HP DV1000 same as Compaq V2000?

I'm currently in the market for a notebook and really like the HP DV1000 series. I've also looked at the Compaq V2000 series. I know there are a lot of different variations within each series, but my general question is, what's the difference? Is the HP like the Ford and the Compaq like the Mercury? It appears to me that the HP is more mediacentric, and the Compaq uses the AMD processors. Any advice here?

 

The HP has a few media buttons the Compaq does not, but other than color and trim they are essentially the same. The Compaq v2000 uses Celeron and Pentium Ms while the v2000z uses Semprons and Turions. You'll get the best battery life with the Pentium Ms. I think the v2000z with the mobile Semprons is a good budget notebook.

 

The Compaq V2000 series uses Intel processors and the V2000Z series uses AMD processors.

The V2000 and DV1000 are pretty much alike. The only differences really are that the HP has extra media buttons right about the keyboard for controlling things like DVD's, music, etc.
It also comes with the QuickPlay feature, letting you play DVDs, CD's and MP3s without booting up to Windows. It also has the option for a small remote control that controls media playback, powerpoint presentations and powering the notebook on/off.

I have also heard reports that the DV1000 is slightly heavier than the V2000 due to it having a slightly thicker case. Otherwise, both are pretty much the same. In my opinion, the DV1000 seems more based towards the media loving consumer whereas the V2000 seems more geared towards the business crowd.

 

As posted, they're basically the same laptop in different cases. However, I think the dv1000 uses thicker plastic as Rahul said...it has a more 'solid' feel to it.

Check them out at a retail store if you can.

 

Thanks for the responses. I've checked out the DV1000 at Sam's Club, but have not had a chance to find a Compaq z2000. I'll have to do that soon. Thanks.

 

the pentium/celeron/-based systems have poorer graphics. The AMD machines use ATI which is way better than the integrated intel gpu /as far as HP notebooks are under consideration, of course/

 

That's a bit misleading Vassil.

Depends on what programs/apps you're talking about whether there is any difference due to the GPU or not.

2d rendering, photo work, browsing, dvd movie watching will show NO visible difference what so ever.

If you're gaming or looking to do any digital video editing or something like that the ATI will help out, but in that realm only minimally.

Really, if you're going to be doing any of the latter you need to avoid these line of machines altogether, they're not built for it. For the reasons above they're really both crappy GPU's and don't forget they're still both integrated.

 

Yes, although the ATI integrated GPU is considerably better than the Intel one, they both still stink. Its best to just get dedicated graphics.

 

I'd recommend buying on HPShopping. You can configure it the way you want and don't have to pay tax except a few state. I'd get the 5400RPM hard drive for better performance and 12 cell battery. Good Luck.

 

That's a bit misleading Spectre. I tested UT2004 Demo on an ATI Radeon 200M shared-memory machine and it's smooth up to 800x600 res. Intel's GPU can't do that. The ATI 200M also does DirectX9 in hardware (which Vista's new UI will require) while the Intel GPU doesn't. Heck, the 200M outperformed the GeForce 440 Go dedicated card in my zv5000z slightly.

Given that you can buy a Turion-based, 64-bit capable notebook with a substantially better GPU for LESS MONEY than a Pentium M-based, 32-bit-only notebook with an awful GPU, I recommend sticking with the Turions.

 

I support what brianstretch said. By using DDR400 ram in my V2000z, my 3DMark01/05 scores are better than my previous toshiba P4 laptop( P4 2.66Ghz 865PE chipset, 1GB DDR400 dual channel DDR) with GeForce4 Fx5100Go with dedicated memory. It is much better than ATI Mobility 7500 with 32MB in my other dell laptop.

I am not sure why brianstretch said 800x600, but I am playing UT2004 at full resolution(1280x768 high resolution) without any problem at all( I did not run demo though, will try). see the attached scores( with 1GB DDR400 Ram 128MB Shared)

3DMark05: 634
3DMark01SE:5014

 

Ok, have you asked yourself why the "better" chip, with the "better" GPU cost less?

The point here is that it's just not an issue with most end users. GPU's are nice, and on my desktop I need and run a Rad x850 but if you DO NOT need it you don't need to consider it a necessary expense/consideration.

SuperComputers are nice, but they're expensive and at this point in all honesty I don't NEED one.

If you need to look at scores on a benchmarker to prove to yourself that you're money was well spent then you're simply actively looking for a way to fool yourself.

Regardless these 64 bit processors are not going to be as future friendly as some AMD people would have us believe. I've yet to see anything truly meaningful they will be able to do that any Pent M will not be able to do inside at least a 2 year window.

It's a matter of necessity and choice.

 

Then there is no point asking any one. One could pick cheapest one they could find. Some VIA C3, samuel CPU for $400 bucks from frys or something like that. It can play DVDs, music, you can email, browse web etc, etc.

