Notebookcheck

HP Pavilion x360 13t-u100 Convertible Review

Good, basically. HP’s Pavilion x360 line provides a relatively affordable entry into the convertible market for those disinterested in the frills of typical high-end Ultrabooks but still unwilling to spring for bargain-bin fare. Today’s model even features a solid-state drive and IPS screen. Is this the ideal middle ground?

Working For Notebookcheck

Are you a loyal reader of notebookcheck? Are you a techie who knows how to write? Then join our Team!

Especially wanted: 
English-Swedish-Translator - 
Details here
Review Editor - 
Details here
News Editor - Details here

 

 

 

 

 

 

Since Lenovo’s Yoga brand launched the 360-degree hinge convertible craze several years ago, a number of competitors have followed suit with their own adaptations of the concept. Among those have been larger convertibles—whose practicality about which we have more recently voiced our doubts—and less expensive, budget versions of the original Yoga concept. HP was one of the first movers in the latter market, which has since picked up quite a lot of steam amongst general consumers.

Unlike the recently-reviewed 15.6-inch Envy x360 15t, the HP x360 13t-u100 features a 13.3-inch display panel and a very manageable weight and size to go with it. Of course, it also maintains the touchscreen, albeit a lower-resolution (and thus less expensive) alternative to the norm for machines in this segment. Other highlights include a stylish (if primarily plastic) case design, Core i5 CPU, 8 GB DDR4 memory, and solid-state storage. All of this comes in at a price of around $665 currently (at Amazon), which places the 13t-u100 a notch above the budget segment, but still well within reach of those searching within.

HP Pavilion x360 13t-u100 (Pavilion x360 Series)
Graphics adapter
Intel HD Graphics 620, Core: 300 - 1000 MHz, 21.20.16.4471
Memory
8192 MB 
, DDR4-2133
Display
13.3 inch 16:9, 1366x768 pixel 118 PPI, yes; 10-point multi-touch, LGD052E, IPS, glossy: yes
Mainboard
Intel Sunrise Point-LP
Storage
SanDisk Z400s SD8SNAT-128G, 128 GB 
Soundcard
Realtek ALC295 @ Intel Sunrise Point-LP PCH - High Definition Audio Controller
Connections
1 USB 2.0, 2 USB 3.0 / 3.1 Gen1, 1 HDMI, 1 Kensington Lock, Audio Connections: 3.5 combo, Card Reader: SD / MMC
Networking
Realtek RTL8723BE Wireless LAN 802.11n PCI-E NIC (b/g/n), Bluetooth 4.1
Size
height x width x depth (in mm): 19 x 328 x 223 ( = 0.75 x 12.91 x 8.78 in)
Battery
43 Wh Lithium-Ion
Operating System
Microsoft Windows 10 Home 64 Bit
Camera
Webcam: 720p HD
Primary Camera: 1 MPix
Additional features
Speakers: 2.0, Keyboard Light: no, 12 Months Warranty
Weight
1.58 kg ( = 55.73 oz / 3.48 pounds), Power Supply: 316 g ( = 11.15 oz / 0.7 pounds)

 

Case

The Pavilion x360 13t-u100 features a plastic case finished with a metallic sheen. From a distance, the notebook certainly appears higher-end than it is, right down to the flashy chrome hinge covers and HP logo on the display lid. Closer up, the compromises in build quality become somewhat more prevalent, and those with a keen eye will notice the same plastic production seams in the border of the base unit which almost at first appear to be tiny cracks. Still, all in all, the x360 13t looks and feels satisfactory.

Although mostly solid, the case does succumb quite readily to any twisting, and pressure on the back of the display lid leads to visible distortions on the LCD panel. Although mostly solid while resting on a hard surface, the base unit suffers a noticeable bit of yield in the area just between the touchpad and keyboard, where even moderate pressure results in phantom clicks from the integrated touchpad buttons. Apart from this, the x360 seems well fit for general use, and it’s very comfortable both on the lap or on a desk.

