HP Announces tx2000 Covertible Notebook and Updated HDX Gaming Notebook

HP today announced an update to the popular tx1000 in the form of the Pavilion tx2000, a notebook to Tablet PC covertible. Also updated is the giant HP Pavilion HDX 20" monitor notebook that will now carry the powerful Nvidia 8800M GTS video card.

HP Pavilion tx2000

The HP tx2000. (view large image)

The tx2000 has the same basic design as its predecessor, but now offers an active pen input screen (Wacom) that is much improved on the old tx1000 that just had a touch sensitive screen. The specs of the new tx2000 are below:

AMD Turion 64 X2 Dual Core processor TL-66 2.3GHz

Up to 4GB DDR2 RAM (review unit had 2GB)

Nvidia GeForce Go 6150 graphics

Hard drive options of 120GB, 160GB or 250GB

12.1" WXGA touchscreen display with built in digitizer (1280x800 resolution)

LightScribe Super Multi or Super Multi 8X DVD+/-R/RW

Windows Vista Home, Business or Ultimate OS

Integrated 10/100/1000 Ethernet

802.11a/b/g/n with Bluetooth

ExpressCard Slot

3 x USB ports

2 x headphone out and one microphone-in

VGA-15 pin

TV-Out S-video

RJ-11 and RJ-45

Notebook Expansion port 3

2 x Consumer IR

Battery: 4-cell or 6-cell Lithium-Ion

Weight: 4.3 pounds with weightsaver and 4-cell battery

Dimensions: 8.82"(L) x 12.05"(W) x 1.23"(H)

<!-- Generated by XStandard version 1.7.1.0 on 2008-01-02T23:54:50 -->For a full look at the tx2000 we invite you to mosey on over to TabletPCReview.com where our EditorTiffany Boggshas a tx2000 in her hands.

The tx2000 should be available starting January 8th from HP.com and start at a price of $1,299.

HP Pavilion HDX Dragon

We reviewed the HP HDX last year and liked this &quot;notebook&quot; very much, it has some of the greatest multimedia features around and has a great design. The one major knock against it was that the graphics card, an ATI HD2600, just didn't seem to do the HDX justice for its size. HP has remedied this problem by now offering the Nvidia GeForce 8800M GTS 512MBgraphics card as an option. This will give the GTX desktop caliber performance.

(view large image)

Also updated on the HDX is the ability to configure Blu-Ray or HD DVD. To support those hi-definition formats, HP now also offers a WUXGA XHD Ultra Brightview screen display so you really can watch hi-def movies in a meaningful way.

The updated HDX should be available starting sometime this month from HPShopping.com and will start at a price of $1,999.

 

I don't get why HP doesn't just go for the top mobile gpu available (why not use the 8800m gtx instead of the gts)? The price of the HDX is steep enough to afford a notebook with the gtx.

 

8800GTS

Now, if only HP could up the screen res and graphics options in its other notebooks.

 

HP tends like that. They offer less powerful GPU in some of their machines, such as giving only 8600GS instead 8600GT. Though not most powerful, an option for 8800GTS in "notebook" is always welcome

 

I can understand not offering dedicated graphics on a portable tablet, but Nvidia GeForce Go 6150 graphics?

Why didn't HP use the 7150 chipset like they use in the rest of their current lineup?

 

Probably because the typical HP buyer is not really that tech-savvy (or pride-ful ), doesn't really "get" the difference between an 8800M GTS and an 8800M GTX, and for whom round numbers in prices act as pricing triggers (i.e., a person who places more than a dollar's worth of value on the one-dollar difference between a price of $1,999 and $2,000 - this is, BTW, a well-documented aspect of behavioural economics (if you ask really nice, I'll go find citations to authority, otherwise, I trust that my natural charm and savoir-faire will be sufficient )). Amusingly enough, from my own anecdotal experience, people who exhibit this behaviour tend to react solely to the initial advertised price, and do not typically factor in either the cost of the inevitable options they will want to add to the teaser model, nor any amounts for fees, taxes, and etc.