Here it is the point of relativeness. Ofcourse as you said, what one want is more important. But Pentium M, Turion covers same ground, and for the same money which is a better deal. That is the point I guess.

Please correct me if anyone feels I am wrong.

 

No, I basically agree with the sentiment of what you said Chinna.

The Turion is less expensive because it runs hotter, is less efficient, and accounts for less battery life with little to no added performance than the Pentium M.

If the Turion was inherently better technology it would have initially marketed for a higher price until it began to take over the markey, which would be inevitable.

However, it markets for less because it's just not there yet. This initial appempt a the 64 bit is not a good representative of what 64 bit computing will actually eventually be.

64 bit comuting is just not going to standardize for another 2 years at minimum.

 

When you buy a Turion notebook you don't have to pay the Intel Centrino marketing tax. You know, the marketing campaign that fools newbies into thinking that buying a 32-bit-only CPU and pathetically weak GPU for more money makes sense.

Intel had to back down and CLONE AMD's x86-64 instruction set for a reason. Intel hasn't figured out how to retrofit their notebook CPUs for 64-bit yet but they have AMD64-compatible desktop and server chips out. Sun, Cray, HP, IBM, etc. builds MPP supercomputers with AMD Opterons. AMD has made it possible to run the same 64-bit binaries from notebooks all the way up to Top 500 supercomputers and people are starting to see how that's rather neat.

 

I have an AMD processor on my desktop and a Centrino processor (Intel) on my notebook. So I would say that I'm reasonably impartial. I would not agree that the lower cost of the AMD means it's not as good. AMD chips always cost less than Intel, whether they're better or not. Intel's got the brand name, that's what you're paying for.

That notwithstanding...I've read in quite a few places that the Centrino 32 bit is still better, faster, and runs cooler than the Turion. I'm not claiming one or the other is better, the point is you can't just assume anything based on price. For equivalent speed processors, AMDs are usually a nice chunk cheaper. But speed isn't everything.

 

You pay more for a Pentium-M notebook because you get longer battery life and less heat. I've tried a Turion notebook (L2000) and I wanted to like it so much but the ~2hr battery life and heat bothered me too much. I also tried a Celeron-M and was happy with it but the screen was defective and I got the last display model, so I couldn't exchange it for another. Sure my Pentium-M notebooks are only 32bit but I don't forsee a real need for 64bit within the next few years. As long as I have my Office, internet browsing and other small applications, I'm good to go. Besides, isn't there going to be a 32bit version of Vista too?

With that said, my desktops are exclusively AMD and will continue to be for as long as AMD continues to offer better a better value like they do now. I WAS going to build an AMD desktop but ended up getting a Compaq with an A64 3200+ from CompUSA for $130 after rebates. Nothing special except a DVDRW which added $50 to the base price of $80 after rebates.

 

I would like to differ here about L2000/V2000z series notebook battery life. Somehow it got a bad rap. Without any Undervolting one should be able to get 2:30 Min, ofcourse you P-M could stretch it 30-40 min more. Celeron-M is no better than Turion battery lifewise. With V2000z/L2000 series laptops you get much more powerful graphics processors, compatibility for 64bit apps( especially useful for techies like us) almost at the same price as a Celeron-M laptops. So we are back to square where we started. So, which is value for money?

 

Why should I have to undervolt? It should be fine right out of the box. The fact that I can (and do) undervolt doesn't change the fact that 95% of people buying Turion laptops have no clue what undervolting is nor do they want to mess with it. 2hours 30min is still unacceptable when I can easily get 3.5-4 hours [WiFi on] with my Pentium-M. Heck on my Vaio (my guess is because of its 4200RPM HDD) I could get 4.5-5 hours if I turned WiFi off..all with a 6 cell battery.

If I were going for a desktop replacement, I would definitely choose a Sempron or Turion..because heat and battery life would be non-issues. Well - that or if I didn't mind the heat and 2 hours of battery life would be acceptable. I'm suggesting a Sempron based HP ze2000 to a relative's friend because she doesn't need speed and what not, and could care less about battery life as I doubt she'll be carrying it around much.

I paid $100-150 more for my Pentium-M notebook when I could have gotten a comparable Sempron or Turion with the same features. That difference is worth much more than that to me because I need my notebook to last me more than ~2-2.5 hours..and being in hot/humid Hawaii, the extra heat from an AMD based laptop is most unwelcome .

 

Hmm, interesting. http://partsurfer.hp.com says that the L2000's 6 cell battery is 4.0Ahr while its 12 cell is 8.8AHr. The V2000, OTOH, has a 4.4Ahr 6 cell battery like you'd expect. One of the early magazine reviews of the L2000 (or V2000z?) had mentioned that its 6 cell used "smaller" cells and that the 12 cell used "normal" cells. So right there, at least 15 minutes of the difference between the V2000 and L2000/V2000z is from the Intel notebooks shipping with 10% larger 6 cell batteries, and some of the rest is likely from the much better GPU. I wonder how much Intel paid HP to do that?