Its weight of just 1.58 kg puts it in the same category as the Dell Inspiron 13 5368 in terms of portability, noticeably heavier than the premium-grade Spectre x360 (1.3 kg) and Yoga 3 Pro 13 (1.2 kg), but less than the Asus VivoBook Flip (1.7 kg), which is weighty for a 13-inch model. It’s thus very usable as a convertible, and although still on the heavy side for a tablet, far more practical in such use than its 15.6-inch Envy x360 sibling. It’s also worth mentioning that—partially thanks to the smaller screen—the 13t’s hinges also have an easier time of stabilizing the screen than did the 15t’s. There’s still a bit of bounce when tapping, but it’s nothing nearly as pronounced as it was with the latter.

Connectivity

The Pavilion x360 manages a standard array of ports for its class. There are three total USB ports, two of which are USB 3.0 speed, along with HDMI for video output. Ethernet does not make the cut, and although most users in the target segment are not likely to mind, there is one other omission that would render it valuable—which we’ll cover in the next section.

Front: no connections
Front: no connections
Rear: no connections
Rear: no connections
Left: Power button, Kensington Lock, USB 2.0, Headset/mic combo audio, volume rocker
Left: Power button, Kensington Lock, USB 2.0, Headset/mic combo audio, volume rocker
Right: card reader, USB 3.0, USB 3.0, HDMI, charging port
Right: card reader, USB 3.0, USB 3.0, HDMI, charging port
SDCardreader Transfer Speed
average JPG Copy Test (av. of 3 runs)
Lenovo Yoga 3 Pro 13 80HE004LGE
77.8 MB/s ∼100% +8%
HP Pavilion x360 13t-u100
72 MB/s ∼93%
Dell Inspiron 13 5368
20.4 MB/s ∼26% -72%
maximum AS SSD Seq Read Test (1GB)
HP Pavilion x360 13t-u100
92 MB/s ∼100%
Lenovo Yoga 3 Pro 13 80HE004LGE
88.1 MB/s ∼96% -4%
Dell Inspiron 13 5368
24.73 MB/s ∼27% -73%

Communication

What precisely is it we’re referring to above? The lack of Wireless-AC connectivity—and, in fact, even dual-band N connectivity. The x360 is limited to N speeds, and 150 Mbps ones at that. That’s incredibly slow by today’s standards, especially when internet speeds even now frequently exceed 200 or 300 Mbps. Unfortunately, there is no way to upgrade this component without removing the system board, which requires a near-complete teardown. Instead, the only rational solution is to resort to an external USB WLAN adapter with better capabilities. With an Ethernet port on board, perhaps this omission wouldn’t be quite so painful, but the x360 doesn’t provide one of those, either.

Networking
iperf Server (receive) TCP 1 m 512KB
HP Spectre x360 13-w023dx
Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 8265
499.574 MBit/s ∼100% +1113%
Dell Inspiron 13 5368
Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 3165
291 MBit/s ∼58% +606%
HP Pavilion x360 13t-u100
Realtek RTL8723BE Wireless LAN 802.11n PCI-E NIC
41.2 MBit/s ∼8%
iperf Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 512KB
HP Spectre x360 13-w023dx
Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 8265
490.588 MBit/s ∼100% +1310%
Dell Inspiron 13 5368
Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 3165
273 MBit/s ∼56% +684%
HP Pavilion x360 13t-u100
Realtek RTL8723BE Wireless LAN 802.11n PCI-E NIC
34.8 MBit/s ∼7%

Accessories

The power adapter packaged with the x360 13t is a standard 45 W HP Ultrabook AC Adapter. Weighing around 316 g, it isn’t the smallest one around, but it’s still relatively lightweight, and it provides plenty of cord length.

Maintenance

The disassembly procedure for the x360 13t is unnecessary complex, much like that of the larger Envy x360 15t. First, the user must remove both long rubber feet from the bottom of the machine—along with a single cosmetic sticker in the center—after which ten total screws can be removed from the bottom of the unit. Next, the unit is flipped over and opened up, and the palm rest assembly (the top cover) is completely removed by carefully prying upward on the lip near either of the hinge covers. Two flat cables with ZIF connectors bridge the top cover to the system board below, so these must be carefully disconnected in the process before the cover can be completely set aside. Once inside, only a couple of components are replaceable, including the M.2 SSD and the battery. Anything else would require removal of the system board, and the RAM cannot be upgraded at all.

