General Performance
To measure general performance, we're now using SYSmark 2007 as well as PCMark05. Unfortunately, we don't have SYSmark 2007 results for any of the other laptops. That said, we didn't find anything during testing that would give us any cause for concern. We'll start with the results of SYSmark 2007, presented in table form for now.
Results from PCMark05 are lower in almost all cases than the other laptops. The problem is that the overall score obfuscates things somewhat, so you don't actually know just by looking at the score whether the problem is your graphics, your hard drive, your processor, or something else. We will also provide a table of the individual results in order to better show this information.
Looking at the overall score, the dv6500t appears to be terribly slow. Once we drill down into the details, however, the reason for the low score becomes readily apparent. The hard drive certainly isn't as fast as any of the other tested laptops, but the graphics chip is also clearly slower -- in some tests the other laptops are more than twice as fast. Some of the other results appear to be impacted by the use of Windows Vista, for example web page rendering and text editing are both quite a bit slower. In practice, the laptop is plenty fast for any general computer tasks, and while Vista definitely does make things slower in some areas that occurs regardless of what kind of system you're running. Not surprisingly, the Dell M1710 sweeps all of the PCMark05 results, but then it also costs more than twice as much as most of the other laptops.
To complement the SYSmark and PCMark results, we have some of our own benchmarks that test similar areas. Here's a quick look at how the laptops fair in audio/video encoding and 3D rendering
The increased FSB speed helps the T7300 equipped HP notebook outperform the T7200 systems in several of these tests, but also scores at the bottom of the pack on some of the other tests. We also benchmarked with updated versions of iTunes/QuickTime and DivX, and in all cases the performance results were slower with the new versions. Since we do not have results from the new versions for the other laptops, we won't list those, but in future reviews we will be updating our software.
To measure general performance, we're now using SYSmark 2007 as well as PCMark05. Unfortunately, we don't have SYSmark 2007 results for any of the other laptops. That said, we didn't find anything during testing that would give us any cause for concern. We'll start with the results of SYSmark 2007, presented in table form for now.
HP dv6500t SYSmark 2007 Performance | |
Overall Score | 100 |
E-Learning | 112 |
Video Creation | 75 |
Productivity | 102 |
3D | 112 |
Results from PCMark05 are lower in almost all cases than the other laptops. The problem is that the overall score obfuscates things somewhat, so you don't actually know just by looking at the score whether the problem is your graphics, your hard drive, your processor, or something else. We will also provide a table of the individual results in order to better show this information.
PCMark05 Performance Breakdown | |||||
ABS Z5 | ASUS A8JS | ASUS G2P | Dell M1710 | HP dv6500t | |
HDD XP Startup | 5.839 | 6.623 | 6.183 | 7.602 | 4.717 |
Physics and 3D | 186.04 | 182.38 | 194 | 213.42 | 86.65 |
2D Transparency | 1078.48 | 733.55 | 515.72 | 1263.64 | 685.63 |
3D Pixel Shaders | 327.74 | 132.09 | 93.84 | 360.76 | 23.32 |
Web Page Rendering | 3.267 | 3.27 | 3.18 | 3.467 | 1.625 |
Decryption | 54.602 | 54.524 | 54.294 | 64.148 | 57.674 |
2D 64 Line Redraw | 2111.47 | 1129.12 | 1326.54 | 2133.45 | 504.45 |
HDD General | 4.019 | 4.332 | 4.127 | 4.453 | 3.548 |
Audio Compression | 2133.98 | 2219.17 | 2142.88 | 2351.51 | 1935.72 |
Video Encoding | 372.19 | 363.48 | 373.53 | 426.06 | 364.18 |
Text Editing | 137.3 | 139.57 | 138.75 | 159.67 | 99.63 |
Image Decompression | 28.143 | 28.277 | 27.981 | 32.392 | 27.208 |
File Compression | 4.831 | 4.819 | 4.577 | 5.597 | 4.411 |
File Encryption | 26.513 | 26.512 | 27.54 | 31.225 | 27.799 |
HDD Virus Scan | 32.924 | 35.32 | 43.118 | 37.266 | 26.171 |
Memory Latency | 8.011 | 8.207 | 8.207 | 8.011 | 8.797 |
Looking at the overall score, the dv6500t appears to be terribly slow. Once we drill down into the details, however, the reason for the low score becomes readily apparent. The hard drive certainly isn't as fast as any of the other tested laptops, but the graphics chip is also clearly slower -- in some tests the other laptops are more than twice as fast. Some of the other results appear to be impacted by the use of Windows Vista, for example web page rendering and text editing are both quite a bit slower. In practice, the laptop is plenty fast for any general computer tasks, and while Vista definitely does make things slower in some areas that occurs regardless of what kind of system you're running. Not surprisingly, the Dell M1710 sweeps all of the PCMark05 results, but then it also costs more than twice as much as most of the other laptops.
To complement the SYSmark and PCMark results, we have some of our own benchmarks that test similar areas. Here's a quick look at how the laptops fair in audio/video encoding and 3D rendering
The increased FSB speed helps the T7300 equipped HP notebook outperform the T7200 systems in several of these tests, but also scores at the bottom of the pack on some of the other tests. We also benchmarked with updated versions of iTunes/QuickTime and DivX, and in all cases the performance results were slower with the new versions. Since we do not have results from the new versions for the other laptops, we won't list those, but in future reviews we will be updating our software.
26 Comments
View All Comments
JarredWalton - Friday, June 22, 2007 - link
They shipped the notebook with an ABG adapter (test setup on page 7). Of course, I don't have an N network right now anyway... GbE all the way, baby!nsparadox - Friday, June 22, 2007 - link
Hey Jarred,You wrote the entire article in the passive voice. Could you please try to write in the active voice?
crimson117 - Friday, June 22, 2007 - link
I would prefer the future perfect voice.JarredWalton - Friday, June 22, 2007 - link
Can't say I was necessarily 100% awake while writing it. Sorry if it was too passive for you. Perhaps in a perfect future I will manage to rewrite things better, maybe?bldckstark - Friday, June 22, 2007 - link
Thanks for the article guys, I am sure many other AT readers appreciate the work you hav put in on notebooks recently.I would like to see some more tests done on what I like to call "real world" notebooks. The ones I see most people buying for mobility purposes. These usually have 10 - 13" screens and have everything this HP has except the horrid battery life.
I just bought my wife a Lenovo notebook with a Vista business, Intel C2D, 2GB ram, DVD burner, 3 USB 2.0, 1 Firewire, Express card slot, flash memory reader, webcam, fingerprint reader, 6 cell battery and a 12.1" screen for only $1250 after rebate. This one gets 255 minutes of battery life and weighs only 4.4lbs with the 6 cell.
A friend at work has a 10" screen notebook that gets over 8 hours of battery life. He carries it around like a pad of paper all day.
I know several people with convertibles that love them, and they all have 12.1" screens.
My point is that if it has a 15.4" screen it is really a DTR, and should be outfitted like one. Not like a high mobility at the same price, worse battery life, and 50% weight increase. Please try to squeeze some of these into your testing in the future.
JarredWalton - Friday, June 22, 2007 - link
We actually have a smaller Tablet PC that we're in the process of reviewing. I think part of the problem is that companies are afraid we'll tear into the lappys that don't have great gaming performance or whatever. Hopefully, we'll be able to do more ultraportable laptop reviews in the future....