I was using my ThinkPad X230 for some months now and I was very satisfied with it, it worked fine, its performance for my everyday tasks was very good and I liked the portability of the machine and that that battery lasts very long. But at some time I needed a faster machine with a bigger display and better graphics, especially for games. So I just recently switched to a ThinkPad P50.
I wanted to do a comparison between the P50 and my elder ThinkPads because I like to compare things and I wanted to share my results with you. Also, there not many benchmarks for the P50 and the M1000M so I think that I can help some people make a decision.
First of all here are the technical details of all machines:
ThinkPad P50
-
Intel Core i7–6700HQ CPU 2,6 – 3,5 GHz, 6 MB Cache, 4 cores / 8 threads
-
16 GB (2x8GB) of Micron DDR4-2133 RAM in a dual channel configuration.
-
Windows 10 Professional 64 Bit
-
NVidia Quadro M1000M driver version: 362.00
ThinkPad W701
-
Intel Core i7–720QM CPU 1,6 – 2,8 GHz, 6 MB Cache, 4 cores / 8 threads
-
12 GB (2x2GB + 2x4GB) of Crucial PC3-10700 RAM in a dual channel configuration.
-
Windows 10 Professional 64 Bit
-
NVidia Quadro 2800M driver version: 9.18.13.4181 (NVidia version 341.81)
ThinkPad X230
-
Intel Core i5-3320M CPU 2,6 – 3,3 GHz, 3MB cache, 2 cores / 4 threads
-
8 GB (4 + 4) of Crucial PC3-12800 RAM in a dual channel configuration.
-
Windows 10 Professional 64 Bit
-
Intel HD 4000 driver version: 10.18.10.4276
ThinkPad T520
-
Intel Core i5-2410M CPU with 2,3 – 2,9 GHz, 3MB cache, 2 cores / 4 threads
-
10 GB (8 + 2) of PC3-10700 RAM in a dual channel configuration.
-
Windows 10 Professional 64 Bit
-
Intel HD 3000 driver version: 9.17.10.4229
-
NVidia NVS 4200M driver: 10.18.13.5362 (NVidia Version: 353.62)
The results show that the Intel HD 4000 in the X230 is very capable and in most cases faster than the discrete NVidia NVS 420M card! The least capable card is, as was to be expected, the Intel HD 3000.
The M1000M destroys the other machines, it is the most up to date chip. It is about 4-6 times faster than the Intel HD 4000 in my X230 and should satisfy all my current gaming needs.
Overall, the single core CPU performance improvement from the i5-25410M up to the Core i7-6700HQ is noticeable and is about 67%!
|
Test |
X230 |
T520 |
T520 |
W701 |
P50 NVidia M1000M |
|
Geekbench 3.3.2 Single Core |
2707 |
2131 |
2131 |
1642 |
3579 |
|
Geekbench 3.3.2 Multi Core |
5757 |
4603 |
4603 |
4404 |
12720 |
|
Cinebench R15 OpenGL |
19,14 fps |
10,78 fps |
– |
31,8 fps |
92,7 fps |
|
Cinebench R15 CPU |
272 cb |
225 cb |
225 cb |
231 cb |
676 cb |
|
Cinebench R15 CPU Single Core |
108 cb |
77 cb |
77 cb |
66 cb |
145 cb |
|
Unigine Heaven 4 (1366×768,high) |
12,3 fps |
8,6 fps |
7,1 fps |
22,8 fps |
66,9 fps |
|
Unigine Heaven 4 (1920×180,high) |
6,2 fps |
4,3 fps |
3,7 fps |
12,6 fps |
37,9 fps |
|
Unigine Valley 1.0 (1366×768,high) |
10,3 |
9,9 fps |
5,6 fps |
17,6 fps |
61 fps |
|
Unigine Valley 1.0 (1920×180,high) |
6,4 fps |
5,6 fps |
3,3 fps |
