Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Tablet Review

Communication and Security

Powering the ThinkPad X1 Tablet’s wireless is the commonly-found Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 8260, which is a 2x2 WLAN adapter featuring speeds up to 867 Mbps. This adapter also includes Bluetooth 4.2 connectivity. Naturally, there is no Ethernet adapter present on the ultra-thin body of the ThinkPad X1 Tablet, so keep this in mind if you normally depend on one at the office.

As for the two cameras, the front-facing (fixed focus) 2.0 MP webcam provides a middle-of-the-road picture quality for occasional videoconferencing, while the rear 8.0 MP auto-focus camera does a pretty respectable job of reproducing natural colors, but does lack some of the definition and detail of a dedicated camera—or, say, a superior smartphone camera (such as that on the Samsung Galaxy S7). Still, in a pinch, both cams do a decent enough job.

TPM is included, as well as a one-touch fingerprint reader at the bottom of the screen.

Accessories and Warranty

The power adapter which ships with the X1 Tablet is a very compact (184 g) 45 W USB Type-C adapter with a convenient design. The unit includes a 1-year depot warranty standard, though upgraded plans are available. In addition to the two items we cover in detail below, as previously mentioned, a few other modules also exist to expand the X1 tablet’s capabilities. These include a Presenter Module, a Productivity Module, and a 3D Imaging Module, all of which are sold separately.

ThinkPad Stylus Pen (included)

Not to be confused with the rechargeable Yoga pen, the X1’s ThinkPad Stylus Pen now leverages a single AAAA battery (no longer rechargeable), and features a thicker diameter than its Yoga counterpart. The tip is also a bit shorter, though this isn’t likely to bother most people (it’s still visible while drawing). The pen secures to the side of the keyboard cover via an attachable loop, or it can be held in a special caddy which—oddly enough—inserts into the tablet’s USB port. A third option also exists (perhaps by accident) if the keyboard cover isn’t in use: it can be magnetically attached to the bottom of the tablet, where it remains securely in place, similarly to the Surface Pro 4’s Surface Pen.

The pen worked well during our time with it, though it isn’t quite as fully-featured as the Surface Pen. For starters, the writing tips aren’t swappable, though most users aren’t likely to miss this. The Surface Pen’s eraser tip on the rear is also absent. The tip does glide across the screen more freely, too, thanks to the fact that the material is plastic as opposed to the rubbery composite used in the Surface Pen. Regardless, the performance is still quite good with 2048 levels of pressure sensitivity, and when paired with the preloaded WRITEit app, it makes text entry into just about any field with the pen pretty painless.

ThinkPad Thin Keyboard (MSRP $150)

The only separately-sold accessory we received for testing with our unit was the mainstay keyboard cover, which Lenovo calls the ThinkPad Thin Keyboard. Although the screen is covered with a layer of Corning Gorilla Glass, the keyboard cover also folds over to protect it completely while travelling. Attaching and detaching the Thin Keyboard is quick and easy thanks to the series of magnets responsible for managing the process. The keyboard base appears to be constructed of the same PPS Hybrid Injection plastic composite which comprises much of the ThinkPad line today; that gives it a relatively rigid feel in spite of its light weight. It can be twisted, which produces uncomfortable noises and accidental clicks by the integrated touchpad buttons—but when closed against the tablet this is not likely to occur.

We measured an average brightness of 315 cd/m², which is quite good, though not as bright as most competitors (which range between 301 and 399 cd/m²). The brightness distribution of 85% means that the screen appears relatively uniform across all quadrants to the naked eye. Meanwhile, the contrast ratio of 460:1 is the weakest link here, with some competitors (such as the Surface Pro 4 and the Dell XPS 12) topping 1000:1. Still, the picture quality is overwhelmingly positive.

Our panel analysis further reveals an sRGB gamut coverage of 93%, which is plenty for most users, and which is the reason for the aforementioned vividness of the picture. AdobeRGB coverage is less impressive, of course, at just 57%. While most users will be satisfied with these values (which best those of the Asus Zenbook UX305CA, HP Spectre x2 12, and especially the Toshiba Portege Z20t-B-10C), both the Surface Pro 4 (63% AdobeRGB) and Dell XPS 12 9250 (86% AdobeRGB) manage better results overall.

CalMAN 5 measurements indicate a CCT average of 7671, which is a bit on the cooler side (ideal: 6500). Total Gamma was measured at 2.12, which is close to the ideal value of 2.2. Meanwhile, the average Colorchecker and Greyscale DeltaE values of 5.33 and 5.36 respectively are tolerable, but not competitive with those of the Surface Pro 4 or the Dell XPS 12, both of which yield values in the range of 2.5 to 4 (in this case, the ASUS Zenbook UX305CA actually does well also).

