1. Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

Lenovo ThinkPad T430u Ultrabook Arrives Later This Month

Discussion in 'News' started by btarunr, Aug 9, 2012.

  1. btarunr

    btarunr Editor & Senior Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Messages:
    28,847 (11.08/day)
    Thanks Received:
    13,714
    Location:
    Hyderabad, India
    Lenovo may have scored a lot of attention with its $1,400 X1 Carbon Ultrabook, but it's the ThinkPad T430u Ultrabook, which featured at CES 2012 (January) that has consumers looking forward to, due to its US $779 price-point. The T430u borrows several design elements from its more expensive sibling. The Ultrabook is said to be available later this month. The 14-inch Ultrabook comes equipped with a 1366 x 768 pixels screen, Intel Core "Ivy Bridge" processor, 8 GB of dual-channel DDR3 memory, HDD or optional 128 GB SSD, and optional GeForce GT 620M graphics.

    [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]

    Source: Engadget
     
  2. dieterd New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2011
    Messages:
    120 (0.09/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2
    eh - why they put in these 620M - I bet nvidia is selling their old GF108 (40nm and that is preprevious gen. 420m-435m) for like 1$/1kg or something - but why they bother tu put them inside? I mean HD4000 is almost as capabale as that old peace of heat and noise. but unfortunatley - this is like trend in newest ultrabooks :(. I dont need that extra 1fps in low res gaming if I spend my money for overpriced SSD driven lightweight thinny, "shiny" thing!
     
  3. CounterZeus

    CounterZeus

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2009
    Messages:
    227 (0.12/day)
    Thanks Received:
    43
    Location:
    Belgium
    This puts my Lenovo netbook to shame....Hopefully the touchpad is a bit better than the last X series. Trackpoint makes up for it though.
     
  4. Andrei23 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2010
    Messages:
    243 (0.17/day)
    Thanks Received:
    25
    768p is crap
    is crap
    crap
    ________________________
    CRAP
     
    Breathless and 1c3d0g say thanks.
  5. CounterZeus

    CounterZeus

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2009
    Messages:
    227 (0.12/day)
    Thanks Received:
    43
    Location:
    Belgium
    More than enough for a 14"
     
    timmyisme22 says thanks.
  6. Frick

    Frick Fishfaced Nincompoop

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2006
    Messages:
    10,886 (3.41/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,395
    Totally.
     
    CounterZeus says thanks.
  7. Fourstaff

    Fourstaff Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2009
    Messages:
    9,202 (5.05/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,985
    Location:
    Home
    Your post is crap, CRAP, CRAP

    At least give a reason why it is crap.

    In my opinion 768 for 14" hits the sweet spot between balancing gaming needs and nice screen. I would even downgrade a 900/1080 screen to native 768 to get a few more fps for my games.

    Also, I think we should ban all the trolls for shitting in all screen related threads: 768 is crap, TN is crap, no 1440 -> crap, no 120Hz -> crap etc. If those retards are not happy with the product in question they can either make a constructive criticism or GTFO.
     
  8. diopter

    diopter

    Joined:
    May 22, 2012
    Messages:
    34 (0.04/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2
    I use an 11" laptop and 1366 x 768 still irritates me. I don't use it for gaming; that's what my desktop at home is for.
     
  9. Frick

    Frick Fishfaced Nincompoop

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2006
    Messages:
    10,886 (3.41/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,395
    Why does that irritate you at 11"? :wtf:
     
  10. diopter

    diopter

    Joined:
    May 22, 2012
    Messages:
    34 (0.04/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2
    Same reason it does at any screen size. Not enough work space. Menu items eat up so much of the vertical area.
     
    Completely Bonkers says thanks.
  11. 1c3d0g

    1c3d0g

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2007
    Messages:
    699 (0.27/day)
    Thanks Received:
    59
    Also, a high DPI ensures smooth font rendering. For some of us, that is more important than anything else in a notebook.
     
