Compaq V3000Z and HP dv2000Z now available on hpshopping.com!

The HP dv2000z:

http://www.shopping.hp.com/webapp/s...vilion/dv2000_series&storeName=computer_store


The Compaq V3000Z:

http://www.shopping.hp.com/webapp/s...resario/V3000_series&storeName=computer_store

 

Neither one actually comes up. If you do a search, there's a link, but no info yet.

EDIT: works now..

 

only the TL-52 (1.6ghz) is an option

 

No APP promotion available yet. 1.6ghz is a bit of low, but bluetooth add up is only about $19.

Turion X2 TL-60 review is available @ http://xtreview.com/review81.htm
It is kind of strange TL-60 is way down to ML-40. I wonder if this is a fair review.

 

Wow, I guess when they said June they really meant June (1st)!

 

ugghhhhhh!!! it doesnt work!!!! you know... i want to give them my money, im more than willing to hand over my credit card if they would just let me!!

 

Both are coming up unavailable when I try to customize.

However, APP discount prices do apply here.

 

They are not allowing APP customization. Logout of your APP account and you should be able to configure it.

 

i can customize it as long as i do not do employee pricing on it (and spend a ton more) so its not worth that, its a huge price diffference! i guess i have to wait...

 

so, as far as i could tell when i had an opprotunity to demo these in person, they were the exact same thing only the HP had a webcam and it looked different. If a person could care less about the webcam, is there any reson to go with HP or compaq?

 

Yeah, I guess so, the dv2000z is about $20 more if you configure it with the Turion X2. The options are priced a bit higher for the Compaq. So if you looking at a lower end configuration then the Compaq might be the better choice, if you want anything with the X2, then the dv2000z might offer the better value.

For example: If you configure it with a TL 50, 1GB RAM, 60GB HDD, 12 cell battery, the price difference is around $25 in favor of the Compaq, but the presence of the webcam in the HP will even things out, but if you get the Sempron 3200+ instead of the TL 50 then the price difference increases to $50, in this case the Compaq is the better option and not worth paying $50 for the webcam.

 

I would wait a bit to see how these are compared to the new Intel ones in August.
With its current pricing, unless Turion X2 can significantly outperform Core 2 Duo, there are no reasons to go with AMD.
Intel has been leading in power consumption in the notebook space and I don't think TX2 is going to change this.

 

I thought that the Pentium M and Turion 64 (single-core versions) were relatively comparable in terms of battery life. I could be mistaken, however, haven't checked benchmarks in a while.

The advantage of the Turion X2 is that it is 64-bit and therefore more "future-proof" (though it is possible that some Core Duo users may be able to upgrade to Merom). However, I'd wait for some reviews and for the prices to drop a little before making a decision for sure - these processors have just started to appear on the market, and so will obviously be more expensive.

 

i would love to wait but the only problem is this: I will be leaving for college very soon because i am doing athletics. I also plan to do some summer classes while im down there. So i need the computer within 2 weeks. It seems the turion X@ 52 is the best option for me right now. I do not want to go with 32-bit, that seems counter productive at this point.

 

AMD CPUs let you run 64-bit Vista Beta 2 (or 64-bit Linux), the GeForce 6150 GPU is vastly superior to the Intel GMA series, and I'm reasonably certain Intel loses their battery life advantage with dualcores. We'll know more when forum members get TX2 notebooks for testing. The price looks pretty nice too.

 

Could you tell us how much this difference would be? Maybe a comparison of V2000Z(w/ EPP and w/o EPP) would give us a hint.

I only can tell there were about $100 different on APP, but have no idea about EPP.

 

WOW, HP spec the battery run time up to 4:15 hrs(6 cells) & 8:45 hrs(12 cells).
Can you believe it?

DV2000 doesn't have option about the web cam, neither in Spec. Any idea?

 

rockharder, first of all, margin is diffferent on different models, its not a percentage or anything. Secondly, im not sure what ramifications there would be for me releasing information because i deal directly with hp in my job. its pry pretty close to APP.. but im not sure. Sorry man

Samuel

 

From my experience with a V2000Z and a dv1000t, Intel's one lasts at least 30min longer.
Of course, it would be better to see an official benchmarks, but all my friends with multiple notebooks agree with this.

