T420 vs X220 conundrum

Hello.

There are offers in Germany that make my decision a little too hard for my liking.

Consider the two following models / configurations:

T420 for 1,149.00EUR
i5 2520
4GB of RAM
80GB SSD + 500GB 7200RPM
1600x900
1 GB NVS 4200M / HD 3000

X220 for 1,132.80EUR
i5 2520
4GB of RAM
1366x768 IPS
80GB SSD + 320GB 7200RPM
HD 3000

Does anyone know how "clumsy" the T420 is compared to the X220? I will not do a lot of traveling, I mainly want a new laptop for personal Linux development, but I don't want a huge laptop. Might hang around in some coffee shops, or outside on my veranda. Does anyone program with the X220? How is your experience with its resolution? I also might want to do some OpenGL programming and have no idea about the HD3000 vs NVS4200M.

I know this has a lot to do with personal preferences, but there's no way for me to see this two laptops in real and compare them myself

 

Considering the resolution and the dedicated video on the T420, I would certainly consider that model over the X220.

 

I'd hate to mess up your thoughts while trying to be helpful, but since I just deployed 2 X220 and five T420 laptops to end users during this past week, I feel duty-bound to chime in.

In my experience, some users love the X220 and others don't see the point. Personally, though I think I see the point of the X220 (and have even argued FOR it), I prefer the T420. My programmer colleagues prefer the T420 also.

A lot has already been written about the X220 screen. It's small, bright and very vivid. The ClickPad works well for me. If I spent a lot of time working on trains, busses or airplane seats, I'd definitely go for the X220. I don't, however, so my choice is the T420. Going from an X220 to a T420 doesn't make the T420 feel clunky to me.

If vertical resolution is high on your priority list, you'll be better off with the T420.

 

Maybe consider t420s as a compromise between mobility and screen size/resolution.

I have similar dilemma and on Monday I'll probably order my x220. T420 looks to bulky and heavy, t420s is quite expensive and for me is not worth this extra money.

 

Bulky and heavy? By WHAT measure are you making that judgment? It's a few fractions of an inch larger and only slightly heavier. For a 14" laptop with the range of features it has it's pretty decent. Sure you can sacrifice the screen size and other features and get something smaller. But for what the OP is interested in doing the T420 is a great choice. The added screen resolution alone makes it worthwhile for doing development work.

 

t420 is almost the same size and weight as my current 5 years old Asus w3j ( with when I bought it was probably the fastest gaming notebook <15"). So when we consider that t420 is typical office notebook and technology progress I fully conscious can say that t420 is bulky and heavy.

 

The laws of physics haven't changed in the past 5 years. There's only so small and light you're going to be able to make a device that offers all of what's present in the T420.

The biggest problems are structural rigidity and durability. And those are tempered by what it takes to manufacture the item at a reasonable cost, with serviceability in mind.

It's no mean feat to get all that in there. To be able to assemble it, to have it hold up in the face of user abuse and still be able to service/expand it in the field all require some degree of compromise be made.

A universal rule applies good, fast, cheap: pick two.

Good luck on your quest to find something more appealing to you.

 

Well, I think that there was some progress in last 5 years. Lets look at other producers offer, notebooks in general started being smaller.

 

I have already heard the words "clumsy", "bulky", and "heavy" suggested as applying to the T420 in this thread, by people who haven't owned or used one. Frankly, I think that's horse-hockey, or as you'd say in Germany, sheisse.

The X220 is also a good laptop, but I believe that T420 is still a light laptop, with more display area than an X220, and less weight/smaller size than a T520. It is noticeably lighter than my ThinkPad T400 was, and is thinner.

If you are a constant traveler by train or airplane, the X220 may be a better choice where it may be useful in tighter spaces. If you are not (and your original post suggests you aren't), the T420 has the advantage of more screen real estate, a built-in optical drive, and the ability to take larger hard drives. Your listed T420 version also includes Optimus graphics; whether that is useful to you or not is up to what you do, though I myself find it nice.

 

And when you compare equal amounts of options you'll find they're all very close in size/weight. Start taking things out and of course you'll find smaller, lighter options. But when you make equal comparisons there's not a lot of difference in size/weight. Where you start to see the differences are in quality of construction AND serviceability.

