This was posted 10 years 2 months 5 days ago, and might be an out-dated deal.

Related
  • expired

HP 15-P011TX - Core i7-4510U, 4GB RAM, 2GB Nvidia 840M, 750GB HDD Laptop $693 @HN (RRP $1099)

620
HP 15-P011TX - Core i7-4510U, 4GB RAM, 2GB Nvidia 840M, 750GB HDD Laptop $693 @HN (RRP $1099)
Go to Deal
WNK on 26/10/2014 - 12:24 harveynorman.com.au (2416 clicks)
Last edited 26/10/2014 - 14:18 by 1 other user

HN has reduced the HP Pavilion i7-4510U 15-P011TX Laptop for $693 (RRP $1099) in their Notebook sale until 27th of Oct(tomorrow).

Product link (RRP $1099), thanks to Spackbace

DS has it for $899 after 15% off RRP
$1012 @ Centercom.

15.6" HD LED-backlit Display
4th Gen Intel® Core™ i7-4510U Processor (2.0GHz)
4GB RAM
750GB (5400rpm) HDD
NVIDIA® GeForce® 840M 2GB Graphics
Windows 8.1
12 Month Manufacturers Express Warranty

Also they offer HP Pavilion 15-R001TU Core i5 Laptop for $498 (Was $698)

Edit- Note: This one may not best for Gaming…!

Computing Computer HP Laptop

Related Stores

Harvey Norman
Harvey Norman

closed Comments

  • TheOneWhoKnocks on 26/10/2014 - 12:31
    +1

    Now that's a bargain! Nice find OP.

  • spackbace on 26/10/2014 - 12:45
    +12

    1366x768

    • killergreely on 26/10/2014 - 13:11
      +7

      worse than that, it's a HP…

    • tg on 26/10/2014 - 13:12
      +24

      My math professor friend from UNSW told me the following:

      1366x768 = 1049088
      1366:768 = 16:8.995608 ~ 16:9

      We have been told by manufacturer that it is 16:9 for years.
      In fact, it is only 16:8.995608.
      They claimed 0.004392387 more than the actual.
      Department of Fair Trading could not do much about this.

      • tonyjzx on 26/10/2014 - 13:14
        +9

        my phone and tablet have more resolution that these two pieces of shit

    • twocsies on 26/10/2014 - 14:28
      +2

      The lower resolution enables the low specced graphics card to deliver a somewhat positive game experience. Otherwise it would be quite miserable to try gaming, I think.

      Note that it's a "Intel Core i7 dual-core processor". Maybe a quad core i5 could be better.

      • nedski on 26/10/2014 - 14:58

        Im running an ACER with the same processor, video card and ram. Runs games fine. However not playing top of the range games but it works fine.

        Plus if you have a super awesome gaming rig, you can just stream it to your laptop.

        • 1Dollar on 26/10/2014 - 15:33

          how do you stream your game? Is it steam big picture?

        • Brouw3r on 26/10/2014 - 21:43

          You log into steam on 2 PC's, then on the bad one, instead of pressing play to a game, you changed it to Stream From [other PC's name]. You may need to have the game library view set to game details.

      • bchliu on 26/10/2014 - 16:29

        You do know that outside of the screen/resolution and hard drive (spindle based), these specs are as good as the 13" Macbook Pros? It is still better than the entry level Macbook Pro at twice the price.

        All of the <13" Macbooks are i5 or i7 DUAL CORE and all of them use an integrated GPU - at "best" the Intel HD 5000 range.

        This is a pretty good buy with the 2GB GF840 in them for games (expect 30-60 FPS on 720p).
        http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-840M.105681.0.ht…

  • askjeebs on 26/10/2014 - 12:52
    +2

    5.6" is a bit small, may want to fix that.

    • WNK on 26/10/2014 - 12:54

      :) Done

      • [Deactivated] on 26/10/2014 - 13:53
        +2

        That's what she said.

        • Tal_Shiar on 26/10/2014 - 14:13

          More like are you done? sigh

        • GateauBoeuf on 27/10/2014 - 12:29
          +1

          A comment challenging my freedom to crack misogynistic jokes?? Must.. downvote to defend fragile masculinity.

  • thelastnoob on 26/10/2014 - 13:28
    +5

    The only good thing about this laptop is the processor - all other components cripple it

    HP laptops have very high failure rates and they are rated one of the worst in the world
    The screen is very low res and probably has poor viewing angles (your small phone would have a better screen)
    The amount of ram is very low for a good i7 machine
    This hard drive like most other laptop drives is very slow and the biggest slowdown factor in the laptop
    The video card is good for basic gaming and is only average at best

    • WNK on 26/10/2014 - 14:04
      +4

      I am still thinking how can we expect a Core i7 laptop with all these features for $693 :)?

