HP tossing Penryn into latest Pavilions

You'd think there'd be a bit more excitement associated with the inclusion of Intel's latest and greatest, but HP decided to take the quiet route with integrating Penryn into its Pavilion laptop lineup. The Pavilion dv2700t, dv6700t and dv9700t are all getting an Intel T9300 2.5GHz Core 2 Duo option, with a 6MB l2 cache and a purported 10% speed boost over last-gen Intel processors. Unfortunately, that mild speed boost comes at a $100 premium over the T7500, so you money might be better spent on RAM or a better graphics card -- or you could just choose it all, the Engadget-approved method of speccing a laptop.

[Via NotebookReview]

[STUD HUNK @ Jan 27th 2008 9:59AM]

Why would they NOT be aggressive about publicizing this???


Is it because it is just after the shopping season - or is there another suprise around the corner???


Strange PR strategy! (or lack thereof)

[Mark @ Jan 27th 2008 11:29AM]

nah. I think I'll wait for the next generation of chips ... when quad core makes it to mobile.

[Mark @ Jan 27th 2008 11:54AM]

@Mark
That's a stupid idea. Quad core = 2X the power consumption of a dual core. On a laptop, that's pretty damn important. There's really no reason to get that either: I've had a Core 2 Duo e6600 for the past 1.5 years and I haven't had anything lag on it. Just buy the damn T9300 and be done with it. Otherwise you'll get a batterylife of like 2 hours.

[austin @ Jan 27th 2008 1:51PM]

@mark (the second one)

i think hes joking

[David @ Jan 27th 2008 10:03AM]

This is a while ago, same time as they updated the Dragon (a week?). The low profile is hopefully a good sign that a major refreshment is on its way... (how about some high resolution, matte screens?)

[Zach @ Jan 27th 2008 10:58AM]

i agree, i saw this a few weeks ago at least when i checked out the x700 refresh they did (x being 6 and 9, i myself have a 9500z..amd, and it died within 2 months, had to get it sent back)

[Bearzilla @ Jan 27th 2008 10:34AM]

Actually the speed bump is considerably more then 10%.

The 10% improvement of Penryn is a clock-for-clock comparison. The T9300 is .3GHz faster than the T7500...so its much faster and cooler. Altogether it's worth the extra $100 that HP charges.

[Khattab @ Jan 27th 2008 10:55AM]

No it's not. Compare the retail prices for the Intel CPUs. HP is just greedy - like everybody else in the Biz.


Au revoir...

[Bender Bending Rodriguez @ Jan 27th 2008 11:20AM]

It might be "worth" the extra $100, but if Intel isn't charging HP for that "worth" then why is HP charging you? I believe they use the same socket so it's not like HP had to redesign the MoBo for this chip.

[Bearzilla @ Jan 27th 2008 11:22AM]

Actually you are wrong Khattab.

The price for the Penryn T9300 is around ~$350...and the Merom T7500 is ~$260.

So the $100 price delta isn't that far off.

[wilcoholic @ Jan 27th 2008 10:42AM]

how come

[dramamoose @ Jan 27th 2008 11:16AM]

IDK. I seriously think that I would want to publicize this. A press release or something. Maybe they're gearing up for some more products, and want to keep this under the radar.

[Leonard Nimrod @ Jan 27th 2008 11:16AM]

HP is charging an extra $100 for the 45nm 2.5GHz Penryn that Intel is selling at the exact same pricepoint as the 65nm 2.2GHz Santa Rosa. Unless HP has discounted the Santa Rosa chips—which I don't see—it seems they are charging a premium for chips they are getting for the same price.


$209
— T7100 "Santa Rosa" (1.80 GHz, 2 MB L2 Cache, 800MHz FSB, 65nm)
— T8100 "Penryn" (2.10 GHz, 3 MB L2 Cache, 800MHz FSB, 45nm)

$241
— T7300 "Santa Rosa" (2.00 GHz, 4 MB L2 Cache, 800MHz FSB, 65nm)
— T8300 "Penryn" (2.40 GHz, 3 MB L2 Cache, 800MHz FSB, 45nm)

$316
— T7500 "Santa Rosa" (2.20 GHz, 4 MB L2 Cache, 800MHz FSB, 65nm)
— T9300 "Penryn" (2.50 GHz, 6 MB L2 Cache, 800MHz FSB, 45nm)

$530
— T7700 "Santa Rosa" (2.40 GHz, 4 MB L2 Cache, 800MHz FSB, 65nm)
— T9500 "Penryn" (2.60 GHz, 6 MB L2 Cache, 800MHz FSB, 45nm)

[dramamoose @ Jan 27th 2008 11:17AM]

Manufacturers ALWAYS charge more for higher-GHZ chips.

