Trinity-toting HP Envy Sleekbook now available

Now you can get a not-quite-an-ultrabook from HP, too. The company has started taking orders for the Envy Sleekbook 6, a thin-and-light machine with a 15.6" display and one of AMD’s new Trinity APUs. This is no ultrabook (largely because Intel holds a trademark on the term), but with a 0.78" thickness and a weight of 4.53 lbs, it’s definitely much thinner and lighter than your typical 15-inch consumer laptop.

The HP Envy Sleekbook 6 config sells for $699.99 with a dual-core AMD A6-4455M APU, integrated Radeon HD 7500G graphics, 4GB of DDR3 system memory, and a 500GB 5,400-RPM mechanical hard drive. Connectivity includes dual USB 3.0 ports, HDMI out, 802.11n Wi-Fi, and Bluetooth. A 60 watt-hour lithium-ion polymer battery can purportedly keep the system running unplugged for up to nine hours.

Surprisingly, HP doesn’t offer any customization options for the system. Instead, more demanding users may want to upgrade to the Envy Ultrabook 6, which costs $100 more and comes with an Intel Core i5-2467M processor as well as 32GB of solid-state cache. HP lets you deck out the Ultrabook 6 with discrete Radeon HD 7670M graphics and up to 8GB of RAM, too. Just like with the Sleekbook 6, though, you’re stuck with a 1366×768 display resolution and a mechanical hard drive. (Thanks to Liliputing for the tip.)

Comments closed
    • BaronMatrix
    • 7 years ago

    Ultrabooks limit consumer choice and hose OEMs.

    • oldog
    • 7 years ago

    Is anyone else getting annoyed at the less obese “*.book” designations of every new portable computer?

    Some new name suggestions:

    -EmaciatedBook
    -BiafraBook
    -KwashiorkorBook
    -MarasmusBook

    Did I miss any?

    • sschaem
    • 7 years ago

    dual core = *single module*, mechanical HD only, glossy plastic, 1366×768, 4.5 lbs …. for $700

    If this is really AMD definition of what a ‘sleekbook’ should be, I see AMD loosing what ever it got left of the laptop market share in the next 12 month.

    I guess its official AMD is going from bad to worse πŸ™

      • Chrispy_
      • 7 years ago

      No, it’s just those crazy fools at HP.

      Asus, Acer, Sony et Al will probably come up with competitive models that don’t have completely gash specifications.

    • dpaus
    • 7 years ago

    ‘SleekBook’?? With a lousy screen, bare-minimum RAM, a slow mechanical hard drive and still a $700 price? Try ‘SlackBook’, maybe.

    And speaking of naming conventions, TR, can we please dispense with the snide ‘not-quite-an-UltraBook’ comments? AMD calls them ‘Ultrathins’ and I think that works fine.

    • tbone8ty
    • 7 years ago

    Once HP gets more trinity stock you’ll be able to customize.

    Only trinity I’ve seen with a decent resolution is that MSI 15″ with a 7970m chip but that’s more of a gaming laptop.

    Unfortunately I highly doubt you’ll see a trinity with a high dpi screen πŸ™

    • riviera74
    • 7 years ago

    The problem with this sleekbook and others is the same: once PC OEMs put an AMD CPU in their notebooks, they often cheap out on almost everything. It is rare to see notebooks in general with an AMD CPU (Llano or Trinity) with high resolution screens and large amounts of RAM and an SSD (preferably 256GB or so). I know the low prices are a great attractor, but why only 1366*768 screen resolution? The worst part is that even with existing Ultrabooks, the Macbook Air is either slightly more money or actually price competitive with PCs. And the MBA is better (once you exclude Mac OSX). Time for PC OEMs to rethink this…. again.

    • Chrispy_
    • 7 years ago

    This is everything I hate most about laptops, [b<]all rolled into one;[/b<] [list<][*<]'Premium' with mechanical disk and stingy RAM [/*<][*<]Low-DPI display, almost certainly a "negative viewing angle" TN ultracheap POS. [/*<][*<]Glossy plastic.[/*<][/list<] [i<]There will be a short intermission whilst I finish my epic nerdrage over glossy plastic. Apologies for the inconvenience and thank you in advance for your patience.[/i<] [list<] [*<]touchpad with aesthetics over function (radial machining, no dedicated click buttons). [/*<][*<]Numpad omitted, even though there's clearly space for it. [/*<][*<]Scrabble-tile keyboard (I know I'm in the minority, but I still don't have to like them).[/*<] [/list<]

      • willmore
      • 7 years ago

      Only include the number pad if you don’t have to make the alpha part of the keyboard off center to do so. So, number pads on 17″ laptops, but not <=14″.

