• expired

Lenovo ThinkPad X13 Ryzen 5 Pro 4650U 6C/12T 8GB Ram 256GB SSD $1,259.30 @ Lenovo

1860
Intro

This is meant to be the successor to the X390 so it's meant to be Lenovo's premium 13 inch ultraportable. Don't think I ever saw the X390 this cheap.

Good 100%sRGB/72% NTSC screen. The 6c/12t Ryzen Pro processor on the base model is plenty fast, considerably faster than than the i7 Intels or the Ryzen 4500U you get in other laptops. Integrated graphics are on par with a NVIDIA MX250 so ok for light GPU work or eSports gaming

Upgrades are cheaper with the code too. RAM is soldered so get as much as you need now. Up to 32GB option available with the Ryzen 7

Don't forget cashback!

Related Stores

Lenovo
Lenovo

closed Comments

    • +20

      HP though…

      • +1

        Shame Lenovo don't have a Thinkpad Yoga with Ryzen 3rd gen. Otherwise there would be no question.

    • +24

      HP envy build quality doesn't compare to this. If you want a laptop that will be with you for more than 3 years..

      • could you pls go little in detail w this, I am also considering HP vs Lenovo. Thanks :)

        • +14

          HP's build quality really isn't the best, many of the repairs I had to deal with when working in retail were HP laptops. Anecdotally in my own experience the build quality isn't very good, and they tend to fail fairly quickly.

          Thinkpads are built very very well, I haven't had any issues with them, and quite often you'll see thinkpads that are ~20 years old that still work. You'll never get that from a consumer HP.

          Lenovo's cheap ideapads are built better than HP's cheap stuff (I've had both), I haven't had an expensive HP to compare it to though. Worth getting a thinkpad anyway.

          • +4

            @BenR31415: Agreed

            The ratio of hp and Acer's IV seen compared to all other brands with failed hinges is about 30 to 1

            And with the 360 folding designs it's only getting worse

          • @BenR31415: I concur. Typing this on a 9-year-old Lenovo W520 laptop in a perfect working order.
            I also have a work laptop, T490s which is awesome!.

        • +1

          thank you guys, that was awesome, comprehensive. I had my eyes on envy since the 45% promo few weeks ago but decided to wait for ryzen 4000. Imight stick to lenovo then. Thank you! @BenR31415 and @vanyellow

          • +2

            @stefanko: The only thing you regret with ThinkPad is it is only available in black!

          • +5

            @stefanko: Try to stick with their thinkpad rather ideapad line of products, noticeable difference is build quality and software support.

        • +1

          HP Envy is a consumer toy that looks cool with its thin bezels and aluminium panels, this is a real professional notebook for people who need to get work done.

        • +1 on Lenovo being generally tougher across the board - school kid proof.

  • What's lenovo warranty like these days?

    • +7

      I hear you send it back and hope you get sent a non-dud refurb within 3 months.

      • +2

        Worth the onsite warranty then. Have had zero issues with Lenovo's onsite warranty, besides the occasional tech screw up (forgetting to plug speakers back in, webcams, etc)..

  • +1

    says WWAN optional but cannot add it in

    • I think you need to choose the multi-touch screen which includes the WWAN option. The new configurator is a bit confusing and these sort of build quirks resulted in me getting a T14 instead (also on sale at the moment).

      • +3

        still nope for me.
        anyway i dont need it.
        still rocking my x1 carbon gen6 with 8th gen intel…maybe next year

        • Same, with the QHD screen. Magnificent machine.

    • I think you need to add the IR camera.

  • -3

    Further 6% on shopback??

  • Delivery dec 2020?

    • Says ships in 6-9 days

      • +1

        Means dec 2020 :P

        • +1

          I put in an order at the end of last month, got contacted late last week saying I should get the order in August.

          If you're getting a base unit it will be a couple of weeks, anything custom and you're looking at 5-6 weeks

    • +2

      By the time you receive it it would've become last gen

  • +2

    Is 8 gb of ram good enough these days?

