True, but the hope is the 1080p screen will be the new base model while maintaining the same price point. We have the elitebooks here at work. They're a nice machine ruined by a crappy 1366*768 screen. We asked for at least the 1080p screens but the budget guys realized they could save $$ by forgoing that option. It sucks bc it really does hamper the laptops usability.
There will always be a need to slough off cheap, mass quantity panels, and there will always be demand. The truth is that 768p is fine for most users (otherwise people wouldn't buy them in droves). From people trying to play games at reasonable frame rates with IGP to people with poor vision (most people over 45), and everyone else streaming 720p video, these low-resolution panels satisfy the broadest range of users. They're also just bottom o' the barrel CHEAP, so anyone can afford them.
While I believe that 4K+ adoption will certainly drive down the costs of 1080p panels and hopefully make the upgrade cheaper, I don't think we'll see an end to 768p for a long time.
yeah, el cheapo notebooks for surfing web/email/FB etc will always sell. These however are marketed mainly to businesses. The problem for me is the office holding the purse strings only sees cheaper, they don't see that that the low res screen is a hinderance to productivity. That's why I wish it would go away.
A small upgrade to 1600x1080 would be a tremendous upgrade path to 12 to 14 inch panels. I just don't get it. 16:10 is a nice aspect ratio. If even better go 1600x1200!!!!
There are many tasks for which that resolution is ample. Besides, it supports 720p, which is still HD. Care to answer what demands higher resolution? And I mean "demand", not "it is nice to have".
Off the top of my head, snapping apps to the left and right of the screen. On a 1080p screen, two apps are cramped. On 768p, it's pointless and unproductive.
That said, this is a business laptop, I'd rather see something like 2560x1700 (3:2 ratio) that is still media-friendly but allows for better productivity as well.
How many apps you have on your screen is limited by your display size, granted resolution is also a factor, but not a major one. What good would a 4 inch 4K display be, sure you can line a dozen apps on it but it will not be useful.
Most productivity software is actually better suited for wide screen aspect rations. Virtually ALL professional applications feature a hefty sidebar, usually property browser for the active selection. Naturally, I exclude M$ ribbon nonsense from professional software. Take photoshop, take 3d max or maya, take solidworks, take IDEs, take whatever professional productivity software you can find, it all benefits from wider aspect ratios and the user experience would actually be crippled as you move from wide to square.
Yeah, there are plenty but have you ever try to manage a massive spreadsheet or an access DB on a 768p screen? It's a PITA and severely hinders work, especially if you need supporting documents open as well. There simply not enough screen real-estate at that res. The MS ribbon doesn't help either. I know you don't include MS as professional software but considering its used by the majority of businesses you can't dismiss it and say it doesn't count.
As a developer, if my work tried to saddle me with a 768p display, I'd be pissed. It's bad enough that on a Retina MacBook Pro, the default effective resolution is 1440x900. And Iris Pro isn't powerful enough to handle multiple desktops and transitions between them at 1920x1200 effective. Not to mention that OSX has no option to scale the resolution so that text in programs isn't tiny.
That's just not true. I run my work mbp at "effective" 1920x1200 and it has no problems with multiple monitors (3) and multiple desktops. Does it run at 60 fps? Probably not, but I don't care, its fast enough. Also, I'm in the business of making software, not watching screens animate by
Tell me which do you think corporation buy in large quantity ? Some have to deal with work provided laptop, thus that option getting removed would be a good thing for them.
There are old fabs which churn out low res panels, those fabs still can provide a return in the investment, there is no point scrapping them, 720p+ is enough in most cases.
No it is not, when your screen still have the same vertical estate then 25 years old standard (xga was release in 1990), there is a problem. Until 16:9 resolution became standard, I don't remember seeing a monitor with anything less then 1024 vertical pixel since the late 90s.
Those are mainly business laptop, thus for work, not leisure, so the vertical estate is important. Your not buying those for your user that have something good enough to watch video.