I've had several VAIO ultraportables over the years. They were lighter and had better battery life than other offerings (along with phenomenal screens) but they were an absolute pain in the backside to service. More often than not you could barely get the pieces apart without something breaking, or cables that couldn't be reinserted more than twice. That's not a big deal if you're a service center stocking all the parts, but for a user in the field it's a huge hassle. That and they cost pretty much double the price of similarly equipped alternatives. What steered me away from them this time is their touchpad buttons. The damned things are LOUD. Makes for really annoying noise when someone else is trying to sleep (hotel room on vacation or on our boat). For me the T420 was the best alternative and cost half as much.

So there's always going to be something someone takes issue with, with any make/model of gear. I'm just saying it's patently ridiculous to call any of these bulky or heavy when you look at all of what is offered and you make comparisons based on equal equipment.

 

Anyways, OP find out if you can deal with the x220's low resolution, the IPS panel is truly fantastic given the price range of the x220.

I've used the T420 for awhile (don't personally) own one and with the 6 cell battery it is similar to my Z61t's which have a 7 cell battery, which I don't consider particularly bulky. ThinkPads haven't always been the lightest laptop, but they aren't bulky, in fact they are less bulky for me compared to my Latitudes I have owned/do own (E6410, E6400, D620, D630, D600). If you want more space, and seriously don't mind bigger footprint, I would opt for the T420. But if you constantly travel alot and you want a laptop capable of extreme battery life and ultraportable, consider the x220. The x220 with the 9 cell and slice can hit nearly 24 hours battery life. Also x220 only comes with integrated GPU, while T420 comes with Quadro GPU or Intel GPU.

 

Minor correction, the T420 comes with Nvidia GPU + Intel or Intel only.

 

Thanks for the replies.

I just realized that there is no official support for Optimus on Linux by Nvidia. There seems to be an open source community effort to get it done ("bumblebee"). From what I've read, the T420's BIOS has settings to switch between discrete and integrated graphics.

Also, according to numerous forums, the X220 is plagued by issues (throttling and more). It looks really bad.

So I either go with the T420 and its crappy display, but enjoy the benefits of the higher resolution, or I'll go with a potentially unstable, ultra-portable X220 with a lower resolution. It looks like all 14" inchers have crappy displays.

 

T420 has terrible display (by a review) indeed. Real measured 162:1 contrast ratio, seems like 50% of sRGB gamut... (I'm choosing between T520 and T420)

 

I have a T420s that I am dual booting between windows and Fedora 15 on a second MSATA SSD drive, I don't have Bumblebee working yet (I have only had the computer for 11 days, still working on configuring more important stuff), but can confirm that there is a bios profile listed on their web site for the T420. There are 2 bios settings related to the video card operation, ones switches between Integrated/Discetete & Optimus the second one is Automatic switching detection. (I did have a major problem with the Fedora DVD and net DVD installer crashing while trying to detect a floppy drive, ended up installing by using one of the live spins and its install to HD option).

Ike

 

I have no trouble with my X220, so I think you'd have at least a decent chance of getting one without issues.

That said, for Linux development where portability is not a major concern, the larger screen size and optical drive will both be useful. I'd go for the T420, and just deal with the laptop-standard display.

 

"By a review" are the key words. So far, I've found every review that says the display is lousy is done either by someone expecting professional graphics designer quality, or who hasn't compared similar laptops in the business market and found roughly similar results (e.g., the Dell Latitude E6420) unless you pay another grand (e.g., HP's "Dreamcolor" IPS display) on top of the regular business notebook price.

The T420 display is an improvement over the T400 I had, which was an improvement over the T61 I had. I'm not saying the display is graphics designer quality; just that the reviews don't talk about the display being very usable, and comparable to other 14" displays on the market. I use my ThinkPad several hours every day, without issue.

Once again, I think the X220 is a decent laptop; had I been a heavy traveler, I'd have considered it. However, like many T420 owners out there, I find a lot of the criticisms to be overly harsh, or based on unrealistic expectations (some of them driven by the reviews). I truly believe that I could put a T420 in a bag with just a hole cut for the display, and nobody would just outright say "That's horrible".