        • Chrispy_
        • 7 years ago

        Even in a 17″, the alpha pad means the alpha part of the keyboard is off-centre and rarely lines up with the trackpad anyway.

        I hadn’t really considered that before, but the home keys F and J are off-centre anyway. Does it matter? – All comes down’t to personal preference I guess.

        Being right-handed I’d actually prefer it if the trackpad was shifted right so that it’s centred underneath the J key where your right index finger has to move from, but everything I gain with that also annoys the lefties πŸ˜‰

          • willmore
          • 7 years ago

          Good point about the trackpad location. It should be centered below the ‘j’ finger.

          Oh, and USB numeric keypads for anyone who really needs one of those things.

    • ronch
    • 7 years ago

    Consumers may associate thin and light notebooks with “Ultrabook<tm>”. I think AMD needs to come up with some sort of logo or hype for its thin and light efforts to counter Intel’s Ultrabook<tm> campaign.

      • OneArmedScissor
      • 7 years ago

      I think they need to come up with some chips to sell. The price tag will do the rest of the work once they’re actually sitting next to expensive ultraflops on Best Buy displays.

    • ish718
    • 7 years ago

    They used 1366×768 resolution for the sleek book to make the HD 7500G graphics feel more powerful for gaming lol.

    • jpostel
    • 7 years ago

    With all the well known dislike by TR readers for the 1366×768 displays, I would be interested to see a poll on how much extra TR readers would pay for different display options. I ask this because there are other options that cost $200-400 more for 1440 x900 or 1600×900.

      • xeridea
      • 7 years ago

      I would pay $100-$150. I am interested to see where you find these other screens, I haven’t found any for less than $900, or on a 17″ or 18″. I have looked on Newegg and every custom laptop vendor I could find. Decent laptops now can be had for $350-$700.

      My sisters Dell from like 5 years ago (Core Solo) has a 1680×1050 screen. It was just under $900 with the screen upgrade, and 9 cell battery upgrade. I would rather have that than my current laptop, which has 4GB RAM vs 1GB, and bigger hard drive. Back then it costs like $75-$100 to upgrade the screen. Now days its near impossible.

      • Arag0n
      • 7 years ago

      I would pay 10$… seriously, I mostly use my laptop docked and phew times to edit documents in the go. The main reason for me to have a laptop is to be able to transport it between my different living and working places more than to work outside (in the field, library, etc), so it gives little benefit to me a higher resolution display. I just want something that it’s not horrendous so I can use it if needed.

      • chΒ΅ck
      • 7 years ago

      The price difference between 768p and 1080p is about $20-$30 for 15.6″ screens. I don’t know why OEMs can’t manage this.
      1080 – [url<]http://www.ebay.com/itm/AUO-B156HW01-V4-NEW-15-6-LCD-LAPTOP-SCREEN-LED-EXACT-/120755593029?pt=US_Laptop_Screens_LCD_Panels&hash=item1c1d981f45[/url<] 768 - [url<]http://www.ebay.com/itm/NEW-B156XW02-V0-15-6-LCD-LAPTOP-SCREEN-EXACT-/120702744172?pt=US_Laptop_Screens_LCD_Panels&hash=item1c1a71b66c[/url<] Personally, I'm looking for a laptop from xoticpc, but the upgrade price for a screen is like +$170. I'd rather buy the screen myself and install it. I'd have a backup screen then too.

      • anotherengineer
      • 7 years ago

      If I had the option of
      1366×768 IPS panel for $100
      or
      1920×1080 or (1200) in a TN panel for an extra $100

      I would go with the IPS

      I find notebook TN panels viewing angles are so bad (and color), it’s laughable by today’s technology standards.

        • Corrado
        • 7 years ago

        TN is not ALL bad. In fact, up until very recently, the MacBook and MacBook Pro’s had TN panels. Not all TNs are created equal. There are some VERY good TN panels and some very BAD TN panels. Lumping them all together is just silly.

    • shank15217
    • 7 years ago

    Another great example of how the PC laptop market is out of touch with the consumer.

      • Visigoth
      • 7 years ago

      Don’t lump all manufacturers with that POS HP together. There are a few great Ultrabooks coming out with 1600×900 (Lenovo) and 1920×1080 (Asus) screens and way better keyboards than HP could ever implement.

