X201 vs X201s - I Don't Get it?

What's the draw to get the s version over the non-s version?

What are the main differences? People say it's lighter, but from what I've read online, the weight difference is so negligible it would be hard to tell in the real world usage.

Battery seems to be a bit better on the S since it uses the lower voltage processer, but your sacrificing some power at that, so I say it's a draw there.

The only standouts I see are the S version is a few hundred more base price, and the screen is a higher resolution? Is the screen better on the S version?

Anything else I'm missing? I've narrowed it down to the 201 or 201s, just need to know the basic differences. Lenovo site isn't helping much, and very scarce reviews on the s version online.

 

Is there any difference in physical size? Is the 's' model considerably thinner and easier to travel with?

 

Are you asking me that? I don't know, the spec I saw on this review site look like the physical dimensions are equal, unless it's wrong/typo?

 

It's lighter, offers better battery life and has a higher resolution screen. Those are the main differences. Is that worth the premium in price? Personally I would say no, but you or someone else may come to a different conclusion.

 

0.4lbs is fairly significant. The X201s with the 6 cell battery is lighter than the X201 with a 4 cell.

The X201s also has a flat bottom that looks like this


Instead of the X201 bottom which is this


Making it somewhat thinner.

There's also the high resolution screen. If I were willing to wait for them to be customizable, I may have gone for the X201s. It's a pretty close call.

 

I'd say the pixel density on the X201s is too high for me and I'd prefer the AFFS quality to the higher resolution. If you're carrying it around all day, then perhaps the lower weight of the X201s may have benefits. I was just happy getting under four pounds after coming off my six and half pound R60.

 

The 1280x800 isn't bad, but 1440x900 would be nice. If you find 1440x900 on a 12" hard to read, you could always just increase the dpi. As far as AFFS...yeah, the x201 vertical viewing angles aren't great, but once you profile the monitor the colors are pretty good (verified by quite a few people who found the monitor out of the box to be lacking - even though they're just using the profile made on my computer which is going to be inexact for their computer).

I know I feel the weight difference when I go from the 9 cell to the 4 cell (which I why I own both), which is about the difference between the x201 and x201s.

 

I didn't think my X200's Samsung screen was all that bad, but it ain't the AFFS either. If you're just increasing the DPI what's the point?

 

x201s is nice, but in some countries you have to wait for like 4 to 6 weeks to get one. X201 can be had within 2 weeks.

 

To give yourself more screen real estate when wokring with photos or higher res for videos (especially with 1080p becoming more and more common).

 

Why Lenovo does not offer:

1. A 1440x900 screen option for the X201 and
2. A nicer-quality LCD screen

I do not understand. It's currently the only thing preventing me from purchasing one of these, tricked out with an i7 and 8GB RAM for HD video editing. Let's hope the next refresh is within the next couple of months and includes these options.

 

the X201 is just released for only couple of months, so there is little chance of there been a major refresh. I haven't seen Lenovo ever upgrading the LCD within a product lifecycle.

There is no IPS or AFFS 12.1 inch LCD is made in the WXGA+ resolution. So your option 1 and 2 conflicts with itself. You can't have what is not available on the market.

 

So essentially the X201's screen is currently superior to that of the X201s? I was under the impression that the opposite was the case...

I don't buy often at 12"... I buy hundreds of 14 and 15s per year, but I am hardly acquainted to the 12" market. I wonder if we won't see something improved in the near future in this regard. If not, I suppose I'll just have to give up on waiting for an X201, as I don't fancy a manual screen replacement and the screen quality is one of the paramount factors in my mind.

 

i am not saying that the X201 is superior to the X201s, or vice versa. I am just saying that the option for the 12.1 inch WXGA+ LCD is pretty limited.

If you need good LCD for photographic touchups just get the X201 tablet, which has much superior LCD but only in WXGA format.

 

Is the screen really that bad on them? I wish someone had one locally I could check them out. I'm not picky about screens really, I just want it to be bright and clear enough to do basic every-day tasks.

My $300 gateway netbook has a decent enough screen for me, and I'm sure the lenovo's are at least as good as that?

I was going to get the m11x, but heard the screen was horrible on it, and that it was toooo glossy. I hate gloss, and much prefer the matte finish.

 

I thought the Samsung screen on my X200 was serviceable. If you're not too picky, I think you'll be fine.

 

I have an x201 and think the screen is great!

It's not designed to be an ultra high res screen for photoshop work. It's designed to be a portable work horse with a resolution that is easy to see and read.

 

Agree! ^^^^^

 

Mostly, however, I am concerned with outdoor viewability. I'd sort of hate to have to get the tablet model just for this, as it seems like the touch interface is something I'd never use. Plus, I yearn for a 1440x900 resolution regardless; in a premium model like this, I would really prefer the option!

I know that currently no 1440x900 superbright screen is offered. But I'm coming off a 1280x800 LED-backlit M1330 from two years ago; if what I get isn't at least as good as that screen, there is no way I could justify an upgrade. This one is approximately 300 nits at high brightness, while the X201 is apparently somewhere closer to 200-250. That won't cut it!

