HP EliteBook 2170p laptop,Core i7-3687u 2.1ghz, 8gb ram,1 tb hdd,Windows 7 - £145 @ebay (seller spinnakermanagement)
112°Expired

HP EliteBook 2170p laptop,Core i7-3687u 2.1ghz, 8gb ram,1 tb hdd,Windows 7 - £145 @ebay (seller spinnakermanagement)

27
Found 15th Feb
HP 2170p Elitebook Netbook laptopIntel core i7-3687U processor2.1ghz processor speed8gb DDR3 Ram 500gb HDD Webcam Wireless

Battery life- 1.5 hours +

Fully loaded with Windows 7 Pro with COA attached

COMES WITH A CHARGER SO READY TO USE STRAIGHT FROM THE BOX

AMAZING SPEC LAPTOP. B grade- this item has minor scratches on the lid
Community Updates

Groups

Top comments
Untouchable_Moon29 m ago

Robot 15, could you please explain more regarding the difference and why …Robot 15, could you please explain more regarding the difference and why the i7 not good this will help many in here to know more. Thanks.


Because it’s just a marketing gimmick. It’s obviously tricked a number in this thread. But for this era of mobile CPU, an i7 has fractionally quicker base and turbo clocks vs an i5 and that’s it - they’re both dual-core. Whereas for desktops it would be the inclusion of much faster clocks and HT, for example.

Also being an ‘older’ i7 (from 2012) doesn’t immediately make it better than a newer i5 (or even i3) even if Intel convinces you so.

But back to the original thread, it’s probably plenty fine for most tasks.
27 Comments
What does one do with 1.5 hr battery life?
Good spec for price tho
Edited by: "loofer" 15th Feb
lol.. no its not a good deal..
Why isn’t it a good deal.? Looks great to me
Its an i7 laptop you muppet
paulkerr3 m ago

lol.. no its not a good deal..

Not available?
Will this handle PUBG?
Some good listings from this seller, for budget laptops and pcs.
An i7? Wow bargain
Just let people know the i7 in this isnt much faster (about 2-3%) than the i5 3320m processors in laptops that are about the same size and price.
dijital4 m ago

Just let people know the i7 in this isnt much faster (about 2-3%) than the …Just let people know the i7 in this isnt much faster (about 2-3%) than the i5 3320m processors in laptops that are about the same size and price.


I wouldn’t even bother trying to explain it to them mate. If they think this i7 is any good I’d leave them too it
Cheap
The thing which normally stunts other pcs is avoided here, which is decent amount of ram, whack a SSD in there and youll be ok. Although battery life is whoaful.
Edited by: "polarbaba" 15th Feb
11.6-inch diagonal LED-backlit HD anti-glare (1366 x 768)
Robot 15, could you please explain more regarding the difference and why the i7 not good this will help many in here to know more. Thanks.
Untouchable_Moon29 m ago

Robot 15, could you please explain more regarding the difference and why …Robot 15, could you please explain more regarding the difference and why the i7 not good this will help many in here to know more. Thanks.


Because it’s just a marketing gimmick. It’s obviously tricked a number in this thread. But for this era of mobile CPU, an i7 has fractionally quicker base and turbo clocks vs an i5 and that’s it - they’re both dual-core. Whereas for desktops it would be the inclusion of much faster clocks and HT, for example.

Also being an ‘older’ i7 (from 2012) doesn’t immediately make it better than a newer i5 (or even i3) even if Intel convinces you so.

But back to the original thread, it’s probably plenty fine for most tasks.
Wow that's so awesome to know and I thank you for such wonderful And easy to understand informations input.
Thank you.
Untouchable_Moon5 h, 59 m ago

Wow that's so awesome to know and I thank you for such wonderful And …Wow that's so awesome to know and I thank you for such wonderful And easy to understand informations input. Thank you.


It's an older chip. Basically think of it like this, every year there is an i3, i5 and i7, in that year the i7 is the best...but the next year they are all better. This one is like 6 years old, so whilst it was amazing 6 years ago, it's just ok now.

There's something called a passmark score which tries to just give a single number to rate the chips, this chip gets about 4,000, which is I think about what the newest i3 chips would get.
simandoo4 m ago

It's an older chip. Basically think of it like this, every year there is …It's an older chip. Basically think of it like this, every year there is an i3, i5 and i7, in that year the i7 is the best...but the next year they are all better. This one is like 6 years old, so whilst it was amazing 6 years ago, it's just ok now. There's something called a passmark score which tries to just give a single number to rate the chips, this chip gets about 4,000, which is I think about what the newest i3 chips would get.


