HP launches $250 Pavilion 10z laptop with AMD Mullins processor

HP launches $250 Pavilion 10z laptop with AMD Mullins processor

Summary: The new notebook is the first major design win for AMD's new budget mobile chip.


AMD officially introduced its new Mullins processors a couple of months ago as part of its latest strategy to compete in mobile devices, whether low-cost laptops or tablets (though not low-cost ones). But so far the company hasn't had the chance to toot its horn much when it comes to design wins, though that may be about to change.

That's because AMD has scored a big "get" with HP's latest notebook, the Pavilion 10z, which is the first major device to ship with a Mullins chip. And at a price of $249.99, it's part of a trend of cheaper Windows laptops that will compete against the Chromebook insurgency.

The 10z features an AMD dual-core E1 Micro-6200T processor with Radeon R2 graphics powering Windows 8.1, 2GB of RAM, 500GB hard drive, and 1,366x768 10.1-inch touchscreen. No optical drive is included, though that's hardly surprising given the price point, form factor (0.89 inches thick, 2.5 pounds) and trend away from built-in DVD drives. At the moment, there doesn't appear to be an option to add more RAM or storage.

It remains to be seen how well the new Mullins processor performs, though it does include a Turbo mode to boost the clock speed in certain situations (which the last generation of AMD low-power mobile chips lacked). AMD is also touting its Enduro technology for improved battery life, but HP's own spec sheet is not encouraging in this regard, claiming that the 10z will only get up to 4 hours of battery life. (In AMD's defense, the 10z only comes with a meager 24WHr battery.)

It also remains to be seen if other manufacturers will embrace the Mullins processor lineup, though snaring HP is certainly a good start. 

[Via Liliputing]

Topics: Mobility, Hewlett-Packard, Laptops

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.


Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Netbooks are coming... again

    The previous ones sucked (arguable) but were good enough to stop any linux strides in the desktop. The new vague is here to stop chromebooks - will they succeed?
    • This is my favourite post of the week :)

      I'm a linux guy of 10 years that bought a netbook ... Erm end of '08/start of '09 and still had it - a samsung nc10. It had win xp which I got rid of. Over the years it's had first a bigger hdd added, then an ssd, it's RAM up to 2gb, repairs have been a new fan and display flex. Oh and I also put in a Broadcom wireless card back when I was experimenting with running osx on it.

      It has, by and large dual booted windows 7 pro/opensuse/ubuntu for 90% of it's life.

      I've actually used the netbooks of that era as regular arguments against the spread of chromebooks - I believe it cost
      Me in the region of £300 and actually the performance was never as bad as people who hadn't used atom cpu's said - even running windows 7, all that these devices are meant for - work/email/surfing/streaming/social networking (basically anything but games or pro equipment stuff were fine).

      Chrome books are why I still have it - sure the display is absolutely pants by modern comparison, and it could really do with a new battery (the original 9 hours is now just a tad under 4) but it still does more than a new chrome book would in windows mode, and I can reboot into my linux systems in a minute (obviously don't virtualise linux on a netbook - it can be done, I've done it, but really, don't). I can't do any of that with a chrome book - I can use google docs instead of my previous choice of, well anything, and use chrome browser, again instead of anything I like and so on. It is because of that first gen netbook that I feel the limited chrome book is a step back and I'm really pleased to see someone making something I can replace the old nc10 with.
      • Your individual opinion



        Netbooks were terrible for majority, if they were great they wouldn't die in less than 5 years.
        • Lol

          That article was 5 years after the fact. The reality was that the tech stayed stationary. So that a 2008 netbook was very similar performance wise to an 10-10 netbook.

          Of course by lat year they seemed bad, but at the time there wasn't an ipad and the smartphone scene was the original iphone - they'd only just got apps.

          At the time they were very popular, with whole online forums dedicated to them.

          Tablets and convertibles and chrome books prove that there is a limited market for cheap, 11-13 inch low power machines.

          As I said the tech has moved on and I'm really glad to see the OEMs keeping up. The mobile processor may be a bit weedy next to it's older brother, but From the transformer books to this, windows and gnu/linux are so superior to the chrome OS alternative.

          There's little sense arguing personal experience against google results, but the fact is that those first gen netbooks could run windows 7 pro, with office 2010 and all the usual stuff without problem - they just had lower res screens as was common before smartphone popularity and they couldn't play modern games.

          Choice is good for all.
          • Yes choise is great

            And nothing wrong being unique. But don't generalize your personal opinion.
            Netbooks were a fad, how many articles do you want me to find?
          • None.

            It all seems a bit of a waste of time really doesn't it?

            I'm not really seeing the point of your argument. The format factor evolved that was all. Reality was if you'd had a netbook back then it would have been a debate. But even now it's irrelevant. There's a market for the form factor and sales of tablet and chromebooks are still a clear sign that people don't mind the lack of power.
          • You reply to my general argument with your personal experience

            And my post doesn't make sense?!!!
            What's wrong with my post, you don't agree, but the opinion I express is more or less common among OEMs, analysts, bloggers, ... and the history supports it.

            I don't like netbooks, you like them... what now?
      • Your individual opinion



        Netbooks were terrible for majority, if they were great they wouldn't die in less than 5 years.
        • Netbooks

          Netbooks weren't really so terrible for the majority, except maybe in developed countries where people have enough money to get better systems. What was terrible was trying to sell systems running Linux to people who couldn't handle Windows properly yet. That was a failed experiment. A lot of people in 3rd world countries bought the Linux lappies and put pirated Windows on them. As for the netbooks, I know schools and other people who would be pleased with this news.
  • smartphones come with bigger batteries nowadays

    I think that inhell makes OEMs install tiny batteries on efficient AMD laptops to make them look bad and enormous batteries on inhell based laptops (such as macbooks) to make them look more efficient than they are.

    They also rig benchmarks to come out ahead.
    • You are too clever by half

      Inhell? So are you in third grade?
    • Inhell?

      More like Always Melting Devices. Garbage.
  • That's a pretty damn good deal

    and given that most people are tending to upgrade from ancient hardware, it will probably feel zippy to the user (even if it isn't all that zippy.)
  • Performance compared to AMD C-60?

    How is the AMD dual-core E1 Micro-6200T processor compared to the AMD C60 in Acer Aspire One? I hope the newer CPU will be much better (more powerful AND consume less energy).
  • Poor battery!

    I had a HP Pavillion dm1z with an AMD APU E-450 two years ago and was doing almost 8 hours on a charge. Ok, it cost back them about 500$, twice the price, but had 4 GB of RAM and 650 GB of HDD. Wasn't very powerful and wasn't fast, but it did a correct job for web surfing and Office documents editing.

    Also, I had swapped the HDD in it for a SSD and gained almost two hours of battery (and quite a bit of speed too!).

    Anyway, all this to say that by today's standard that battery is crap.

    Last year for 400$ (selling now under 350$ I think) I bought the Asus Transformer Book T100 (which acts as a laptop when docked) and do over 10 hours on a charge when not using it extensively and performance is quite good (though it lacks storage with only 64GB).
    • Thank you lepoete73

      Been looking of impact of "swapped the HDD in it for a SSD and gained almost two hours of battery"...
  • Why no SSD?

    Are mechanical drives really so cheap that a 64gig SSD wouldn't be around the same cost? Looking at OEM drive on Newegg I can't see why they wouldn't go with a small SSD that would give them far better performance along with a boost in battery life and would probably cost similar to what the platter based drive is running them while providing a much better user experience. The absence of cheap SSDs in low end computer is as a whole rather puzzling..
    • Re: Why no SSD

      One reason is that Americans are fascinated with numbers. Many people would prefer 250 GB of platter storage vs 64 GB of SSD without realizing that the SSD is faster and uses less power simply because 250 is larger than 64.
      • Suspected as much

        That's what I was afraid of. Most companies aren't willing to go with a smaller number (see phone sizes and resolutions) even if it could mean a better user experience. I'll begrudgingly give Apple credit for sticking to their guns and not chasing numbers.
  • Bad idea to not be able to increase storage and RAM,

    otherwise, sounds pretty good.

    Also, the idea that people won't use optical drives tends to be one of those self-fulfilling prophecies...