      • beeze on 26/10/2014 - 14:52

        dual core i7…

        • bchliu on 26/10/2014 - 16:30
          +1

          A lot of i7's on the laptop market are dual cores. Better heat efficiency. All 11-13" Macbooks (Air and Pro) are Dual core including their i7's.

      • thelastnoob on 26/10/2014 - 15:21
        +1

        2nd hand is always good if goods inspected or a refurb with warranty
        Scumtree and Fleabay or possibly Amazon import
        I would rather a top condition powerhouse laptop that's second hand rather than a new paperweight

  • [Deactivated] on 26/10/2014 - 13:47
    -7

    Why on earth you'd release a laptop with dedicated graphics with a screen that can't do 1920 x 1080….

    • CyberGenesys on 26/10/2014 - 14:05
      -1

      It's a low end GPU. It will either do 2FPS @ 1920x1080 or the settings will have to be down so low it all looks like ass anyway. I'd rather have 1280x720 on a 15" screen if it a) has 30FPS+ or b) has all the object details I expect to see.

      That said, given the price the GPU is like a thrown in extra. Useless, but didn't 'cost anything'.

      • tonyjzx on 26/10/2014 - 14:08
        +2

        i'd rather have 1,920 x 1,080 with Intel 4600 and not play games on it

      • bchliu on 26/10/2014 - 16:32
        +1

        http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-840M.105681.0.ht…

        Load of rubbish. Look at the benchmarks on this site and you'll find 40-60fps for just about everything in the list of games at 720p.

        • CyberGenesys on 26/10/2014 - 17:04
          +1

          Are you disagreeing with me? Because when I look at those benchmarks it shows me that this GPU is terrible at high res (1920x1080) for the majority of games. Going further, it would appear that 1366x768 is the ideal resolution for this GPU as it is able to maintain a minimum of 30FPS with detail set to high.

  • kokoboko on 26/10/2014 - 13:57
    -7

    I wish Parliament will ban laptop to be sold in Australia with 1366x768 resolution.

    • ozhunter68 on 26/10/2014 - 14:48
      +4

      Why ban them. Just make them cheaper. That is a really narrow point of view. For basic word/office/email and internet use, with some YouTube and video watching thrown in, these screens get the job done. I would even say that for normal use, good colour contrast and viewing angles often are more desirable than more pixels.
      Also takes less processing power and conserves battery life too to push around less pixels.
      Most people don't play demanding games, demanding photo editing, or want to watch 1080p movies on their laptop ( or second laptop ).

      I do agree that there should be more options for 1080p screens in notebooks > $1000, even >$800 or less. In an ideal world we would ideally get notebooks with i5/i7, 1080p screens and decent graphics cards and solid build all for under $800. Now there is a thought :-)

      PS: I did not neg you, thought it was funny. Even motivated me to make a comment.

    • ibfragalot on 26/10/2014 - 18:15
      -2

      +1
      Agreed, HATE it!!

  • Nilfunds on 26/10/2014 - 14:23
    -1

    this is one shitty laptop, except the processor.

    id take i5/i3 with 1920x1080 over this anyday

    • ozhunter68 on 26/10/2014 - 14:55

      Me too if we could find any for around this price.

      A wild stab in the dark here, but I am willing to stick my neck out and say that partly this is done on purpose, so computer companies can up sell you to a external monitor to make extra profit. And of course, they make more profit by only including a 1366 screen in the first place. Let's see if the advancement of tablets will hold laptop OEM's to account on this issue.

  • beeze on 26/10/2014 - 14:53

    Meh, dual core, only 4gb RAM, verging on pointless video card, low res screen. Was never worth $1k.

    • ozhunter68 on 26/10/2014 - 15:16

      Agree. But this is the New Laptop market we deal with in Australia, similar to the rest of the world. Mainly the US and some small tax free countries are considerably cheaper ( keep in mind that wages are lower in US and most of Asia ).

      If you want to get your hands on a New Australian Stock ( or international warranty ) Low Priced Quality Laptop or Ultrabook, you generally need to put in a lot of internet research first on sites like this etc, or buy secondhand on gumtree or ebay where you can still get good buys if you look.
      Of course, if you can not test first, there will always be a risk of something being amiss. Hence, try testing first with computer being left on at least an hour or more on battery, to see if system is stable and battery is still ok.

