Application and Futuremark Performance

While the HP EliteBook 2170p review unit we have does feature Intel's fastest ULV processor in the Core i7-3667U and at least a 7200-RPM mechanical hard disk, you'll see that the single channel memory operation takes a bit of a toll on performance. PCMark 7, in particular, seems very unhappy with the lack of solid state memory anywhere in the chassis.

PCMark 7 - PCMarks

PCMark 7 - Lightweight

PCMark 7 - Productivity

PCMark 7 - Creativity

PCMark 7 - Entertainment

PCMark 7 - Computation

PCMark 7 - Storage

If QuickSync either doesn't kick in or doesn't efficiently kick in, scores in some cases can come out dismally low. I actually updated the drivers for the 2170p's HD 4000 to Intel's most recent as HP's stock drivers didn't give PCMark 7 its QuickSync boost.

Cinebench R11.5 - Single-Threaded Benchmark

Cinebench R11.5 - Multi-Threaded Benchmark

x264 HD Benchmark - First Pass

x264 HD Benchmark - Second Pass

Switch over to CPU-centric workloads, though, and the EliteBook lines up where it's supposed to. The generational jump to Ivy Bridge allows a 17W processor to offer roughly the same performance as last generation's top end 35W. If you need the power it's there, but note that an i5-3317U seems to be able to get the job done very nearly as well. Ivy Bridge in general is a big win for ultraportables, but also pay attention to how the ASUS ZenBooks seem to have a harder time keeping their turbo up while the thicker chassis of the 2170p (and the Acer V5-171) seems to let the i7 run faster for longer.

Futuremark 3DMark 11

Futuremark 3DMark Vantage

Futuremark 3DMark06

3DMark performance isn't terrible, but there does seem to be at least a minor hit owing to the single-channel operation. HP's Folio 13 ran in single-channel as well and sits at the bottom of each chart. The HD 4000 does remain a remarkably powerful integrated graphics option, though; I've been playing a few games on it and am continually impressed by its performance.

In and Around the HP EliteBook 2170p Display, Battery, Noise, and Heat


View All Comments

  • jabber - Friday, November 30, 2012 - link

    ....lemon. Reply
  • cbrownx88 - Friday, November 30, 2012 - link

    Agreed. Reply
  • secretmanofagent - Friday, November 30, 2012 - link

    I agree, call it for what it is. It sucks on performance, efficiency, and a horrible horrible display (which HP usually screws up on). I'm stuck with a different horrible EliteBook for work, and I want to set the thing on fire half the time. Reply
  • fic2 - Friday, November 30, 2012 - link

    I would never spend $1k on a laptop with a 1366x768 display. Reply
  • Mumrik - Saturday, December 01, 2012 - link

    I feel so out of contact with whatever market it is that doesn't care about resolution...
  • BellaLohan - Sunday, December 02, 2012 - link

    what Karen implied I'm shocked that a mom able to make $8024 in four weeks on the network. (Click on menu Home more information)
  • retrospooty - Monday, December 03, 2012 - link

    "I would never spend $1k on a laptop with a 1366x768 display."

    I wouldnt spend $100 with a display of that res. Seriously HP 1366x768 must die!
  • ArteTetra - Tuesday, December 04, 2012 - link

    A resolution of 1366x768 is fine on a 11.6 inch display.

    A resolution of 1366x768 is fine on a 11.6 inch display.

    A resolution of 1366x768 is fine on a 11.6 inch display.
  • Midwayman - Tuesday, December 04, 2012 - link

    Nope. 768px tall makes it like view webpages through a tank-slit.. 16:9 is a terrible aspect ratio made worse by low resolution. The 900px tall 16:9 screens are about the lowest that are really useful.

    Besides you can get a tablet with 1080p or better for $400 these days. 1366x768 is inexcusable on a machine that cost that much anymore.
  • jabber - Wednesday, December 05, 2012 - link

    Yeah 1440x900 should be the barest minimum on any laptop under 15" today. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now