HP Warranty Replacement - which laptop???

Hi All -

Im new to this site and just posted this in the general forum, but thought I would post in here as well:

Just got off the phone with HP. After a few attempts to resolve my issues, they offered to replace my laptop with a new refurb/store buy back one. They gave me two choices, one with AMD processor, and one with Intel:

Some background info. I am just a home user, mainly using Office 2003 and IE. No gaming or power computing. Take my computer with me to a starbucks on occasion, but usually have it sitting on my desk at home.

Im not really good with this stuff. HP said to let them know which one i wanted and they would ship it out today. There will be no charge to me.

Current Model -
HP DV9233CL
1.67 Intel centrino duo
2GB Ram
7600 Nvidia
240GB HD (2x120)
Lightscribe DVD
17"
32 bit OS (Vista)

Option 1
HP DV9922US
2.1 AMD Turion (64x2)
4GB RAM
8400 NVidia
250GB HD (1 drive with extra drive bay)
Blue Ray DVD
17"
64-bit Vista OS


Option 2 -
HP DV9740US
1.67 Intel Centrino Duo
3GB
8600 Nvidia
320GB HD (160x2)
Blue Ray DVD
17"
32-bit Vista OS


Is one superior than the other? Also, I've heard AMDs like to eat battery life. How much faster will the computer die on AMD vs. Intel?

Thanks again for your help. Any comments/feedback are appreciated.

 

Take option 2
better video and more storage

 

I'd go with option two because having a better GPU would take it from a Mid-range video card to a Performance video card which would give you a better resale value, the heat would be as negligible as the difference in CPU performance.

I'd take the larger HDD space because of the same resale reason and again the heat would be as negligible

The one gig of ram difference would be about $20 and really not worth taking into consideration.

I'd take Intel CPU because I believe it would be easier/cheaper to upgrade the CPU to a 45 nanometer architecture which would give him better thermal profile and negate any heat problems that one might get from the previous heat issues.

 

it really doesn't matter at ALL for you but maybe consider these:
-no gaming. then either GPU. doesn't matter 8400 is better for you. less heat.
-processors don't matter they are close enough where it won't matter. (I think the AMD is a little (tiny) bit faster but lets not open that can of worms)
-disk space... I would take the 1x250 over 2x160 simply because less heat and you have an open hard disk drive bay. but if all you are doing IE and word... your not going to run out anytime soon. with either.
-64Bit computing is going to mainstream very very shortly, so have a 64bit OS would be a good idea, you could upgrade the intel one latter to 64bit.

so if it was me I would take the AMD(option 1). because 64Bit, and one larger disk drive,

Note with 4GB of ram you could completely disable your pagefile and just use system memory.

 

On Amazon, the Intel one is more 160$ comparing with the other.

I would rather get a Vista 32-bit because 64-bit isn't good yet. Maybe a few years..


How can check some answers here:
http://ph.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080108021111AAs6PLz

People say AMD runs cooler,some says Intel runs cooler... according to my experience they run about the same thing... If I remember, AMD CPUs cannot stand heat and would die faster.. Intel has a better quality.

What you can do is to remove a 160GB from your laptop and put it in a HDD USB Case to move it everywhere like a USB key

Since you had a Intel processor and you haven't said that you had any problems from it, stick with Intel.

 

Wow - thanks for all that to consider. Seems to be 6 of 1; half dozen of the other. Im tempted to go with the Intel only bc thats all I know from, but consdering the manufactureres all have AMD lineups im sure its fine for what I need. Again, I am not a power user or a gamer. Just looking to get the best computer I can as long as it is going to be free.

The problems I have been having are more with the repair techs, and less with the hardware. Every time they fix one thing, another thing goes bad. I must say though that my computer does: run hot, wont go to sleep when its supposed to; restarts in the middle of the night; and the fan is on way to much. I think that is more a Microsoft software issues more than a hardware issues. HP has been unable to resolve this, so thats why I get the freebie.

 

I would go with option 1. It has more ram 4gb vs 3gb. It also has a faster cpu. Regardless of if intels core 2 duos are faster then amd's turion the diffrence between the two cpu's is so great that i vote the turion. Also one hard drive thats 250gb vs two 160gb's. And last the 8400m gs will get you better battery life then the 8600m gs

 

Sure you might have a cooler running intel cpu but you have a hotter running nvidia 8600m gs that also uses twice the power.

 

But since your GPU card sits about 40mm away from your CPU I'm guessing it would run cooler, mainly because I have a 8600M GS and I went from T7500 to a T9300 and my fan cuts in a fraction of the amount it use to, which it would only do if the laptop was running cooler, plus what ever power you'd use more in the bigger GPU the 45 nanometer architecture of the CPU would help.

I can only tell you what I know to be a fact, not an assumption.

 

I would go with option one.

This person does not commit to gaming or any serious computing applications. Either option is an upgrade from his/her current model. However, this person mainly uses this computer at home, but occasionally brings it along to Starbucks.

The AMD might come with reduced battery life, but the 8400 will slightly make up for it. It has a higher core clock with a way higher FSB. That would come with increased performance over the 1.67Ghz processor from Intel. In the long run, it would be more ideal to opt for the AMD. Usually when someone invests in a notebook they want to use it as long as possible. The AMD would ensure a little more usage time. Not only is the processor slightly better, but it comes with double your current ram. That would help with future proofing your notebook as well.

With only one drive bay being used, it leaves room for expansion.

The 64 bit operating system would also help for use of future programs. A lot of the newer software companies are coming out with 64 bit applications, which run quite more efficiently.

Both the 8400 and 8600 are fairly identical. The 8600 is only slightly better than the 8400. I've proven that with my own testing. You won't notice a difference from your 7600, because you don't use any graphical applications. Nvidia always increases in quality as the series progress.

SPQR, there would be very little difference between the 8400 and 8600. An additional 70GB of hard drive space wouldn't really matter. The 320GB comes with a dual drive setup, which are two 160GB drives. If she/he wanted to upgrade or resell the notebook it would be worth more if there was just one bigger drive. People want to have expansion room. On the other hand, did this person even mention anything about reselling the notebook? By that point you wouldn't care how much you get for it.

DarkMax, do you even know the difference between 32 bit and 64 bit? The 64 bit operating system comes with a 32 bit emulator which would allow an ease of transition. Certain devices may be incompatible, but that is very rare. As for the preference of processors, it depends on the conditions of use for the heat. Both notebooks will get warm under moderate usage.

All in all, the AMD option would be more of an ideal choice. It's perfect for everything you will need a laptop for.

When you make your decision, don't go based upon a vote or tally. Both sides gave reasonable arguments, but you have to acknowledge YOUR PRIMARY concern. You want a notebook that will last a long duration.


I hope that helps somewhat.

 

I would have to go with the second option. The only thing Option 1 has over Option 2 is RAM, and the CPU. 4GB vs 3GB is essentially unnoticable for a home user, and the Turion 64x2 should be slightly better than the C2D at the cost of more heat and shorter battery life.

Option 2 has a better hard drive, better GPU (albeit more power hungry), 70GB more HD space, and a 32-bit OS that will provide less hassle (although most compatibility issues with x64 have been resolved).

 

option 1 , too tired to explain why . others have made the point