Warranty

The Pavilion x360 includes a 1-year depot warranty.

Input Devices

Keyboard

Although the key surfaces are comprised of a cheap plastic (in contrast to the higher-quality materials found in nicer Ultrabooks), the Pavilion x360 still manages to provide a mostly comfortable typing experience. The keys are tightly affixed and feature no wiggle or rattle when touched. Key travel distance is short and actuation force is relatively light, but feedback is crisp, so following some adjustment the keyboard should be adequate for longer typing sessions.

The key layout is familiar and acceptable. We regret the absence of a backlight, but it’s a relatively minor omission.

Touchpad

Although the ELAN Clickpad is spacious considering the smaller screen size and resolution, the pointer response time is noticeably slower than usual, and the integrated buttons are troublesome (as they so often are). Probably thanks to the aforementioned lag, we at least had no issues with collateral pointer movement while clicking—but dragging and dropping irritated us on multiple occasions, and feedback from the buttons is on the mushier side. Gestures, meanwhile, were interpreted without fail. The touchpad surface is plastic, but it’s finished with a soft-touch surface which makes gliding across it effortless.

The keyboard is acceptable for its class.
The keyboard is acceptable for its class.
Key travel is short, but feedback is good.
Key travel is short, but feedback is good.
The clickpad is spacious but subpar.
The clickpad is spacious but subpar.

Display

Subpixel array
Subpixel array

The Pavilion x360 13t includes a 1366x768 resolution glossy IPS touchscreen, which naturally won’t be turning any heads—but at least it gets the job done. By contrast, the screen in the Envy x360 we reviewed last month—which featured a higher resolution—was significantly dimmer (roughly 60 cd/m² on average) and didn’t really appear to be any more vivid.

261
cd/m²
269.1
cd/m²
271.2
cd/m²
234.6
cd/m²
256.4
cd/m²
252.2
cd/m²
226.6
cd/m²
249.3
cd/m²
243.1
cd/m²
Distribution of brightness
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Maximum: 271.2 cd/m² Average: 251.5 cd/m² Minimum: 13.55 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 84 %
Center on Battery: 256.4 cd/m²
Contrast: 712:1 (Black: 0.36 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 6.7 | - Ø
ΔE Greyscale 5.4 | - Ø
61% sRGB (Argyll) 39% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll)
Gamma: 2.21
HP Pavilion x360 13t-u100
LGD052E, IPS, 13.3, 1366x768
HP Spectre x360 13-w023dx
Chi Mei CMN1367, IPS, 13.3, 1920x1080
Dell Inspiron 13 5368
AUO B133HAB, IPS, 13.3, 1920x1080
Asus VivoBook Flip TP301UA-DW006T
BOE HB133WX1-402, TN, 13.3, 1920x1080
Lenovo Yoga 3 Pro 13 80HE004LGE
Samsung L_LLTN133YL03L01, IPS, 13.3, 3200x1800
Response Times
34%
21%
55%
32%
Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% *
57.2 (23.2, 34)
33.2 (16, 17.2)
42%
44 (20, 24)
23%
38 (19, 19)
34%
36 (15, 21)
37%
Response Time Black / White *
37.6 (8.4, 29.2)
28 (5.6, 22.4)
26%
31 (15, 16)
18%
9 (4, 5)
76%
28 (11, 17)
26%
PWM Frequency
50 (90)
1330 (60)
Screen
18%
14%
-3%
19%
Brightness
252
319
27%
229
-9%
165
-35%
294
17%
Brightness Distribution
84
90
7%
92
10%
90
7%
83
-1%
Black Level *
0.36
0.336
7%
0.24
33%
0.44
-22%
0.57
-58%
Contrast
712
996
40%
1000
40%
377
-47%
551
-23%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
6.7
6.21
7%
4.75
29%
4.07
39%
2.18
67%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
5.4
7.71
-43%
4.3
20%
3.99
26%
2.45
55%
Gamma
2.21 109%
2.36 102%
2.5 96%
2.49 96%
2.39 100%
CCT
6235 104%
6458 101%
5893 110%
7491 87%
6745 96%
Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998)
39
58.6
50%
36.79
-6%
40
3%
58
49%
Color Space (Percent of sRGB)
61
90
48%
57.39
-6%
63
3%
89
46%
Total Average (Program / Settings)
26% / 21%
18% / 15%
26% / 8%
26% / 22%

* ... smaller is better

Turning to our measurements, we recorded an average brightness of 251.5 cd/m² and a contrast of 712:1. These are reasonable values at least, and although the contrast can’t match that of the more expensive, “higher-end” Envy x360, the brightness is far superior (31% better). The black value is acceptable at 0.36 cd/m², and the brightness distribution of 84% means a fairly uniform picture in terms of luminosity.

The panel managed to cover just 61% of the sRGB spectrum in our tests, which is a weak result, but hardly uncommon for machines of this price point. Even the Envy only achieved 64%, so apart from resolution and a small difference in contrast, the picture quality on the Pavilion is actually arguably better than the Envy thanks to the brightness and the lack of PWM.

vs. sRGB
vs. sRGB
vs. AdobeRGB 1998
vs. AdobeRGB 1998
vs. Spectre 13
vs. Spectre 13
vs. Inspiron 13-5368
vs. Inspiron 13-5368

CalMAN measurements provide a couple of surprises. Blue hues are notably deviant, with pure blue registering a DeltaE value north of 14 (ideal is 0, indicating perfect accuracy). Magenta is also a problem, and a number of other colors also hover around the 5-6 mark. Average ColorChecker DeltaE is still just 6.7 thanks to a good number of reasonably low values elsewhere, but in short, this is not a PC to be used for any sort of color-accurate work (such as photo editing). Even after calibration, the values had only somewhat improved. Mostly calibration resulted in improved Grayscale values, taking the CCT Average from to 6538 from 6235 and Grayscale DeltaE to 1.6 from 5.4. Total Gamma is close enough to 2.2 already.

Color analysis (pre-calibration)
Color analysis (pre-calibration)
Saturation sweeps (pre-calibration)
Saturation sweeps (pre-calibration)
Grayscale analysis (pre-calibration)
Grayscale analysis (pre-calibration)
Color analysis (post-calibration)
Color analysis (post-calibration)
Saturation sweeps (post-calibration)
Saturation sweeps (post-calibration)
Grayscale analysis (post-calibration)
Grayscale analysis (post-calibration)

Display Response Times

Display response times show how fast the screen is able to change from one color to the next. Slow response times can lead to afterimages and can cause moving objects to appear blurry (ghosting). Gamers of fast-paced 3D titles should pay special attention to fast response times.
       Response Time Black to White
37.6 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 8.4 ms rise
↘ 29.2 ms fall
The screen shows slow response rates in our tests and will be unsatisfactory for gamers.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.8 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 93 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (26.7 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
57.2 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 23.2 ms rise
↘ 34 ms fall
The screen shows slow response rates in our tests and will be unsatisfactory for gamers.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.9 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 91 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (42.8 ms).

Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)

To dim the screen, some notebooks will simply cycle the backlight on and off in rapid succession - a method called Pulse Width Modulation (PWM) . This cycling frequency should ideally be undetectable to the human eye. If said frequency is too low, users with sensitive eyes may experience strain or headaches or even notice the flickering altogether.
Screen flickering / PWM not detected

In comparison: 57 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 6272 (minimum: 43 - maximum: 142900) Hz was measured.

Outdoors, the panel struggles thanks to its edge-to-edge glossy finish—but it still handles bright environments better than the Envy thanks to the improved luminosity. Viewing angles are good (as expected for IPS) and seem also to be more stable than those of the 15.6-inch Envy, presumably due to differences in display lid design and the separation between the digitizer layer and the panel beneath.