11,6 fps |
37 fps |
|
Resident Evil 5 Test 1 (1368×768), AA off, DX10 |
40,2 fps |
38 fps |
23,9 fps |
79,8 |
181,7 fps |
|
Resident Evil 5 Test 1 (1920×1080), AA off, DX10 |
24,1 fps |
22,5 fps |
14,4 fps |
57,1 fps |
139,8 fps |
|
Resident Evil 5 Test 2 (1368×768), AA off, DX10 |
34,9 fps |
32,2 fps |
17,2 fps |
54,1 fps |
129,1 fps |
|
Resident Evil 5 Test 2 (1920×1080), AA off, DX10 |
19 fps |
19,9 fps |
12,9 fps |
47,2 fps |
107,4 fps |
|
Final Fantasy XIV – 1368×768, DX11, Notebook(high) |
1857 |
1380 |
– |
– |
9204 |
|
Final Fantasy XIV – 1920×1080, DX11, Notebook(high) |
816 | 740 |
– |
– – |
5335 |
|
Final Fantasy XIV – 1368×768, DX9, Notebook(high) |
1910 |
2035 |
1199 |
4934 |
11737 |
|
Final Fantasy XIV – 1920×1080, DX9, Notebook(high) |
1112 |
1216 |
687 |
3144 |
7515 |
|
3DMark 11 |
715 |
688 |
– |
– |
4658 |
|
3DMark – Fire Strike 1.1 |
552 |
403 |
– |
– |
3387 |
|
3DMark – Sky Diver 1.0 |
2013 |
1460 |
– |
– |
10890 |
|
3DMark – Cloud Gate 1.1 |
4426 |
2910 |
– |
– |
15803 |
|
3DMark – Ice Storm 1.2 |
49678 |
27459 |
– |
– |
85452 |
|
Half Life 2 – Lost Coast (1368×768, DX9) |
193,2 fps |
138,4 fps |
75 fps |
218,6 fps |
275,7 fps |
|
Half Life 2 – Lost Coast (1920×1080, DX9) |
83,3 fps |
83,8 fps |
41,5 fps |
197,5 fps |
271,4 fps |
|
Tomb Raider(1366×768) |
37,3 fps |
33,3 fps |
22,8 fps |
85,8 fps |
220,8 fps |
|
Tomb Raider(1920×1080) |
20,9 fps |
18,0 fps |
11,2 fps |
48,8 fps |
120,2 fps |
|
Stalker DX10, 1368×768, high preset – day |
27,0 fps |
27,0 fps |
16 |
70 |
141 fps |
|
Stalker DX10, 1368×768, high preset – night |
28,0 fps |
23,0 fps |
15 |
66 |
140 fps |
|
Stalker DX10, 1368×768, high preset – rain |
30,0 fps |
25,0 fps |
17 |
73 |
155 fps |
|
Stalker DX10, 1368×768, high preset – sun shafts |
14,0 fps |
14 0 fps |
7 |
33 |
79 fps |
|
Stalker DX10, 1920×1080, high preset – day |
17 fps | 16 fps | 10 |
46 |
97 fps |
|
Stalker DX10, 1920×1080, high preset – night |
16 fps | 13 fps | 8 |
41 |
87 fps |
|
Stalker DX10, 1920×1080, high preset – rain |
17 fps | 14 fps | 9 |
43 |
94 fps |
|
Stalker DX10, 1920×1080, high preset – sun shafts |
8 fps | 7 fps | 3 |
19 |
45 fps |
|
Stalker DX11, 1368×768, high preset – day |
26,0 fps |
27,0 fps |
– | – | 150 fps |
|
Stalker DX11, 1368×768, high preset – night |
27,0 fps |
26,0 fps |
– | – | 152 fps |
|
Stalker DX11, 1368×768, high preset – rain |
31,0 fps |
28,0 fps |
– | – | 173 fps |
|
Stalker DX11, 1368×768, high preset – sun shafts |
13,0 fps |
12, 0 fps |
– | – | 82 fps |
|
Stalker DX11, 1920×1080, high preset – day |
15 fps | 16 fps | – | – | 107 fps |
|
Stalker DX11, 1920×1080, high preset – night |
15 fps | 14 fps | – | – | 100 fps |
|
Stalker DX11, 1920×1080, high preset – rain |
16 fps | 15 fps | – | – | 110 fps |
|
Stalker DX11, 1920×1080, high preset – sun shafts |
7 fps | 7 fps | – | – | 48 fps |
|
Street Fighter 4, 4xAA – 1368×768 |
5089 |
5872 |
4322 |
8339 |
16160 |
|
Street Fighter 4, 4xAA, 1920×1080 |
3932 |
4541 |
3579 |
6309 |
11110 |
Here are the settings for the different benchmarks:
