W520 - 1080p w/1000M GPU - good/bad idea?

I been looking at the 1600x900 screen with 1000M GPU for a few days, as it meets my minimum needs at a good price, but a lot of the talk in the forums has made me consider the larger screen. However, I don't think I can justify the cost of the 2000M upgrade. So, does anyone use the 1080p screen with the 1000M, or is that going to cause problems?

My main reason for reconsidering the 1080p is because I will be doing some personal Photoshop work and movie editing (nothing pro), plus the extra real estate would come in handy for my normal work, which is mostly text-based apps (Visual Studio, etc) often side-by-side. Also some light gaming, but nothing cutting-edge (I'm more concerned with playability than high settings). I'm coming from a MBP, so my current screen is 900x1440, but the image quality is good.

It would be used primarily on A/C, so effects on daily battery life aren't an issue.

On a related note, has anyone had problems with dead pixels on either the 900 or 1080p screens? I understand the policy is 3-4 dead pixels for warranty coverage.

 

I have the 1600x900 screen, no dead pixels. I use a desktop with a 1080p monitor + a 1400x1050 monitor, with a 9500 GT, which is much weaker than the Quadro 1000M, and it runs perfectly fine. The Quadro 1000M is a lot more powerful than you are giving it credit for.

 

I understand what you're saying. I guess my concern is that the 1000M will feel sluggish with the bigger screen when put to the test. I'm already used to using the 900 screen size, so there's nothing lost by staying with it.

Is the resolution on the 1080p screen at all adjustable (ie. scale down to 900)?

 

Feel sluggish for what? Gaming? Desktop usage?

Let me tell you this, if you are just going to use it for normal desktop things, it doesn't matter if you get the 1000M, 2000M, 3000M, 4000M, 5010M, or that supercomputer built with NVIDIA GPUs because the Intel HD 3000 will be used anyways.

 

I'm not worried about day-to-day use. In simplest terms, I'm wondering if gaming would be significantly hampered with the 1000m and 1080p vs 900 screen.

 

Then you are asking the wrong question. Your original question should have been among the lines: is there a significant gaming difference between the 2000M and the 1000M which is yes. Can either run the lastest games on FHD on highest settings? No (probably). Neither of the cards are optimized for that.

Also, you can always reduce the resolution when you are playing a game with the 1000M so I do not understand why the resolution of the screen would matter. Get the FHD and, if you can, get the 2000m.

 

Yeah, you are asking the wrong question, then. The Quadro 1000M is roughly a GT 540M, and the Quadro 2000M is roughly a GT 555M. Neither is really high end.

 

You're both right; I was thinking about it the wrong way. I know neither card is a gamer, but I didn't really see much consideration for the 1000M from users getting the 1080p. Obviously, more is better, but the bang-for-buck sweet spot for me doesn't get me the 2000M, but might get me the 1080p.

 

I don't game a lot, but from my experiences, I can tell you that my W520 with the 1000M can run SCII at 1080p Ultra using my desktop's monitor. Though, I've only tried for 1vs1 games. What games do you plan on playing?

 

Along the lines of Portal 2, Mass Effect 3, the next Deus Ex, etc, though like I said, I'm less concerned with getting ultra settings than playability.

 

Hmm... I've never played any of those. I don't play FPS games as I get motion sickness from them somehow. Though, others in the W520 owner's thread have stated that they can run Portal 2 and I believe Mass Effect 3 at 1080p with ultra settings or something with the 2000M.

 

Resolution is one of the most taxing settings for the GPU. You can probably play most games at 1080p at low to medium settings with the 1000m.

Also, most people may not not consider the 1000m with the 1080P screen for many reasons:
1. Budget
2. no need for graphics card, just large screen for spreadsheets, etc
3. 1080p for the 95% gamut screen and the 2000m for photoshop and video editing.

Judging by you want playability and not best settings, you can save a money by going for the 1000m. Again, you can always lower the resolution of the game to prevent lagging/reduced framerates. I remember my t61 with a NVS 140m graphics card (really bad card) played Mass Effect 2 perfectly fine (on lowest settings of course).

If, however, you really want to play all your games with 1080p, you could possibly invest (very expensive, $300-$400) in an eternal graphics card enclosure (example: Vidock) and supply your own consumer, desktop graphics card (another $150-500 for 1080p) to connect to your thinkpad.

Edit: I think before you make your decision however, you try to contact or wait for a 1000m user with 1080p and ask him or her about it and its gaming preformance. I would recommend notebookcheck.com, but they only have a 3dmark06 benchmark and not actually game benchmarks.

 

I felt comfortable enough to pull the trigger with the 1000M and 1080p screen. When I'm shopping for a new machine, I tend to perceive myself doing lots of PC gaming, but in reality, I rarely have the time to play more than a few, and those tend to be last season's games that I didn't have time to play when they were new. If I'm getting something new, it's usually for PS3. The bigger screen will be more useful for my common case, which, unfortunately (or fortunately in the current economy) is working, plus personal multimedia.