In the sun
In the sun
In the shade
In the shade
Wide viewing angles
Wide viewing angles

Performance

The Pavilion x360 we received for review came equipped with an Intel Core i5-7200U and 8 GB of DDR4 2133 MHz single-channel memory. These are solid specs right out of the gate, but we should remind you that the memory is not upgradeable—you’re stuck with what you get. The only disappointment here is that, since it’s single-channel memory, you aren’t able to reap some of the other benefits that come alongside a second match SODIMM running in parallel (specifically, vastly improved integrated graphics performance, provided thermal headroom exists). Still, again, for the average user, these specs are perfectly sufficient—and when paired with the M.2 128 GB SSD, we ought to see respectable general system performance.

The machine has no trouble performing while unplugged; a secondary run of 3DMark 11 while running on battery power produced a nearly identical result to the original (1521 vs. 1523). Elsewhere, LatencyMon reports some troubles with DPC Latencies occasionally spiking which might result in stutters during real-time audio and video streaming, but these spikes were very infrequent in our observations, so it’s actually probably not much of a concern.

CPU-Z CPU
CPU-Z CPU
CPU-Z Caches
CPU-Z Caches
CPU-Z Mainboard
CPU-Z Mainboard
CPU-Z Memory
CPU-Z Memory
CPU-Z RAM SPD
CPU-Z RAM SPD
GPU-Z
GPU-Z
ComputeMark
ComputeMark
LatencyMon
LatencyMon

Processor

The Kaby Lake Intel Core i5-7200U is, for the most part, a higher-clocked version of the Skylake Core i5-6200U. Elsewhere, architecturally, the differences are quite small—so the extra 300 MHz (clock rate: 2.5 GHz – 31. GHz) is primarily what results in the performance bonus. This CPU is manufactured using a 14 nm FinFET process, and it features a 15 W TDP.

We’ve done plenty of comparisons to put this processor in context with its predecessors already; see our dedicated page here for a full list of those. As for how the Pavilion x360 handles itself versus its peers, it’s not bad at all. Performance in most of the benchmarks was generally near the median for this processor, and in multi-CPU performance, it actually manages to beat the Spectre x360 and its Intel Core i7-7500U. This is probably thanks to the fact that the Spectre could not maintain full Turbo clock rates and instead relinquished itself to 2.7 GHz for the duration of the CPU stress test, while the Pavilion x360 stays put at 3.1 GHz effectively permanently (as we’ll explore in more detail later on).

Cinebench R11.5
Cinebench R11.5
Cinebench R15
Cinebench R15
Cinebench R11.5
CPU Single 64Bit
HP Spectre x360 13-w023dx
Intel Core i7-7500U
1.66 Points ∼75% +37%
HP Pavilion x360 13t-u100
Intel Core i5-7200U
1.21 Points ∼55%
CPU Multi 64Bit
HP Pavilion x360 13t-u100
Intel Core i5-7200U
3.63 Points ∼15%
HP Spectre x360 13-w023dx
Intel Core i7-7500U
3.46 Points ∼14% -5%
Cinebench R15
CPU Single 64Bit
Dell Inspiron 13 5368
Intel Core i7-6500U
130 Points ∼67% +16%
HP Spectre x360 13-w023dx
Intel Core i7-7500U
126 Points ∼65% +13%
HP Pavilion x360 13t-u100
Intel Core i5-7200U
112 Points ∼57%
Asus VivoBook Flip TP301UA-DW006T
Intel Core i3-6100U
95 Points ∼49% -15%
Lenovo Yoga 3 Pro 13 80HE004LGE
Intel Core M-5Y70
92 Points ∼47% -18%
CPU Multi 64Bit
HP Pavilion x360 13t-u100
Intel Core i5-7200U
328 Points ∼15%
HP Spectre x360 13-w023dx
Intel Core i7-7500U
314 Points ∼15% -4%
Dell Inspiron 13 5368
Intel Core i7-6500U
312 Points ∼15% -5%
Asus VivoBook Flip TP301UA-DW006T
Intel Core i3-6100U
244 Points ∼11% -26%
Lenovo Yoga 3 Pro 13 80HE004LGE
Intel Core M-5Y70
184 Points ∼9% -44%
wPrime 2.0x - 1024m
HP Pavilion x360 13t-u100
Intel Core i5-7200U
489 s * ∼6%
HP Spectre x360 13-w023dx
Intel Core i7-7500U
485.231 s * ∼6% +1%
Super Pi Mod 1.5 XS 32M - ---
HP Pavilion x360 13t-u100
Intel Core i5-7200U
642 Seconds * ∼3%
HP Spectre x360 13-w023dx
Intel Core i7-7500U
572.169 Seconds * ∼3% +11%