SVA is not a screen technology like IPS. In HP's parlance, SVA means Standard Viewing Angle (denoting a TN display), as opposed to WVA, which means Wide Viewing Angle (denoting an IPS display).
Unfortunately SVA is a panel technology, which seems to have been introduced by Samsung. Therefore until official documentation says that SVA = standard viewing angle, please don't jump to conclusions purely based on some random forum posts and review articles, or previous HP models either. We need to wait for a full review (from Anandtech maybe?) to determine whether which is HP referring to.
Considering that SVA, WVA and UWVA (Ultra-Wide Viewing Angle) have been used by HP for years to describe viewing angles, it's not much of a "jump" to conclude they mean the same thing with the latest models as well. But hey, if you want to speculate that maybe this time SVA refers to some obscure, proprietary Samsung technology, feel free.
SVA is simple a mobile variant (power optimized) PVA technology. This makes sense for a business application since PVA inherently has very poor refresh rate, sometimes as high as 30ms. IPS has most of the benefits of PVA while reducing refresh latency to ~10ms.
All of these technologies have better viewing angles and color reproduction than TN. TN is the cheapest, PVA used to be expensive but the process has matured so much its cheaper to produce than IPS, hence HP's decision to order millions of PVA panels from Samsung, who calls them SVA, probably because Samsung likes to put an S in the name of everything they make. S-Voice, SAMOLED, Galaxy "S" and so on...I'm kind of joking but not kind of joking here. Who knows, maybe Samsung renaped PVA technology just to make old look new again.
The touch panels are undoubtedly IPS, as are the 1080P panels.
Just not the better contrast. VA panels basically are never less than double or 2.5x an IPS panel in terms of contrast ratio. But, who knows if this is true for their oddball panel type.
DisplayPort, hmm? Not a bad looking machine; would have to try and get work to fork out for the 745 with the A12 and at least the 1080p display. :) The specs sheet appear to hint at some panels being TN with the others are listed as IPS/FFS/VA; I think 768p and 1080p are TN.
If HP has dumped Intel out in favour of AMD for this particular range, then AMD must be doing something right, but please, PLEASE, don't lock the CPUs to 12/15W TDP. I couldn't see any information on this.
AMD's mobile chips make more sense as a budget gaming platform. 99% of office workers are CPU bound and 99% of the time mass market software is bound by single threaded performance; Intel crushes AMD there. (Hopefully Zen will change things in a year.)
As much as I'm glad that AMD APUs actually goes into a notebook, I keep wondering what is it with the focus on professional section? What advantage does AMD have in this regards? Intel vPro too expensive? For business expensive? I mean, why must it be just business class? Intel's mass discount does not include business class?
For general office productivity like word/excel/outlook on the go, these will be just fine. I don't like the low res screen. Have the older version here at work but those Carrizo chips should help get nice battery life out of them. And it helps lower the price. While per notebook its not much, when you're trying to arm a fleet of people with laptops it adds up. I am curious to see the cost diff though.
Don't understand why some laptops have DisplayPort while others have HDMI. HDMI would make a lot more sense in a business laptop IMO for hooking up to HDMI projectors or TV's. This reminds me of how some monitors come with HDMI and others DisplayPort. I mean, choose a standard already or include both.
These products are surprisingly decent. I don't expect the performance of an i7, but if it ticks all the right boxes at a reasonable price, it could make a nice alternative to much more expensive "ultrabooks".