Yes a very good point .6 yr old chip. Do they get slower or breakdown much
7day1 h, 54 m ago

Yes a very good point .6 yr old chip. Do they get slower or breakdown much


No not really. CPUs are very reliable in general. You're more likely to suffer a failed hard disk or cracked case/hinge before the CPU fails. It's a solid state device.

This is actually a good deal for the laptop here - just don't use the i7 bit as a major factor in purchase.
Not really but that's not the point here. It's a good budget laptop and FAR FAR SUPERIOR than buying a £199 brand new Celeron from argos for example.

People always see i7 and start peeing themselves the desktop i7 from this era the 3630QM at a slightly faster clock speed gets a passmark score if nearly DOUBLE what this gets.

It doesn't make it a bad chip but equally it's not as fast as some peoples enthusiasm makes out
slɐǝpʞnʇoɥ15th Feb

Its an i7 laptop you muppet


I7 has been around 10 years odd so you can't just use that as a metric now a first gen i7 will not stand up to an i3 now...

Now the elite books are work horses so use benchmarks to work out what it's compatible to now if it ends up ok but it as these things are tough... not so much the newer generations
Edited by: "jamhops" 16th Feb
jamhops22 h, 57 m ago

I7 has been around 10 years odd so you can't just use that as a metric now …I7 has been around 10 years odd so you can't just use that as a metric now a first gen i7 will not stand up to an i3 now...Now the elite books are work horses so use benchmarks to work out what it's compatible to now if it ends up ok but it as these things are tough... not so much the newer generations


Actually a first gen i7 quad-core probably wouldn’t be far off a 7th gen i3 as they haven’t really improved things that much, mostly power optimisation and instruction optimisation, IPC hasn’t gone up that much due to low competition. Ignoring what Passmark says anyway, in the real world, there’s been no massive improvements.
plewis003 h, 55 m ago

Actually a first gen i7 quad-core probably wouldn’t be far off a 7th gen i …Actually a first gen i7 quad-core probably wouldn’t be far off a 7th gen i3 as they haven’t really improved things that much, mostly power optimisation and instruction optimisation, IPC hasn’t gone up that much due to low competition. Ignoring what Passmark says anyway, in the real world, there’s been no massive improvements.


The low spec 09 i7 is 5k and low spec 17 i3 is 8k benchmark isn't perfect but 3k is alot
jamhops2 h, 56 m ago

The low spec 09 i7 is 5k and low spec 17 i3 is 8k benchmark isn't perfect …The low spec 09 i7 is 5k and low spec 17 i3 is 8k benchmark isn't perfect but 3k is alot


I never go on benchmarks alone as things like taking advantage of optimised instructions can give massive skewed gains (it may be too far back but remember when MMX came out in the late 90s and benchmarks showed it was miles faster but it wasn’t as things didn’t tap into it for a while). Either way, 3000 difference (without knowing what chips you compared) isn’t a lot in the scheme of things

The biggest single change in PCs in the last decade has been SSDs, that will make a 10 year old PC fee quicker than a brand new one with a mechanical drive. That’s why I don’t think an older i7 is a bad thing at all, it’s just not necessarily better than an i3 or i5 from the same generation.
plewis005 h, 42 m ago

I never go on benchmarks alone as things like taking advantage of …I never go on benchmarks alone as things like taking advantage of optimised instructions can give massive skewed gains (it may be too far back but remember when MMX came out in the late 90s and benchmarks showed it was miles faster but it wasn’t as things didn’t tap into it for a while). Either way, 3000 difference (without knowing what chips you compared) isn’t a lot in the scheme of thingsThe biggest single change in PCs in the last decade has been SSDs, that will make a 10 year old PC fee quicker than a brand new one with a mechanical drive. That’s why I don’t think an older i7 is a bad thing at all, it’s just not necessarily better than an i3 or i5 from the same generation.


I Don't disagree that there is more to look at I got an old i5 Lenovo t430 and with a 120ssd it's perfect for daily tasks.

my original point was and still is people need to get over the i7,i5,i3 banding as it's just Intel's marketing making a difference and in that respect benchmarking does give you an idea what it will handle. I would say 3k is alot it's 60% more power then the old i5 as for models first results on Wikipedia for i7 page and lowest price i3 for now
Post a comment
Avatar
@
    Text