        • Mourmain
        • 7 years ago

        HP can make some truly great keyboards. They’re not a bad company by definition, just a very big one with a very wide range of products, a lot of them for the crappy-cheap segment.

      • crabjokeman
      • 7 years ago

      If you assume that “the consumer” is an enthusiast, then you are the one out of touch with the consumer.

    • chuckula
    • 7 years ago

    Mechanical drive (not even 7,200 RPM): check
    4 GB RAM: Check
    Crappy 1366 x 768 display: Check

    And now we know how AMD is getting it’s “Ultrathins” down to $699. Unfortunately it’s not magic.

      • xeridea
      • 7 years ago

      Many Ultrabooks have mechanical hard drives, and at the prices, it wouldn’t really make cost that much higher for an SSD, but many would prefer capacity over speed, especially for low power paper laptops.
      4 GB RAM is more than sufficient, even 3GB would do.
      99.9% of laptops today have 1366×768 screen, so you can’t use that.

      This will have longer battery life than an ultrabook, and be able to do light gaming or OpenCL acceleration.

        • chuckula
        • 7 years ago

        And an Intel Ultrabook can’t do any of those things? Go look at the Ivy Bridge benchmarks again, then realize that the only flavor of Trinity that anyone has seen is *not* the same chip that is being used in this system or any other “ultrathin” system. Ever wonder why AMD wasn’t falling over itself to send out “sample” products with the “ultrathin” chips in them???

          • xeridea
          • 7 years ago

          You are just trying to dodge the facts. Trinity ultrathins are cheaper, have longer battery life, and are totally capable. If Intel’s ultrabook plans weren’t totally useless, they would recommend/require higher resolutions, which is way more important than every other aspect in a laptop (other than sufficient battery life).

            • chuckula
            • 7 years ago

            [quote<]Trinity ultrathins are cheaper,[/quote<] You just got done complaining about $699 INTEL Ultrabooks that have the same cheap features and the same price as this thing... so now AMD is cheaper for the same price? I love your "logic" it's almost as incoherent as your argument about how Knight's corner is slower than an Atom. Battery life? You have zero evidence of some amazing gains in battery life, and no, reading off the box doesn't count. Where's the TR benchmark of these things? Oh wait, there isn't one because AMD mysteriously didn't send them out for review even though they bent over backwards to send out Trinity test systems that you'll never be able to buy..... I wonder what the reason for that is? I *JUST POSTED* an Intel Ultrabook that has a higher resolution than this POS, but now I see your logic: If there is any Intel system with a 1366x768 screen, then it is physically impossible for Intel to ever be used with a better resolution. If there is any system in existence that uses an AMD GPU at a higher resolution than 1366x768, then all AMD systems automatically get 4K displays because of magical fanboi unicorn power!

        • PixelArmy
        • 7 years ago

        I was under the impression that you needed at least SSD caching to brand it an Ultrabook?

        • FatherXmas
        • 7 years ago

        But they “aren’t” suppose to have conventional hard drives but an SSD according to Intel’s suggested guidelines for the Ultrabook designation.

        Intel wants to help their laptop manufacturing customers compete with Apple’s Air and MacBook Pro line. Stay within these lines with your design and you too can have a similar laptop to Apple’s. Problem is getting the price down.

        So how do we get the price down? First stick in a cheap laptop hard drive and second hook it to a cheap 1366×768 display since we have a million of them still in inventory.

      • shank15217
      • 7 years ago

      I didn’t know AMD was HP

        • chuckula
        • 7 years ago

        HP didn’t go around making promises about how cheap Ultrathins would be… AMD did. Now we’ve seen two basically identical systems at $699 and they aren’t miraculously amazing or insanely cheaper than systems with Intel chips in them despite AMD’s promises.

          • xeridea
          • 7 years ago

          The Trinity version is $100 cheaper, and has longer battery life. 32 GB of solid state cache is worth about $20, so lets say $80 cheaper..

            • chuckula
            • 7 years ago

            1. Dell has $699 Intel Ultrabooks with basically the same features as this thing, and for not much more you can get a model with discrete graphics that will beat even high-end Trinity models, not to mention this POS.
            2. You have zero evidence about battery life except for the wishful thinking of HP’s marketing department.
            3. Show me the website where you buy 32 GB caching SSDs for $20. You are just spinning to make AMD look good no matter what because you know that these ultrathin Trinity parts are not going to be the revolution you were praying for after you murdered your neighbors cat at your AMD altar.