If you are a Linux user, you can switch the T420's graphics to Discrete Only in BIOS to avoid any issues. You will run off the nVidia Quadro NVS4200M then. Alternately, you can get an Intel HD graphics T420 (so as to save money) and just run with that.

P.S. Fukushi, I think if you go with a Core it X220, you will be less likely to have throttling issues. Most of the issues reported have been with the top-end i7 processors, and at the same time, dropping down to a Core i5-25xx processor really doesn't take much performance away. Remember, for every one person talking about an issue they're having, there are probably 3-5 others with no problems; the difference is that people are less likely to shout their praise than they are their criticism. Also note that throttling doesn't mean "instability" per se --it means cutting back speed to cut down on heat.

 

excuse me, sir, but you can't be more wrong in this case.
check:
Review Lenovo Thinkpad T420 Notebook - Notebookcheck.net Reviews
and
Review Lenovo Thinkpad T520 Notebook - Notebookcheck.net Reviews
I actually can't tell how much I hate those users reviews on notebookreview "omg this notebook is teh best and the screen is actually one of the best I've evar seen".
No, it isn't. I have S-IPS in front of me, I actually care about the screen and I won't be satisfied with "it looks pretty to me".

Saying it is the best of all 14" displays on the market yet not saying it sucks so much when compared to 15" (or 12"?) display is very misleading.

PS: Real measured contrast ratio on X220IPS: 842:1, T420: 162:1

 

The ThinkPad T420 doesn't have the best of all 14" displays on the market, nor did I ever say that. The best (at this point, I believe HP's Dreamcolor IPS would probably take the crown) costs much, much more.

If you're willing to pay that, go for it. While I like IPS displays, I don't need one enough to justify that. However, the ThinkPad T420 has a very usable display. Is it perfect? Nope. I wouldn't mind having a bit broader viewing angle (I sometimes need to tilt my display to improve it), but my point is, it's a very usable display. There's a big difference between "usable" and "garbage".

And I have a very nice 16:10 24" S-PVA LCD for my desktop, and I care about screens as well. However, you're using other people's words as if they were my statements here. If "it looks pretty to me" was important, would I own a ThinkPad?

I never said the T420 has the best 14" laptop display on the market. What I did say was that most of the criticisms are a lot harsher than actual use would tend to bear out. Your post doesn't make me any "more wrong" than it makes you "more right".

 

Hey man, I'm sorry if it did sound like I was trying to credit all those quotes to you, I didn't mean it like that. I refered to numerous reviews I've read, not _you_. And the thing with "best 14" display" was just exaggeration. Once again I'm sorry.

I just love when people say something bad about their product. Something they don't like, because maybe that's something I wouldn't like too. And I haven't read any bad user review about T420's screen and I am really doubtful that the numbers on notebookcheck are without any consequences. I understand that people try to be as happy as possible after they spent their money, but for me and for the OP it makes my/his decision making a lot harder.

 

I've deployed both X220 and T420 laptops. When comparing the two, relative to the X220, the T420 is indeed bulky. But that is relative to the X220. Compare it to most standard laptops and you'll see that the T420 is indeed quite nice.

It really comes down to two things: Portability and screen real estate. All the other options exist between them. The NVS4200 option doesn't exceed the IGP by much so I don't really count that.

If you want portability - X220
If you want more screen real estate - T420

If you want both - T420s, but you pay a premium and the battery is terrible unless you get the ultrabay battery.

 

I read the various reviews. Then I spoke with a friend that actually has an office full of T420 and X220 machines, and went to take a look. I found the screen more than acceptable for my purposes and got the same feedback from users working on them all day long. It's certainly not the best screen out there but given the rest of what it offers it was a reasonable compromise. The X220 is definitely a smaller unit and some users really prefer that. But I found the lower resolution and smaller screen size to be less than what I wanted.

The nice thing is there's choice. Not necessarily as many choices as I'd like for screens, but what they do offer is decent enough. Though I would certainly pay extra for a better screen were it offered. It's disappointing that isn't an option.

