HP EliteBook 8760w: Color, So Dreamy
by Dustin Sklavos on August 25, 2011 2:30 AM ESTHP's Cruelest Cut: DreamColor in 1080p
I'm not usually one to complain about the difference between 1080p and 1200p in a notebook screen, but the shift to a 16:9 aspect from the HP EliteBook 8740w to the 8760w just rubs me the wrong way. It's true that 1920x1200 screens are going the way of the dodo (which is why I'll run my three into the ground), but I don't know who else is even using HP's DreamColor IPS panel to begin with.
Desktop users have already had to make the uneasy compromise of having 27-inch IPS monitors with a higher resolution than their predecessors (2560x1440) in exchange for losing 30-inch monitors almost entirely, but you can at least argue there's some kind of win there since previous generation 27-inchers were 1920x1200 affairs. But in the case of the HP EliteBook 8760w, this is strictly a loss and it sours what's otherwise an absolutely stellar screen.
At least we can take comfort in knowing the 1080p DreamColor IPS display is a slight upgrade to its predecessor. Once again, the screen's Delta E doesn't peak and valley anywhere near as much as many cheaper TN panels do, and the color gamut offered is frankly outstanding. Contrast is also excellent, though the 8760w's panel does suffer from ever so slightly higher black levels than its predecessor.
As befitting an IPS panel, viewing angles on the 8760w are fantastic. Honestly, the screen really needs to be seen in person to be believed. Colors pop beautifully (and may actually feel oversaturated thanks to the high color gamut), and at least our gaming tests never looked more vibrant and alive...except on the 8740w. That's why it stings so much to have lost the 120 pixels of vertical real estate; DreamColor is a costly $650 upgrade ($100 more than last generation!) as it is.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
83 Comments
View All Comments
Death666Angel - Friday, August 26, 2011 - link
You guys really need an edit button ;) at least for a few minutes. I forgot to say thanks for the reply!DanNeely - Friday, August 26, 2011 - link
Got a question for Brian, why are the manufacturers phasing them out less than a year after launching new models? I'd assumed that the 2011 models would be around for at least a few years like their 07/08 ancestors were.JarredWalton - Friday, August 26, 2011 - link
I think it's mostly that the manufacturers aren't going to be making any new versions of their 30" panels. Heck, HP has been selling the LP3065 for a very long time, and while it's a great 30" panel, the lack of any improvements over a 4 year span is pretty shocking. Now, they're figuring they can make a 27" LCD and sell it for nearly the same price, and get more of them per glass substrate.Death666Angel - Saturday, August 27, 2011 - link
<<Now, they're figuring they can make a 27" LCD and sell it for nearly the same price, and get more of them per glass substrate. >>I really don't see that idea taking off.
Sure, with professional monitors the class of Eizo and NEC which are used in business environments, it can work as price is only a small fraction of the consideration (although especially business environments with the need for big software will likely still want the 16:10 aspect ratio).
But I doubt anyone in their right mind will take to the idea of paying the same price for 27" monitors that you used to pay for 30" monitors. With the switch from 16:10 to 16:9 in the 21"-27" scene, at least you also got decreased prices across the board.
DanNeely - Saturday, August 27, 2011 - link
HP has replaced the LP3065 with the ZR30w earlier this year. With the 30" model being a top end item aimed primarily at business customers; not the consumer market several years between new revisions doesn't strike me as a major problem.Truth be told, I wasn't expecting new models for a few years and suspect the impetus will either be LED backlights finally surpassing the best CCFL backlights in color accuracy and stability, or when the hardware driving the panels becomes capable of running at 120hz for 3d support. LED backlighting is what I'm hoping to hold out for before replacing my 3090. My desktop is more of a space heater, but I'd still like to be able to drop ~50-75W from my main screen.
KPOM - Thursday, August 25, 2011 - link
While these desktop-replacement EliteBook monsters are nice for their raw power, I think they are a bit off the mark for the average enterprise buyer. A large company looking to outfit a workforce of consultants or traveling salespeople with notebooks might keep their employees happier with smaller and lighter notebooks.Will HP be producing any ultrabooks under the EliteBook brand? I don't need a quad-core i7 to run Outlook, PowerPoint, or Excel, but a .8" thick, 3 lb notebook with a nice 1440x900 screen would be just perfect.
Dustin Sklavos - Friday, August 26, 2011 - link
A lot of people don't realize the value of a desktop-replacement monster like this one. I used to decry 17" notebooks just like most of you do, but ever since I graduated college I've found that a 17" notebook can actually be practically ideal for travelling. When I was at CES I set my Studio 17 up in the hotel room to get serious work done, and then brought my ThinkPad X100e with me in the field.There are circumstances where an 8760w would be ideal; as a business machine, the user could easily carry his or her work to and from home. Most of their travel time would likely be commuting to and from work on a daily basis, and that makes the notebook's weight largely irrelevant.