The HDX, of course, fits right into the advertised-teaser-model framework and, as a result, HP is probably more interested in being able to keep its advertised teaser price below the $2,000 price-point than in being able to offer the best technology available; particularly since, under the terms of my hypothesis, many of its customers will not know what the difference is, and, having been gulled by the teaser price for the base model into configuring a system with a price in the mid-two-thousand range, will be more likely to go for the GTS instead of the GTX simply to shave a few dollars off the final price and assuage the pain in their penny-wise/pound-foolish hearts.

But, that's just my two-cents' worth

 

A better question is why didn't HP use Intel processors like they do on all of their other higher end computers (HDX, SE models, Performance business line)? Do they suddenly ignore the value of performance, heat, and battery life? Is AMD paying them for this?

 

How worse is the 8800GTS compares to 8800GTX ?

 

Looks like they only changed the screen and keyboard for the tx2000...

 

The TL-66 is a much better processor than the 6150 is graphics card today. The 6150 is certainly the weaker of the two; the TL-66 is AMD's best one right now and the 6150 is of the GMA 950 class of graphics card (read: one of the worst options). I'm not sure why they didn't go with the 7150M, but probably economics - newer is almost always slightly more expensive.

 

I think credit is still due. I mean look the the *tiny* jumps made when they moved from the tx1000 to the tx1100, to the tx1200, to the tx1300. They put out press releases as if they were full redesigns, when in reality ALL they were, were different SKU's.

As you said though, there is little point in even looking at a ultra portable laptop(or even worse, tablet, because of how one holds it) when theres the turion chip inside. It simply produces too much heat, and uses too much energy. I would think someone who was willing to pay a premium for an ultra small laptop, would also be willing to pay another $50 for a vastly more efficient, cooler running processor. The performance between a 1.5ghz core 2 duo and turion x2 2.0ghz are minimal, and cost nearly the same.

 

Its a 64 shader based card with 256MB GDDR3 and a 256bit bus. Where the GTX is a 96 shader based card and 512MB GDDR3. Both are based off the G92 65nm cores which the new 8800GT's use. I am betting both the GTS and GTX mobile cards will have quite a bit of head room for O/Cing.

 

Not to mention the fact that GMA X3100 outperforms the Go6150.....God, it would have been so much better if this was Intel based....

 

The X3100 outperforms the Go6150, yes, in both games it doesn't artifact horribly in. Read the review on here of the X3100's performance - it puts out decent numbers in some games (though even the older 6150 stomps it into the ground in OpenGL) but the general comment is that image quality is still miserable. And the new Turions are 65nm chips that produce much less heat than the previous 90nm chips - in fact, the TDPs between Merom Core 2 Duos and the new 65nm Turions are very similar.

The most fascinating piece of fanboyism here though is the accusation that AMD is somehow paying off HP. If that were the case, why do all of the larger notebooks have better specs available when you buy them with Intel processors (namely, the 14" Intel has an available dedicated card while the 14" AMD doesn't). And you know, it's not like Intel has ever payed off companies to exclusively use their processors (*cough*Dell*cough*).

 

"This will give the GTX desktop caliber performance."

Shouldn't this say HDX...

 

Haha, I was a bit confused too.

I was beginning to wonder when HP would upgrade the HDX. The move to a 8800M GTS is certainly appreciated. Hopefully they'll add a GTX option, but I doubt it.

 

TDP doesn't say much about powerdraw and heat. Especially since Intel and AMD have different definitions of TDP. The AMDs draw more power, are hotter and less powerful than the Intel ones (even if you compare clock for clock, instead of performance equivalent). That's a fact.

But yeah, accusations of pay offs, especially for a company in as much debt that AMD is, is quite odd.

