Toshiba vs HP vs Lenovo Laptops

[garrison_k.]

<p>Can you qualify that? I find that interesting as Dell is the largest computer company that has done 46 billion year to date.</p>

[szrimaging]

<p>Ron, which Lenovo did you get?</p>

<p>The three screens I saw through random internet chatter (so trust at your own risk) were the rgbled that Dell is using, the screen off the W700 and the dream screen that HP developed with Dreamworks (marketing buzz, I'm sure).</p>

[roger_smith4]

<p>I'm in the same boat and am looking for a high powered, reasonably priced laptop to sit on a desk and work with my external monitor. I don't want a desktop as if I move they're hard to lug around, laptops have far lower power consumption and if designed well perform excellently. So far the HP Envy 14 seems to fit the bill using an i5 or i7 processor. </p>

[mlynch]

<p>I second Shadforth's recommendation. For one large reason. When Nvidia had is GPU problem. Apple worked out a a deal with Nvidia to accept responsibility for the bad chipsets it sold them. HP didn't do this although HP's machines have the same issues. Our daughter's MBP after 3 years of use but failing due to the Chipset problem, was repaired at no charge. HP is not willing to accept this issue as a warranty problem. As a result my mothers high end HP laptop is useless.</p>

<p>BTW I find the display on MBP to be as good, if not better than the HP's (when I could see it).</p>

[garrison_k.]

<blockquote>

<p>When Nvidia had is GPU problem. Apple worked out a a deal with Nvidia to accept responsibility for the bad chipsets it sold them. HP didn't do this although HP's machines have the same issues. Our daughter's MBP after 3 years of use but failing due to the Chipset problem, was repaired at no charge.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's not exactly what what happened.</p>

<p>Months prior to that, Dell was the first to address the issue that summer while it was dealing with warranty and returns on this chipset problem. It finally forced nVidia to admit it (nearly crushing stock prices) that August, while Apple was still avoiding warranty and repairs on the issue all the way until October. It was that Oct when they forced nVidia to deal with the mess and finally started treating their customers with a bit of respect. If you follow the Mac forums, there was scores of irate threads over this as Apple not only refused to acknowledge the issue before hand while Dell and nVidia had, they continued to sell them! We had confused customers posting and trying to understand why Dell pulled theirs months earlier and giving 100% refunds, while Apple customer service was playing dumb about the issue. It was astonishing to read new posts in those threads from new owners that blindly trusted Apple, came home and found out they had a problem, googled it, and felt ripped off that they were knowingly sold a MBP with problems.</p>

<p>A year later, the 27" iMac was released and they had flickering monitor issues. Apple did the same thing; for five months, they continued to sell while there was a high failure rate. There's a thread with 30,000 entries. I think it made a world record.</p>

<p>Every single person I know with a MBP has had to replace the $200 battery sooner than they expected. A few have had them bulge and get hot and cause concerns.</p>

<p> </p>

[garrison_k.]

Yes, you're right Brad. I shouldn't have bought into the troll post. My apologies to everyone. I'll finish my coffee next time

before (over) reacting.

[andylynn]

<p>Zach, bit late to the party here, but I'm assuming you're looking at laptops of the class that have 17" screens, quad i7's, high end Radeon chips and all sell for about $1500? Everybody makes one and spec wise they're nearly identical. Strong point is always power and weak points are always size, weight and battery life. Shadforth's right that the Mac is the best (less weight and more battery life than the rest, you get your tech support in person and, well, look, it's like taking a Hasselblad over a Bronica - both are quite capable but the fit and finish of the Blad make it the one to get if you're willing to spend).</p>

<p>But you're right that in 17" it doesn't fit your budget. I have a recommended laptops section on my web site that I update occasionally, choosing my favorite from the current 17" models, but honestly they're all mostly the same. Find the one you think feels best to you and comes with a good warranty, reference your reliability research (those reports aren't steering you wrong) and just do it. Nobody else posting here knows more about your needs that you do.</p>

[szrimaging]

<p>Andrew, I have decided to wait until I can get another one of the same class as I have now. Should run about 2500 to 3500 (maybe less if I can find one refurb again). Also, I have had really good luck with the Nvidia Quadra cards, so I think I am sticking with those. Might be overbuying a bit, but in the end it should be worth it. The current laptop is a 17" HP with 3GB DDR2 Ram and a Core 2 Duo (dual core). No issues with CS4 and I highly doubt any with CS5. Video might be the only spot where it take a hit right now.</p>

[andylynn]

<p>Can't fault your judgment, but the Quadro issue... I don't think you said what software you use. What are you running that needs workstation card features? My concern would be that you'd end up overpaying when the features are unlikely to do anything for you (unless you happen to also be a 3D animation artist) and that the Quadro laptop options are lagging behind the other laptop GPUs.</p>

<p>I see now that you mention video editing. If you happen to be Premiere CS5 user (which is one of the few apps anybody actually uses that are CUDA enabled) consider the Asus G73JW-XN1. It's a bit big and heavy but it's a 17" 1920x1080 with a 740QM, 8GB, a 1.5GB Geforce 460 and USB3 for $1430. That's going on my recommendations site next time I update the laptops page.</p>

[garrison_k.]

