W520 with quadro 2000 gfx performance?

I'm interested in getting this when it comes out but as much as like thinkpads - I don't like gimped gfx performance.

Any idea if this compares well to the mid range cards like the 6750 or 6770 from and?

 

NVIDIA Quadro 2000M - Notebookcheck.net Tech

It puts it above the HD6770 but without benchmarks to back it up. Probably a preliminary ranking.

 

Yeah I saw that - I was wondering if people new based on numbers of shafted and mem speed. Nvidia lists it as mId range which does not bode well.

I need this for business and be able to play MMOs at ultra settings.

 

No real benchmark numbers here, but a couple of interesting graphics tests.

 

Nice review -- good to see real life performance mentioned with the configuration I would want.

 

6.5-7 hours on battery with the quad-core?

Oh hell yes.

Core i7 2620M + Quadro 2000M + 1920x1080 LCD will be mine.

 

The proc in the review at Lenovo ThinkPad W520 - mini review - Keith Combs' Blahg - Site Home - TechNet Blogs is the Core i7-2720QM processor. That's the quad core.

Not sure if you really want the 2620M. The 2620M is a dual core and the W520 only comes with two SoDIMM slots in that configuration. I certainly wouldn't buy a W520 like that. Might as well get the T520 if you want dual core.

 

I know.

I figure battery life should be even better with the 2620M. 35W vs. 45W.

As for why wouldn't I get the T520? Two words: Quadro 2000M.

2 SoDIMM slots though... so? 8GB is more than ample.

 

Two words: So sorry.

The 2000M only comes on the Quad Core configs. Hope I'm wrong for your sake but that's the way it looks in the tabook.

 

That's hella lame... that was the best part about the Sandy Bridge refresh of the XPS 15... could now get dual-core + highest available graphics.

 

XPS is a consumer laptop which is aimed at the gaming communities, while Thinkpads are for businesses.

 

Well... looking at the W520 configurator...

...the W520 IS available in dual-core + Quadro 2000M form.

Sweet.

$2000 as I'd like it built, though... eeeek!

 

Another discrepancy with the tabook.pdf.

It must be product launch time.

 

the PSREF sheets have never indicated every possible system configuration.   they are pre-configured systems only and intended for resellers to move popular options quickly using in-stock systems.   just because the "tabook" doesn't have an FX2000 + dual-core config doesn't mean it won't be available CTO.

it is product launch time though.   you got that part correct.   speculations are running rampant around here.

 

Where is the preconfigured list? I will buy from a acadamic shop and they only have preconfigured system

 

Personal Systems Reference (PSREF) sheets

 

Learn something new every day. Need to dig my decoder ring out. Thanks.

 

Hope Lenovo ThinkPad W520 4276 is like 1400-1500Euros then thats the one

Core i7 2720QM / 2.2 GHz - vPro - RAM 8 GB - HDD 500 GB - DVD-Writer - Quadro 1000M / HD Graphics 3000 - 3G Upgradable - Gigabit Ethernet - WLAN : 802.11 a/b/g/n, Bluetooth 3.0 - TPM - fingerprint reader - Windows 7 Pro 64-bit - 15.6" Widescreen LED backlight TFT 1920 x 1080 ( Full HD ) - camera - TopSeller - Microsoft Office 2010 Preloaded

 

I don't know much about graphics cards, however I feel the need to ask out of concern.

The NVidia Quadro 2000M is on par with the Geforce 460M in terms of CUDA cores (192), so they should pump out a similar framerate. What differs, however, is the memory type and memory bandwidth.

NVidia Quadro 2000M: 192 CUDA Cores, 2.0 GB GDDR3 (128-bit), 28.8 GB/Sec memory bandwidth.
NVidia GeForce 460M: 192 CUDA Cores, 1.5 GB GDDR5 (192-bit), 60.0 GB/Sec memory bandwidth.

So I may be wrong, but in the worst case scenario, assuming the GPU can keep up and you had to read 2.0 GB of memory per frame, the NVidia Quadro 2000M could only provide 14.4 frames per second (28.8 / 2.0).

If you had to read the full 1.5 GB of memory per frame, the GeForce 460M could provide 40 frames per second (60 / 1.5).

Considering a smooth framerate would be around 32 FPS, I can see a potentail bottleneck here on the NVidia Quadro 2000M. Again I do not claim to know anything about how it really works, but some clarifications would help.

Also this puts things into perspective, as the 2000M card will keep up with the 460M in all aspects except when it hits a barrier that it has to read more memory per frame then the memory bandwidth can allow, when the GeForce 460M wouldn't run into this problem. Maybe "Professional" applications will never run into this barrier, but certainly games would if you have to read all the quadros memory in order to render a frame (eg. high many, many, many high res textures).

Any clarification would help, these are just assumptions.

 

You're forgetting that the 2000M cores will run at a much lower frequency than the ones on the desktop card. Of course that's also true for the memory, but there are such variables that come into play. You simply have to make compromises (cost/power) when you're talking about a mobile system.

Also, remember that the W510's FX880M only has 48 cores (1GB/128bit), so you should get a substantial improvement already. And yes, thinkpads are no gaming rigs.

 

Agreed that Thinkpad's are not intended to be a gaming rig, and never will be. However, as you mention, the 2000M is a significant improvement over the 880M in cores, but the memory bandwidth did not change much (+3 GB/s). I am just concerned that this would be a problem.

