Connect with us


Benchmarking 2nd Try: HP tx2051 vs tx2525



As you know, about a week ago I did some benchmarking on the two HP units I have, the tx2051 and the tx2525.  The benchmarking results were a little weird and a few people in the comments suggested a run after a default factory install.  So, after 2 clean(not clean, but ‘factory defaults’) installs I ran the tests again…  This time they are a little hard to look at again!  I’m not too sure what to make of the results but note the differences.  The tx2051, the winner (yes, the old one), has a faster processor and 1 additional gig of memory.  The tx2525 has a better graphics card and those results can been seen in the test results.  I didn’t do a process by process comparison, but the installs appeared to be relatively close in processes and base programs installs.  Both systems were taken through the full Windows Update process as well as the HP software updates.  Any other questions shoot them off.  It’s Saturday afternoon and up next is a Battery Eater test!  Click the read more for the specs and images of the benchmarking results.

HP Pavilion tx2051
AMD Turion 64 X2 TL-66 – 2.3 Ghz
250 GB 5400 RPM HDD
4 gig DDR2 RAM
Nvidia GeForce Go 6150 – Shared
Vista Ultimate x64
HP Pavilion tx2525
AMD Turion 64 X2 RM-70 – 2.0 Ghz
250 GB 5400 RPM HDD
3 gig DDR2 RAM
ATI HD 3200 – 64MB Dedicated
Vista Ultimate x64
2051 2525


  1. Gordon Cahill

    12/13/2008 at 2:44 pm

    Faster processor and more available ram. I don’t see why you are surprised at these results. It was only ever going to be graphics intensive tasks where the newer machine would beat the old one.


  2. Fredrik

    12/13/2008 at 2:53 pm

    Thx for doing these tests, Im interested in buying one of these or maybe the TX2, I know its a lot of work (and most of all time) involved in reinstalling so kudos to you Matt!

  3. davidm

    12/13/2008 at 3:31 pm

    It’s nice to see a gadget blog supporting purchase decisions around used goods.

    But I regretfully say I’ve already written off the tx2 and will patiently wait a few more months. It’s clear HP wants the TX line to have a “cheap” message so it doesn’t interfere with their 27xx line, even though it has some “unique” features. If they ever get out of their class consciousness, they may have a breakthrough product for everyone, but this is HP we’re talking about. For punishing both the TX and 27xx consumers by only offering selective features for each, and making the TX gaudily plasticy and the 27xx cheesily swank, they do not deserve success.

  4. Paul Harrigan

    12/13/2008 at 4:28 pm

    I disagree with davidm. The TX line is intended to be an inexpensive tablet. The 2K line is professional. These are very different markets, and it makes sense that this would be reflected in the products.

  5. davidm

    12/13/2008 at 4:37 pm

    Paul Harrigan, “makes sense” if you are an apologist who considers entrenched corporate behavior to the best we can do, rather than a consumer who would like to see the best products possible. If Apple were making this product, and I’m no Apple fanatic but they are the clearly head and shoulders above HP, they wouldn’t make a cheap, disposable, low end product with some innovative features, and a “high end” version that is twice the price and lacking features. Clearly, HP has one product group too many, and they will never get their act together to make something truly great. Do you consider the TX2 or 2730p truly great when compared to what they could do, or would you just prefer to make excuses for unexciting products?

  6. double o don

    12/13/2008 at 9:03 pm

    Offering an inexpensive tablet computer is to be commended, not condemned. One of the reasons for the lack of market penetration of tablets has been that their (high) pricing has put them out of the reach of many potential customers.
    Now we have a few tablets that are in a price range that will allow many more people to “take a chance on one of those tablet things”.
    However, expecting a vendor to include every option in its entry level machine is expecting that company to gut their own profitability.

  7. davidm

    12/13/2008 at 9:34 pm

    double o don, by every option do you mean quality?

    The tx line has more features than the 27xx line, except it is bulgy plastic instead of aluminum, AMD vs intel (the AMD chip has inferior performance and battery life, but better graphics performance).

    With any effort, I doubt it would cost the end user more than $100 to combine these two lines. And they’d sell a lot more and make a real (profitable) mark in the industry. But I doubt HP’s product groups talk to each other, nor do they have such goals. Some company!

    Apple would have a more consistent, thoughtful approach to their products. They certainly wouldn’t offer a wobbly, bulgy plastic, “You’re a low end consumer” TX.

  8. davidm

    12/13/2008 at 9:40 pm

    In case it’s missed, what I mean is HP should act like a big company, as if they could pull off something nearly as good as a Mac, and put a pile of good components in a decent case. Not some cheap intentionally tiered model. What I’d like to do is buy a $1500 solid unibody multitouch computer, the best features of the tx and the 27xx. I cannot do that today.

  9. Mario Filipe

    12/13/2008 at 10:11 pm

    Of course Apple wouldn’t make the cheap consumer laptop, they would just release the “â€Ŕhigh end” version that is twice the price and lacking features”. That is they market strategy.
    The HP TX line appeals to another class of consumers, those that cannot afford 2k+ computers or buying multiple laptops, one for multimedia, another for portability, etc.
    So the HP TX is made of plastic, is thicker, has a cheaper processor – does this make it a mediocre computer? I don’t think so, I can live with a plastic case instead of aluminum, and little more weight if that means that I can afford it. It’s a compromise that I’m willing to accept.
    That said I do have to admit that there are some features I wish that could have made it into the TX2 without substantially increasing its price – I’m talking about adding a digital video output (HDMI/DisplayPort) and an eSATA port, maybe a slight redesign of the keyboard layout and some more useful keys in the screen bezel for use in tablet mode. I’m guessing that said improvements weren’t introduced in the TX2 because it uses the same Puma platform as the Pavillion TX series, so probably they will make it in a future redesign when (if) the TX2 adopts one of the new AMD mobile platforms.

    Now for the important part, the benchmarks. I have agree with Matt, the results do seem ambiguous. Not so much the CPU related benchmarks, it’s a known fact that the “Griffin” Turion Ultra processors are essentially the same as the older Turion X2 with some power-management tweak and a larger L2 cache, so the results mostly reflect the 300 MHz clock difference. It will be interesting to see how the tx2525 fares in the battery life tests.
    The strange results are the GDI (I’m assuming that it refers to 2D performance of the GPU) and the HDD benchmarks. Any chance of checking if the HDD supplier is different between the two models?

    Matt’s review is showing promise of being a very thorough one, so I’m looking forward to read it in full when completed. I just fear that when he finishes it the TX2 will have already come out and he has to add it to complete the roundout : )

  10. Matt Faulkner

    12/13/2008 at 10:51 pm

    Two things to note as well Gordon – I thought maybe that the increased system bus speed might help the performance on the 2525. See this chart – — Also, The measurement is on speed of RAM, not amount in the system, so I didn’t think the difference would matter that much. They are both running the same speed, otherwise the difference would be much larger. (Note: I am not an AMD processor or chipset expert by any means so the only information I have is from what I have looked at on their site)

    I am trying to use Battery Eater – not going so well. Keep getting an error, and charging the battery each time is a real pain…

    Nice Call @Mario – They are in fact 2 different drives – One is a WD (WD2500BEVS) and the other is a Fujitsu (MHZ2250BH G2)

  11. davidm

    12/14/2008 at 5:40 am

    Mario Filipe, I suggest you take a close look at a Macbook (not Pro). It is better designed than HP’s 2730, has a larger screen and discrete graphics and other high end features (like the large multitouch trackpad), and is half the price. If HP could create a similar design, but engineer a hinge, and add a multi touch digitizer, they’d have a category killer. But clearly it’s not something they are interested in. They’d rather add artifice than good industrial design. As a consumer (presumably), I question motives that provide excuses rather than expecting more.

  12. Mario Filipe

    12/14/2008 at 8:33 pm

    @Matt Faulkner
    The memory benchmarks could be the result of the tx2051’s memory running in dual channel mode (assuming its 2x2GB SO-DIMMs) while the tx2551 with 3GB, which has an heterogenous memory configuration (1x1GB+1x2GB), should be running in single channel. Now, if I’m not mistaken, the tx2500 series should be using DDR2-800 memory, while the tx2000 series uses DDR2-667, so I’m not sure if the dual-channel configuration of the former would have a greater impact on memory bandwidth than the higher clock speed of the latter. In real life use I wouldn’t expect much difference, but synthetic benchmarks tend to exacerbate these differences. But like you I’m also not a memory or chipset expert, so take it with a grain of salt.

