with the advent of SSDs. It used to be a problem years ago.

That having been said, I believe in the smallest, lightest notebooks and the biggest most powerful desktops. If I really need to do something CPU bound it can be done on the desktop. Remote desktop helps you control things on it while not at home.

That's just what I believe in and thus I only buy X-series. Others may have different needs.

I started 5 years ago with the same question: x31 vs. T40. I'm glad I got the x31.

Who uses optical discs for anything these days? Even your OS can be installed with a USB flash drive.

 

I disagree. The availability and choice among 1.8" HDDs and SSDs is still very limited, higher priced, and slower than their 2.5" counterparts. While there is a reduction in power consumption, and hence useful in these lightweight ultraportables, as a 14" notebook, I still believe it should be capable of holding a 2.5" drive. If the user wants the power savings, just get a 1.8" drive and 2.5" bracket.

 

At some point, the physical space required to hold a larger hard drive is better off being used elsewhere, which I suspect is the real reason they chose a smaller form factor in a "slim" laptop. As someone else already stated, the advent of SSDs are making the issue moot.

As you suggest, the T400s is capable of using a 2.5" drive. You just need the ultrabay adapter to do it.

 

In the future, I hope more notebooks will use 1.8" hard drives, but in the present, I still don't think it was a good move. Check Newegg, the selection of 1.8" HDDs and SSDs is very small compared to 2.5". While your point about SSDs is good, it isn't valid at the present because SSDs are only a fraction of the market. For majority of the market, they will still use a HDD which is severely limited in performance and capacity. While you can use the ultrabay adapter for a 2.5", it would still be better if the main drive was also 2.5".

 

What are you talking about? The Intel is a no-brainer and offered in 1.8". In fact the Samsung SLC is offered in 1.8" as well. If you need space then get a 500GB 2.5" for the optical bay. Who needs an actual optical drive in 2009? Talk about an anachronism.

It's like a friend of mine who was seeking a mini-stereo system with cassette tape support. Sure I guess you could seek it out to say it is the jack of all trades, but seriously actual utility is far more important to me. Alcohol 120% as someone else mentioned handles those niche applications where a CD drive is needed and modern operating systems are USB bootable and installable. In fact MS wants to make Win 7 available on USB media. It's about time.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3605

The $440 for the 160GB is not bad, but for me currently very happy with a 32GB SLC SSD and 16.7GB free on it the $225 for 80GB is a steal. Available in both 1.8" and 2.5" and just look at the price/GB comparisons. The new Intels are a no brainer. I will not be wasting my time with OCZ\Indilinx\Samsung\JMicron etc.

What use is there in having 300 different options when the best in performance and in price happens to be the same and available in 1.8" size?

 

I concur that the Intel is awesome; however, as I've stated before, most users still feel that SSDs are too expensive. If you look at market penetration, SSDs are far from mainstream. Users require more than 160GB now that they've gotten used to 320+GB. Options (competition) is what makes prices come down. In the 1.8" field, competition is scarce and components are more expensive than their 2.5" counterparts. Some people don't need the best in performance and most would prefer having 300 options, such as spending 1/5 the price to get more space. The DVD/CD drive is a separate issue, I'm talking about the main system drive. Having 2x 2.5" drives in a notebook could give users the option of conveniently carrying 1TB with them.

 

At present, I think it's a perfectly good business decision to base a slim laptop around 1.8" SSDs, especially in light of Intel's announcement. The best consumer drive you can possibly buy is going for less than $250.

You're right, SSDs are anything but mainstream right now. At the same time, this laptop isn't meant to be mainstream either. The T400 is the mainstream model, while the T400s is supposed to bridge some of the technology from the X301. It was voiced a number of times when the T400s was announced that is should have been labeled the X400. SSDs are quickly going to become mainstream though, and Lenovo is in a good position to take advantage of that.

This is more my opinion, but these slim notebooks are built for SSDs which makes the whole argument moot. Yeah, they are offered with 1.8" HDDs, but it's just like when Vista was first sold on notebooks with 1GB of RAM. If the 1.8" form factor is unacceptable to you, then just get the T400 and be done with it.

 

The X200s has the GMA X4500 which is a deal breaker for me...unlike the T400s which has the GMA 4500MHD and can play 1080p video.

 

You are misinformed. The T400s, x200, x200s, x200 Tablet, X301, and integrated models of the T400, T500, R400, and R500 ALL use the 4500 MHD.

 

G2 1.8" X18-M is already for sale

US$236 Intel X18M 80GB SSD G2-MLC 1.8IN SATA SSDSA1MH080G2

 

Please point me to one of those that's actually listed as in stock. Because I haven't found any yet. "2-3 weeks" (or longer) is all well written down, but I don't know if the drive's actually been released, and is just slow propagating, or if that's an estimate, and won't actually be shipped to me, then.

 

The Lenovo Canadian site doesn't list it as the MHD , just X4500.

 

Strange, I just configured a X200s and it offered only the X4500...

Edit: yes confirmed again on the site. Maybe it's a typo? But I wouldn't be suprirsed...Lenovo is notorious for making errors, especially with prices.

 

Uhh,

http://shop.lenovo.com/SEUILibrary/...-category-id=27260E1983734A91A115802FE145A51A

Scroll down to see:
System graphics
Intel Graphics Media Accelerator 4500MHD

When I click "Customize and Buy",
I see:
System graphics Help me decide Help me decide
Intel Graphics Media Accelerator 4500MHD

 

http://shop.lenovo.com...

System graphics
Intel GMA X4500​

Must be a typo as the Spec sheet indicates X4500 HD (not X4500MHD, although it is the same ).

 

Possibly. You could also call and ask. At the same time, you have the nicer WXGA+ screen that's not currently available in the US.