 

How often does Lenovo update their lineup, specifically the X201?

I am looking to buy a X201 before college and I am a senior this year. And I currently cannot find the X201s on the Lenovo website? I am sure the lowest end model would work for me.

 

The x201s is not a lower end model than the X201. It is in fact more expensive.

 

Ok, does it get the same performance and battery life, and why in the review by Notebookreview.com is the X201s cheaper?

And also, is it true the Core i5 is faster in some ways than the Core i7 like the review says? That is what is confusing me...

Only thing I don't like about the X201 is it looks kind of chubby, so the X201s might suit my desires more. I plan on keeping this laptop for a LONG time (~5-6 years) so it might be worth it to spend a couple hundred extra if it makes me happy.

And how is everyone liking the Intel HD?

 

The X201s is the slimmer, less powerful, longer battery life version of the X201 basically. It uses the i7 LOW VOLTAGE cpu, which is slower than the normal voltage i5.

I can't tell you why notebookreview has the pricing wrong. Once the x201s is configurable again, expect it to be a few hundred dollars more than the x201 (I would guess 3 or 4)

 

Alright than I mine as well go for just the X201, the battery life on the thing is still incredible.

Hopefully Intel's updated processors by next year will have improved graphics performance for when I am ready to buy the X201.

 

One other thing I just found out - I'm not sure if this is true or not - but apparently the graphics chip is quite a bit better in the x201s. 4500mhd vs 5700mhd - apparently is about twice as fast as the x201 in 3dmark06.

Not that either of these are gaming machines whatsoever, but that might tip the scale for me as I do some very light, less graphic intensive games occasionally (plants vs zombies, defense grid, etc).

Anyone have any solid info on this?

Also - why can't I order the x201s via the Lenovo website? I only see the x201 as an option. Ebay seems to be the only place to go for decent prices on the x201s - anyone?

 

It is true. The graphics are now called "Intel HD Graphics" and the most powerful version which is found in the X201 is twice as powerful as previous GMA 4500 graphics. Notebookcheck has benchmarks. The LM processors in the X201s have a graphics clockspeed of 266-566MHz while in the X201 the speed is 500-766MHz.

 

Wait, I guess I read it wrong, because it said the x201s had the 5700mhd, vs the x201 (non s) had the 4500mhd, which is about twice as slow as the x201s 5700mhd. Does that makes sense? Wouldn't the 540m have a faster graphics integration than the lower voltage i7 in the x201s?

 

Both the X201 and X201s have the 5700, but Intel made "Intel HD Graphics" is the official name of it now. Neither has the 4500, that is not available with a Core i processor. And yes the 540M's 5700 is faster than the low voltage i7's.

 

That doesn't sound right. I understood all the core i_ processors have the same integrated GPU. From what I've read, the increased performance is the X201 vs. X200 families of notebooks, NOT 201s vs 201.

If you have a source that says otherwise, I'd like to read it because it will throw my whole understanding of the CPU architecture into confusion!

Edit:
Just found a good explanation on http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Graphics-Media-Accelerator-HD.23065.0.html

 

Ah ok. So they use the same GPU's, but the lower voltage ones just lower the clock speed. So the x201 should be faster than the x201s in graphics/games etc. Weird, some of these ebay auctions I'm looking at say the x201 has the 4500mhd even though it has the 540m processor. I guess that's a typo?

 

Your quote shows that the lower voltage processors have lower clocked GPU's, so the low voltage processor in the x201s has a lower clocked GPU than the GPU x201, giving it lower performance.

Intel did this with hte previous 4500MHD as well, the GPU's are the same, but they are clocked differently based on the voltage of the processors.

 

Ok here is a review that has the x201 as having the intel gma 4500hd: Lenovo ThinkPad X201 Review - ComputerShopper.com

And as we know all the x201s reviews show it having the 5700mhd.

So I guess they don't have the same integrated graphics.

Ugh so confusing.

 

I have no idea what they are smoking because it is physically impossible to have a Core i processor with 4500 series graphics. They are incorrect, ALL X201's have Intel HD Graphics.

 

Just to make things REALLY murky, the clock speeds are a function of temperature. Since the lower voltage processors tend to run cooler, they may well allow higher GPU clock rates in real usage before throttling back to control heat!

 

I would go for the X201S if you have access to buying it; where I live the S isn't offered. Still like the X201, amazing laptop, but the integrated camera and fingerprint reader are pretty much useless imo.

 

Screen resolution on the X201s is great but I just wished they offered a better quality screen with better viewing angles. At night the X201s screen is pretty nice and does not hurt your eyes as much as a nice and bright glossy screen like on the MBP's so you don't get much eye strain this way.

If you are on the road often and want good battery life and good screen resolution then I would stick with the X201s but make sure you buy a SSD after and do a clean install or you may find it a bit on the slow side.

I have a X201s with an Intel 160GB SSD in it and it's not too bad.

 

They do. It's called the X201T.

 

Yeah, and again with the low-voltage CPUs...