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
47 Comments
Back to Article
Samus - Wednesday, September 30, 2015 - link
I love Elitebooks but every year when they announce new models, I keep my fingers crossed they will finally nix 1366x768 as the base option.And they never do. I just don't get it.
ddriver - Wednesday, September 30, 2015 - link
What do you care as long as there are higher resolution options? It is not like they are forcing anyone to buy low res panel models.Manch - Wednesday, September 30, 2015 - link
True, but the hope is the 1080p screen will be the new base model while maintaining the same price point. We have the elitebooks here at work. They're a nice machine ruined by a crappy 1366*768 screen. We asked for at least the 1080p screens but the budget guys realized they could save $$ by forgoing that option. It sucks bc it really does hamper the laptops usability.nathanddrews - Wednesday, September 30, 2015 - link
There will always be a need to slough off cheap, mass quantity panels, and there will always be demand. The truth is that 768p is fine for most users (otherwise people wouldn't buy them in droves). From people trying to play games at reasonable frame rates with IGP to people with poor vision (most people over 45), and everyone else streaming 720p video, these low-resolution panels satisfy the broadest range of users. They're also just bottom o' the barrel CHEAP, so anyone can afford them.While I believe that 4K+ adoption will certainly drive down the costs of 1080p panels and hopefully make the upgrade cheaper, I don't think we'll see an end to 768p for a long time.
Manch - Wednesday, September 30, 2015 - link
yeah, el cheapo notebooks for surfing web/email/FB etc will always sell. These however are marketed mainly to businesses. The problem for me is the office holding the purse strings only sees cheaper, they don't see that that the low res screen is a hinderance to productivity. That's why I wish it would go away.fteoath64 - Thursday, October 1, 2015 - link
A small upgrade to 1600x1080 would be a tremendous upgrade path to 12 to 14 inch panels. I just don't get it. 16:10 is a nice aspect ratio. If even better go 1600x1200!!!!Manch - Thursday, October 1, 2015 - link
I still have my Dell 1900X1200 panel. Love it!ddriver - Wednesday, September 30, 2015 - link
There are many tasks for which that resolution is ample. Besides, it supports 720p, which is still HD. Care to answer what demands higher resolution? And I mean "demand", not "it is nice to have".kaidenshi - Wednesday, September 30, 2015 - link
Off the top of my head, snapping apps to the left and right of the screen. On a 1080p screen, two apps are cramped. On 768p, it's pointless and unproductive.That said, this is a business laptop, I'd rather see something like 2560x1700 (3:2 ratio) that is still media-friendly but allows for better productivity as well.
ddriver - Wednesday, September 30, 2015 - link
How many apps you have on your screen is limited by your display size, granted resolution is also a factor, but not a major one. What good would a 4 inch 4K display be, sure you can line a dozen apps on it but it will not be useful.Most productivity software is actually better suited for wide screen aspect rations. Virtually ALL professional applications feature a hefty sidebar, usually property browser for the active selection. Naturally, I exclude M$ ribbon nonsense from professional software. Take photoshop, take 3d max or maya, take solidworks, take IDEs, take whatever professional productivity software you can find, it all benefits from wider aspect ratios and the user experience would actually be crippled as you move from wide to square.
The rest is a myth.
Manch - Thursday, October 1, 2015 - link
Yeah, there are plenty but have you ever try to manage a massive spreadsheet or an access DB on a 768p screen? It's a PITA and severely hinders work, especially if you need supporting documents open as well. There simply not enough screen real-estate at that res. The MS ribbon doesn't help either. I know you don't include MS as professional software but considering its used by the majority of businesses you can't dismiss it and say it doesn't count.06GTOSC - Thursday, October 1, 2015 - link
As a developer, if my work tried to saddle me with a 768p display, I'd be pissed. It's bad enough that on a Retina MacBook Pro, the default effective resolution is 1440x900. And Iris Pro isn't powerful enough to handle multiple desktops and transitions between them at 1920x1200 effective. Not to mention that OSX has no option to scale the resolution so that text in programs isn't tiny.erple2 - Thursday, October 1, 2015 - link
That's just not true. I run my work mbp at "effective" 1920x1200 and it has no problems with multiple monitors (3) and multiple desktops. Does it run at 60 fps? Probably not, but I don't care, its fast enough. Also, I'm in the business of making software, not watching screens animate byiniudan - Wednesday, September 30, 2015 - link
Tell me which do you think corporation buy in large quantity ? Some have to deal with work provided laptop, thus that option getting removed would be a good thing for them.ddriver - Wednesday, September 30, 2015 - link
There are old fabs which churn out low res panels, those fabs still can provide a return in the investment, there is no point scrapping them, 720p+ is enough in most cases.iniudan - Thursday, October 1, 2015 - link
No it is not, when your screen still have the same vertical estate then 25 years old standard (xga was release in 1990), there is a problem. Until 16:9 resolution became standard, I don't remember seeing a monitor with anything less then 1024 vertical pixel since the late 90s.Those are mainly business laptop, thus for work, not leisure, so the vertical estate is important. Your not buying those for your user that have something good enough to watch video.