    Completely Bonkers says thanks.
  12. Frick

    Frick Fishfaced Nincompoop

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2006
    Messages:
    10,886 (3.41/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,395
    Then maybe such small computers is not for you? I mean there is a limit to how small you can make things. It's natural that smaller size = smaller workspace.
     
  13. Andrei23 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2010
    Messages:
    243 (0.17/day)
    Thanks Received:
    25
    Insults over the internet always get me. On topic, I find it surreal that people are defending 768p on.... a tech site. That is depressing. The truth is 768p is a horrible resolution for productivity, which this laptop (a T series) is designed for. It's not meant to be a consumer, but rather a business laptop. The fact that there are 10 inch tablets out there that sport higher resolution screen should make one wonder. But hey, if you think that 768p is enough for you, then that's your problem. The rest of us need decent resolutions to enhance our productivity, not some shitty low resolution designed for cheap consumer laptops.
     
  14. n-ster

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2009
    Messages:
    8,864 (4.14/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,405
    Yea 768p is not that great.... but did you guys notice THE FREAKING PRICE???????? you want higher res, pay for it DUHHH
     
  15. CounterZeus

    CounterZeus

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2009
    Messages:
    227 (0.12/day)
    Thanks Received:
    43
    Location:
    Belgium
    A 14" is not even a screen size where you can productively work on, so it makes no sense to put a high resolution screen in it. Half of the things would be almost unreadable or workable.
     
    Last edited: Aug 9, 2012
  16. devguy

    devguy

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2007
    Messages:
    1,239 (0.44/day)
    Thanks Received:
    171
    Location:
    SoCal
    My view on resolutions/screen size for 16x9 screens:
    MINIMUM:
    7" - 1024x600
    10.1/11.1/12.1" - 1366x768
    13.3/14.1/15.6" - 1600x900
    >15.6" - 1920x1080

    But as mentioned, this is a cheaper "Ultrabook", so don't expect such high-end features at this combo of price and thickness.
     
  17. Completely Bonkers New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    2,580 (0.91/day)
    Thanks Received:
    516
    This CRAP y768 screen is just a bait and switch to the "true" X1 Carbon Ultrabook which offers a much better 1600 x 900

    1366 x 768 is SO 2009 Atom netbook
     
  18. n-ster

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2009
    Messages:
    8,864 (4.14/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,405
    2009 atom netbook is 1024x600
     
  19. Completely Bonkers New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    2,580 (0.91/day)
    Thanks Received:
    516
    Not the ones I bought. (SONY)
     
  20. n-ster

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2009
    Messages:
    8,864 (4.14/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,405
    oh you mean those super expensive ones... probably costs a lot more than the standard netbook... everyone wants a better screen etc, but you have to pay for it, don't expect the cheapest entry-level 3rd gen ultrabook to have a better than standard screen
     
  21. Fourstaff

    Fourstaff Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2009
    Messages:
    9,202 (5.05/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,985
    Location:
    Home
    Where should I start?

    There is nothing wrong with 768p on 14inch and below. Not everyone have superman eyes capable of unlimited resolution, and as long as Microsoft does not have a native upscaling tool I don't think small icons and words will be appreciated by the elder crowd. I dare to go further and claim that non-widescreens are more productive than widescreens. At least there are laptops (even within T series) which have high resolution screens you so covet. Not many 16:10 laptop out there, and I don't bitch about it like a retard, because I know if its essential for my work I will be able to find one.

    The truth? What truth? Do you have studies to back it up, or just anecdotal evidence seen by your eyes? I can equally claim that 768p for 14" is the sweet spot for productivity from my experience seeing hundreds of people working in my university's library, but I do not because I don't have any evidence to back it up, nor would it be representative of the business community.

    Before I escalate our squabble, I would like to clarify that in my opinion the main difference between a consumer laptop and a business laptop is the difference between a tough well build laptop to survive daily use and the security features (among others) which come with it compared to a disposable consumer one. If you do not agree with my definition, we can fix it somewhere, shoot me a PM.

