lmao, AMD attracts worst specs all around. 1366x768 panel in 2019? That's outright criminal. Does Windows 10 even run at this resolution without complaining that your desktop is too small or require scrolling in every app?
The intel equivalent X390 has the same crappy 768p panel paired with an i5-8265U and 8GB single channel memory. It's not (entirely) AMD's fault, more a reflection of the business laptop market which doesn't prioritize high resolution screens on the lowest spec offerings.
Guys, its not just about screen resolution... People would need zoom eye specs to view if you squeeze so many pixels in small screens.. Unlike mobile phones, these are laptops which would have a eye to screen distance to cover... Physical ability of eye has not improved for generations...
Well, that's good for you if you like TN panels with 768p resolution in 2019. I'm glad to know a customer exists for laptops like these because I can't rationalize them.
That's because you don't support users in an enterprise environment, where users need to be able to use applications developed in-house 10-20 years ago. If you did, you'd know that a 13" screen at 1080p for a 40yo user and an app that isn't DPI-aware is a terrible mix.
Then you don't work in IT. I have several applications I support that do not play nice with HiDPI or Windows 10's text scaling. It's practically a waste to buy 1080p laptops because we end up turning the resolution down to 1366x768 anyways. More often than not when I deploy a batch a new machines I will get two or three tickets that day complaining that they cant read anything.
Having the 1366x768 option saves my department money because we don't have to spend it on features that will never be used. These are work computers, not toys. Nobody is watching movies on them.
Can't you just double the resolution on the old apps?
HiDPI screens offer much better contrast and legibility for text, the major business use case. Movies are just fine on 768p. On my old screen I used to see rasters after working all day on them. Now, things are wonderful.
I recommend staying away from windows 10 altogether as it's full of spyware/malware/ad spam. It is, by far, the most abusive OS microsoft has created, and even though it may initially be more difficult, moving to a linux build may be the only option to regain the freedom and control they wish to take away from us.
1366x768.... is not enough resolution to run many of the building HMIs I design it will scale down though it makes it ugly. 1080p honestly is the lowest resolution anyone should he buying these days... 1366x768 doesn't save you that much money but it does mean you can *fit less work on the screen* Also, most people should be buying 15in laptops for work... not 13in unless you really want that smaller size typically you pay a premium for smaller so a 17in can end up cheaper than a 13-15in model.
1080p at 100% scaling (or even 125%) is perfectly adequate on a 13" display, and anything more is a waste of battery power. How close to your face do you usually use your laptop, really?
That's only 170 PPI, significantly less than the 220 DPI that's been standard on Apple laptops for years; I notice considerable eye strain when reading text at worse displays. 220 DPI might be good enough but it's not overkill, just average, and not as good as the human eye can perceive. Dell's XPS 13 even comes in at 330 DPI.
Must be great to have Superman eyes. I have a 14" HP that has a 1080 screen and I need 150% setting in Windows to comfortably use it. I ALWAYS use an external monitor (two, actually) int he office, both 24" and running at 1080. It's PLENTY. Higher res just means using scaling, and web sites STILL don't work well with that, even if most apps handle it just fine. Or maybe it's just web browsers running under Windows that don't handle it very well. I am strongly considering upgrading my main home system from 23" displays to 27" - still at 1080. Just to make it easier to see. Not everyone wants or needs an ultra high resolution, and certainly not for basic business applications. These are not exactly desktop replacement machines. Documents, email, browsing - perfectly fine in 1080, even 768. 768 does not work for me, simply because my job involves a lot of remoting into and configuring systems, where the server screen itself needs 1024x768 to be usable, so the laptop needs to be better. Specs here seem pretty decent, it's not some bargain basement $300 laptop piece of junk using AMD, and STILL the AMD fanboys aren't happy.
I have normal 20/20 vision and mostly look at text; the difference in readability is significant enough that it's stressful to go back. Of course one would use scaling – ideally exactly 200%. No idea what you mean about websites not working; maybe that's a Windows bug.
