I'm looking for a new (well, first ever) laptop for uni this year. I am an art student so will be using it mainly for graphics software, image editing, and the normal music listening etc. Power to run games well would also be a plus. So I guess it's mainly a multimedia laptop. I don't want to be spending any more that 400/450 pounds to be honest.
The last one looks good, and it has XP rather than Vista, which is a plus for me (i'm sure many others would also agree), although I don't know much about the HP brand or the graphics card. Maybe another laptop on Ebuyer http://www.ebuyer.com/UK/store/5/category/Laptops would suit me more.
If you're an art student, really, get the cheapest intel based MacBook you can find.
Of the three above I'd pick the first one for LCD resolution and quality (important for image editing IMO), and the last of the three the HP for build ergonomics and graphics performance (the first one has better graphics features).
I still say apple for your needs, but if they are too pricey, then my pick would be the first one fowlloed by your third choice.
The main drawbackof the first is size, but it also has the real estate and pixel resolution.
The middle one just doesn't have enough info on specs, and isn't very attractive beside the HP.
I've heard HP are good, although not the best for multimedia, as in image editing, movies and especially gaming (yes I know, no laptops are for the latter, but i'd probably want to play something like Guild Wars reasonably well). Is this true?
I think the HP is a better rounded system. Yes it has a smaller screen, but it has a better CPU and it's graphics chip isn't too terrible. I looked at HP's website and they say it has an ATi X1250 (integrated I think???). I don't know how many games you'll be able to play but it should be ok with a few. HP gets my vote.
The only question is do the extra features of the 6100 offset the not so good CPU? I'm not entirely sure what the 6100 has to offer over the X1250 and I'm not sure the OP does either. GGA, if you know could you post the extras? I think it would be interesting to see.
Well the GF6150 is a limited SM3.0 solution, so you would get the benefit of playing Bioshock for example, and sepending on the art he's he doing what apps is he using? 3D animation with better per pixel precision on the GF6150, or is it 2D with the better colour accuracy on the X1250?
Remember, no FP16 blwnding on the GF6150 though so no OpenEXR style HDR like in Oblivion and a few others despite being an SM3.0 card, FP16 HDR is not SM3.0.
The CPU will be good in current games since it's fast at 2.2GHZ, but moving to future apps, and especially multi-media the advantage of dual core may help.
Yeah 1.8ghz X2 with the X1250 may be the way to go for multi-media, just because I hate currently when another app opens and borks a render or burn or whatever. So yeah it would be worth more. If it were significantly slower like a 1.5ghz dual core, then maybe the 2.2 would be better, but the X2 probably is the right course of action come to think of it.