 

It wasn't an accusation. I'm just trying to figure out what logical reason HP has for not making an Intel version of this. I never said that Intel hasn't done this, just I can't see a reason for HP not to do a "t" variant of the tx. My post was only fanboyish if you choose to view it that way, but really, it was true. A bit speculative in nature, perhaps, but not accusatory or fanboyish. The fact that AMD is hotter, has higher power consumption, and lower performance is true. I've not noticed any real problems with X3100 in the few games I've tried, but I haven't really been following the integrated graphics market all that closely.

And for the sake of correctness, you should be aware that HP doesn't actually sell an AMD version of the dv2x00 platform online as a CTO model; its only in retail stores.

 

Well put Shyster. I think your theory is very valid.

 

The point was stated in here: http://forum.tabletpcreview.com/showthread.php?t=13376&page=2

Basically, AMD processors can offer similar performance for a lower price than an Intel based tablet PC. I'm guessing that HP aims at the "budget" tablet PC and marks it down lower to make it more popular, and my guess is that it's going to work, since the starting price is $1,300.

I mean look at this: "HP tx2000 (AMD Turion 64 X2 2.3GHz, Nvidia Go 6150 graphics) scored 3,738 PCMarks" vs. "Fujitsu LifeBook T4220 (Intel Core 2 Duo 2.2GHz, GMA X3100 graphics) 4,171 PCMarks."

I believe that the new 65nm processors are a dramatic improvement in almost every aspect, and if you want, call them "like-merom" because they almost are.

 

The 2,3GHz Turion X2 is slower than a 2GHz C2D by an avarage of 15%, according to anandtech. PCmark says close to nothing. It's a synthetic benchmark, like 3Dmark and just as reliable. The 1,9GHz Turion X2 is about the same performance as the 1,5GHz C2D, while being hotter and drawing less power.

 

Uhh, yeah, right. Look, for example, at the price difference between the dv6700t (Intel) and the dv6700z (AMD). Configured identically, the price difference comes out to a total of.......$19. That is not a typo. The price difference is NINTEEN WHOLE dollars. Thats a ton. Really. Its even more significant in the case of the 17" models - the Intel and AMD models cost THE SAME. That is a difference of ZERO dollars. And actually, if you go for equally performing processors, then the AMD models are more expensive.

The reason that the tx is far cheaper than the full powered Intel tablets is not the fact that it uses AMD processors - its the fact that its an HP consumer notebook (tablet, whatever). For example, the Asus R1E costs 1700, and an Asus V2s in the same line costs 1700, whereas a similarly specced dv2700t costs only 1300 or so. Theres your difference.

 

Even if an Intel based TX2000 was noticably higher priced than the AMD version, I think many would gladly pay extra (myself included), for significantly less heat and more battery life. The Turion X2 in my Compaq V3000 really gets on my nerves and I've really been turned off by AMD.

 

I hate those warm palmrest on the TX1000. I think TX2000 would be the same.

I still like my Dell D430 the best.

 

The tx2000 looks nice; I'm glad they're offering a Wacom option now. I like what they've done cosmetically to it, too. Now all we need is an intel version... consumers like choices.

As for the HDX, I'm glad that HP finally let their hair down and put in an 8800 in there. I don't care if it's the less powerful version--they probably did that to reduce heat issues. Now, if they could only start a trend with this and upgrade the gpu's in the other pavilion models, they could really capture the higher end/gaming market better, which is about the only area they need improvement in terms of market share.

 

There is nothing wrong with AMD mobile processors. For Processor to Processor comparison, you can actually get more powerful processors if you go with AMD then if you go with Intel, especially in this case of small laptops. Compaq Presario V3000 used 90nm turions, which sucks... -__- (I know I used my friend's before) and 65 nm turions are actually much, much better in terms of performance and battery life (not kidding)

 

yes, but a 1,5GHz C2D≥ 1,9GHz Turion X2. And it has better batterylife and heat output. And aren't these found in similarily price laptops?

 

I wonder how much different would 100Mhz make, TL-66 sounds like a high end model, the T7300 will blow it into the water in performence.
AMD is alright as long as they don't claim their products are better than Intel