Oxford Guy - Wednesday, September 30, 2015 - link
Glossy, semi-glossy, or matte displays? What is SVA? Are the higher-resolution panels TN?kyuu - Wednesday, September 30, 2015 - link
As the article states, all the panels are SVA. SVA is similar to IPS in terms of off-angle viewing and color accuracy.Indrek - Wednesday, September 30, 2015 - link
SVA is not a screen technology like IPS. In HP's parlance, SVA means Standard Viewing Angle (denoting a TN display), as opposed to WVA, which means Wide Viewing Angle (denoting an IPS display).eriri-el - Wednesday, September 30, 2015 - link
Unfortunately SVA is a panel technology, which seems to have been introduced by Samsung. Therefore until official documentation says that SVA = standard viewing angle, please don't jump to conclusions purely based on some random forum posts and review articles, or previous HP models either. We need to wait for a full review (from Anandtech maybe?) to determine whether which is HP referring to.Reference: http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/articles/content/panel...
Indrek - Wednesday, September 30, 2015 - link
Considering that SVA, WVA and UWVA (Ultra-Wide Viewing Angle) have been used by HP for years to describe viewing angles, it's not much of a "jump" to conclude they mean the same thing with the latest models as well. But hey, if you want to speculate that maybe this time SVA refers to some obscure, proprietary Samsung technology, feel free.Samus - Wednesday, September 30, 2015 - link
SVA is simple a mobile variant (power optimized) PVA technology. This makes sense for a business application since PVA inherently has very poor refresh rate, sometimes as high as 30ms. IPS has most of the benefits of PVA while reducing refresh latency to ~10ms.All of these technologies have better viewing angles and color reproduction than TN. TN is the cheapest, PVA used to be expensive but the process has matured so much its cheaper to produce than IPS, hence HP's decision to order millions of PVA panels from Samsung, who calls them SVA, probably because Samsung likes to put an S in the name of everything they make. S-Voice, SAMOLED, Galaxy "S" and so on...I'm kind of joking but not kind of joking here. Who knows, maybe Samsung renaped PVA technology just to make old look new again.
The touch panels are undoubtedly IPS, as are the 1080P panels.
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/articles/panel_technol...
sorter - Wednesday, September 30, 2015 - link
http://i.imgur.com/uNMCGsY.pngOxford Guy - Wednesday, September 30, 2015 - link
"PS has most of the benefits of PVA"Just not the better contrast. VA panels basically are never less than double or 2.5x an IPS panel in terms of contrast ratio. But, who knows if this is true for their oddball panel type.
Amandtec - Wednesday, September 30, 2015 - link
VGA port is actually something I still need. Who would have thunk it?HW_mee - Wednesday, September 30, 2015 - link
Lots and lots of companies still have VGA only projectors.silverblue - Wednesday, September 30, 2015 - link
DisplayPort, hmm? Not a bad looking machine; would have to try and get work to fork out for the 745 with the A12 and at least the 1080p display. :) The specs sheet appear to hint at some panels being TN with the others are listed as IPS/FFS/VA; I think 768p and 1080p are TN.http://www8.hp.com/h20195/v2/GetPDF.aspx/c04688021...