Are there scenarios in which you would have an application that requires reading 2.0 GB per frame? What scenarios are they? As you said the frequencies are lower, so if the GPU cannot keep up with this type of bandwidth it would make sense to to use GDDR3 128-bit width. However, if the GPU can keep up with this type of bandwidth, the memory would be a bottleneck, no?

Probably noone has a specific answer without some extensive benchmarks, but im still curious why they didnt at least include GDDR3 256-bit, which would have a 50 GB / s memory bandwidth, prenting the memory bottleneck (if one can exist with this card).

 

As the 2000M was a $250 upgrade over the 1000M I thought that was a bit out of bounds.

The FHD was only a $200 upgrade over the HD+.

Perry

 

Check these replies on quadro 2000m gfx performance

http://forum.notebookreview.com/lenovo-ibm/566338-lenovo-w520-owners-thread-9.html#post7334697
http://forum.notebookreview.com/lenovo-ibm/566338-lenovo-w520-owners-thread-9.html#post7335134

 

Yeah its unfortunate that you cannot get above midrange performance on a relatively expensive machine -- but since they no longer have the w701 -- you would think they would have one machine with a high end GPU. Oh well.

I know its not their target marget but I would love to have a portable business class machine with a great GPU (6 - 7 lbs is fine with me). I have a 3 year sager that performs great but its heavy and cant be used on plane because of its size. They don't even have slice batteries as an option even if I were willing to live with the size. Arrghhh -- the compromises.

I'd really prefer no to lug around 2 laptops.

 

I think a 55W gpu is just right as the upper limit for a premier business notebook of 15.4-6" form factor. The 75W and 100W gpu's are a huge burden on cooling regimes. and best left to 17" forms, IMHO (Nvidia suggests as much, going from their web site http://www.nvidia.com/page/quadrofx_go.html). I have had a 55W gpu in a 15" - it was at the limit for bearable levels of heat and fan-sound. For most people the quadro 2000m would be more than ample for their gaming excursions. If you are a gaming addict, then you would look elsewhere, anyway. You can't design a computer appropriate for everyone, especially in notebooks. A more powerful gpu in the W520 would compromize the core users - this is a CAD-optimized machine. In fact, for many users, the quadro 1000m (35W) would be a better selection than the the still powerful 2000 (55W). "Mid-range" is just a relative term. For most people it would already be overkill.

 

I understand Quadro 2000M isn't for gaming. But with $200 premium compare to Quadro 1000M, like what Niriven was saying, I really wish the memory bandwidth is higher to better match with 192 shades and it's 55W power consumption.

But I guess this is more nVidia's decision because on workstation series, Lenovo has already using the most powerful GPU design for 15 inch laptop anyway. But I still wish it's perform as well as GTX 460M or at least as fast as amd 6750 which is being used by macbook pro.

 

For workstation tasks it would outperform those GPUs... but gaming it will not.

 

any idea if the 2000m will play starcraft 2 on high settings? or the 1000m?

i'm looking for a new laptop and debating between the w520 or 15in mbp. i know the mbp will probably be better for gaming, but the w520 will probably be better for the photo work i do. if it does sc2 on high though, that would be pretty much everything i need.

 

To me the bigger question isn't who's king of the hill. I think most people want to know why there's such a large price delta between the 1000m and the 2000m.

Is the 1000m lame or is it workstation class? Whatever that is.

 

This is my question exactly. Why the $200 jump ?

Why don't these companies put relevant extended information/links in their configurators ? When is see Quadro 1000 then Quadro 2000 (+200), I would really like to know why - and not just the definition of a graphics card like some configurators have.

 

Because Lenovo is still targeting the Thinkpads toward the business/corporate market and professional users. They assume that everything they purchase and order with their machine have been carefully planned, so that these people would have know which parts they wanted and why.

Obviously that is no longer the case, so i have put in a suggestion that they have more information on their parts description for retail consumers whom want to customise.

 

Interestingly enough, looks like Dell will be releasing a Precision M4500 refresh, which is also a 15.6 inch laptop that has a Quadro 2000M. Weird it mentions that the Quadro 2000M uses GDDR5 when the NVidia site said it only can handle GDDR3.

Either way it is nice to see competitors releasing similar hardware on the 15 inch models, showing the 2000M should be sufficient enough for a mobile workstation of this size

Edit: Does anyone know how the RGB-LCD compares to the W520 screen? What is the difference?

 

Dell prolly customized their 2000M with GDDR5. They've done this before and so did HP.

 

Huh?

Quadro 2000 Review - OverclockersClub Forums

Apparently, it can? but then again, I am a computer n00b; I am sure that this is for the desktop.

 

Both are 95% color gamut screens so they should be the same barring manufacturer differences.

You never know the exact parts sourcing with Dell. They can change depending on the manufacturing date. Its more a question of how many panel makers make a 95% color gamut screen (which is probably most of them -- there aren't that many).

 

That's a review for the desktop Quadro 2000. It's very different from Quadro 2000M

 

I had a M4400 and the RGBLED was 100% gamut, and glossy (i'm a matte fan, but that was a ridiculously gorgeous screen). So those are two differences if the updated system follows suit.