WootBot


quality posts: 15 Private Messages WootBot

Staff

HP Pavilion AMD Quad-Core Laptops

Speed to First Woot:
45m 5.559s
First Sucker:
Kevin686
Last Wooter to Woot:
javierurbina3
Last Purchase:
3 months ago
Order Pace (rank):
Top 17% of Sellout Woots
Top 27% of all Woots
Woots Sold (rank):
Top 18% of Sellout Woots
Top 22% of all Woots

Purchaser Experience

  • 32% first woot
  • 6% second woot
  • 21% < 10 woots
  • 21% < 25 woots
  • 21% ≥ 25 woots

Purchaser Seniority

  • 22% joined today
  • 2% one week old
  • 4% one month old
  • 13% one year old
  • 59% > one year old

Quantity Breakdown

  • 100% bought 1

Percentage of Sales Per Hour

2%
1%
5%
1%
0%
3%
4%
9%
7%
4%
5%
3%
8%
6%
7%
7%
3%
6%
4%
6%
5%
4%
2%
2%
12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Woots by State

zero wooters wootinglots of wooters wooting



Quality Posts


wootstalkerbot


quality posts: 13 Private Messages wootstalkerbot

[Preview 1][Preview 2][Preview 3][Preview 4][Preview 5][Preview 6][Preview 7]


HP Pavilion AMD Quad-Core Laptops
Price: $429.99 - 439.99
Shipping Options:: $5 Standard
Shipping Estimates: Ships in 3-5 business days (Wednesday, Aug 13 to Monday, Aug 18) + transit
Condition: Factory Reconditioned

Buy It Search Amazon Search Google

***Facebook/Twitter notifications enabled***

Woot Tracker | Woot Plus Tracker | Droid App | Chat |Contests | T-Shirt Trade | Derby Stats

woncoolone


quality posts: 906 Private Messages woncoolone

conanthelibrarian


quality posts: 3690 Private Messages conanthelibrarian

Time to learn all about the processor here and here

episen


quality posts: 1 Private Messages episen

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp[]=2238&cmp[]=1920

Fair or not, I always compare the CPU in the offer to the 2014 MacBook Air's CPU (Core i5-4260u). It's a 1.4GHz, dual-core.

The comparison generally shows me how inefficient most AMD chips really are.

The chips in this HP offer compare favorably (in terms of performance), but sad when you realize it has double the cores.

Intel is still on top.

jimmer2007


quality posts: 2 Private Messages jimmer2007

Just bought the 17 inch one a few weeks back. Not terribly impressed but what can I say for $439 and cheap shipping?

So: Windows 8.1. You may not adapt. I got frustrated immediately and I am very tech savvy. It does boot very quickly, though.
Battery life: Meh. 2 hours at best.
Mouse/pad: LOUD. The texture feature is awkward. You will wind up with a USB mouse. No scroll feature (at least that I can figure out).
Programs: Skype cannot be used with other programs because it cannot be turned off full screen. Can't even see/run/use anything else without using task manager to toggle.
Browsing: Meh. Get FireFox, still a bit boggy.
Gaming: Ok/decent. I can run a couple MMORPGs at medium/high settings.
WIFI: connects quickly, but certainly does not give me the 50+MB/sec like my old one.
The color is not quite as Woot's pics show; mine is much darker.
Power cord attaches on the right side, right where you use the mouse... Plus it is a 90 degree one, vs. a straight one. It won't last long for me since no matter where I go, it "kinks".


Cool Sense or whatever it's called.I'm quite keen on this feature. No more scorched wrists while running heavier programs.
Overall, I give it 6.5 out of 10. I got what I expected for less than $450.

xmichaelx


quality posts: 2 Private Messages xmichaelx
episen wrote:
The comparison generally shows me how inefficient most AMD chips really are.

The chips in this HP offer compare favorably (in terms of performance), but sad when you realize it has double the cores.



What's sad is that you've just announced to the world that you don't understand chip architecture, what a core is, what "double" means in terms of cores, the difference between AMD and Intel, or pretty much anything else.

Intel is in fact ahead of AMD. But you are utterly ignorant as to why that is the case.

How do you even breathe without falling over?

nicnack2


quality posts: 0 Private Messages nicnack2

I've been thinking about buying this laptop. I only use my current laptop for completing schoolwork and gaming. I don't really play games like Skyrim or Call of Duty. Mostly games like Empire Total War or Starcraft. Does anyone know if this laptop would be a descent one for me to get?

stompysan


quality posts: 1 Private Messages stompysan
episen wrote:http://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp[]=2238&cmp[]=1920

Fair or not, I always compare the CPU in the offer to the 2014 MacBook Air's CPU (Core i5-4260u). It's a 1.4GHz, dual-core.

The comparison generally shows me how inefficient most AMD chips really are.

The chips in this HP offer compare favorably (in terms of performance), but sad when you realize it has double the cores.

Intel is still on top.



AMD has always had a "HIGHER CORES!!!!" and "HIGHER CLOCK SPEEDS!!!!" thought process that usually doesn't pan out the best, but they are able to push their chips well beyond anything Intel will put out out of box. While it may not perform as well as an Intel chip, a 5GHz out of box frequency is just crazy, and at least for the foreseeable future, we just will not see anything like this from Intel.

Also, APUs are not designed for raw processor speeds. APUs are meant to be a middle ground between Intel's terrible integrated graphics and expensive discrete graphics options. The integrated graphics on APUs are really impressive when games are thrown at them. I have an Acer with a similar A10-5757 APU, and the thing destroys games. BF3 at 720P, mostly high settings (no AA). Considering everything, it is really impressive.

One last thing: The comparison you posted is completely unfair. You are comparing it to an Apple device...

episen


quality posts: 1 Private Messages episen
xmichaelx wrote:What's sad is that you've just announced to the world that you don't understand chip architecture, what a core is, what "double" means in terms of cores, the difference between AMD and Intel, or pretty much anything else.

Intel is in fact ahead of AMD. But you are utterly ignorant as to why that is the case.

How do you even breathe without falling over?



I think I've announced what any IT person with half a brain already knows — AMD having 4 cores cannot compete with Intel having 2 cores.

Not only do benchmarks show it, real world usage shows it. You can FEEL how slow every AMD chip is. You can also FEEL how slow every Core i3 is, especially with Windows 8.

I'm well aware of the "MHz myth," which is why there's nothing impressive about 4 cores running at 2.5GHz vs a 2 core chip running at 1.4GHz.

To the guy saying I'm comparing to an Apple machine, you misunderstand. I'm comparing to the chip used in the MBA and nothing more. Since that chip is not exclusive to Apple, but any box maker, it's a fair comparison on CPUBenchmarks.

You can insult me being "intelligent enough to breathe," but my understanding of chips is seemingly better than yours.

I have to deal with many of these types of machines every day (not these HPs, mind you), but machines of similar spec.

That said, I mentioned these seem to compare favorably to a dual core i5, so I wasn't insulting these machines at all.