[mattclarkie @ Jan 27th 2008 12:16PM]

The higher Ghz on these chips seems a waste of battery. The advantage of the higher cache and lower die size means that the same Ghz would still outperform the old chips, and provide better battery life. It would appear to me that any battery-life gained would just be used for the slightly faster Ghz rating which wouldn't really be noticable in the real world.

[Leonard Nimrod @ Jan 27th 2008 12:29PM]

@ dramamoose,
That is wrong in so many ways. Prices get lower for the same GHz chips.

@ mattclarkie,
These new chips are more efficient that Intel can increase the clock speed and still offer power savings over the previous gen chip at the same pricepoint. Certainly, if power savings is more important than clockspeed then you could go from, say, a 2.0GHz Santa Rosa to the cheaper 2.10GHz Penryn instead of to the 2.4GHz Penryn. You wouldn't lose performance and once SSE4 optimized apps come around would gain some performance, but you would certainly gain a very nice increase in battery usage.

I look forward to the in-depth comparisons that should be showing up in February.

[Khattab @ Jan 27th 2008 2:34PM]

Thx, Leonard. That are exactly the prices I was talking about. Greedyness @ its best.


Au revoir...

[mattclarkie @ Jan 27th 2008 12:09PM]

I deliberately delayed getting my Laptop waiting for Santa Rosa. I got it in September, and I have just had to reformat it and install Businessx64 because the Home Premium x86 on it has been nothing but trouble. If I knew the T9 were just 4 months away I could have waited, and got a better spec all round.

It never pays to wait months for something, because everything is replaced with a few months anyway. If I had bought my new Laptop when I wanted 1 year ago I could have justified an upgrade to Penryn.

I expect that Intel are working on getting that Quad down-sized for Mobile use, and I highly expect to see it sometime May to July this year. That may explain why Penryn is on the back-burner.

[Bender Bending Rodriguez @ Jan 27th 2008 12:33PM]

It doesn't pay if you need the machine. There is always something better in the works. No machine is "obsolete" just because a slightly faster one came out.

In 4 months—maybe 6 as Intel is slowing down releases slightly due to AMD lack of competition—we'll see 32nm chips with a new socket and other new and improved features. These chips will be a significant increase over Penryn.

If I was debating on getting a new machine and could wait 6 months I would wait for these new 32nm chips. Especially because I don't think it'll be until then that SSE4 optimized apps will be appearing.

[boe @ Jan 27th 2008 12:12PM]

I'm all for them releasing more chips to choose from for laptops. I wish they'd release some more quad core and core2's for PCs. I'd love for AMD to make a surprise anouncement this week that they have a secret chip they are releasing immediately that blows the doors off the Core2 - I really miss the competition.

[Kevin T. @ Jan 27th 2008 12:50PM]

This is great and all, but I find it funny that HP offers an HD-DVD option at only $75, but the Blu-Ray option is $275 :)

[tessant @ Jan 27th 2008 1:15PM]

keep them coming - smaller, faster, cheaper


scott w
www.growthportfolio.ning.com
"the facebook of technology and investing"

[Will @ Jan 27th 2008 3:38PM]

Harder, better, faster, stronger.

[crescentdavid @ Jan 27th 2008 4:55PM]

Love the "or you could just choose it all, the Engadget-approved method of speccing a laptop."

Yes! And my pocketbook, btw, hates you.

Most PC manufacturers adopt the latest and greatest as soon as they can. It's assumed tier 1 companies will. So I'm not too sure that they always or mostly make a big deal out of the technology.

[Naveed @ Jan 28th 2008 1:49AM]

wish they would get penryn on the 2510p