Sony P Ships at 1.3GHz in U.S., 1.6GHz in UK

Last week in Las Vegas we happened upon (okay, so it was repeatedly in our faces every time we turned around during our Sony appointment) Sony’s P Series Lifestyle PC. While there wasn't much in the way of specs, we did have a couple of scraps of info on hand about the guts of this little machine. Now we know a little more, and we’re not exactly pleased.

During CES, we had heard that the P Series would pack a 1.6 GHz processor and we were pretty happy with that. We know some of you were crossing your fingers for something more powerful, but your prayers have gone unanswered; but it looks like that’s the least of your worries if you're planning on purchasing one of these, depending on where you live.

Looking at the UK site, it seems British customers will be getting a 1.6 GHz Z530 Atom processor while the U.S. site just lists "Intel (1.3 GHz)" under the specs. Not cool, Sony. Why can’t we have the 1.6 GHz, too? Sadface. 

As far as pricing is concerned, last week's $900 price tag is bang on the money. The P Series with a 60 GB HDD will ship for $899.99, with Vista Home Basic (don't shoot the messenger, and remember it's dual-boot to XMB). Models go up in price from there, with options for SSDs ranging from 64 GB to 128 GB and an upgrade to Vista Home Premium. All include the Atom 1.3 GHz processor. UK models range from £849 to £1368.99, all include the 1.6 GHz Z530 and are shipping mid-February.

Even the top-end Vaio P for the U.S. at $1499.99 lacks the faster CPU and Vista Business of the UK counterpart.

We’re not really sure what to make of this. Doesn’t seem like there’s a reason for the U.S. version to ship with a slower processor.

(Source: Engadget)

  • Uncle Meat
    Maybe because the U.K. version is about %40 more expensive...
  • jrabbitb
    may also have something to do with purchasing trends in the us vs uk. they may have figured the 1.6 would do better there (for some marketing reason).
  • cabose369
    sony sucks... quit your crying... sony products are an epic fail.
  • zodiacfml
    i don't know or haven't read anything of a 1.3 GHz atom.
  • astrotrain1000
    I agree with zodaicfml, sounds like mistake. Never heard of a 1.3 GHz atom.
  • Regulas
    If it was a Mac with OS X on it I could see the price. This thing is way overpriced. I have a nice little Eee PC with a 9" screen 1.6Ghz Atom and 160GB HD with XP for $350.
  • Hatecrime69
    for over $1000 with an atom is a rip-off no matter how you cut it. So being slower is non-issue anyway if you ask me. At that price for the top-end you might as well spend the extra few hundred dollars and get a macbook air, at least you'd get a core 2 duo
  • crisUK
    UK models start at £849, at current exchange rates that's around $1270 US, the cheapest US model is $899. Hell we deserve it.

    Waaah waahhh, we can't have the best. What's your next ploy? Scream and scream until you are sick? Please grow up.
  • shcboomer
    Probably this:
  • Tindytim
    Since they don't know the model, how do they know it's going to be less powerful at 1.3 GHz? Really stupid to go by the clock speed.