 

As a premium business grade 14", the T420 is lighter than it's Dell Latitude and HP Elitebook counterparts. There are however other 12/13/14" systems that are lighter and thinner like Toshiba's R8x0 range. I'd ease the conundrum by going a IPS-equipped X220, knowing I have the best ultraportable available atm. Here's a comparison where $=no optical disk drive.

Code:

13" Toshiba R830    3.10lbs (1.40kgs). 1" thick.
12.5" Lenovo X220$  3.20lbs (1.45kgs). 1.36" thick. IPS LCD option. mSATA.
13" Sony SA	    3.71lbs (1.69kgs). 0.95" thick. HD6630M/900P option.
14" Lenovo T420s    4.03lbs (1.83kgs). 1.05" thick. NVS4200M/900P option. mSATA.
14" Toshiba R840    4.20lbs (1.91kgs). 1.00" thick. HD6450M/900P opt. HD6450M not switchable.
13" Dell E6320	    4.29lbs (1.95kgs). 1.2" thick.
13" HP 6360B	    4.65lbs (2.11kgs). 1.33" thick.
13" Vostro 3350	    4.70lbs (2.14kgs). 1.17" thick. HD6470M option.
14" Lenovo T420	    4.84lbs (2.20kgs). 1.20" thick. NVS4200M/900P option. mSATA.
14" Lenovo Y470     4.85lbs (2.20kgs). 1.29" thick. GT550M. mSATA. Quad-core option. 900P LCD swapout.
14" HP EB 8460P	    4.95lbs (2.25kgs). 1.25" thick. HD6470M/900P option. No switchable gfx!
14" Dell E5420	    5.06lbs (2.30kgs). 1.28" thick. 900P option.
14" HP 6460B	    5.09lbs (2.31kgs). 1.34" thick. HD6470M/900P option. No switchable gfx!
14" Dell E6420	    5.10lbs (2.32kgs). 1.28" thick. NVS4200M/900P option. Quad-core option.
14" Lenovo E420	    5.25lbs (2.39kgs). 1.43" thick. HD6630M option. mSATA.
14" Vostro 3450	    5.35lbs (2.43kgs). 1.28" thick. HD6630M option.
14" Sony CA         5.39lbs (2.45kgs). 1.43" thick. HD6630M/900P option. 

 

I've been having trouble choose between these two laptops too, ultimately I chose(well will choose) the x220 because of the better screen and longer battery life. My only real concern though is if the Intel GPU could handle photoshop on a 1080p screen...

Guess i'll find out when I get it.

 

Notebookcheck is a useful resource, but admittedly, they aren't always correct. I think they're a useful guideline, as long as you look at other reviews as well. Using a single review to buy any product is usually problematic. I prefer them more for processor or mobile GPU information, but I read a lot of other sources (here, Laptopmag, LegitReviews, just to name a few) before making a choice.

I did a lot of research before buying the T420. Despite previously owning a T61 and a T400, I wasn't sure I'd go Lenovo this time around, due to Lenovo's support of the switchable graphics drivers on the T400 being less than stellar, and I am a pretty picky buyer who usually sources Dell at work (I work in an IT department). In the end, the Dell Latitude E6420 was larger and heavier, and also cost more for a similarly-configured unit, and a Latitude E6410 from the outlet didn't save enough money to go with the previous generation, so I went with the T420, and I've been very happy with it --if I hadn't been, I'd have been willing to pay the restocking fee to return it.

The X220 is a legitimate choice for the right uses too; I just don't want anyone to choose one over the other because of information that may be biased, or not based on real-world usage. For an ultramobile traveler, I think the X220 is a great choice. For people who aren't constantly in tight confines, or who don't travel quite as much, I think the T420 is the ideal choice.

 

Is there any other website doing so detailed testing of displays in notebooks? I would REALLY love to compare those comparisons. I'm looking for more real unbiased numbers and less chit-chat...

btw yes, notebookcheck's GPU and CPU comparison charts are very useful indeed

 

Thanks again for the helpful replies.

