05-20-2012 05:55 PM
This is a similar question to one that has been asked before, but I just want to make sure.
I'm about to pull the trigger on getting a Thinkpad W520, and was wondering on whether to get the system with an NVIDIA Quadro 1000M or the 2000M. The later is a $250 upgrade, has double the CUDA cores, uses 55W rather than 45W, and from what I heard is they are essentially the same chip, but the 2000M is 50% more powerful than the 1000M.
I've tried researching about these two but I'm still having trouble deciding. Is it worth the upgrade? Is the power consumption that much of a difference? (I don't know much about 45W vs 55W). Will it make my system run considerably hotter? I probably wouldn't tell the difference now, but I was thinking that the 2000M would be more future proof, since it is twice as powerful.
Solved! Go to Solution.
05-20-2012 06:37 PM
Thanks to the Optimus GPU switching you aren't going to see a difference in power consumption unless running a game or 3D app that will trigger the discreet graphics to be used. In that case you are probably going to be plugged into the wall anyways.
Being worth the money or not depends on what you are using it for. If you are going to be playing games on it and want to make full use of a 1080p screen it is probably worth upgrading rather than being unsatisfied with the performance and not being able to do anything about it. It could also be worth it if you work with 3D apps for visual effects, game development, etc.
No hardware is really future proof and you'll always be better off in the long run by getting a cheaper option that is good enough for what you need now and saving that money to buy another laptop later.
05-20-2012 09:23 PM
Seriously...it doesn't matter...
If you want to talk about future proof, put that 34mm ExpressCard slot to good use and get an external solution.
I hooked up a desktop GTX 670 to my W520 now.
05-21-2012 01:00 AM
I see, I guess I will be sticking with the 1000M. Thank you guys for your replies.
I was looking at the specs of the two, and for the 1000M it has 700 MHz of core clock, and 1400 MHz of shader clock, whilst the 2000M has 550 core and 1100 shader. Does anyone know what the means in terms of performance?
05-21-2012 01:32 AM
05-21-2012 10:40 AM - edited 05-21-2012 10:41 AM
The 2000m has 192 CUDA cores which is great for applications that can take advantage of them (Adobe Premiere, After Effects, Maya, etc.) while the 1000m has 96.
The performance difference is really going to be up to you depending on what applications you use most. If you do a lot of video editing, graphics work, etc. the 2000m might be a good fit.
05-21-2012 10:47 AM
If you are planning on using Adobe Creative Suite 6, you should know that the 2000M is officially supported for the Mercury Playback Engine, while the 1000M is not.
05-21-2012 05:56 PM
carage, Can you show how this gpu looks like? Thanks
05-22-2012 01:56 AM - edited 05-22-2012 01:56 AM
Mercury support isn't all that important as in CS5 it was just a simple addition to the text file.
Anything Nvidia with over 768MB of RAM will work in Premiere.