            • xeridea
            • 7 years ago

            Trinity laptops are brand new, so prices may not have leveled out. You can’t compare it to having discrete graphics, which would cost way more, and is a non level playing field.

            Read any Trinity review from a respectable site. In most cases, Trinity does better on batteries.

            SSDs are around $0.70/GB right now… so thats about $20.

            I am not saying they are the all amazing holy grail of computing. I am saying your initial points are invalid. I don’t have an AMD alter. I somewhat favor them for my builds, but would recommend and Intel system to someone who it would suit their needs better. My last laptop recommendation was an Intel system, because at the time it was the best offering for my sisters needs. AMD tends to be a tad cheaper, and computing is at the point where most is “good enough” for the masses.

            • Zoomer
            • 7 years ago

            And who buys at MSRP anyway? Wait for the perpetual sale.

    • flip-mode
    • 7 years ago

    hp Envy: envy of those with higher screen resolutions.

      • ew
      • 7 years ago

      The Envy line was good when it was first introduced but they’ve just made it worse and worse with every update.

      • Goty
      • 7 years ago

      *looks up from his 1920×1080 Envy 15*

      What’d I miss?

        • Rand
        • 7 years ago

        If you’d bought a few years earlier you could have done even better, 1920×1200. But alas, the march towards ever smaller and ever less desirable aspect ratio’s continues unabated.

          • NeelyCam
          • 7 years ago

          1920×1200 < 1920×1080.

            • flip-mode
            • 7 years ago

            ^ mathematical fail

            • NeelyCam
            • 7 years ago

            It wasn’t measuring size – it was measuring usefulness

            • BobbinThreadbare
            • 7 years ago

            1920×1200 can show everything that 1920×1080 can and more so…

            • NeelyCam
            • 7 years ago

            19200×12000 can show even more, but with a fixed DPI, it makes your laptop huge.

            1920×1200 forces the laptop size to grow larger than it has to be – 1920×1080 is a more ideal aspect ratio. Having about 10% more vertical area is not worth making the laptop 10% bigger.

            • BobbinThreadbare
            • 7 years ago

            That’s really a separate issue altogether.

            • NeelyCam
            • 7 years ago

            No – that’s [i<]the [/i<]issue.

            • BobbinThreadbare
            • 7 years ago

            No, you said they had a difference is usefulness, not a difference getting one to fit in a given form factor.

            I guess that makes a 2 door coupe more useful than a station wagon too.

            • NeelyCam
            • 7 years ago

            [quote<]I guess that makes a 2 door coupe more useful than a station wagon too.[/quote<] Yes it does; they both go from A to B, but the coupe is easier to park in tight spots. Probably eats less gasoline, too

            • Deanjo
            • 7 years ago

            Not really, the size of the physical unit stays the same, your top and bottom bezel get thinner.

            • NeelyCam
            • 7 years ago

            Nonsense

            • Deanjo
            • 7 years ago

            So you are wrong on both accounts.

            • crabjokeman
            • 7 years ago

            That’s what I tried to tell her, but she wouldn’t listen…

    • dlenmn
    • 7 years ago

    15″… 1366×768… head ASPLODE!!

      • Narishma
      • 7 years ago

      Be happy it’s not an 18″ with that resolution, like my friend has.

        • xeridea
        • 7 years ago

        That is quite sad. I bet I could see the pixels from 5 feet away. I am going to hold out indefinitely on replacing my laptop, because with crappy screen resolution, your not really upgrading anything, its still not useful at all. Good thing 99% of my computing is on my 23″ @ 2048×1152.

      • xeridea
      • 7 years ago

      Its strange that no one comes out with anything other than 1366×768. There is such a huge demand for them, because they are basically non existent, that someone could make a fortune selling them. Ultrabooks are just pure garbage if they have a crappy screen. Its sad really, 768 vertical resolution was standard…. 10 years ago, and progress was made, but then everyone stepped backwards in technology. Its sad when your phone has higher vertical resolution than your laptop.

        • chuckula
        • 7 years ago

        From [b<]TODAY'S[/b<] Shortbread: [quote<]Laptoping: Asus UX32VD ultrabook now on sale [/quote<] From the article: [quote<]13.3β€³ IPS 1080p (1920 x 1080) anti-glare display with 350cd/m2 brightness and 800:1 contrast[/quote<] On sale [b<]right now[/b<]. Instead of wishing for Ultrabooks to suck, why not just actually open your eyes and look at the ones that are awesome that TR brings to you right on this very website?