* ... smaller is better

Cinebench R11.5 CPU Single 64Bit
1.21 Points
Cinebench R11.5 CPU Multi 64Bit
3.63 Points
Cinebench R11.5 OpenGL 64Bit
30.21 fps
Cinebench R15 CPU Single 64Bit
112 Points
Cinebench R15 CPU Multi 64Bit
328 Points
Cinebench R15 OpenGL 64Bit
39.63 fps
Cinebench R15 Ref. Match 64Bit
97.7 %
Help

System Performance

Thanks to its nimble solid-state storage, the Pavilion x360 13t-u100 excelled in our system performance tests. Before we get to the actual scores, we should mention that subjective performance was always quick and without stutters or wait times. The x360 performs like a premium Ultrabook—minus the fancy case design, gorgeous display, and accompanying premium price tag.

In our PCMark 8 synthetic performance tests, only the Spectre x360 13-w023dx produces consistently higher scores, and only by single-digit margins, to boot (between 2 and 8 percent). Scores of 4821 and 4365 in PCMark 8 Work Accelerated and Creative Accelerated represent a very capable machine, and the Home Accelerated score of 3694 (again, just 3% below that of the Spectre) easily eclipses that of the Envy x360 we reviewed a month ago (3236) by a full 14%. In comparison, subjectively, the Pavilion feels substantially quicker than the Envy; this is the difference a solid-state drive makes.

PCMark 8 Home Accelerated
PCMark 8 Home Accelerated
PCMark 8 Creative Accelerated
PCMark 8 Creative Accelerated
PCMark 8 Work Accelerated
PCMark 8 Work Accelerated
PCMark 8
Work Score Accelerated v2
HP Spectre x360 13-w023dx
HD Graphics 620, 7500U, Samsung PM951 NVMe MZVLV512
4910 Points ∼75% +2%
HP Pavilion x360 13t-u100
HD Graphics 620, 7200U, SanDisk Z400s SD8SNAT-128G
4821 Points ∼74%
Dell Inspiron 13 5368
HD Graphics 520, 6500U, Toshiba THNSNK256GCS8
4577 Points ∼70% -5%
Asus VivoBook Flip TP301UA-DW006T
HD Graphics 520, 6100U, Samsung CM871 MZ7LF128HCHP
4121 Points ∼63% -15%
Lenovo Yoga 3 Pro 13 80HE004LGE
HD Graphics 5300, 5Y70, Samsung SSD PM851 MZNTE512HMJH
3121 Points ∼48% -35%
Creative Score Accelerated v2
HP Spectre x360 13-w023dx
HD Graphics 620, 7500U, Samsung PM951 NVMe MZVLV512
4699 Points ∼50% +8%
HP Pavilion x360 13t-u100
HD Graphics 620, 7200U, SanDisk Z400s SD8SNAT-128G
4365 Points ∼47%
Lenovo Yoga 3 Pro 13 80HE004LGE
HD Graphics 5300, 5Y70, Samsung SSD PM851 MZNTE512HMJH
3040 Points ∼33% -30%
Home Score Accelerated v2
HP Spectre x360 13-w023dx
HD Graphics 620, 7500U, Samsung PM951 NVMe MZVLV512
3795 Points ∼64% +3%
Dell Inspiron 13 5368
HD Graphics 520, 6500U, Toshiba THNSNK256GCS8
3699 Points ∼62% 0%
HP Pavilion x360 13t-u100
HD Graphics 620, 7200U, SanDisk Z400s SD8SNAT-128G
3694 Points ∼62%
Asus VivoBook Flip TP301UA-DW006T
HD Graphics 520, 6100U, Samsung CM871 MZ7LF128HCHP
2960 Points ∼50% -20%
Lenovo Yoga 3 Pro 13 80HE004LGE
HD Graphics 5300, 5Y70, Samsung SSD PM851 MZNTE512HMJH
2307 Points ∼39% -38%
PCMark 8 Home Score Accelerated v2
3694 points
PCMark 8 Creative Score Accelerated v2
4365 points
PCMark 8 Work Score Accelerated v2
4821 points
Help