Many enterprises choose to save money with the 1366x768 display option, which is why Lenovo still offers it. I'm sure that Lenovo would love to get rid of that option, but does not as enough customers express demand for that particular option.
I imagine that a lot of business users have docking stations; I certainly do, and nearly every person I work with who has a dock also has a secondary display. 768p is a bit of a downgrade, however, especially if you're used to a 1080p panel.
Lenovo has a thing for using crappy low-res panels for their entry-level SKUs of Thinkpad laptops. Nothing AMD-specific about that, look at the Intel-based X390 or X280. Reasonably sure it's a battery life thing, but it's still quite inexcusable in 2019.
What does that have to do with AMD at all? Intel based business laptops across the spectrum still have crappy 768p TN panels, it's not unique to Thinkpads nor AMD based systems. It's a symptom of the market segment, not CPU vendor-specific.
That said, over $1000 for a laptop with anything less than a 1080p screen is indeed criminal.
Probably the 1366x768 is needed to hit the power budget. A higher res screen would likely draw down the battery too quickly for the marketing people (who draw up the specs for the engineers to hit).
Not to defend Lenovo and their shit quality over the last decade, but HP and Dell do the same thing...although not on flagship laptops. The Elitebook 8xx series can still be had with 768p screens but they have never had shitty screens on the Elitebook 1xxx series afaik. And this Thinkpad is totally in that category - having a starting price of over $1000.
Which is really comical because the only reason to get a Lenovo over a Dell or HP is if its substantially cheaper. Historically that was the case but not so anymore.
Windows 10 is very not recommended. It's chock full of spyware/malware/ads that have to update themselves constantly. 7 may be better, although they're trying to force it out of existence with a glut of bad hardware designed to not work with it. Thinkpads have traditionally worked with linux very well, and I suggest Mint as an alternative to windows.
Acer Matebook with a Ryzen 2500U owner here - the battery life is really good - 10+ hours internet browsing is no issue. The OEM just needs to do it right.
Elitebook 745 with 2700U owner here. Battery life is a third less than intel equivalent. I'm holding a rollout hoping for a widespread fix with these 3x00U processors.
TBH, I do not have the Intel based counterpart to compare my Matebook to, but as my use case does not involve letting it idle for prolonged periods (i.e. not for hours) on battery (I do what I want to do with it and then shut it down), maybe the Idle issue does not affect me that much.
Still, any improvement to battery life is always welcome :)
Intel (Killer is just custom software on Intel hardware now), Broadcom, Qualcomm/Atheros, RealTek, and RaLink are the ones I know of. Although the last two aren't that common as builtin/included wireless solutions; they're more common in USB wireless sticks.
This looks very good, particularly the simple fact that AMD chips are moving up the ThinkPad product stack. Given that I got a new work laptop less than half a year ago I'll won't be getting this, but I'll definitely be interested in a year when 7nm APUs come around. ThinkPad quality + a 15W 4c8t APU with some real gaming potential (and hopefully improved idle power draw)? Yes, please.
Still happy I bought my yoga 2 pro with a 3200x1800 IPS screen in 2014 for just over 1k. I'm amazed that size never caught on. Full HD is a gimmick on a laptop.
Your not using that screen at it's native resolution...you probably have the size cranked to like 200% just to be able to see anything...there's no benefits gained aside from saying you have it.
Well actually, my eyes are quite good. Not all programs work nicely with that resolution. I have it at 100% but 150% at my wife's account. So I definitely get your point. that not that far of FHD workspace. A lot of people see the crispness immediately though. (and might assume I work with a magnifier).