          • xeridea
          • 7 years ago

          To bad its $1300 which is way out of budget for most people. This is the 0.1% of laptops with a good resolution, all of which are around $1000 or more. Ultrabooks will always suck unless they are easily available with non crappy screens, at reasonable prices. I would rather get a device that was 3mm thicker, slightly heavier, but costs half as much, has an optical drive, interchangeable parts, and decent keyboard.

          I am actually boycotting all laptops period until screen resolutions don’t suck, even though my screen is dying. It is near impossible to find non 1366×768 screen on 15″ without paying over $1000, and even then the pickings are slim.

            • chuckula
            • 7 years ago

            Thanks for that post, now I understand you:
            1. You don’t like crap.
            2. You aren’t willing to pay for quality.
            3. You have deluded yourself into thinking that just because AMD sells its chips a little cheaper than Intel that this means all components in the notebook magically become free and you’ll get a 4K screen with a 2 TB SSD and 72 weeks of battery life with a magical GPU that plays everything at 500 FPS for $35 because there’s an AMD sticker on it.

            • xeridea
            • 7 years ago

            You are the delusional one. I will not buy a system that would be pointless for me due to a terrible screen, I have a cheap system for the moment until something better is available. I don’t use laptop much anyway, I work on my 23″ 2048×1152 screen. I will pay for quality, my current system can play any game on the market, high res, high settings.

            I provide facts, you just sling crap around. I would be willing to pay a bit extra for better screen, but not $1300, you can get 2 giant screens for that price… or a 1080p projector, or 55-60″ TV. I never said you would magically get whatever awesome specs you wanted with AMD. You need to just simmer down and come back to reality. By the way, an AMD system that you describe would cost about $20,000, and would not be a laptop… perhaps you could roll it on a flatbed, or a semi trailer to keep it portable?

            • NeelyCam
            • 7 years ago

            Have fun carrying around that projector and/or giant monitors

            • TO11MTM
            • 7 years ago

            Nice Reductio ad Absurdum chuckula.

            But as others in the comments of this news post have stated, the difference in price between a 1366×768 display and a 1920x1080p display is small (in their example, Less than 50$.) It’s a kinda crappy way to cut costs, especially when you look at all the other things they do to ‘dress up the pig’ (Aluminum all over the place, Discrete GPU with Switching circuits, hell I don’t even care for bluetooth on my notebook.)

            That said it does seem like the situation is slowly getting better. I’m seeing a lot more 1400×900 and 1600×1050 screens in the big box stores, primarily from Toshiba/Acer/Sony/HP. A lot of those are 17 inchers but I’ve seen some 15’s and even a 14 inch with a 1400×900 in the 500-600 range. Unfortunately in my experience of late Best Buy’s web site is utter garbage at reflecting what is actually in the store lately; so it’s hard to know unless you walk up to a demo unit and check.

            And in any case, many of the Sub-1000$ options with 1080p are quite nice…

        • yokem55
        • 7 years ago

        I think all the complaints and return costs from dead pixels on denser displays really was what pushed things back. They had to get better yields so the pixel density had to drop….

          • xeridea
          • 7 years ago

          But they was making higher resolution displays 5+ years ago. I think dead pixels are a non issue now.

    • DeadOfKnight
    • 7 years ago

    I was interested until I read the last sentence. Thanks for teasing me, Cyril.

      • MadManOriginal
      • 7 years ago

      I am curious to know how this: [quote<](Thanks to Liliputing for the tip.)[/quote<] made you uninterested.

        • DeadOfKnight
        • 7 years ago

        That would be a fragment.

        Edit: Why thumbs down? There’s no verb used in that statement. It’s how we talk, but it’s not a full sentence.

          • willmore
          • 7 years ago

          Ellipsis?

          [url<]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellipsis_%28linguistics%29[/url<]

          • BobbinThreadbare
          • 7 years ago

          It has an implied verb of “give” right at the beginning.

    • cynan
    • 7 years ago

    [[url=https://techreport.com/discussions.x/23125<]Cuts and pastes comments from yesterday's Samsung Trinity notebook article[/url<]] Moving on... Edit: At least the Samsung came in 13.3" form factor...

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This