I would jump all over a computer as well-built as the X201 with just a better quality screen. That's all it'd take for me!

I am actually waiting for one to come along. As soon as I find a 12/13" that's this powerful and well-built with a high-quality screen, I'm placing my order.

 

Me thinks you better get a comfy chair.

 

Hmmmm, a friend of mine just bought a Samsung R480. It has the Core i3-330m and the Intel GMA 4500MHD. This spec is listed on the Toshiba website and confirmed by device manager, which does NOT say "Intel HD" like my X201, which as you stated DOES have the 5700MHD.

So, I think you are correct except for some of the Core i3 processors which, I've heard (and read), are just re-branded Core2 Duos. This was admitted by an Intel executive. (A little marketing hanky-panky going on there, nothing new about that.) The names often mean nothing. A "Pentium Dual-Core" T4300 is EXACTLY the same as a "Core2 Duo T6600" (except for the level 2 cache). Or maybe it was the T6500... Same number of transistors, clockspeed, everything. So, within the "Core i" series, there appears to be some variance too. Intel up to it's old tricks.

Caveat Emptor.

 

Intel Marketing people is probably overworked in trying to squeeze the last dollar from their unsuspecting customers.... hence why Apple uses them.

 

Wrong, wrong, and more wrong.

I'd like to see three things:

• A link, ANY link, where you read an Intel executive admitting to this.
• A link that shows any C2D that has hyperthreading enabled
• A link to any i3 processor that doesn't have video built into the processor

This is really simple: whatever your just said was a complete lie, either because you simply don't know, or because you DO know and yet have nothing else better to do except spread FUD. I'm going to hope AND give you the benefit of the doubt and say it's the former rather than the latter...

The core i(x) family have technologies that simply DO NOT exist in the C2D line -- the most notable of which is integrated memory controllers AND hyperthreading, and in the case of the i3 and i5 (and a few ULV i7) mobile platforms, integrated video. Here's a big fat hint: EVERY i3 mobile part made has integrated video, without exception.

So, if you can go ahead and make with those links, we can go about cleaning up some confusion.

In the meantime, here's Intel's ARK page on the entire i3 mobility line and here's Intel's ARK page on the entire C2D Mobility line.

If you have any questions, you can certainly post them here and I'll be happy to help.

 

Was the humidity high in Albuquerque today?

 

I wouldn't know off-the-cuff; my alias might be that of a common southwestern city, but I do not live there.

As for the topic at hand, what does the moisture in the air have to do with the complete inaccuracies I pointed out? Do you have something more to add?

 

Bah. He's probably a shill for Intel. He made no comment about the computer with the i3-330m that has a 4500MHD GPU. Why doesn't it have the "Intel HD" like all the rest? What's up with that? Like I said, Intel up to its usual shenanigans. Maybe I should start looking at what AMD is up to. Rumor is, they're going to make a comeback, give Intel a run for its money again. They have the distinct advantage of owning ATI, the best graphics cards and GPUs, in my view.

 

I work for a Fortune 200 company as a Windows Platform Architect (my official title.) While I own a bit of Intel stock, it's not enough to buy me off. Rather, I'm here to squash misinformation, which you're providing by the handful.

And you provided nothing except "eye witness testimony", of which is the lowest class of 'proof' available in the scientific community. Care to back up any of the claims that you made? Anything at all, other than simply saying "oh, you must be shill" even though I have provided direct links that contradict your wild claims?

As for AMD, their new Fusion processor is due out at the end of this year (or very early next year) so long as they hit their timelines. It looks quite promising indeed, and should very likely give Intel a swift kick to get their IGP's (even those built into the CPU package) a lot more oomph than they're currently providing.

More information on AMD's fusion is available in this 14-page thread over on Beyond3D. Lots of good reading to be had there, if you're interested...

Edit:
You do realize that Intel GMA 4500 HD is indeed the built-in video on the i3 platform, right? Here's a quick hint: go to Intel's website, and search for GMA 4500. Why don't you help us out and report back what you find?

Or better yet, just google around a bit on the web. Here's something to try: NoteBookCheck's information on the i3-330; have a look at what the integrated video on that processor is named...

 

Both of you, knock it off right now.

 

giving personal attacks such as calling someone a shill deserves an apology, not a thank-you.

would you like fries with that?

seriously, both of you, knock it off and act like adults please.   this conversation can be debated without the name-calling and chest-beating.

 

I suggest we all go get Gorditas at 1am, woooooooooooooooooooooooo!

 

We only have two brands that serve fries. And given the big fat 'Taco Bell' logo emblazoned on my business card (ha, you should see the other side -- it's one of their hot sauce packets!) I assumed I'd get something about needing extra sauce packets, or if I want a $2 box, or if I'd like extra sour cream on the side

All our brands are easy to pick on but we rake in some serious cash -- especially overseas. China absolutely loves KFC.

Anyway, was just hoping for something more creative than fries is all

Bacon ranch FTW! We get our own Taco Bell restaurant in-house at the office here in Irvine; someone my age could get fat really fast with that kind of temptation I still get something from there about once a week though.