    I am using a 16gb lenovo but it still struggles for work. I use it mostly for spreadsheets and have many google chrome tabs open (~15)

    • +9

      I think definitely spend another $67 to upgrade the soldered ram to 16Gb at least

      Fair point though, opening about 10 chrome tabs is already about 2Gb of Ram for me

    • +5

      really? Open system monitor and see how much RAM is free. 16 GB RAM is probably good for a couple huge spreadsheets and 50+ Chrome tabs.
      In fact I'm not sure if Excel can even use more than 1 GB RAM. Maybe Excel 64 can?

      • +1

        my laptop runs at 25% Ram capacity without doing anything on 16GB

        • +2

          windows 10 like all modern operating systems caches software to improve performance. Completely "free" memory is wasted resource - it only takes a millsecond to dump the cache if you need the cache allocation for something else.

          Also I have 16GB in my work laptop. Currently have outlook, excel, chrome (several tabs), zoom and only 6GB in use. Another 9GB is cached.

    • 8gig is fine for most people.. Our 45 laptops at work here all run 8 in business and are fine.

      but if its small change to add it - why not do it.

    • +2

      These Ryzen processors with Integrated graphics see a large performance gain with dual channel ram (multiple dimms installed) so I would recommend upgrading to 2x8GB if possible.

      • not possible in the X13 model. However you can spec it up to your needs. Many reviews have said the soldered ram makes use of dual channel.

    • +7

      Saying 8GB is good enough these days reminds me of certain people that said 20 megabit is all we need for the NBN…

      With all these cores, I doubt you can ever have too much RAM

      • -2

        The biggest demand on bandwidth is video streaming. 5 megabits is needed for HD streaming. 25 megabits for 4K streaming.

        Yes - for an individual 20 megabit is good enough and will be for foreseeable future.

        • +3

          How many houses have multiple streams running multiple screens though. Loungeroom 4k + 2 others with iPads HD already more than 20mbps.

          My 50mbps NBN frequently gives me 20mbps during peak times (Melb apartment), currently WFH and navigation around cloud folders and downloading large files could be much more seamless with faster speeds.

          I will upgrade to 100mbps (max avail to me) and see what that gets me next month but what I am saying is I am almost reaching the capacity of the network right now. What happens in 3 years time? New infrastructure shouldn't be nearly obsolete at the time of completion.

          • @coolhand:

            How many houses have multiple streams running multiple screens though. Loungeroom 4k + 2 others with iPads HD already more than 20mbps.

            Yep… that's why I said 20mbps per person. If you are household of 5 all possibly streaming different content at the same time, get 100mbps. It's easy math really.

            and navigation around cloud folders and downloading large files could be much more seamless with faster speeds.

            Navigation around cloud folders would have nothing to do with bandwith. Latency would be limiting factor here.

            As for downloading large files, are you sure your bandwidth is actually the bottleneck? I just tried downloading big file from Amazon S3 located in Sydney on 100mbps and I'm hitting 100mbps download speed. But downloading big file from Amazon S3 bucket located in Singapore, I'm getting only 15mbps on 100mbps connection. NBN is not the bottleneck. It's the international bandwidth in Australia. So depending where your "cloud folders" are hosted, you might see absolutely no improvement in download speeds.

            • +2

              @lubos: The point that I am making is 20mbps or even 100mbps is not enough for the foreseeable future -2-3 years time- it's barely enough today.

              You've obviously got an excellent NBN connection as you're hitting the max theoretical speeds, most do not.

              I am surprised someone who has an understanding of transpacific bandwidth and latency limitations isn't furious at the implementation of the NBN in its current state.

              • @coolhand: What makes you think bandwidth requirements for individual will increase when 4K streaming is getting pretty close to the max what human eye can perceive.

                I'd argue theoretical human bandwidth is definitely less than 100mbps. So what use-case would require higher bandwidth than the total bandwidth of all human senses combined?

                Edit: actually it turns out someone has calculated it and the human bandwidth for both eyes is 5.2 Gbps… so maybe 100mbps won't be enough for foreseeable future.

                • +2

                  @lubos:

                  So what use-case would require higher bandwidth than the total bandwidth of all human senses combined?