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
53 Comments
Back to Article
coder543 - Thursday, May 9, 2019 - link
I think the T495 and T495s that were announced at the same time are also notable: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2019/05/lenovo-add...timecop1818 - Thursday, May 9, 2019 - link
lmao, AMD attracts worst specs all around. 1366x768 panel in 2019? That's outright criminal. Does Windows 10 even run at this resolution without complaining that your desktop is too small or require scrolling in every app?Destoya - Thursday, May 9, 2019 - link
The intel equivalent X390 has the same crappy 768p panel paired with an i5-8265U and 8GB single channel memory. It's not (entirely) AMD's fault, more a reflection of the business laptop market which doesn't prioritize high resolution screens on the lowest spec offerings.HStewart - Thursday, May 9, 2019 - link
https://www.lenovo.com/us/en/laptops/thinkpad/thin...Dharan - Friday, May 10, 2019 - link
Guys, its not just about screen resolution... People would need zoom eye specs to view if you squeeze so many pixels in small screens.. Unlike mobile phones, these are laptops which would have a eye to screen distance to cover... Physical ability of eye has not improved for generations...niva - Monday, May 13, 2019 - link
Well, that's good for you if you like TN panels with 768p resolution in 2019. I'm glad to know a customer exists for laptops like these because I can't rationalize them.Daeros - Tuesday, May 14, 2019 - link
That's because you don't support users in an enterprise environment, where users need to be able to use applications developed in-house 10-20 years ago. If you did, you'd know that a 13" screen at 1080p for a 40yo user and an app that isn't DPI-aware is a terrible mix.zmatt - Tuesday, May 14, 2019 - link
Then you don't work in IT. I have several applications I support that do not play nice with HiDPI or Windows 10's text scaling. It's practically a waste to buy 1080p laptops because we end up turning the resolution down to 1366x768 anyways. More often than not when I deploy a batch a new machines I will get two or three tickets that day complaining that they cant read anything.Having the 1366x768 option saves my department money because we don't have to spend it on features that will never be used. These are work computers, not toys. Nobody is watching movies on them.
wmertens - Tuesday, June 18, 2019 - link
Can't you just double the resolution on the old apps?HiDPI screens offer much better contrast and legibility for text, the major business use case. Movies are just fine on 768p.
On my old screen I used to see rasters after working all day on them. Now, things are wonderful.
Anonymous123 - Thursday, August 1, 2019 - link
I recommend staying away from windows 10 altogether as it's full of spyware/malware/ad spam. It is, by far, the most abusive OS microsoft has created, and even though it may initially be more difficult, moving to a linux build may be the only option to regain the freedom and control they wish to take away from us.cb88 - Friday, August 23, 2019 - link
1366x768.... is not enough resolution to run many of the building HMIs I design it will scale down though it makes it ugly. 1080p honestly is the lowest resolution anyone should he buying these days... 1366x768 doesn't save you that much money but it does mean you can *fit less work on the screen* Also, most people should be buying 15in laptops for work... not 13in unless you really want that smaller size typically you pay a premium for smaller so a 17in can end up cheaper than a 13-15in model.eva02langley - Thursday, May 9, 2019 - link
You can upgrade to a 1080p FHD IPS Freesync touchscreen.Valantar - Friday, May 10, 2019 - link
FreeSync? Do you have a source for that?bubblyboo - Friday, May 10, 2019 - link
https://www.pcmag.com/news/368186/lenovo-tips-thin...https://gadgets.ndtv.com/laptops/news/lenovo-think...
akvadrako - Friday, May 10, 2019 - link
1080p is still inadequate. I haven't considered buying a laptop without a high-dpi screen for 5 years now. It would be nice to have some AMD options.Valantar - Friday, May 10, 2019 - link
1080p at 100% scaling (or even 125%) is perfectly adequate on a 13" display, and anything more is a waste of battery power. How close to your face do you usually use your laptop, really?akvadrako - Friday, May 10, 2019 - link
That's only 170 PPI, significantly less than the 220 DPI that's been standard on Apple laptops for years; I notice considerable eye strain when reading text at worse displays. 220 DPI might be good enough but it's not overkill, just average, and not as good as the human eye can perceive. Dell's XPS 13 even comes in at 330 DPI.ACE76 - Friday, May 10, 2019 - link
The DPI on a laptop is not the same as a smartphone...try using a 4k laptop screen at native resolution...even on a 17 inch, it's completely useless.timecop1818 - Sunday, May 12, 2019 - link
I have 13" 4K laptop and I find it immensely more useful than if it was 1080p.Valantar - Thursday, May 16, 2019 - link
And what percentage of scaling do you run it at? 200?rrinker - Friday, May 10, 2019 - link
Must be great to have Superman eyes. I have a 14" HP that has a 1080 screen and I need 150% setting in Windows to comfortably use it. I ALWAYS use an external monitor (two, actually) int he office, both 24" and running at 1080. It's PLENTY. Higher res just means using scaling, and web sites STILL don't work well with that, even if most apps handle it just fine. Or maybe it's just web browsers running under Windows that don't handle it very well. I am strongly considering upgrading my main home system from 23" displays to 27" - still at 1080. Just to make it easier to see. Not everyone wants or needs an ultra high resolution, and certainly not for basic business applications. These are not exactly desktop replacement machines. Documents, email, browsing - perfectly fine in 1080, even 768. 768 does not work for me, simply because my job involves a lot of remoting into and configuring systems, where the server screen itself needs 1024x768 to be usable, so the laptop needs to be better.Specs here seem pretty decent, it's not some bargain basement $300 laptop piece of junk using AMD, and STILL the AMD fanboys aren't happy.
akvadrako - Friday, May 10, 2019 - link
I have normal 20/20 vision and mostly look at text; the difference in readability is significant enough that it's stressful to go back. Of course one would use scaling – ideally exactly 200%. No idea what you mean about websites not working; maybe that's a Windows bug.viggy96 - Thursday, May 9, 2019 - link
Many enterprises choose to save money with the 1366x768 display option, which is why Lenovo still offers it. I'm sure that Lenovo would love to get rid of that option, but does not as enough customers express demand for that particular option.Cliff34 - Thursday, May 9, 2019 - link
That's what I think. Save money but you lose productivity with a low res screen.silverblue - Friday, May 10, 2019 - link
I imagine that a lot of business users have docking stations; I certainly do, and nearly every person I work with who has a dock also has a secondary display. 768p is a bit of a downgrade, however, especially if you're used to a 1080p panel.Daeros - Monday, July 15, 2019 - link
More like make it easier for your late 40's users to see an aging, unchangeable, internally developed application.Valantar - Friday, May 10, 2019 - link
Lenovo has a thing for using crappy low-res panels for their entry-level SKUs of Thinkpad laptops. Nothing AMD-specific about that, look at the Intel-based X390 or X280. Reasonably sure it's a battery life thing, but it's still quite inexcusable in 2019.kaidenshi - Friday, May 10, 2019 - link
What does that have to do with AMD at all? Intel based business laptops across the spectrum still have crappy 768p TN panels, it's not unique to Thinkpads nor AMD based systems. It's a symptom of the market segment, not CPU vendor-specific.That said, over $1000 for a laptop with anything less than a 1080p screen is indeed criminal.
ACE76 - Friday, May 10, 2019 - link
"That said, over $1000 for a laptop with anything less than a 1080p screen is indeed criminal."Go tell Apple that..
Xyler94 - Friday, May 10, 2019 - link
Please tell me the latest Apple Macbooks that have less than 1920x1080 resolution?jtd871 - Friday, May 10, 2019 - link
Probably the 1366x768 is needed to hit the power budget. A higher res screen would likely draw down the battery too quickly for the marketing people (who draw up the specs for the engineers to hit).rahvin - Friday, May 10, 2019 - link
I was going to post the same "criminal" statement about a 1366×768 resolution panel, especially a TN panel.Any laptop with a 1366×768 resolution panel is a joke of a product. Just a straight up joke.
Samus - Friday, May 10, 2019 - link
Not to defend Lenovo and their shit quality over the last decade, but HP and Dell do the same thing...although not on flagship laptops. The Elitebook 8xx series can still be had with 768p screens but they have never had shitty screens on the Elitebook 1xxx series afaik. And this Thinkpad is totally in that category - having a starting price of over $1000.Which is really comical because the only reason to get a Lenovo over a Dell or HP is if its substantially cheaper. Historically that was the case but not so anymore.
