HP EliteBook 8440w—Application Performance and Futuremark

The 8440w is quick. There is no other way to describe it. The dual-core Core i7-620M is definitely a killer processor for simple processing tasks. While it doesn't have the amount of raw computing power as the quad-core i7 line, the 620M is faster in single and dual-threaded applications, even besting the 920XM in some cases.

3D Rendering—CINEBENCH R10

3D Rendering—CINEBENCH R10

Internet Performance

Video Encoding—x264

Video Encoding—x264

Cinebench, Peacekeeper, x264 HD encoding—you name it, computing performance-wise the 8440w is better than just about everything with a dual-core processor, and competitive with the lower-end quads. This is especially true in Peacekeeper and the single-threaded Cinebench, where the i7-620M tops the charts. Like the old Core 2 Duo/Quad argument on the desktop side, it becomes the difference between four cores versus two faster cores. If you're not doing heavily multithreaded work, the dual-core i7 is the better way to go.

Futuremark 3DMark05

Futuremark 3DMark06

Futuremark 3DMark Vantage

Futuremark PCMark05

Futuremark PCMark Vantage

Now, Futuremark is a different story—the 8440w has a lower-end Quadro FX 380M that is based on the same core as the G 310M, which is based on the G 210M. As such, the FX 380M ends up somewhere between the two performance-wise. What this means is that the 8440w ends up pretty weak in non-workstation centric video benchmarks. So in both 3DMark and PCMark, the 8440w fares pretty poorly compared to some of the lower priced mainstream and gaming centric notebooks on the market.

HP EliteBook 8440w - In and Around HP EliteBook 8440w - Gaming and Workstation Performance
Comments Locked


View All Comments

  • AstroGuardian - Saturday, August 14, 2010 - link

    This native resolution IMO is totally ridiculous unless you work CAD and rendering 100% of the time.... don't you think?
  • teohhanhui - Saturday, August 14, 2010 - link

    Many would prefer it over 1366x768 (the current par) on a 14" screen.
  • mino - Saturday, August 14, 2010 - link

    Any reasonable OS would allow for DPI customization.

    Not to mention that you can go for lower resolution on high-res diplay but it's kinda hard to get an WXGA screen display at WSXGA resolutions ...
  • mindless1 - Saturday, August 14, 2010 - link

    Only if you don't mind it looking like someone smeared butter all over the screen from how blurry it is.
  • strikeback03 - Saturday, August 14, 2010 - link

    Yeah it is still a bit low, but what are you going to do...
  • synaesthetic - Sunday, August 15, 2010 - link

    1600x900 should be the standard for 13.3-14.0" displays.

    1366x768 shouldn't be on anything bigger than 12.1".

    15.6" should have 1920x1080.

    17" should have 1920x1200.

    18"+ should have 2560x1600. :D

    Death to low resolution crappy LCDs! Windows 7 doesn't have XP's horrible DPI scaling problems. There's no reason why you should ever want less pixels. Unless you like lots of scrolling and jaggy fonts.
  • japhmo - Saturday, August 14, 2010 - link

    A general comment--I'd be curious is seeing where MacBook pros running windows7 compare to this other windows systems. Could you please add that test too?
  • Daeros - Saturday, August 14, 2010 - link

    Seconded. I have been waiting for a high-quality of Win7 on the new macbooks sinthey came out.
  • dvinnen - Saturday, August 14, 2010 - link

    Like it a lot. Good 15+ inch widescreen work station. No idea on price or whatever but it handles at the code I throw at it. Keyboard feels cramp though with the full number pad and the battery life is pretty bad. Runs dry in about 3 hours just browsing on the internet.
  • zdw - Saturday, August 14, 2010 - link

    HDMI is a consumer standard. Displyport is a computer display standard, and can:

    1. Run larger displays, such as a 30" 2560x1600 display
    2. Convert to VGA/HDMI/DVI, with embedded audio (driver and adapter allowing)
    3. Eventually, daisy chain monitors off one port (in the spec, but often not supported)

    As this is a pro product, it makes sense if only for item #1.

    This isn't a HTPC. It doesn't need HDMI.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now