                  Working in a job that uses large files.

                  eg I do machine learning stuff. In the overseas office the various ~25gb datasets and ~3gb model files have a nearly imperceptible transfer time. Worst case, make a cup of coffee and it'll be finished when you get back.
                  From Aus, this can easily waste a workday. More if you actually need to try more than one thing, or want to experiment with something new. It's actually easier to remote into an overseas desktop when there's something urgent, despite the awful lag which still kills productivity. Then let my local PC download the same crap overnight to try and catch up the next day.

                  But I could already see another example of this nearly 10 years ago when working in building design. The software was designed to allow nearly real-time collaboration by various engineers in different offices. In practice, each office would sync up internally a few times a day, then because of slow internet, the various offices would meet every couple of weeks and exchange USB drives of their current work, then go back and sync everyone else's work locally. If things didn't line up, it'd be a big game of catch-up to get it all fixed. Those file sizes back then would be nearly pushing it at 100mbps, which means that even today it would be tricky to work from a slower home connection, even if no new features have been added in the last 10 years.

                  It's very lame that the case for slow internet came down to "I can already watch youtube so this is as good as it gets" like that's living in the future already. Incredibly small-minded.

                  • -4

                    @crentist:

                    Working in a job that uses large files.

                    So 0.01% of population.

                    Not to mention, in 10-20 years time, nobody will be downloading anything. We will be streaming. Now it's just videos, in future, it will be games, your complete programming environment will be on remote cluster of servers. You won't need to be downloading anything locally. Whether it's games or datasets for machine learning. This means our apetite for bandwidth will actually not increase by much.

                    But you might see the future differently. Fair enough. You see my view as small-minded… as if you know 100% I'm wrong.

                    • +3

                      @lubos:

                      So 0.01% of population.

                      Yea super small mind here. You could say 0.01% of the population does any particular kind of work, so why have infrastructure that does what only a few people need?
                      Hardly anyone drives trucks, works in factories, or fights fires, so why do we have highways, power grids, and water pressures made for those 0.01%?

                      We will be streaming.

                      You are dreaming. You assume that everyone on the planet shares the same usage and needs from their computers. This might be fine for the many consumers and office workers who do nothing but Netflix and Office 365, but areas like STEM and the arts will always have a need to work locally, and with large files. New technology is developed by scientists and engineers pushing existing technology more than everyone else, often in strange directions. It means that something like cloud computing can easily be too expensive, insecure, or inapplicable for many cases.

                      Besides, 100% streaming is more reason for high bandwidth. Especially if you think everyone is going to be completely dependent on it. It means that anyone with a bad connection would be unable to function at the same level as their peers.
                      Any architect or engineer already knows how bad a slight bit of performance lag can be in 3D modelling. It's why those guys get chunky laptops. Mix in some connection lag and you can kill all hope of productivity.

                      It's not about seeing the future, it's about seeing how things already work in the present.

                      • -2

                        @crentist:

                        Hardly anyone drives trucks, works in factories, or fights fires, so why do we have highways

                        Infrastructure where it's required. Not "just in case everywhere". Last time I checked, I didn't have a highway leading to my driveway.

                        areas like STEM and the arts will always have a need to work locally, and with large files

                        Not true. There is a shift to thin clients and work being done on remote datasets. As an example, Google engineers do not download Google index onto their computer so they can improve some sorting algorithm.

                        Besides, 100% streaming is more reason for high bandwidth. Especially if you think everyone is going to be completely dependent on it.

                        Not true. Calculate how much bandwidth is required to stream desktop screen. It's negligent amount. It's significant for 4K video but still within what we have today. Latency is becoming bigger limiting factor than bandwidth and I think this is the direction we will go. Decreasing latency. 5G is good step in the right direction.

                        • @lubos:

                          Infrastructure where it's required. Not "just in case everywhere". Last time I checked, I didn't have a highway leading to my driveway.

                          If the cost (and size) were the same, you should have a highway to your driveway, just in case. Rolling out new but already obsolete infrastructure, like putting copper in new builds, is a deliberate choice to install less, for no benefit.

