Can you PLEASE update the performance numbers, at least the most essential ones?
No sane person would order the single channel config without planning to upgrade to higher capacity dual channel, so the performance numbers are just useless and not representative of what you'd get with much more sensible dual channel configs.
Especially considering the lower power limits, knowing whether the 255h can compete keep up with the e16, which has a higher pl2, would be incredibly useful.

This Configuration already Cost Grant yet they can't even provide dual channel ramstick out of the box? Zenbook S14 did the same except miles cheapers

What's is their mind?

Please bring out the AMD variant review as soon as possible! The weight difference is quite significant, AMD may have a better thermal unit.

Quote from: Logoffon on September 10, 2025, 03:48:29Of course they had to lock HRR display with absurdly and needlessly high display res. Do they really think that everyone who wants higher refresh rate also wants higher resolution?

What's wrong with higher res? 150% scaling is identical in real estate as 1920x1200 but with 242.5 PPI instead of 161.7 PPI with 1920x1200 native (100% scaling).

In other words, identically sized as 1920x1200, but 49.9% sharper image with significantly better clarity. What's not to like? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I mean, let's put it this way - would you rather have 2,304,000€ or "absurdly and needlessly high" 5,184,000€? Because the latter is how many pixels is there in this 2.8K display here. 1920€ per month or 2880€ per month? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Edit: Being short-sighted my eyesight is not particularly impressive, but I would never go back to 1200p at 14". Never. I have a 2560x1440 14" X1 Carbon set at 160% scaling (which is in size identical as 1600x900) and a 2560x1600 165 Hz 16" P1 Gen 2 set at 125% scaling (identical in size as 2048x1280). I would LOVE to have a 4K in my P16 G2 and scale it at 200% (so 1920x1200 with superior sharpness over native 1920x1200 100%), I simply notice lower pixel-density in a 2" larger display. 1920x1200 is about fine for 13.3" displays though (X13 for example), that's decent-ish at 170.2 PPI, but 2.2K (2240x1400) would be optimal at 198.6 PPI, scaled at 125% gives 1792x1152 which is plenty of real estate for a 13.3" screen.

My friend has a 1920x1200 14" X1 Carbon and the difference is night and day; mine looks like looking at a smartphone screen, his looks painful to use when there is a lot of text to display, there simply isn't enough sharpness to comfortably read. Again, I'm not blind but I'm short-sighted yet I can see each pixel on his 1200p 14" display at a normal viewing distance. They are not huge, of course, but they are visible at around 0.16 mm dot pitch as opposed to ~0.12 mm on my higher-res display.

Of course they had to lock HRR display with absurdly and needlessly high display res. Do they really think that everyone who wants higher refresh rate also wants higher resolution?

Funny and equally sad that the biggest improvement (the screen) is not available anywhere.

Quote from: hh on August 04, 2025, 10:55:34In my experience, the remaining time on battery icon is only 3-4 hours at 120Hz, the 2.8k ips display running at 60Hz default, this article says it could last 12 hours in WLAN use... what?

The silver color is plastic, looks cheap and feels bad when you typing, only the A side(back of the display panel) is made of aluminum. I don't recommend anyone buy silver

The highres 120Hz display option for this laptop is not available to purchase from anywhere.

the Cooling size are Big boye, and i love it, and the fact it can hold steady 28W at 75 Degree are just....fantastic.

In my experience, the remaining time on battery icon is only 3-4 hours at 120Hz, the 2.8k ips display running at 60Hz default, this article says it could last 12 hours in WLAN use... what?

The memory single-channel description is misleading. It can run at dual channel given there's 2 sodimm are installed.

Reference: psref.lenovo.com/syspool/Sys/PDF/ThinkPad/ThinkPad_E14_Gen_7_Intel/ThinkPad_E14_Gen_7_Intel_Spec.pdf