I think I know myself and know that I won't be able to code for a prolonged time with a 1366x768 screen, not with its 16:9 aspect ratio. I don't want to whine, but it is inconceivable to me that everyone's switching to 16:9. 1440x900 is dying out it seems. On the other hand, the 1366x768 might actually force me to spend more time coding and less time relying on code-completion and surfing sites like reddit

The MacBook Air still has 1440x900 in its 13" version, and it is getting a refresh these days (BestBuy just changed them all to "Not Available for Shipping"). Unfortunately that's about it and I'm certainly not going to buy one.

About the T420, putting a 16:9 screen into a 16:10 frame just looks wrong to me. It's telling that Lenovo actually has an image of the T520 on its T420 product page ( Lenovo - Laptops - ThinkPad - T Series - T420)

I'll probably end up buying it, I just drew its dimensions on an old 17" laptop to be able to visualize its size.

Decisions, decisions...

 

Would you consider a T410 with 14.1" WXGA+ 1440x900 display? Do you absolutely need Sandy Bridge CPU for Linux coding? Shop around and you can get a T410 for a very good price.

 

Unless you get a T410 for dirt cheap, the T420 is a much better deal and 1600x900 is better than a loss of vertical pixels.

 

While that's an option, Lenovo listened to a lot of minor complaints about the T410, and IMO, fixed them for the T420. Add to that the mSATA slot, improved battery life, and a number of other small things and I think the T420 is worth it despite the aspect ratio change.

I didn't see the T410 for so much cheaper that the T420 that I felt like it was a preferable option when buying my T420. In my case, I also wanted the Optimus graphics, and the T410's version doesn't seem to work as well as the rev. 2 version on the T420, according to what I've seen on Lenovo's own forums.

 

The T410 did not really drop in price that much. T410 was the first of its kind, and T420 is the improved version. I think it is better to spend that extra cash for the T420.

 

After much thinking I realized the following: I will definitely not buy notebook with a 16:9 aspect ratio. Seriously, this must be the worst thing that happened to the laptop industry in the past decade. I will not implicitly support Lenovo with this business decision by buying one of their ThinkPads.

Even 1280x800 is better than 1366x768 from a usability perspective, despite having less pixels.

I'll wait for the MacBook Air Sandy Bridge refresh. If they still offer 1440x900, I'll buy a 13" MacBook Air.

 

of what kind?

Yea, pretty much everyone was upset like you, I have still 16:10 notebook and I hate the thought of having 16:9, but there is no other (real) choice...

 

Unfortunately all new notebooks are 16:9 with those rare exceptions and some Apple products. My suspect is Apple's current 16:10 stock screens are old and they will switch to 16:9 the next refresh. The MB Air 11 and the iMac already offer 16:9. Don't get me wrong, I fight for 16:10 and 4:3.

1280x800 though is 32 more vertical pixels than 1368x768, the resolution is already low and honestly doesn't matter. The disgusting fact is that 1368x768 is offered on 15.6" and 16" laptops.

Unfortunately with everyone going to 16:9, there is no incentive to go back to 16:10. If all your competitors go 16:9 and you will follow the trend as low end computers is a cut throat competition to see who can make the cheapest crap.

 

In my opinion, these 32pixels matter, especially at such low resolutions, as weird as this may sound. I decided to test my work flow in both resolutions (1280x800 and 1366x768) . For me, 800 pixels in height seem to be the minimum to get any work done. 1280x800 feels better, despite having less pixels in total than 1366 x 768. I just can't code in anything less, I tried it, I failed miserably.

Having to hook up a notebook to an external monitor all the time just to get some work done kinda defeats its purpose to me.

So while the X220 looks absolutely fantastic, I will definitely not buy it. I'd buy it if it was 1280x800 or 1440x900.

Now, if MBA will go down the drain too, well, I guess the T420 will be it.

 

There is still a couple of premium Sandy Bridge notebooks still using the 16:10 ratio.

12.1" Fujitsu PH771 3.20lbs (1.45kgs). 1.14" thick. 1280x800 LCD.
12.1" Fujitsu PH701 3.30lbs (1.50kgs). 1.02" thick. 1280x800 LCD.
12.1" HP 2760P tablet 3.97lbs (1.80kgs). 1.27" thick. AFFS 1280x800 LCD option.
13" Macbook Pro 4.50lbs (2.04kgs). 0.95" thick. 1280x800 LCD. Thunderbolt port.