                          Not true. There is a shift to thin clients and work being done on remote datasets.

                          A shift in work styles just means that thin clients are possible and have benefits in some cases, not that they are a one-size-fits-all model. Don't let one group of people fool you into thinking that everyone wants or needs the same thing.
                          More to the point, they are a model that depends on higher bandwidth, as they are basically just an evolution of VPNs and corporate intranets, that are more reliable and user friendly than 10 years ago. And they could still develop much further.

                          Their purpose is to use higher bandwidth and local computing power to centralise even more expensive computing and storage.
                          But even then, there's still going to be local prototyping. And people generating their own data etc. And an overall squeezing of any available bandwidth and computing power at all ends.

                          • @crentist:

                            If the cost (and size) were the same, you should have a highway to your driveway, just in case.

                            I agree but that's a big "if". Are you saying the cost of FTTP and FTTN is the same?

                            there's still going to be local prototyping. And people generating their own data etc. And an overall squeezing of any available bandwidth and computing power at all ends.

                            Fair enough. How many people in Australia are we talking about? 10,000 at most? If I'm one of those 10,000, I will have no choice but to live in the house with FTTP.

                            • @lubos:

                              Are you saying the cost of FTTP and FTTN is the same?

                              Worse. FTTN ended up being $14b more expensive, at $51b instead of $37b.

                              FTTP was initially estimated by Labor at $43b, then revised down to $37.4 as they started actually building it.
                              Then the Libs said it was too expensive and claimed they could do FTTN for a mere $29.5b before the election, which went up soon afterwards and ended around $51b.

                              $8b was never much for the nation's biggest infrastructure project, but the promise of meager savings ended up in a very expensive downgrade. Hence the frustration on the topic.

                              How many people in Australia are we talking about?

                              People, but also businesses and such in unrelated fields. Foreign company I work often has customers trying to find factory defects, or improve security, or automate farm production, or remote infrastructure monitoring etc.
                              It usually amounts to "we have a few images/videos of this job, can we automate it?" and then we do some research and play around with various datasets while telling them to send us a crapload more data of their specific application.

                              • @crentist:

                                Worse. FTTN ended up being $14b more expensive, at $51b instead of $37b.

                                Neither estimate did include $11 billion payment to Telstra. And not sure how much to Optus. So just like Liberal implementation would go over the estimate. So would Labor implementation go over the estimate by many billions.

                                Anyway… if there is going to be political apetite for FTTP, it can still be done. The cost for FTTP would be far lower now since existing FTTN infrastructure can be leveraged. However I don't think there is going to be commercial apetite for FTTP for the reasons stated in my previous comments.

                                • @lubos: That is the true tragedy you can't actually leverage much of the existing FTTN infrastructure it's pretty much a start from scratch scenario.

                                  The logical view is well if FTTN cost blew out by this much then FTTP would have been twice as expensive. But actually as anyone who has worked on an infrastructure or construction project knows trying to make ad hoc upgrades to an exisiting building or piece of infrastructure is often more expensive than just starting from scratch because for example the documentation of service locations and depths is so inadequate you just never know what you will find vs a set design.

                                  Consider building to exactly the same template x200,000 streets vs integrating in to random placement x200,000 streets.

                                  Basically I wouldn't be surprised if FTTP was actually cheaper than FTTN or at the most a similar cost. The cost is in labour and excavation not the material.

                                  So we've ended up with an undeniably inferior solution that probably cost more and to do it properly we would have to start from scratch.

                                  You seem open minded so I'm just trying to help you see another side of this even if you think we don't need the bandwidth…we probably could have had it for free

                                  • @coolhand:

                                    That is the true tragedy you can't actually leverage much of the existing FTTN infrastructure it's pretty much a start from scratch scenario.

                                    Chorus in New Zealand have gone from DSL to FTTN and then finally to FTTP. This is how their FTTP per household cost was so low, they were leveraging existing FTTN infrastrucure. Connecting residences to existing fibre nodes.

                                    Basically I wouldn't be surprised if FTTP was actually cheaper than FTTN or at the most a similar cost. The cost is in labour and excavation not the material.