    • bchliu on 26/10/2014 - 16:34
      +1

      According to this logic, no one should buy a Macbook (air and pro) or Ultrabook then since they all have dual cores.

  • spuderump on 26/10/2014 - 14:55
    -7

    my 93yo elderly grandmother would be faster than this piece of shit.

    • [Deactivated] on 26/10/2014 - 15:04
      +6

      Hey young man watch your mouth, I'm not that slow.

    • CyberGenesys on 26/10/2014 - 15:22
      +2

      Does your 93yo grandmother cost $693? And how long is she likely to last?

  • SeanEIt on 26/10/2014 - 15:02

    thanks..

  • [Deactivated] on 26/10/2014 - 15:08
    +6

    I thnk it's a very good find, especially compared to what yousee in the stores.

    1. i7, 4th generation.
    2. nVidia 840m. Now that's very good for a laptop.
    3. <$700, brand new.

    Downsides:
    1. HD resolution (which is what you'll find in most stores. If you haven't been 'spoilt' by a higher resolution, this HD screen would be no worries.)

    1. 4GB ram.

    …but for the price, it's very good for the general user.

    • ozhunter68 on 26/10/2014 - 15:31

      @inose Really refreshing to see someone who is realistic with their expectations of features and price of New laptops in Australia ( also most of the world ).

      Obviously there is not a huge profit margin in laptops, otherwise the prices would have been considerably lower to compete better with the encroaching Tablet market taking a big chunk of the growth in the overall computer/tablet/smartphone market.

      CPU manufacturers don't like cutting their profits, hence they are also bringing out mobile CPU/GPU's to compete and hedge their market share.

      The main advancement in Laptop/Ultrabook model CPU's has been conserving power and better integrated graphics, rather than huge advancements in sheer performance. Another reason was too much heat, which then translates to size/bulk/weight, not to mention noise.

  • jubified on 26/10/2014 - 15:16
    +14

    Seems like everyone wants 1080p res with i7 and high end dedicated graphics + 8gb ram for $700.

    • ragflan on 26/10/2014 - 19:03
      +1

      This is exactly right. I probably won't own any Apple laptops but I'm really impressed by the base model Retina Macbook especially when it's on 10% off. For around $1350 you get a 2880x1800 13" screen, 128GB SSD, 8GB RAM on an i5 chip with 8 hours battery life. I'm trying to find laptops running Windows that do the same (with maybe lesser battery life) but they're all just as expensive or even more so. I think you'd be hard pressed to find great laptops that tick all the boxes for below a thousand dollars.

      • [Deactivated] on 26/10/2014 - 22:49

        2880x1800 on a 13" screen? Isn't that a bit of an overkill? Why would you need that?

      • morpheu on 27/10/2014 - 12:40

        dude, just buy that Macbook already and install Windows, but just keep in mind that 8 hours battery life is for MacOS, on the same hardware Windows will have less battery life, running light to medium load programs show the biggest difference, heavy load is pretty much neck and neck…

  • cannedhams on 26/10/2014 - 15:24
    +3

    I can't believe how many people p*** and moan these days. When I started work I had a Pentium 2 laptop with 64 mb ram with a ni-cad battery that conked out after about 4 charges and I paid close to 2000 dollars for the privilege. And I was happy as larry. Damn kids these days.

    • ozhunter68 on 26/10/2014 - 15:44
      +1

      @paizuri Agree.

      And most likely you had to work and save up for many months rather than weeks, like most people and even working teenagers today.

      If you look around today, you can get a decent New Light i3/i5 laptop for +-$500 with a good battery that will last a hours, and should be reliable with care for 2 to 3 years.

      If you need more ram, for $40 you can double 4 to 8 GB as long as your computer is capable and has 2 slots. Most allow this some even up to 16GB, with the exception of some really low end models which is soldered on, or laptops with only one slot, which means you could sell your included ram before purchasing an 8GB stick.

    • aerona on 26/10/2014 - 18:12
      +1

      Stronger os requires more processing power. Back in the days you didn't need much processing power so there is no way you can measure the two unless you get these specs with < Windows 97/me.

  • ibfragalot on 26/10/2014 - 15:48
    +2

    The "i7" part is in name only. Its a dual core!

    Aldi has a 1080p 11.6" notebook/tablet with a quad core 1.9gHz Celeron for $550 at the moment, far better buy. Medion too, German, take that over HP any day.