One way to reduce the squattness of 1366x768 is to position the Win7 start bar to run vertically on the left size. I've been doing that even with 1280x800 to give a squarer app workspace.

 

I admit I only read the first page of this thread, but why isn't anyone mentioning how much cheaper the X220 is than the T420? You can't get a T420 for $850, can you?

 

For everyone that whinges about aspect ratios, have you actually looked at one of the currently shipping screens? And actually done any work on them? I have and it's really a non-issue.

My main desktop screen is a 24" 1920x1200 and, yes, it's nice. But I don't want to lug around a screen large enough to make that many pixels readable. Having spent some time with the 1600x900 in the T420 has lead me to accept it as a reasonable compromise. I have a 19" 1440x900 external monitor hooked up to it and two things come to mind. One being pixel density, I like the tighter density on the T420. It's smaller but not so small as to be a viewing problem. The other being horizontal resolution. It's nice to be able to have a few more pixels to allow seeing more side-by-side, or partially overlapping screens. But at the same time I don't find myself missing the vertical resolution. Yeah, it'd be nice to have it, but the machine is still great without it.

One upside to 16:whatever screens over the older 4:3 format is the top of the screen is about an inch lower. This is helpful when using it on an airline tray when the seat ahead of you is reclined.

 

I didn't know about those, thanks However they are all too small.

And the task bar on the right vertical side is a must for 16:9 screen, I've used it on 16:10 Also to get as much vertical space as possible. Actually it was pretty easy to get used to that drastic change

 

Most business oriented notebooks offer something more than 1368x768 except for those budget oriented/entry level ones. E6420/T420 offer HD+ (1600x900) results in no loss of vertical pixels, only gain in horizontal pixels. E6520/T520 offer FHD (1920x1080), a loss from when older 15.4" offered WUXGA.

Again 1280x800 to 1368x768 honestly no difference, it is already such a low resolution. I used my Vostro 1500 WXGA (1280x800) to my brother's Dell Inspiron M5030 15.6" HD (1368x768). The results were nearly the same, it's still a low resolution, though wider.

Only the x200s/x201s offered WXGA+ on 12.1". Sure it'd be nice to have a 1440x900 + IPS screen, but that's not gonna happen. Better yet buy erik's x61t with SXGA+ FV.

 

Actually people with WSXGA+ screen today will lose pixels both vertically and horizontally (150px + 80px). edit: that's 324 000 pixels less of workspace.

 

So you haven't been programming for a long time, right? I remember coding in VGA (640x480) or 80*25 (80*50 was a luxury) and somehow, surprisingly, it worked.

I use Eclipse and with its fullscreen mode (CTRL-ALT-Z), it's quite OK. You just need to do more things with keyboard shortcuts, hide unnecessary toolbars and it's really usable. Of course, this is just my experience, your tools and work style may differ.

 

Heh. I remember that fondly. A time where you had to write your own font subroutines.

 

I have been programming for 15 years plus. Of course in the "old days" we had it harder In many cases, the programs we wrote were also different, and the target audience too. We also didn't have as many context switches.

 

No 14" I can think of off the top of my head offered WSXGA+, mostly WXGA+. My D600 has SXGA+ which is a lovely 1400x1050, but they will never make that resolution again. Yes for 15" but alot of 15" offered WUXGA.

 

Why aren't you looking at the T420s? It fits your usage very well. No IPS screen, but you'll get the portability and resolution of the X220 and T420 in one package; and if you need more battery life than standard, the ultrabay battery will get you farther.

 

moved post to the Sony Forum:

Increase your effective resolution dramatically

 

I gave in (I'm such a weakling) and ordered a X220 despite my prior rant Thanks again guys.

 

Yeah, me too, it "worked". But given the added complexity of frameworks these days it's really convenient to have added screen real estate for viewing online documentation.

 

which notebook has the better battery life on the standard 6-cell? and by how much?