                                    In countries where they were upgrading DSL to FTTP or FTTN at the same time (e.g. Germany or South Korea), FTTP ended up being 50% more expensive per household. I think this is how Liberals have calculated their "savings" over Labor proposal. It was really lazy math on their part.

                                    It's true that FTTN in Australia is the most expensive FTTN in the world. But I think that's more to do with NBN being a government agency with no disclipline to question every dollar expense.

                                    My final point is that going from DSL to FTTP would be cheaper (Labour proposal) than going from DSL to FTTN and then to FTTP. But no way DSL to FTTP would be cheaper than DSL to FTTN.

            • @lubos: I voted you up because your reply was concise and informative.

      • +1

        8GB is good enough for majority of people.

        If you have a specialist application then go for more ram. Just because someone said so doesn't mean it is the truth. Each to their own. If I only intend to keep it for 2 years 8GB might be enough. 4-5 years definitely 16GB but by then you might have DDR6.

        • is keeping a laptop only for 2 years common now? I've had my personal Surface book for 4 years and it seems to be struggling with simple stuff.

          • @hhuy837: does it have a SSD? if not upgrading to a SSD will speed up to a greater extent.

          • @hhuy837:

            If I only intend to keep it for 2 years

            IF.

        • -1

          The people who only need 8GB of memory don't need a 6 core CPU. Lol

    • +1

      "I am using a 16gb lenovo" is not enough information for anyone to adequately assess if your laptop is underperforming.

      To make a proper assessment, we need to know:

      a) the rest of the specs,
      b) if your work uses their own SOE (and therefore combination of background and security software impacting performance), and
      b) what it is you do for work / how you use the laptop.

      In most use cases, 16GB is plenty.

      • true, my laptop has 32GB RAM but it's no powerhouse being about 8 years old.

  • +1

    Great deal OP.

    Does anyone know if the ram configurations are dual channel for 8gb and 16gb? I'm assuming no for 8gb and yes for 16gb?

    Also, thoughts on the $200 upgrade to Ryzen 7 4750U?

      • I wouldn't really trust that, the X390 was dual channel throughout, and 32GB is impossible in a laptops without dual channel RAM. Other sources also say dual channel

        https://www.ultrabookreview.com/35819-lenovo-thinkpad-x13-yo...

        • -1

          I just had a chat to a Lenovo rep and they were adamant that it was all single channel, even for the Ryzen 7 32gb configuration.

          Very strange…

          • +3

            @Dr PhilGood: Please don't ever take the reps word for it. Unfortunately they make lots of mistakes, especially regarding the screen. I have posted the spec sheet for the Australian version of the X13 if required.

            https://psref.lenovo.com/syspool/TempFile/cache/acce90e8-b89f-4ef9-8ada-343e93242232/ThinkPad_X13_Gen_1_(AMD)_single_model_202007112331.pdf

            • @shellshocked: Thanks for that. I may be missing something but I still can't see anything in there about the channel configuration - only that it comes in 8, 16, and 32gb variants.

              • +1

                @Dr PhilGood: Unfortunately I have been searching for this information everywhere regarding the X13, without success. I can only relate to the previous AMD 13" version, the X395. It was single channel in 8gb, but dual channel with 16GB soldered.

        • -1

          I think it is dual channel on the Intel version only

          • +1

            @ln28909: The Intel versions are also single channel for the 8gb spec and run with slower 2666 memory vs 3200.

            • @shellshocked: X13 and T14s are apparently sharing the same motherboard - which is why they have the same user guide. So X13 should be dual channel.

      • I bought an X395 (previous gen) 16gb model and it was dual channel as reported in CPU-Z

      • https://youtu.be/4ApLmn8bJgE

        confirms there are 2 x 16GB samsung soldered (on the 32gb model) & reported as dual channel on his benchmark.

    • I would go for the 4750 for the 2 extra cores which is 50% more. You cant upgrade the CPU down the track.