If HP has dumped Intel out in favour of AMD for this particular range, then AMD must be doing something right, but please, PLEASE, don't lock the CPUs to 12/15W TDP. I couldn't see any information on this.
hrrmph - Wednesday, September 30, 2015 - link
Sounds like they cheaped out going with AMD. I'm guessing these will run either hot or slow or noisy... or maybe all three.Glad to see them keeping telephony SIM card slots, and even more glad to see them going with LTE.
But, where is the 17" 4K screen model so I can finally retire my circa 2006 17" 1200P machine?
medi03 - Wednesday, September 30, 2015 - link
You should probably check an article about carrizo:http://www.anandtech.com/show/9319/amd-launches-ca...
DanNeely - Wednesday, September 30, 2015 - link
AMD's mobile chips make more sense as a budget gaming platform. 99% of office workers are CPU bound and 99% of the time mass market software is bound by single threaded performance; Intel crushes AMD there. (Hopefully Zen will change things in a year.)Oxford Guy - Wednesday, September 30, 2015 - link
Office workers are rarely bound by CPU performance.lilmoe - Wednesday, September 30, 2015 - link
+1That's even more so with Windows 10 and Office 2016, where a balanced "good" performing processor is more desirable.
jaydee - Thursday, October 1, 2015 - link
Office workers are usually I/O bound, as most of them are still on spinning hard drivesSamus - Wednesday, September 30, 2015 - link
The Elitebook 8xx and 10xx lines have what you are looking for. And if they don't the zBook 15 and 17 are monsters and basically in Elitebook shells.coder111 - Wednesday, September 30, 2015 - link
Why oh why does HP keep that stupid arrow key arrangement? It's impossible to work on big blocks of text or software code using these keys...asdacap - Wednesday, September 30, 2015 - link
As much as I'm glad that AMD APUs actually goes into a notebook, I keep wondering what is it with the focus on professional section? What advantage does AMD have in this regards? Intel vPro too expensive? For business expensive? I mean, why must it be just business class? Intel's mass discount does not include business class?Manch - Wednesday, September 30, 2015 - link
For general office productivity like word/excel/outlook on the go, these will be just fine. I don't like the low res screen. Have the older version here at work but those Carrizo chips should help get nice battery life out of them. And it helps lower the price. While per notebook its not much, when you're trying to arm a fleet of people with laptops it adds up. I am curious to see the cost diff though.MrSpadge - Wednesday, September 30, 2015 - link
I see a lot of sensible choices made here. I'm surprised to say that about an HP machine, and especially an AMD powered one.zypo - Wednesday, September 30, 2015 - link
I'm guessing none of them are 35W... be careful and do your research!Chriz - Wednesday, September 30, 2015 - link
Don't understand why some laptops have DisplayPort while others have HDMI. HDMI would make a lot more sense in a business laptop IMO for hooking up to HDMI projectors or TV's. This reminds me of how some monitors come with HDMI and others DisplayPort. I mean, choose a standard already or include both.jabber - Wednesday, September 30, 2015 - link
DisplayPort to whatever adaptors are easy and cheap to buy. Not a problem. I'd rather have DisplayPort than HDMI, better connector for a start.jabber - Wednesday, September 30, 2015 - link
You'll never find these for sale though. Retailers will only have the Intel variants in stock.HideOut - Thursday, October 1, 2015 - link
It says includes a USB type C but is it 3.1 or some older tech in that shape? (like the new nexus phones have type C but as USB 2.0)maglito - Thursday, October 1, 2015 - link
Can anyone confirm if these carrizo based laptops have full HDMI 2.0a 18Gbps support?FriendlyUser - Thursday, October 1, 2015 - link
These products are surprisingly decent. I don't expect the performance of an i7, but if it ticks all the right boxes at a reasonable price, it could make a nice alternative to much more expensive "ultrabooks".R3MF - Friday, October 2, 2015 - link
15W or 35W?if the 12" model comes with a 35W A12-B sku I am sold.
R3MF - Friday, October 2, 2015 - link
they are 18mm thick, so they have plenty of room for heat-dispersing tech in the chassis.no excuse for 15W.