Yes, TX2 has 64-bit, but so does Core 2 Duo.
And with Intel's current situation, I would bet the new Core 2 Duo will be very competitive in terms of pricing.
Currently the lowest TX2 dv2000z costs $1184.99 while the lowest dv2000t costs $1099.99.
I think when Core 2 Duo comes out AMD will have minimal (if not none) price advantage.
This is already happening in the desktop space.

 

I am not comparing TX2 with CD.
I was saying with the release date of C2D so close, it is wise to wait until C2D and the comparsion come out.

Intel loses their battery life advantage with dual cores?
What comparsion were you talking about?
CD vs T64 or CD vs TX2?
I am sure you were talking about CD vs T64 because TX2 is just released.
I am not sure if CD really consumes more power than T64 but how could you compare power consumption between a dual core and a single core?

 

i have heard that, comparing the increase in power consumption from single to dual core processors, that the increase in power consumption is greater in intels as opposed to AMD. Of course, i have nothing to back this up, mearly product representitives telling me this. Also, does anyone have any idea what specs are on the 6150?

 

It is true that Merom/Core 2 Duo will probably have a price advantage because it is cheaper for Intel to produce (65nm vs AMD's current 90nm). But I was talking about right now (Core 2 Duo is slated for an August release?), and from my experiences in building desktops at launch products are typically expensive, but drop quickly within two weeks. Since I'm relatively new to the notebook world, I'm not sure it'll be the same deal, but I'm just making a guess. There are people who want to buy notebooks right now or in the very near future.

 

Here is the comparison for ATI 200 vs. Intel 950
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2427&p=2

You can find Nvidia 6150 vs. ATI 200 @ http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/chipsets/display/gf6150-gf6100_15.html

Their result tells ATI 200 is about 10% better than 950. 6150 is > 10% better than ATI 200(Only has less score on HDTV test).

I would say they are about same rank, but 6150 surly outperform than 950.

 

hey thanks rock, ive been looking everywhere for somthing on that card!!!

 

CD vs. TX2. The TX2 has the same 35W TDP as the Turion ML. I hesitate only because NBR reviewers haven't had the opportunity to bench the TX2 yet. It's also risky to assume that C2D notebooks will actually be buyable in August and that its 64-bit performance will be on par with the AMD.

Also note how the Radeon 200M benched about twice as fast as the GMA950 on the Far Cry and HL2 benchmarks in that Anandtech article. Depending on what you play, having an ATI or nVidia GPU instead of Intel could make a huge difference.

Any cost advantage Intel has by using 65nm instead of 90nm is lost to the massive L2 caches they use to compensate for their lack of integrated memory controllers and HyperTransport. As quickly as Intel is bleeding cash (go look up their balance sheets, competition from AMD plus Intel management's continued looting of the company via stock options has done serious damage) they can't sustain a serious price war. AMD said today that they'll ship 65nm chips in volume in Q4 and 45nm in mid-2008. That'll do.

 

Yes, some people are fooled by the massive amount of cache the latest Intel processors have, thinking it makes them superior to AMD's, but without an on-die latency is a problem for them.

65nm in Q4? That's not too long after the release of Core 2 Duo. Hopefully AMD's new chips can break Intel's stranglehold on the notebook market, I've been a fan of them ever since Intel released Prescott.

 

Pardon if this has been answered, but does the 6150 have 128MB or 256MB of memory ?

 

The 6150 is a shared memory GPU. I'm not sure what the upper limit is for how much system memory you can assign to it.

 

Just did a liitle research.
According to AMD, CD is 31W while TX2 is 31W to 35W.
Don't know what C2D will be.
I am sure C2D will be ready in August.
Intel is trying every effort to fight back.
They don't have the luxury to delay new products like M$.
Last time I read they are to release C2D in late July, so August should be a safe bet.

Below is kind of off topic but since you mentioned about process technology, I would like to share what I think about this and see you guys' comments.

I really don't think good days will last for AMD.
First of all, I am not a Intel fanboy.
I have never bought a Intel CPU since the 486DX2 and I have been very happy about the Athlon XP's I have, but this can't change the way I see their future.

As you said, AMD is going to use 65nm by the end of this year.
But Intel is set to use 45nm in 2007 H2, so before AMD can get good yield from 65nm, Intel is already using 45nm.
Yes, Intel may not have too much advantage even they are using newer technology because they need the extra cache to compensate the inferior architecture.
But design is easily changable and changing it doesn't cost anything. It can be just part of the product evolution.
The Core is an example of the catch-up in architecture Intel is doing. It really doesn't take long.