<blockquote>

<p>Shadforth's right that the Mac is the best</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What does "best" mean?</p>

<p>I think Zach's right. They're twice the price and the value isn't there. I do like the GPU switching for battery life and sound on MBP is best that I've heard. But spending that much on a laptop and not having blu-ray, USB3, full 1080p, bluetooth, makes them far from "best" for me. I'd look at the Sony Z. </p>

[andylynn]

<p>Garrison, we can talk about these features all day and I totally agree about the need for high res screens (the 17" MBP has more than 1080P resolution and all the Mac models have Bluetooth) but a legit CPU and a legit video card with the power saving switching feature in an unusually thin package with an unusually large trackpad and 8-9 hours rated battery life, with 15" or 17" high res nonglare screens, instant wake from sleep, unusually good build quality and tech support in person instead of calling somebody in India - even if I didn't care about running OSX, how am I supposed to get that from anybody but Apple? We're on a web site where people buy Leicas, or choose a D3 because a D700 feels "flimsy", without needing to account strictly for value, so I figure I can say the Mac is the best and get away with it.</p>

[szrimaging]

<p>Andrew, currently I am just running Photoshop but will be adding in both Blender for 3D and an unknown as of yet program for video (my video needs are pretty limited at this point). The biggest reasons I hear for the Quadro cards is reliability, stability, and consistency. Having not had another laptop that I have calibrated on a regular basis, I can't 100% tell you this is true or not. But, by the time you get to machines like the W701, all that is usually offered is the Quadro cards.</p>

<p>I am, however, open to looking at the high end "entertainment/gamer" lines to see how they compare. It is quite possible that for video and photo work you don't need the highest caliber screen since your final output is rarely testing the full capability of those monitors. I may be overthinking things in saying I need to keep a workstation class machine.</p>

<p>What I need right now is some kind of test chart I can load onto a thumb drive and take to the store with me. Pull up the jpg on all the different machines and look to see how it compares on all the screens.</p>

[andylynn]

<p>Okay, I think I see now. You've got two independent variables: "workstationness" of the video card, and quality of the LCD screen. Quadros are Geforce GPU with some professional features (that are almost exclusively for 3D app use) enabled - you can identify the closest Geforce card and for anything but that limited number of uses, the Quadro and Geforce are identical. A Quadro card <em>would</em> outperform a Geforce or Radeon in Blender, if the GPU that's the basis of the Quadro were in the same league as the Geforce or Radeon GPU. So for example,<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Nvidia_graphics_processing_units#Mobility_Quadro"> from Wikipedia</a>, a Quadro FX 3800M is a G92M GPU with 128 shader cores at 675MHz. That's an improvement over a Geforce 9800M GTX, which is quite good, but it's 2 years old and a Radeon 5850 or 5870 or a Geforce 460 would be a couple notches above but less expensive. So my advice would be to look at higher end Radeons and Geforces (concentrate on Geforces if you see yourself using Premiere CS5 in the future).</p>

<p>Monitor quality is separate (a Quadro does not output more accurate color than a Radeon or Geforce) but it's hard to judge in the store because you can't tell whether a monitor is going to display accurately until you use a hardware calibrator on it, so displaying images on the floor models won't give you what you need. Unless the store's going to let you plug in a calibrator, install software and calibrate each screen you can't get anything definitive - best you can do is read up on web sites. Sorry I can't be more helpful on that.</p>

<p>Hope this helps.</p>

[szrimaging]

<p>Yep. It does. The Blender use will probably be pretty light at this point, so I am now thinking of going with a non-workstation class and still might grab an external monitor (the old one recently bit the dust). Thinking a core i5 with 8GB RAM would be peppy enough (I don't mind getting a cup of coffee while the video renders, since it will all be on my own time). Might also mean I can grab a 15" since I would be using an external monitor.</p>

<p>I really think I am overthinking my needs. 90% of the work I do at home is photography and programming...</p>

[andylynn]

<p>Asus has a couple of 15.6" models with quad i7, 1920x1080 screen and a decent Geforce card for under $1500.</p>

[garrison_k.]

