Battery Life

HP's engineers seem to have short-changed some of the hardware itself in the Folio 13, but those sacrifices (along with sacrifices in form factor) were made in an effort to cram as large a battery as possible into the Folio 13. Indeed, it does include the biggest internal battery of any of the ultrabooks we've tested; the Acer TravelMate's battery is bigger on paper but it sticks out of the chassis slightly, while the Alienware M11x R3 can't really be classified as an ultrabook.

Battery Life - Idle

Battery Life - Internet

Battery Life - H.264 Playback

Relative Battery Life - Idle

Relative Battery Life - Internet

Relative Battery Life - H.264

Interestingly, despite having a bigger battery than much of the competition, HP's Folio 13 is only able to provide middling efficiency. Battery life isn't poor by any stretch of the imagination, but ultimately the gamble doesn't seem to have paid off as much as HP would've liked as it's clear there's still some optimization that needs to be done.

Heat and Noise

Another area where the HP Folio 13 benefits tremendously as the result of HP's engineers willing to go a little bit thicker than the competition is in its cooling system. Noise even under load is a fairly quiet whine, and the system does a good job of keeping the i5 running frosty.

Having gotten used to seeing systems running in the 80s and higher, it's refreshing to see the Folio 13 only peaking in the mid-70s where full-sized notebooks tend to hang out. That said, I'm still not thrilled with the idea of having the fan intake on the bottom of the ultrabook (or on any laptop, really). As systems designed to be as light and portable as possible it stands to reason these are going to be used on laps most of the time, and while HP smartly positions the intake near the back and center of the bottom of the notebook, it still seems like this could cause problems. I feel like there has to be a better way to turn ultrabooks into true laptops.

System Performance Conclusion: A Mixed Bag
Comments Locked


View All Comments

  • RaistlinZ - Tuesday, April 17, 2012 - link

    I think they could have done a lot better. They must be making massive profit off each unit sold because I don't see anything spec wise that warrants a $1,000 for this. Toss in another 4GB of 1600DDR3 and a 1080p IPS screen and THEN we'll talk about $1,000.
  • milkywayer - Tuesday, April 17, 2012 - link

    It's a shame that HP and DELL are still milking the market with these lowly 768p screens on majority of their machines. I'd let this one pass since its a 13 incher but why on earth are they still making 99% of their 15.6" laptoptops 768p is beyond me.

    My main laptop is an HP with a c2d 15.6" and I am not upgrading untill i can get at least a 1080p screen on my next laptop (no, i can't afford an apple)

    GUessing the ipad3 screen res bump will get things in motion for higher res consumer screens on laptops from HP and dell or better yet, i'd like that hp and dell vaporise like NOKIA's way if they dont want to innovate.
  • Meaker10 - Tuesday, April 17, 2012 - link

    Would not be so terrible if they were user upgradable but they save 0.001p per machine by not including the second LVDS channel.
  • ImSpartacus - Tuesday, April 17, 2012 - link

    It will probably be a while before OEMs catch up. Apple will have to release its "Retina" MBPs before anything really starts to move forward.
  • Cullinaire - Tuesday, April 17, 2012 - link

  • fic2 - Tuesday, April 17, 2012 - link

    I have to agree. My 6 year old c2d laptop has a 1280x800 screen. Why would I "upgrade" to a worse screen? The cpu is still fine for my everyday tasks and I have upgraded the 60G HD and memory that came with it.

    Every review I skip down to the screen resolution and when I see 768 I quite reading and skip to the comments to b1tch about it.
  • fic2 - Tuesday, April 17, 2012 - link

    Also, I spent ~$600 for my laptop why anyone would spend $1000 on this I have no idea.
  • GuinnessKMF - Tuesday, April 17, 2012 - link

    First thing I did too, saw 768 and said "not interested". 1080p minimum at 13" for me to bite, until then I'll wait. I would even prefer better than 1080p but I know that for most consumers, even most power consumers, that's enough.
  • slagar - Tuesday, April 17, 2012 - link

  • Drewdog343 - Thursday, April 19, 2012 - link

    You geeks must have the vision of a hawk, 1080p on a 13" screen is 168ish DPI.

    I would imagine in Windows everything would be pretty tiny.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now