    • CyberGenesys on 26/10/2014 - 19:28
      +2

      Core count is not everything. Quad cores are only useful for applications that take advantage of multiple threads. Historically this has been limited to video encoding, photo editing and those sorts of tasks. Even games have only recently started to optimise for multicore CPUs. Personally in a laptop I would prefer a really fast dual core over a slower quad core (in terms of clock speeds). Other consideration such as TDP and effect on battery life come into it.

      The i7 still outperforms that celeron by a significant amount (as expected)

      http://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp[]=2134&cmp[]=2248

      I too would probably buy the Medion one instead, but not because it has has 4 cores.

      • NeoM on 26/10/2014 - 19:52

        Quad cores are only useful for applications that take advantage of multiple threads.

        That is incorrect. Yes, few applications are optimised to take advantage of multithreading, but quad cores have an advantage of running more processes concurrently.

        This means more programs can run at once without bottlenecking the CPU. Although you will rarely see this issue come up in everyday computing, it is important to consider if you will be frequently running multiple CPU intensive applications at the same time and you don't want to take a hit to system performance.

        It also means programs that are optimised to only take a few threads on the CPU, will leave the remaining free for other uses.

        • CyberGenesys on 26/10/2014 - 20:17
          +2

          I agree, but considering the tablet in question it is not likely that CPU intensive applications are going to be run at all, let alone concurrently. Also, the benefits of Hyper Threading should not be dismissed.

        • bchliu on 27/10/2014 - 18:40
          +1

          According to that logic, a Quad Core Atom processor should run faster than an i7 Dual core? Or does an AMD 8 core run faster than an i7? I dont think so.. It is based upon the design of the processor and logic sequencing that determines how fast processing is done.

  • avitherock on 26/10/2014 - 16:29
    +1

    wat do u guys think of this one : http://www.harveynorman.com.au/hp-pavilion-15-r001tu-laptop.… or http://www.onlinecomputer.com.au/product_info.php?products_i…

    am looking for a basic laptop

    • ozhunter68 on 27/10/2014 - 00:12

      Both of the above are decent laptops for the price, spec wise it's close to as low as these generally go for new. If you need maximum cpu and graphics power for 3D games etc, then the HP is a clear leader with it's i5 max turbo up to 2.7 mHz and 4th gen HD4400 v 3rd gen HD4000.

      The Acer on the other hand, has a better build with aluminium materials used, very thin and only weighs 2.2 Kg. Looks good too. The main difference would Touch v Non Touch. If you think you want that more than the CPU/GPU difference, then this is a good choice for the money.

      Another couple of points to keep in mind, DVD V No DVD ( easily fixed for $30-$40 external ), normally a 4th gen Haswell i3/i5/i7 uses 15 % - 30 % less power than 3rd gen of similar mHz range, but reading a review on the Acer, they have optimised that system really well and should be close to the HP.

      If your interested in improving your performance, I think you might be able to install an mSata hhd as a second drive for faster booting and as cashe ect. You could swap hhd for ssd in the HP, but this way you can settle for smaller/cheaper mSata, and keep your 500GB spinner. Good luck with your choice.

      Aaaaah,…. the Pros and Cons

  • [Deactivated] on 26/10/2014 - 17:57

    Can someone enlighten me?

    I thought all i5s and i7s are quad core?

    • ibfragalot on 26/10/2014 - 18:16
      +1

      Intel are being sneaky with the mobile variants…. Pretty disappointing hey.

    • d3ft on 26/10/2014 - 18:55
      +3

      The desktop versions are, the majority of mobile CPUs are not. A quad-core mobile CPU will have a "Q" in the model name.

  • [Deactivated] on 26/10/2014 - 21:13
    +1

    What a shitty piece of metal. HP and overheating is the worst, people never learn

  • tightarse on 26/10/2014 - 21:41
    +1

    Thanks WNK.

  • CVonC on 27/10/2014 - 02:53

    good price for this decent laptop.. i posted the same spec'd HP at the beginning of this month and it was $799 —> https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/163713

  • fitr on 27/10/2014 - 09:50

    i will never buy a HP again since 2 of HP laptop died both with in 18 months (cost me 3k at the time)

    My IBM last 6 years my Lenovo($800) last 3 and 4 years still running

  • iNeedMoreMoney on 27/10/2014 - 10:43

    Excellent price, decent specs, thanks op!

  • Urban Warrior Ninja on 27/10/2014 - 21:13

    A few of my mates work for HP sales and they tell me the life expectancy on "consumer products" is 3 to 6 months. That's why they get us to pay more for longer warranty. Enterprise-grade products are expected to last about 3 years, but consumers basically get low-end crap with cheap parts that overheat and die out quick. What a shame.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join