System Performance

At this point in Ivy Bridge's life, performance is a fairly known quantity. I'm kind of curious to tease out the differences between the newer (and very similar) Intel Core i5-3337U with the older i5-3427U, and thankfully I can do exactly that. HP's EliteBook Folio 9470m should be ever so slightly faster than the Dell XPS 13 due to its higher turbo clock, but we'll see how that works out.

PCMark 7 (2013)

Cinebench R11.5 - Single-Threaded Benchmark

Cinebench R11.5 - Multi-Threaded Benchmark

x264 HD 5.x

x264 HD 5.x


As a general rule, the 9470m's i5-3427U is ever-so-slightly faster than the XPS 13's i5-3337U. It's consistent (excepting the Cinebench single-threaded performance), but it's there. That said, it's still pretty negligible, and again I would find it difficult to recommend upgrading to an i7.

Futuremark 3DMark 11

3DMark (2013)

3DMark (2013)

3DMark (2013)

Interestingly but unsurprisingly, the Folio's missing second memory channel (due to only one of the DIMM slots being populated) has a consistent effect on the HD 4000 IGP's performance, taking about 10% of its performance off of the table. For enterprise users, the HD 4000's performance shouldn't be a big deal, but if you're interested in getting a little extra zazz out of it, install a second DIMM.

In and Around the HP EliteBook Folio 9470m Display, Battery, Noise, and Heat
Comments Locked


View All Comments

  • danbi - Sunday, March 31, 2013 - link

    Do you suggest that those who work for "enterprises" should suffer from low screen resolution? So that they cannot see more on the screen and be more productive? Only "toys" should have quality screens?

    HP used to have better displays. My 8 years old 15" HP laptop has 1920x1200 display. Why this crap now? Why an "elite" business laptop has to have such mediocre display?
  • SteveLord - Sunday, March 31, 2013 - link

    It could be $500 and people would still whine about the resolution. It happens everytime for every laptop or tablet. I have 20 of these issued and they have been a huge hit. Now I agree that except for the Dreamcolor series, HP screens could be better. And I agree these should be priced lower. But your average corporate/enterprise user won't notice or care about anything beyond the size of the screen itself and how heavy or light the laptop is.
  • meacupla - Sunday, March 31, 2013 - link

    for $500? 1366x768 is fine, as long as the viewing angles and colours are acceptable. This is the case with Asus X202E. X202E uses a semi decent TN panel, unlike this $1300 garbage from HP.
  • Tams80 - Tuesday, April 2, 2013 - link

    I wish you could get 1920x1200 on ANY laptop now. As far as I know there aren't any newish ones with that resolution. =( The last were a 17" HP Elitebook with Dreamcolour display and the 17" MBP if I recall correctly.
  • Grennum - Monday, April 1, 2013 - link

    Lets take a piece of serious business software like MS Dynamics AX. I watch people all day fighting with low res screens constantly scrolling around instead of being productive. Then they see me using my high res screen(on a engineering laptop) and are amazed that I don't have to do that.

    Just because people have never known any different doesn't mean it's unimportant. It is the result of companies like HP pushing required IT features (like smart card readers) and low cost at the expense of productivity and the IT departments not caring. It is not the users, it is the IT department who should be pushing back on this.

    The average user doesn't know or need to know the resolution spec, but they should know that the person who did spec the machine cared, which I find is often not the case.
  • hrrmph - Sunday, March 31, 2013 - link

    The reviewer nailed it on this one.

    HP got credit where credit was due (SSD, USB 3.0, etc.). But, he rightly scorched them on the display and keyboard.

    We shouldn't have to turn in our classics for equipment that is inferior, even if it is thinner.

  • blazeoptimus - Saturday, April 6, 2013 - link

    I was very disappointed in this article. It's obvious Dustin is reviewing this device from a consumer oriented device perspective. All of the objections mentioned are valid more for a laptop you'd find in best buy, the one your considering your corporation. Take for example the screen. I'm not a fan of the 1366x768 res, and I'd opt for a 1600x900 screen for myself if it were available. That being said, the primary reason you'd choose this laptop over a standard ultrabook would be its docking station (something only briefly touched on in the article). If your using a docking station, then your most likely using external monitors. Users will opt for larger, easier to read monitors, if available/practical. This means that the built in monitor really will only see light use, since users will use there docked displays most of the time. If you also include the fact that its not uncommon for corporate apps to be built to run in 1024x768, it becomes apparent that a 1366x768 screen is adequate for those few times a 'mobile' user will be away from his desk, but still need his laptop. The second point I take contention at is the 4 gig of ram. Again, it's fairly common for a corporate app to still be 32bit. Some major apps will still not run on 64bit windows. Even with the ones that are, it's very rare for an office worker or exec to need more than 4 gig to run there corporate apps. In these cases, the 4 gig is a waste. Also, by going with one chip, it's very easy to bump it to 8 if the need arises. As to the price, its competitive with other business class ultra books. Service and build quality are usually better on business class items, so there not priced in the same category.

    In short, again, your applying the rules we'd use when buying a personal laptop to a laptop that was never intended for that market. You should be looking at it from the perspective of laptop that could easily see deployments in the thousands for an organization. In this context your points of 'rage' hold less validity.

    I'm a network admin and I use a 9470m as my primary machine.
  • MrSpadge - Sunday, April 7, 2013 - link

    Being thin (as in Ultrabook-thin) does almost nothing for an "Enterprise". However, being expensive, having a screen unsuitable for real work and only a 17 W CPU do hurt. Looks like a really unbalanced product.
  • sperho - Thursday, May 2, 2013 - link

    I'm an enterprise user and I couldn't disagree more. I travel. A lot. I love the thinness and this alternative hit the spot. The screen is useable for mobile computing and when I'm in my office, I have two 22+" monitors that fit the bill. This computer is a mobile *option* within our company. More desk-bound employees do not and are not recommended to choose it; we have other options for those folks.
  • Wolfehosue - Tuesday, April 9, 2013 - link

    The HD+ screen is released. This is the hold back for this form. The device is as thin as it can be while including VGA so if they drop that it can go thinner. Still limited with RJ45 but could be thinner than a Mac Air.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now