Anyhow, buy the 12 cell battery for the Turion notebooks and you'll get 120% more battery life than with the hobbled 6 cell.

Interesting how Acer notebooks don't have this problem.

 

Why you are mixing altogether different laptops? It may be altogether different battery and different hardware.
Take current version of Sonoma chipset based laptop from HP(HP DV1000/V2000 vs V2000z) and V2000z. The battery life difference between these two laptops is about 30 min, and for some applications it is same.

I mentioned 2:30 min without any tweaks or Under clocking.

BTW I used Dell 600M with PM 1.5Ghz for more than a year and on average I got only 3 hours of battery life. (Performance wise 600M with PM 1.5 is nowhere near my Turion). I used atleast 6 laptops, from P3, P4-M, P4, PM and including PowerBook G4. This is my first AMD based laptop( Rather first AMD processor including my desktops, see my sig). My first AMD desktop was around 8 years ago which I did not like.

Check this article where they retested battery life for similar laptops by ACER and same capacity battery with Turion and P-M processors.
http://www.laptoplogic.com/resources/articles/42/14/1/

check this review here which says battery life is same.
http://forums.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=29132

If you are just determined to bash Turion for some reason, just go ahead, no one is going to stop you.

 

Do you really think that the difference in hardware (which I'm sure is minimal since all my Pentium-M based laptops use the Dothan core and the same chipset..though my 15.4" Vaio has a Radeon 9200 dedicated GPU compared to the rest with integrated GPUs) is the problem? Surely it couldn't be the Turion /sarcasm

Sounds like you're a bit of an AMD fanboy. Nothing wrong with that, we all have our preferences. I would consider myself unbiased because my desktops are AMD-based and my laptops are Intel-based. I DO think that the 25w MT Turions could be a smash hit if AMD would just ramp up production of it. Heck I would gladly trade my Pentium-M in for a 25w Turion-based notebook..

Let me ask you this: What is your battery life (with WiFi on) with undervolting and whatever other tweaks there are available for the Turion? Out of the box with my Pentium-M I can get 3-3.5 hours, with undervolting I can get 3.5-4 hours. With my old Vaio (identical specs except it had a 4200RPM HDD and a matte screen) I could go for 4-4.5hours with undervolting.

If I had known about undervolting when I had my L2000 and I could achieve at least 3-3.5 hours battery life, I would have easily kept it. I loved the styling and basically everything about it. In retrospect, the heat wasn't that bad but battery life was just unacceptable. I don't have anywhere to plug in on campus so battery life is important for me.

 

The difference is definitely in the hardware. If Brainstrech is correct and my L2000 has a crippled 6 cell battery, combined with the better GPU, and worse wireless /yup, I don't know why but my wireless is less sensitive than the Centrino one and sucks up more battery/, then I'm really happy with it.
As for the heat, undervolting helps a lot; but less so if you are working with the thing in your lap. I found that watching movies in my bed /putting the notebook as good for it as possible/ would be helpful during the winter

 

Seriously, what is up with stupid AMD making the ML version, why is this version of the Turion so much more prevalent than the MT version? In fact, doesn't the MT get better battery life and give off less heat and uses less energy but only costs a little bit more!? Then why is AMD still making the ML version? Can somebody please explain this to me? It really boggles my mind.

 

Probably the MT version lags in performance and AMD don't want to launch it en masse before they are sure that it will really rival P Ms in power consumption. There was a guy in the Turion poll, who wrote s/he had a MT-37...

 

It was probably just AMD playing it safe and not wanting to be caught short on MT-grade chips. Now that they've been building Turions for several months and know they have the hang of it they'll switch over to more MT-class production, but getting big cheapskates like HP away from ML's is going to be interesting. Even MT40's appear to be easy to get at the moment if you know where to look (ewiz.com, etc).

 

I guess, it is the yield issue. Probably with the current process they are unable to make many MT processors. So they can not promise HP/Compaq they can supply required quantity. Where as with small companies like Averatec, they can buy small quantities available. I do not see any other reason why HP/Compaq or Acer use ML series when MT series is available.

 

Clash of titans: Dothan VS. Turion. See here:

http://www.laptoplogic.com/resources/detail.php?id=17

 

Thanks for the interesting read. Heat still remains a factor without undervolting the Turion though.. If there is ever an L2000 with an MT variant Turion, I'd be very tempted to get it. I love the all-black finish and the splashes of yellow. Makes it unique.

Hmm..I wish I could test a Turion again, but nobody I know has a Turion laptop.