HP EliteBook 8760w: Color, So Dreamy
by Dustin Sklavos on August 25, 2011 2:30 AM ESTWorkstation Performance
Since we're working with a mobile workstation in the HP EliteBook 8760w, it's worth testing it in workstation-based performance metrics. Note that for these our only reference points are desktops; as we get more mobile workstations in we'll be able to improve the amount of data we have to the point where we can eventually split these off into mobile and desktop charts.
In SPECviewperf 11, the 8760w's Quadro 5010M comes into its own and runs roughshod over the other cards. That's fair: the 5010M boasts twice as many CUDA cores as the Quadro 2000 and four times as many as the Quadro 600, more than making up any performance deficit resulting from the faster processors in the desktop workstations. The 5010M is in fact likely to be as fast as or faster than any desktop Quadro currently offered on NewEgg.
SPECapc for Lightwave 3D 9.6 shows more excellent results for the HP EliteBook 8760w and proves it's more than capable of offering adequate performance for users who need a mobile workstation.
Our third benchmark is Premiere Pro Benchmark for CS5 (run in CS5.5 without issue), and as I mentioned in my review of HP's Z210 SFF desktop, I'm still not 100% sold on this benchmark. If you agree or disagree on its inclusion, or have another workstation-class benchmark to suggest, please sound off in our comments.
Adobe Premiere Pro unsurprisingly favors as much CPU power as you can throw at it, and as a result the quad-core systems can't really compete with an i7-990X. The 8760w does put in a great showing, though, possibly owing to the speedy Micron C300 SSD which runs faster than the Intel X25-M in the HP Z210 SFF.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
83 Comments
View All Comments
aranyagag - Thursday, August 25, 2011 - link
yeah I was planning to get a 17" DTR with sandybridge-- all was fine and dandy till I Got to the specifications for the screen. Sorry, but I want a 1200p screen. even when I watch videos-- which is rare because I prefer to watch on home theater and use my laptop for work-- I PREFER to have space above/below the screen for the menu bar.Well, I am waiting for the 1200p screens to return and if they don't -- I will eventually settle for a 15.6" 1080p screen. I just am not buying a 17" or larger laptop with only 1080p screen.
oshogg - Thursday, August 25, 2011 - link
17" is a little too big for my taste - I would appreciate a similar in-depth review (great job on this one by the way!) for HP 8560w. Specifically, I am interested in knowing that Quadro 1000M is any less taxing on battery than the one in 8760w.Thanks,
Osho
teng029 - Thursday, August 25, 2011 - link
certainly a much better design than Dell's current Latitude line. i've tried carrying a 17.3 inch notebook before and didn't particularly care for it. and like so many other posters have mentioned, i still prefer 16x10 panels.Spazweasel - Thursday, August 25, 2011 - link
As always, computers of this class are something your employer buys you. Individuals are not likely to pay for items like this, but organizations whose cost-accounting recognizes that the hardware is a small fraction of the cost of maintaining an employee are not going to be put off by a thousand dollar premium. Compared to the software packages that enterprises use, the amortized cost of support and infrastructure, and the salaries of the people that use them, six thousand in hardware is chump change.Buy this one with someone else's money, not your own, and you (and they) get the value expected for something this expensive.
jecs - Friday, August 26, 2011 - link
Thank you, That was what I had in mind for years, but still something I wanted to check over time. I worked for BP years ago and sure they provided fancy hardware and software even for contractors. I remember a Silicon Graphics computer on a corner and it was only used for an advanced student on one study. Today this HP laptop is way too superior but computing requirements may also increase with time.Death666Angel - Thursday, August 25, 2011 - link
I really don't see how the desktop space has somehow "lost" 30" monitors almost entirely. From my experience over the past years, the 30" crowd has been very stable. The 27" high-res didn't destroy anything and gave people a cheap middle ground between cheap 24" 1200p and overpriced 1600p 30" monitors. I think 27" 2560x1440 has been about the only positive development in the desktop monitor market for a long time, partially making up for the move to 1080p in the 21"-27" market.I personally hope the tablet/smartphone display development with high densities will transfer to the desktop market soon.
Dustin Sklavos - Thursday, August 25, 2011 - link
From a conversation with my associate, Brian Klug (who handles our monitor reviews), 30" screens are being phased out of production entirely.zaccun - Thursday, August 25, 2011 - link
Thank god I've already got one then- That almost makes me want to save up and buy a couple more to hoard :<DanNeely - Friday, August 26, 2011 - link
Gah!!! Like zaccun I'm tempted to go after a spare. If the replacement was 2844x1600 I could probably live with the aspect ratio reduction, but for anything resembling work vertical size is more important than width.Death666Angel - Friday, August 26, 2011 - link
Ah, haven't heard anything like that on my regular computer news sites. And I haven't noticed any increase in prices with 30" screens. But I'll keep an eye out for that now. :-)Still, even with them being phased out, I will not pay 1000-1100€ for a 30" 2560x1600 screen when I get a 27" 2560x1440 for 600-650€. The added value for me just isn't there.
Unless I will have a lot of spare money soon I'll try and wait until the pixel density goes to tablet/smartphone levels or at least gets closer to them. :-)