Belard - Friday, August 26, 2011 - link
Not even Apple makes a .8" thick notebook. Keep in mind, super-thin notebooks are:(A) not usually the fastest options
(B) Very very few ports
(C) More breakable
(D) Less screen options.
The ThinkPad X1 is 1" thick, 3.7 lbs, 13" screen @ 1366x768, gorilla glass, lighte-up keyboard. Can come with Core i5 or i7 CPU, 4 or 8 GB RAM, HD or SSD, Optional broadband card. Issues: noisy fan and the keyboard gets warm, short battery time. Starts at $1300 (NO DVD-RW Drive)
The ThinkPad X220 is also 1" thick (Looks thicker than the X1), 3.0lbs, 12.5" screen @ 1366x768. Has a normal keyboard, almost silent, i5 or i7 CPUs. No glare screen. Starts at $900. (NO DVD-RW Drive)
ThinkPad T420s is the closest spec. 1" thick, 14" screen at 1600x900 (Remember, 16:10 is dead - those bastards!), i5 CPU, 4~8GB RAM. But its 3.9lbs.
Starts at $1,150.
I personally prefer the T420 (non S) because its $250 cheaper, but its thicker and heavier.
Whenever I order ThinkPads for my clients or friends, I usually get them in 10 days or less. Not 2-3 months.
KPOM - Saturday, August 27, 2011 - link
I'm typing this response on my .68" thick Apple notebook, complete with a Core i7 processor. No, it isn't as fast as the 8760, but it's quick enough for about 90% of traveling professionals. I raised the question since the EliteBook line is well-made and specifically targeted at enterprises. Thus, if there will be an EliteBook Ultrabook, it will likely be something that large companies notice.Belard - Friday, August 26, 2011 - link
Okay... I am in COMPLETE agreement Dustin Sklavos about the computer industry's stupid desire for 16:9. Yes, its fine for HD-Movies, etc. but for computer usage, I want my 120 pixeld back!During the transition to 16:9 with Lenovo. Here is how BAD 16:9 is... I buy/order ThinkPad for friends and clients. I compared a new ThinkPad T14 with a 16:10 vs a ThinkPad with a 15" 16:9. Both had the same vertical resolution. Both monitors were the exact same height.
When working with small screens... it just makes the screen feel smaller, more cramped! (*@&$#$@ Drop the 1080 for bloody business computers! I'll be keeping my OLD 24" 1920x1600 monitor for as long as possible! I'm GLAD to see 27" monitors hitting the market with 2550x1440... but I'd really WANT to see a 27~28" with 2560x1600 instead. Such monitors are already OUT OF HD-SPEC anyway... so why stick with STUPID 16:9....? Oh yeah, it costs LESS to make a 16:9 vs 16:10... as as wide screens are cheaper than 4:3 monitors (Which are still nice). But at 30" and $1200 - these have to sit WAY back and suck up way too much desk space. We're still looking at $1000 for such a 27". *sigh*
- - - - - - - - - - - -
$6500 for this notebook? Okay, its more workstation than business notebook - right? With LOUD fans and chicklet keyboard, it should be far cheaper. That standard HP keyboard is HORRIBLE, tiny UP/Down cursor keys? (Only backlit ThinkPad keys are also island style, but with some slight curve).
ThinkPads don't come in 17" anymore (or at this moment). Not much desire for such screens, especially when 15.6" 1920x1080 screens is almost as big as a 17.3".
For $3045, I custom built a ThinkPad W520 (Workstation Series).
Same i7-2820QM CPU, 8GB RAM. Has a 1920x1080 FHD screen (these look very nice, but I doubt as good as on this HP). Quadro 2000M with 2GB. This is usually half to a third slower than the Quadro 5000 series.
160GB intel SSD (320 series) drive (better than that crap Micron drive) - but its easy to simply save $320 to go with a regular HDD and buy an aftermarket Intel 510 series 250GB unit.
This config includes BlueTooth 3.0 / Centrino 6300N (if you you're going to upgrade beyond the basic... might as well go all the way), Mobile Broadband with GPS. 3 year on-site warranty with Damage protection.
This weighs about 5lbs, far better keyboard, better touch pad. Meanwhile HP double-copies ThinkPad's 3-button touchpad design as well as the mouse-stick in the middle of the keyboard (Might as well just get a ThinkPad). Battery life is about 4 hours with general usage. The HP has about a 1~2hr running time? This is almost useless for business!
I've setup an X220 (13" screen), it has about a 5~6hr battery life (optional big battery lasts about 10~20hrs), barely 3lbs, 1" thick with an i5 CPU.
Most of these ThinkPads are very quiet. The T and W series are very quiet. Bigger X series as well, not the X1 - way too thin with bad cooling.
For $6500... this notebook needs to offer a lot more. Is this HP trying look like Apple?