Storage Devices

All of this is made possible by the SanDisk Z400s SSD that powers the Pavilion x360 13t-u100, though in the grand scheme of things, as communicated by our chart below, this is hardly one of the fastest SSDs around. Mediocre write speeds (171.2 MB/s sequential and 126 MB/s 4K-64 as measured by AS SSD) and merely average 4K performance in general mean that the Z400s is easily bested by more expensive NVMe drives. Still, the difference even a cheap solid-state drive makes to overall system performance cannot be understated, and taking the time to compare these numbers to the Envy x360 underscores this as well as anything.

The drive can be replaced with a higher-capacity drive once the machine has been disassembled. Of course, as mentioned in our maintenance section, that process isn’t exactly easy—but at least it’s possible.

The internal M.2 SSD
The internal M.2 SSD
AS SSD
AS SSD
CrystalDiskMark 3.0
CrystalDiskMark 3.0
PCMark 8 Storage
PCMark 8 Storage
HP Pavilion x360 13t-u100
SanDisk Z400s SD8SNAT-128G
HP Spectre x360 13-w023dx
Samsung PM951 NVMe MZVLV512
Dell Inspiron 13 5368
Toshiba THNSNK256GCS8
Asus VivoBook Flip TP301UA-DW006T
Samsung CM871 MZ7LF128HCHP
Lenovo Yoga 3 Pro 13 80HE004LGE
Samsung SSD PM851 MZNTE512HMJH
CrystalDiskMark 3.0
157%
35%
-56%
47%
Write 4k QD32
176.7
361.2
104%
200.9
14%
8.515
-95%
236.7
34%
Read 4k QD32
145
535.2
269%
333.6
130%
97.53
-33%
366.6
153%
Write 4k
73.04
137.9
89%
81.42
11%
8.507
-88%
99.86
37%
Read 4k
21.36
42.66
100%
23.77
11%
5.783
-73%
35.9
68%
Write 512
179.5
570.5
218%
267.9
49%
23.86
-87%
237.7
32%
Read 512
335.1
679
103%
428.3
28%
259.5
-23%
417.3
25%
Write Seq
185.2
570.7
208%
270.1
46%
133.5
-28%
238.6
29%
Read Seq
516.4
1376
166%
479
-7%
396
-23%
521.3
1%
SanDisk Z400s SD8SNAT-128G
Transfer Rate Minimum: 243.6 MB/s
Transfer Rate Maximum: 421.2 MB/s
Transfer Rate Average: 412.6 MB/s
Access Time: 0.1 ms
Burst Rate: 79.5 MB/s
CPU Usage: 4.2 %

GPU Performance

One area in which the Pavilion x360 will never excel is that of GPU performance. It isn’t bad, but as compared to, for instance, dual-channel memory configurations featuring Core i7 (both Skylake and Kaby Lake) CPUs, it lags by nearly 30% in our benchmarks. The 3DMark 11 Performance GPU scores show a smaller gap of 5 to 10%, but even still, the aggregate performance, with scores such as 1125 in 3DMark 11 Performance Combined and 704 in 3DMark Fire Strike, is not going to result in playable frame rates in nearly any modern game at palatable settings.