    I’m sorry but I still think that you are comparing Apples and oranges, pardon the pun. If you compare the base Macbook model with a comparably specced HP dv4t you will get a $324 difference in price. Those 300+ dollars will buy you a stylish, more robust aluminum body, but is it worth it? For some definitely yes, for others probably not. Whatever the case I think that this comments section is probably not the best place for this (healthy) discussion. I invite you to share your opinion on GBM forums, drop by the “HP TX2, what’s your take” topic, your view on the subject will be most welcomed.

  13. Matt Faulkner

    12/14/2008 at 8:52 pm

    @ Mario – I pulled the memory and the 2051 is running 5300 and the 2525 is running 6400 so that could be the difference.

    I would also like to state that I was thinking of the newer Intel chipsets. On the newer Intel chipsets, memory will run in Dual Channel mode until it gets into the 3rd GIG of memory then switch into single channel mode. I am unsure if the AMD chipsets do the same thing.

  14. Mario Filipe

    12/14/2008 at 9:49 pm

    @ Matt Faulkner
    Well, that confirms that the tx2051 is running DDR2-667 and the tx2525 is running DDR2-800. The memory benchmark results would then suggest that the DDR2-667 in dual-channel mode delivers more memory bandwidth than the DDR2-800 in single channel. To the best of my knowledge, and again, I’m in no way an expert on the subject), both current Intel chipset memory controllers and the on-die controller of Turion X2/Ultra use 2×64 bit data paths, supporting dual-channel memory configurations. From what understand, the memory controllers are a little finicky regarding the type of memory installed and will only run in dual-channel if both memory DIMMs have exactly the same specifications – meaning that when you have 1GB + 2GB SO-DIMMs installed it most probably will run in single channel mode, and when you have a 2GB + 2GB SO-DIMMs (or any other configuration with matched sets of identical memory modules) then it will run in dual-channel mode.
    But all this is rather academic, and I bet that in real life use the impact will be negligible.

  15. SickOfMcaddicts

    12/14/2008 at 9:54 pm

    davidm, you must have been one of those kids in school who kept raising his hand in class to shout out the wrong answer that everyone got annoyed with.

    Shut up you MacMonkey… no one here cares to compare and if we did, you would be schooled. you must be too young to remember the first iMac… it was a huge sub par piece of plastic. when the res of the industry went smaller and metal. The imac lacked most common features that were in most computers of half the price. it still does!!! and why Mac still insists in putting their on board microphone in the back of the screen we will never know…

    I build my own computers, I know how to actualy evaluate and price a computer, as do most of the readers here. That is why we come to read Mr. Faulkner’s post (thanks Matt) and comments from people who know what they are talking about like Mr.Filipe (and thank you too Mario).

    look at the numbers, read the title and comment on what we are here to review. It really shows that you have no life when you have to troll around unrelated articles trying to squeeze in your McDrivel all over the place. It’s people like you that make Hippies look clean, and chickenpox look like fun.

  16. Matt Faulkner

    12/14/2008 at 10:15 pm

    @Mario – That is the way it used to be, I remember a discussion and some spec links from an earlier forum thread or somewhere that confirmed that it would flip/switch from dual to single depending on memory used/available. I’ll try and see if I can find that information.

    It was something like 1GB + 2GB SO-DIMMs would run like 1GB + 1GB Dual until memory used moved past 2048, then would go to 1GB + 2GB Single after that.

  17. davidm

    12/15/2008 at 8:01 am

    @SickOfMcaddicts, I’ve had one Mac in my life, and couldn’t stand it. I’m sure I’ve built more computers than you’ve looked at, starting with 8086s. The reason I am reading this article is I want to see a real contender. The reason I rail against HP is they can’t be bothered to make a really great computer, which the tx series could be, while other companies, ahem, company, do. Everywhere I go, I see Macs taking over like a plague, a few generic netbooks, a bunch of generic Windows systems, and zero TXs (and they are featured in the electronics shops, yet I’ve yet to see anyone even look at one because they look like a cheap model). This is something I’d like to see changed. I’m no Windows fanatic, but nobody in that court is stepping up. I’d like to see real competition in the design and thoughtfulness in a leading design. With apologists and individuals with their hands over their ears like you (who have to resort to insults), companies will just keep on shovelling the same old with minor twists per model.

    @Mario Filipe, thanks for your response. I’d have to see the dv4t in person to judge to see if the individual components really compare, because the unibody design really is important and innovative, and features such as the webcam on a mac book tend to be excellent (sharp, well focusing, work in low light) but not so much on other computers. But my point is that HP should focus and make the TX great, rather than chose to compromise it in important ways.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.