<p>New Sandy Bridge laptops are expected soon in the new year</p>

<p>http://www.gadgetfolder.com/laptops-with-core-i7-2630qm-sandy-bridge-processor.html</p>

[szrimaging]

<p>Might be worth waiting for. I think I am waiting until February at the earliest to buy the next laptop.</p>

<p>I went to a PC sales/repair place in the nearest larger "town" and talked to them on reliability. His opinion was that Lenovo was the best company on the market followed by Asus and Acer. HP was good until they had all the issues with the Nvidia stuff. They do not handle Apple products, so no opinion on them was made.</p>

[andylynn]

<p>Then that would definitely be worth considering - Intel, said that their policy is that any new CPU line must have a substantial performance per energy use efficiency improvement over the previous generation, so presumably if notebooks based on the new CPUs are available then you can expect a bump in speed, battery life or both.</p>

[garrison_k.]

<p>I agree with your sales repair person and in that order. In my experience, Lenovo has always had better build quality and done so by being a little more expensive and a little slower as others in the same $ range. If you don't wish to consider Dell, I'd look at Asus next.</p>

[szrimaging]

<p>Well, I've narrowed it down to three Lenovos. They are all the Ideapad Y560, but now I can't decide the exact spec.</p>

<p>One is a core i5 (460M) with a 500GB HD and 32 GB SSD (guessing one of the hybrid drives) and 4GB RAM and BluRay ($1099). Option two is a core i7 (740QM) with 640GB (5400RPM), 6GB RAM and bluRay ($1199). Option three is a core i7 (740QM) with 500GB (not sure the speed), 4GB RAM, and DVD ($999). Option four could be a Core i5 (460M) with 6GB RAM, 500GB HD and DVD ($899).</p>

<p>The first two units are the latest editions of the IdeaPad, and I think they have upgraded the screen with each version (or at least the previous ones were upgraded over the originals). I can't decide on which one to get. Kind of leaning towards option one if a Core i5 is ok, or option three if I want an i7. Not too worried about a BluRay Drive (although it would be nice since all my newer movies are on BluRay). All four have a 1GB Radeon graphics card.</p>

<p>The other option is waiting until Feb/March for the i& Sandy Bridge to hit.</p>

[garrison_k.]

<p>For $1500, I'd jump on this personally.<br>

<br />Intel® Core™ i7-740QM (1.73GHz, 8 threads, turbo boost up to 2.93GHz, 6M cache)<br>

<br />12GB Shared Dual Channel DDR3 Memory<br>

<br />1.0TB (2 x 500GB 7200 RPM HDD)<br>

<br />NVIDIA® GeForce® GT 445M 3GB graphics<br>

<br /><br /><br />http://ecomm.dell.com/dellstore/basket.aspx?c=ca&cs=cadhs1&l=en&s=dhs&itemtype=CFG&oid=0f3de673-3226-4b0b-a8ac-85658ea788c7</p>

[szrimaging]

<p>Nein, going Lenovo. Their systems just feel good and quality. Dells always feel cheap to me. No offense (I know you keep trying to sell me on the Dells). I also get 24 months no interest through a specific store (although it should be paid off in 6), and they don't stock Dell.</p>

[garrison_k.]

<p>I agree. Their build quality is great. But I'd put up with that Dell for the bang-for-buck ratio :)</p>

[andylynn]

<p>You guys are talking about different classes of laptop - a sensible midsize vs. a much larger one that costs 50% more. Let's see, though - the Dell, my complaints would be size/weight, build quality and screen resolution (1600x900 in a 17.3" screen is low res). With the Lenovo, again screen resolution - 1366x768 in 15.6" is low res. Maybe it's available with more. Is it an Intel video card? For me that would be a dealbreaker - you want ATI (AKA AMD) or nVidia, with real (dedicated, discrete, onboard) memory instead of shared (or HyperMemory or TurboCache or whatever they're calling it these days) memory. If it's one of the models with the Radeon 5000-series GPU that should do fine.</p>

[szrimaging]

<p>ATI 5350 in the Lenovos with 1GB dedicated. Trust me, I know a thing or two about hardware. Just haven't kept up on the latest and greatest.</p>

<p>I guess my biggest issue is not knowing if the RapidDrive technology that powers the SSD would make the PC faster for editing than the faster Proc. If it doesn't, I could order the i7 with the 500GB for $100 less.</p>