    The difference between a consumer laptop and a business laptop has been blurred over the past few years. This is especially true for the low end business laptops where the build quality is no different from consumer ones, like Dell Vostro and HP Probook. Doubtless ThinkPads are also dragged into this game.

    The OS of the tablet in question is optimised for high resolution, I am waiting for Microsoft to optimise their OS to accommodate high res screens before I start complaining. Also, its currently significantly more expensive to create a screen with a higher resolution than one with a lower resolution, and as long as the low res fabs are still in good working condition I don't think there will be a change anytime soon. The recession did not help to speed up the retooling schedule.

    When my old HP died I briefly used a Sony Vaio S 13.3" 1080p (borrowed from a friend). My productivity did not increase significantly, so you can say I am optimised for 768 screens.

    Then get the other ThinkPads, this is not the only ThinkPad out there. The screen resolution for ThinkPads T series go all the way to 1600x900, and if that is not enough you can opt to get the W Series laptops for even higher resolution. Failing that, MacBook Retina Display goes all the way to 2880x1800. Is it necessarily to scream loudly a product is crap because its not designed with you in mind? If so, then you are no better than the clueless idiots. If not, then why did you not think about others before you write "crap crap crap" without justifying?

    The great shame of TPU users: we (me included) don't read before posting.


    Don't think you can mistake a Carbon X1 with this one, they don't really look the same to begin with (other than the "ThinkPad look"). Also, how can you not differentiate between two products where one is almost 2x the price of the other one?

    Unfortunately, 1366x768 became the standard for 14" laptops since 2009 while you were sleeping.
     
    Last edited: Aug 10, 2012
    Frick says thanks.
  22. Melvis

    Melvis

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2008
    Messages:
    3,593 (1.47/day)
    Thanks Received:
    529
    Location:
    Australia
    bla bla bla bla when is the Thinkpad X131e coming?
     
  23. 1c3d0g

    1c3d0g

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2007
    Messages:
    699 (0.27/day)
    Thanks Received:
    59
    :shadedshu You must think very highly of yourself, Fourstaff, by belittling people online with your useless words. I'm a lot less kind in real life to people such as yourself, so I'll be short and polite online in saying that you can keep using your shitty 768p resolution while the rest of us use a higher, superior resolution to our liking. And it doesn't matter what you think, because this industry is moving forward with better displays, whether you like it or not.
     
    Andrei23 says thanks.
  24. Fourstaff

    Fourstaff Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2009
    Messages:
    9,202 (5.05/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,985
    Location:
    Home
    I don't think highly of myself, everything I say I specifically mark it with "I think" or equivalents unless I can back it up with evidence. If you still feel insulted with the way I speak perhaps we can arrange some English lessons to fix the way I converse through the internet.

    This is my original point, 768p is a very usable resolution at a very nice price even if you don't like it. I got angry because Andrei23 just spewed shit out of his entitled mouth without provocation and justification. This is, to me, an insult to the TPU's community, because I believe TPU is above petty mudslinging and useless posting which is so prevalent in other websites. And I generally don't get angry, this is probably my 2nd time in 4000+ posts that I deliberately set out to insult someone. My apologies for being a hypocrite.

    Indeed the industry is moving forward with better displays, Macbook's Retina Display is one of the first. However, Microsoft the current state of affairs is incapable of elegantly supporting screens with higher display (we have gone through this, a simple search will lead you to many fine examples), the only options for people with poor tired eyes is to use a screen with less dpi. I welcome progress, but I am not going to sacrifice a workable solution in the name of advancement.

    September
    http://www.lenovo.com/products/us/laptop/thinkpad/x-series/x131e-amd/
     
    n-ster and Melvis say thanks.
  25. Frick

    Frick Fishfaced Nincompoop

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2006
    Messages:
    10,886 (3.41/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,395
    Heh, it was the other people belittling if anything. He had lots of good points imo. How close do you have to sit to actually use 1920x1080 on a 14" laptop properly? Sure you can screw up the DPI but then the point of a larger work space is lost anyway.
     
    Fourstaff says thanks.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guest)

Share This Page