Anonymous123 - Thursday, August 1, 2019 - link
Windows 10 is very not recommended. It's chock full of spyware/malware/ads that have to update themselves constantly. 7 may be better, although they're trying to force it out of existence with a glut of bad hardware designed to not work with it. Thinkpads have traditionally worked with linux very well, and I suggest Mint as an alternative to windows.Rookierookie - Thursday, May 9, 2019 - link
Given Lenovo's battery time claim with the E585, I expect the "real" battery life for this to be about 5 hours of internet browsing.StevoLincolnite - Thursday, May 9, 2019 - link
Yep. Also an E585 owner... About 5 hours is what I get.Waiting on the 7nm Ryzen chips before I upgrade my notebook though, if it's next year, then so be it.
Irata - Friday, May 10, 2019 - link
Acer Matebook with a Ryzen 2500U owner here - the battery life is really good - 10+ hours internet browsing is no issue. The OEM just needs to do it right.velanapontinha - Friday, May 10, 2019 - link
Elitebook 745 with 2700U owner here. Battery life is a third less than intel equivalent. I'm holding a rollout hoping for a widespread fix with these 3x00U processors.Irata - Friday, May 10, 2019 - link
TBH, I do not have the Intel based counterpart to compare my Matebook to, but as my use case does not involve letting it idle for prolonged periods (i.e. not for hours) on battery (I do what I want to do with it and then shut it down), maybe the Idle issue does not affect me that much.Still, any improvement to battery life is always welcome :)
Hurn - Thursday, May 9, 2019 - link
Anyone taking bets on whether it'll be crippled with a single memory channel? Hint: Look at their track record with previous AMD systems.Rookierookie - Thursday, May 9, 2019 - link
You mean the fact that Lenovo has offered dual-channel options for pretty much every Ryzen model that they released?trivik12 - Thursday, May 9, 2019 - link
AMD laptop with intel wireless. Interesting. How many different vendors create Wifi cards. I know Intel and Killer(and Broadcom?).phoenix_rizzen - Friday, May 10, 2019 - link
Intel (Killer is just custom software on Intel hardware now), Broadcom, Qualcomm/Atheros, RealTek, and RaLink are the ones I know of. Although the last two aren't that common as builtin/included wireless solutions; they're more common in USB wireless sticks.piroroadkill - Friday, May 10, 2019 - link
I'm so tired of 16:9 laptop screens.. They just look wrong - huge bezels top and bottom, and small ones to the sides.Daeros - Monday, July 15, 2019 - link
Right? Wouldn't this be great at 1920x1200? Or even 1920x1440?!cen - Friday, May 10, 2019 - link
Sold!Valantar - Friday, May 10, 2019 - link
This looks very good, particularly the simple fact that AMD chips are moving up the ThinkPad product stack. Given that I got a new work laptop less than half a year ago I'll won't be getting this, but I'll definitely be interested in a year when 7nm APUs come around. ThinkPad quality + a 15W 4c8t APU with some real gaming potential (and hopefully improved idle power draw)? Yes, please.Foeketijn - Friday, May 10, 2019 - link
Still happy I bought my yoga 2 pro with a 3200x1800 IPS screen in 2014 for just over 1k. I'm amazed that size never caught on. Full HD is a gimmick on a laptop.ACE76 - Friday, May 10, 2019 - link
Your not using that screen at it's native resolution...you probably have the size cranked to like 200% just to be able to see anything...there's no benefits gained aside from saying you have it.Foeketijn - Friday, May 10, 2019 - link
Well actually, my eyes are quite good. Not all programs work nicely with that resolution.I have it at 100% but 150% at my wife's account. So I definitely get your point. that not that far of FHD workspace. A lot of people see the crispness immediately though. (and might assume I work with a magnifier).
kf27fix - Friday, May 10, 2019 - link
Another laptop with a big black bar below the screen - no, thank you, I'll wait for a 4:3 or 3:2 screen.