Outdoors, the device fares well in the shade, but is difficult to manage in direct sunlight thanks to its highly reflective display. Viewing angles, on the other hand, are comfortably wide thanks to the versatility of the IPS panel.

Owing to the lack of a cooling fan and this ultra-power-efficient chipset, it’s reasonable to expect lower performance than, say, that of a Core i5-powered Surface Pro 4. Nevertheless, an m7 with a 7 W TDP at its disposal ought to be able to put up respectable numbers (as mentioned above, the Core m7-6Y75 is normally 4.5 W TDP, but it appears that via cTDP Up Lenovo has increased the TDP to 7 W).

Of course, the question is whether or not the device can sustain adequate performance under load (under the constraints of passive cooling) to justify the TDP boost and the m7 chip. As always seems to be the case with passively-cooled devices, sustained performance on the X1 Tablet is hampered by thermal constraints over moderate to longer length stress periods, especially in multicore applications. This is exemplified in our x264 results, wherein the first run we recorded 104 fps during Pass 1, but in each subsequent run, the performance slowed to just 84 fps. We observed the same behavior in our stress testing later on.

However, it is worth mentioning that despite these (predictable) limitations, the m7 still manages appreciably faster performance in many single-threaded applications, such as wPrime 2.0x (698 seconds vs. the Surface Pro 4’s 788 seconds), Super Pi (640 seconds vs. SP4’s 898), and Cinebench R15 (119 points versus SP4’s 88 points). With a couple of exceptions, the X1 sweeps the rest of the field also in most every benchmark, whether single- or multi-threaded—though the results in multi-threaded applications are generally less pronounced. Ultimately, general performance will be absolutely sufficient for even the most discerning everyday business user, provided regular CPU-heavy tasks (video editing, hi-res photo manipulation) are not part of the equation. Whether the added cost for the m7 specifically is justified, on the other hand, is another question entirely, and one which will need to be decided on a per-user basis.

As alluded to above, general system performance is snappy and without frustration. The X1 Tablet positively demolishes its passively-cooled competitors in every PCMark 8 test we threw at it, winning by margins ranging from 3% up to 24%. See our graphs below for much more detail on these results.

Of course, a large part of the nimble overall system performance can be attributed to the Samsung PM871 SSD, which—while not NVMe—still yields respectable numbers with good 4K read performance. The AS SSD total score of 997 is nothing to sneeze at.

Clearly, the X1 Tablet isn’t meant for any sort of gaming or heavy GPU operation; still, its performance is serviceable for basic operations and even perhaps some older games. With 3DMark Fire Strike and 3DMark 11 scores of 762 and 1154, respectively, these 4.5 W TDP chips are capable of more than many 15 W TDP solutions from a few years ago. Interestingly, the SP4, with its Core m3, manages higher scores across the board—further emphasizing the criticality of the balance between power and thermal management as it pertains to sustained performance on these passively-cooled devices.

Devices lacking a cooling fan always succumb in one way or another to extreme stress testing, again, due to their aversion to handling sustained loads. But what will be particularly interesting here is to see just how much the m7 upgrade actually buys you over competitors’ m5 and m3 chips, which are considerably less expensive.

During our CPU stress test, the CPU frequency (max: 2.9 GHz with 2 cores) initially begins above 2.0 GHz, but shortly thereafter bottoms out at a stable 1.9 GHz. Bear in mind that the Surface Pro 4 in our testing (with its Core m3 SoC) managed a stable 2.0 GHz—so this suggests that under very heavy loads, the m3 SP4 can actually outperform the m7 ThinkPad X1 Tablet in longer-term benchmarks. However, these scenarios are not realistic, and as corroborated by our previous benchmarks, the X1 still has a practical edge over the SP4 when equipped with the m7 chip.

The same situation applies to the GPU. When stressed, it initially manages clock rates in the 900 MHz range, but it isn’t long before it stabilizes instead between 548 MHz and 598 MHz. The SP4, again, manages stable rates of between 648 MHz and 698 MHz, which suggests better graphical performance. However, unlike with regard to CPU performance, the GPU thermal constraints actually do bear out in real-world performance; this is the reason the SP4 is able to post higher GPU benchmark scores than the X1 Tablet, even in spite of the X1 Tablet featuring a much more powerful SoC with ~18% higher potential top-end GPU clock rates.

Considering the data thus far, it’s no surprise that combined CPU and GPU stress produces an equivalently rough situation for the X1 Tablet as compared to its m3-powered competitor. The X1 CPU manages a measly 798 MHz while the GPU clocks in at 449 MHz—this compared to the SP4’s 1 GHz / 599 MHz in that same situation.