HP Folio 13 Review: Deviating From the Norm
by Dustin Sklavos on April 17, 2012 12:30 AM EST- Posted in
- Laptops
- Intel
- HP
- Sandy Bridge
- Ultrabook
System Performance
By opting to employ an Intel Core i5 instead of Core i7 (ULV, of course), and then only operating the DDR3 in single-channel mode, HP puts the Folio 13 at a bit of a disadvantage compared to the competition. The Toshiba Portege Z830 is the only one that really has things worse off, but it's also the least expensive of the lot. Here's how the performance charts pan out:
Ultimately the Folio 13 bounces around the middle of our PCMark charts, buoyed somewhat by the decent Samsung SSD included. You can certainly make the case that all of the above systems are "fast enough" for most users, and the SSDs in the ultrabooks definitely help in that regard. As long as you're not doing any heavy number crunching or trying to play games, ULV Sandy Bridge is likely more than sufficient.
Unfortunately, once we get to the CPU-isolated tests, the Folio 13's i5 gets absolutely buried, only really able to best the Toshiba Portege Z830's i3. The difference between the two is wide enough to make the i3's lack of turbo boost felt, but the i7 systems almost all put in stronger showings across the board with the exception of the Dell XPS 13, which may be struggling with thermal limitations. If we ignore the full-voltage CPUs, the difference between the i5-2467M and the fastest i7-2677M ranges from as little as 11% in the second pass of our x264 test to as much as 28% in our single-threaded Cinebench result. That's certainly noticeable, but it may not be worth the added cost--HP obviously felt the i5-2467M was a good balancing point, since they didn't bother to support any of the other ULV chips.
3DMark once again reminds us that these aren't gaming machines; the thin-and-lights equipped with dedicated graphics fare worlds better. Llano likewise easily surpasses the ULV HD 3000, and in fact outside of single-threaded performance the quad-core Llano chips generally offer comparable to superior performance; of course, getting Llano into an ultrabook form factor with an SSD would require some changes to the design and pricing strategry for such laptops.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
88 Comments
View All Comments
RaistlinZ - Tuesday, April 17, 2012 - link
I think they could have done a lot better. They must be making massive profit off each unit sold because I don't see anything spec wise that warrants a $1,000 for this. Toss in another 4GB of 1600DDR3 and a 1080p IPS screen and THEN we'll talk about $1,000.milkywayer - Tuesday, April 17, 2012 - link
It's a shame that HP and DELL are still milking the market with these lowly 768p screens on majority of their machines. I'd let this one pass since its a 13 incher but why on earth are they still making 99% of their 15.6" laptoptops 768p is beyond me.My main laptop is an HP with a c2d 15.6" and I am not upgrading untill i can get at least a 1080p screen on my next laptop (no, i can't afford an apple)
GUessing the ipad3 screen res bump will get things in motion for higher res consumer screens on laptops from HP and dell or better yet, i'd like that hp and dell vaporise like NOKIA's way if they dont want to innovate.
Meaker10 - Tuesday, April 17, 2012 - link
Would not be so terrible if they were user upgradable but they save 0.001p per machine by not including the second LVDS channel.ImSpartacus - Tuesday, April 17, 2012 - link
It will probably be a while before OEMs catch up. Apple will have to release its "Retina" MBPs before anything really starts to move forward.Cullinaire - Tuesday, April 17, 2012 - link
Preciselyfic2 - Tuesday, April 17, 2012 - link
I have to agree. My 6 year old c2d laptop has a 1280x800 screen. Why would I "upgrade" to a worse screen? The cpu is still fine for my everyday tasks and I have upgraded the 60G HD and memory that came with it.Every review I skip down to the screen resolution and when I see 768 I quite reading and skip to the comments to b1tch about it.
fic2 - Tuesday, April 17, 2012 - link
Also, I spent ~$600 for my laptop why anyone would spend $1000 on this I have no idea.GuinnessKMF - Tuesday, April 17, 2012 - link
First thing I did too, saw 768 and said "not interested". 1080p minimum at 13" for me to bite, until then I'll wait. I would even prefer better than 1080p but I know that for most consumers, even most power consumers, that's enough.slagar - Tuesday, April 17, 2012 - link
Exactly!Drewdog343 - Thursday, April 19, 2012 - link
You geeks must have the vision of a hawk, 1080p on a 13" screen is 168ish DPI.I would imagine in Windows everything would be pretty tiny.