      • +1

        *33% more

        • +2

          lol yes. If only I had some Zen cores to work this out for me…

  • +1

    $1575
    Added:
    16GB of RAM
    Multitouch screen
    Fingerprint reader
    Backlit keyboard
    2 Years of on-site service

    Pretty reasonable compared to XPS13 prices nowadays (that and the XPS13 screen has pathetic amounts of ghosting when you simply drag a window around)

    • I regret my XPS13 purchase, they don't seem to be able to fix the coil whine.

      • +2

        Similarly regretting mine but coil whine isn't very audible. I just find the screen to be so bad in comparison to my old 2016 MBP, not only the ghosting but the quality really drops off once you start lowering brightness which is what you always do on a bloody laptop. And if you had the stock Killer card, wifi drops galore and nothing fixed it. Immediately went away once I dropped in an Intel card.

        • How does quality drop with lower brightness?

        • Hmm you must have an older model then? The 2020 version (9300) doesn't have a replaceable WiFi card.

      • Still? Christ. This has been an issue for years

    • and lots of ports on this one!

    • +1

      If you add $25 more, you get 3% off.

  • +1

    300nits screen only, non-upgradeable.

    The T14 can be upgraded to 400nits

  • +1

    What's the catch with nits and ntsc values these days? Everybody's talking about these in every laptop deal.

    • +9

      Screen brightness and colour reproduction. Higher the percentage the better the colour (covering a wider area known in the colour gamut).

      Brightness is measured in nits. 300 is probably fine for most unless your room is very bright. The higher the number, the brighter the panel. I believe the 400 nit version of this screen has smearing issues despite being "higher quality".

      Colour reproduction is important, but in a laptop in this price and lower, trade-offs have to be made. I think the premium Microsoft and Apple devices have a higher price because by default, their screens are a lot better as well as the build, but don't hold me to that - that's just a guess.

      For Lenovo and the like to offer great specs compared to the premium devices, trade-offs are made in the chassis quality and screen. I'd argue that you shouldn't be buying these machines if colour reproduction is important to you.

      • +1

        Thank you guys.

    • +6

      A lot of cheaper laptops are coming with low brightness (measured by nits) and colour inaccurate (measured by the percentage of the sRGB or NTSC spectrum they get right). They can look ok for general use if they're IPS style screens with decent contrast, but the colours won't look right and they're totally unsuitable for photo or video editing.

      E.g. the Ideapad 5 comes with a 250nit 45% NTSC display. The HP deal from yesterday comes with a 220nit 45% sRGB display that has bad viewing angles as well (because it's TN and not IPS like)

      It's not a problem for this laptop which has good colour accuracy and average brightness

      • Yes i see that. My point was it wasn't talked this much before. Probably, so many people work from home now and they buy new laptops? I think this could be the reason.

        • +5

          Yeah as screen quality manufacturing keeps getting better we are able to see the differences between a good and bad screen and it's getting cheaper to produce low-quality screens - so it's getting more and more common for cheaper laptops have decent CPU etc but a terrible screen that actually makes it unpleasant to use, especially after getting used to brighter and better screens.

          So now users and reviewers are finding it more and more a requirement to let people know the quality of the screen. Considering that for most of us the thing we interact with the most is the screen - I think it's always worth buying a better screen. You're going to spend thousands of hours staring at it, may as well make it worth your while.

        • Also because increasingly more people aren't going instore to actually see the quality of the product. So people rely on objective measurement.

  • I wish these had the thunderbolt 3 port of the Intel X13, it looks like the AMD versions do not, instead the extra port is listed as some kind of docking ethernet enhancement or something.

    • +5

      TB3 is still an intel thing

      • I thought Intel made it royalty free?

        • +2

          maybe for everyone except AMD….

    • +1

      Without thunderbolt3 what are the options if I want to add multiple screens. Will usb-c to display port cables work or not?

      • yes

      • This laptop will only display to 1 external monitor via HDMI.

        To display via the USB-C 3.2 Gen 2 it has to have DP (display port) functionality, which this laptop doesn't have.

  • How does this laptop compare to the Thinkpad X1?

    • It is about 200-300g heavier, and doesnt have the exotic materials or TB3

Login or Join to leave a comment