HP DV2000z review on CNET

I know a lot of you don't have a whole lot of love for CNET, but here's their review. It's not pretty.

http://reviews.cnet.com/HP_Pavilion_dv2000z/4505-3121_7-31951587.html

 

It looks like they really don't like the AMD processor. To be perfectly honest, I have to agree with them. You can get the intel version of this laptop for like $20 more than the AMD version. They gave the Compaq V3000 with an intel processor a very high review score of 6.9. All indications are telling me to chose the intel version of the dv2000.

 

I'd rather have the intel version as well, but I just don't want a GMA 950 :fist shake:

To be fair though, the CNET review has a lower clocked AMD chip up against higher clocked Intel chips in their comparisons. It would be more useful to see the 1.66GHz TX2 against the 1.66GHz core duo.

 

1) The notebook uses DDR2-533 memory instead of DDR2-667 like it should. That's HP's screwup though, not CNet's. The V3000t it's compared against has "PC4200 667MHz RAM" though, which is an obvious typo: either it has PC4200 533MHz RAM or PC5300 667MHz RAM. If it's the latter I'm going to be very annoyed.

2) The battery benchmark results make no sense at all. The nx6325 with a bigger screen, a slightly faster Turion X2 and only 512MB RAM gets 64 minutes more battery life than the dv2000z with 2GB RAM, both with 6 cell batteries? Nuh-uh. The dv6325 battery results I can believe, showing a slight edge for the Core Duo.

3) What's the deal with only providing battery benchmark results? What about the rest of the tests? You know, like the ones that would show the GeForce 6150 stomping the Intel notebook GPUs? (Edit: MobileMark performance rating does test the performance of some applications but it doesn't stress the GPU. Also, CNet claims that the GeForce 6150 has "256MB of dedicated video memory" which it obviously does not.)

Well, OK, sadseh's review notes lousy battery life too. OTOH, miner's review of the V3000z with 12 cell battery got the 5:30 hour battery life I'd expect. So... huh? Is there a problem with the 6 cell batteries or with the dv2000z that the V3000z doesn't share?

 

Why does everyone have to 'make' me feel bad about going with the AMD TL 52 and only a 6-cell battery?! ;]

 

Here is another Turion X2 related review from Laptop Logic.
http://www.laptoplogic.com/reviews/detail.php?id=128&part=full

Although it is not HP brand, but it does tell you where X2 stand both speed and battery life. I think their review has much value than CNET. Their battery life report is not bad. 199 mins on watching DVD.

Surprisingly, author did overclocking experiment. They raise clock from 1.6GHz to 1.97GHz.

 

No problem, as far as I can see.

5:30 hours = 5 hrs x 60 = 300 minutes + 30 minutes = 330 minutes for the 12 cell.

Half of 330 minutes (for the 6 cell) = 165 minutes, or 2 hours (120 minutes) + 45 minutes.

That's exactly what CNET reported on the 6 cell, 2 hours, 45 minutes.

 

Any word on a 9-cell battery? ;]
That would be perfect if it was the same size as the 6-cell. A bit over 4 hours and no protruding 12-cell. If someone has a petition, I'm in!

 

I think 6/12 cell is pretty much HP will do in V-series. It would be good to have 9 or even 8 cell battery. Just wander why HP provides lowest battery density compare to other brands.

 

There is that, but all 3 reviewers used different testing methodologies so the results aren't directly comparable. In particular I'm not sure that CNet was using wireless networking at the time whereas miner was. Regardless, the dv2000z should not lag the nx6235 by a huge amount on the exact same battery test as CNet reported.