On the other hand, process technology is not something you can catch up easily.
To get 65nm products out sooner and to get enough capacity AMD has to team up with Charatered.
This is a huge disadvantage.
And this situation isn't going to change in the near future.
When AMD has 45nm in mid 2008, Intel will have 32nm in 2009.
For AMD it will only get worse as the cost of building fabs rises every generation.

I think Intel will try everything to keep AMD from gaining more market share ASAP before they get stronger and be able to close the gap in process technology and capacity.
So, I really think we will continue to see very good prices on Intel's CPU.

 

hmm... going to throw it out there, im guessing someone does not have a girlfriend, jk. Are these dates you are pulling out personal speculation or do you have sources? i would strongly recomend citing someone on this before you make conclusions. Still, a nice post with many concrete facts that will certianly help people make their decision.

 

AMD says they've already achieved mature yields with their 65nm process. Unlike Intel, AMD waits until their process technology is tuned before rolling it out and ramping production and then makes a rapid changeover. AMD did the same thing at the 130nm to 90nm transition. Also, if design was so easy then Intel wouldn't have AMD taking big chunks of marketshare from them. If Intel had better management and not the same jokers who thought the Itanium was a good idea and that the P4 would've reached 10GHz by now running the show then I'd say AMD should be worried, but they don't so I'm not.

 

Article on AMD's 2007 Bulldozer core

 

I hope this is true. Currently AMD's CPUs are too expensive.

I really think design is significantly easier to catch up than the process technology.
It is easy but still can't happen overnight, and that's why AMD is enjoying a good time right now.
Yes, IA-64 doesn't make sense, but it is a different story. It is a brand new thing that they invested too much money, so it is understandable that it is hard to give up.

But with x86, nothing is holding Intel from having a new design after the failure of P-4 and P-D.
The new Core architecture is an example.
I think Intel have learned the painful lesson.
Core 2 is around the corner now.
THG has preliminary benchmark, and the results are quite impressive.
So, if you don't really need a notebook now, I would suggest you wait until August when C2D comes out.

On the desktop side, I really miss the time when we could spend less but still get a superior AthlonXP CPU.
Hopefully with Intel's agressive pricing, we could see cheaper AMD CPUs later soon. Or, if C2D is really that great, I would like switch to Intel.

 

I just priced a Pentium M & AMD Turion on NewEgg.com. The Pentium M (Dothan, 2.0GHZ) came out to ~$300, the Turion (Lancaster, 2.0GHZ) priced out at ~$220. I'm not following your price point about AMD's processors being too expensive; maybe you meant cost of production and not retail price??

 

Hmm...
I am talking about the desktop line (this may be considered a bit off topic, but I think the price gap is closing on the notebook space).
AMD is still weak in the notebook space so Intel can charge premium (but I doubt they can or will still do for the new Core 2 Duo).
In case you haven't noticed, go to newegg.com and search for "Dual-core" and "64-bit" support, you can see why I say there is no pricing reason to buy AMD now.
Intel has 9 matching CPUs that are ranged from $121 to $355. The cheapest AMD is $357.
I really agree with what THG said recently and I am very disappointed about it (I think they rise their price too soon and by too much):

 

Whatever money you save on Intel's dualcore desktop CPUs will be wasted on higher electric bills. The Pentium D's (like the rest of the Netburst series) are atrociously inefficient. Read the Newegg reviews about how hot they run. Intel has to deeply discount the chips or they won't sell. Don't expect Intel to maintain this cut-rate pricing on the C2D's.

 

Good news for us customers.

http://www.eetimes.com/news/semi/sh...MMAIN2QSNDBCCKHSCJUMEKJVN?articleID=188701455

I strongly suggest people, who want to purchase a notebook, hold on a month or two.

 

Is there any update as to whether either of these two models will be available with a matte screen option? Or will they just sell the Bright View?

 

Any benchmarks for the dv2000z available?

 

That is why AMD desktop keep their high price. That is reasonable. Mine is AMD 64 Venese 3500+. After undervolt tweak, it works <40W now. Intel never has power management feature yet.

If you turn your machine 24/7. Yes, Electrical bill will soon buy your AMD cpu back.