Our gaming benchmarks are proof of this: the Pavilion x360 only manages 43 fps on low settings at 1024x768 resolution in Bioshock Infinite, and on high settings at native resolution, it drops all the way to 20 fps. Rise of the Tomb Raider, meanwhile, is completely unplayable regardless of settings. Dual-channel memory would have probably helped quite a lot here, but either way, the x360 was never meant for gaming to begin with.

3DMark Ice Storm
3DMark Ice Storm
3DMark Cloud Gate
3DMark Cloud Gate
3DMark 11
3DMark 11
3DMark 11
1280x720 Performance Combined
Dell Inspiron 13 5368
Intel HD Graphics 520, 6500U
1544 Points ∼10% +37%
HP Spectre x360 13-w023dx
Intel HD Graphics 620, 7500U
1498 Points ∼9% +33%
HP Pavilion x360 13t-u100
Intel HD Graphics 620, 7200U
1125 Points ∼7%
Asus VivoBook Flip TP301UA-DW006T
Intel HD Graphics 520, 6100U
845 Points ∼5% -25%
Lenovo Yoga 3 Pro 13 80HE004LGE
Intel HD Graphics 5300, 5Y70
679 Points ∼4% -40%
1280x720 Performance GPU
HP Spectre x360 13-w023dx
Intel HD Graphics 620, 7500U
1560 Points ∼3% +10%
Dell Inspiron 13 5368
Intel HD Graphics 520, 6500U
1490 Points ∼3% +5%
HP Pavilion x360 13t-u100
Intel HD Graphics 620, 7200U
1413 Points ∼3%
Asus VivoBook Flip TP301UA-DW006T
Intel HD Graphics 520, 6100U
1060 Points ∼2% -25%
Lenovo Yoga 3 Pro 13 80HE004LGE
Intel HD Graphics 5300, 5Y70
740 Points ∼1% -48%
3DMark
1920x1080 Fire Strike Graphics
HP Spectre x360 13-w023dx
Intel HD Graphics 620, 7500U
964 Points ∼2% +37%
HP Pavilion x360 13t-u100
Intel HD Graphics 620, 7200U
704 Points ∼2%
Lenovo Yoga 3 Pro 13 80HE004LGE
Intel HD Graphics 5300, 5Y70
383 Points ∼1% -46%
1280x720 Cloud Gate Standard Graphics
HP Spectre x360 13-w023dx
Intel HD Graphics 620, 7500U
7969 Points ∼5% +28%
Dell Inspiron 13 5368
Intel HD Graphics 520, 6500U
7945 Points ∼5% +27%
HP Pavilion x360 13t-u100
Intel HD Graphics 620, 7200U
6243 Points ∼4%
Asus VivoBook Flip TP301UA-DW006T
Intel HD Graphics 520, 6100U
4724 Points ∼3% -24%
Lenovo Yoga 3 Pro 13 80HE004LGE
Intel HD Graphics 5300, 5Y70
3202 Points ∼2% -49%
1920x1080 Ice Storm Extreme Graphics
HP Spectre x360 13-w023dx
Intel HD Graphics 620, 7500U
46375 Points ∼6% +31%
HP Pavilion x360 13t-u100
Intel HD Graphics 620, 7200U
35341 Points ∼5%
3DMark 11 Performance
1523 points
3DMark Ice Storm Standard Score
44760 points
3DMark Cloud Gate Standard Score
5061 points
3DMark Fire Strike Score
653 points
Help
Rise of the Tomb Raider
1366x768 Medium Preset AF:2x (sort by value)
HP Pavilion x360 13t-u100
HD Graphics 620, 7200U, SanDisk Z400s SD8SNAT-128G
10 fps ∼4%
HP Spectre x360 13-w023dx
HD Graphics 620, 7500U, Samsung PM951 NVMe MZVLV512
12.6 fps ∼6% +26%
Dell Inspiron 13 5368
HD Graphics 520, 6500U, Toshiba THNSNK256GCS8
11 fps ∼5% +10%
Asus VivoBook Flip TP301UA-DW006T
HD Graphics 520, 6100U, Samsung CM871 MZ7LF128HCHP
9 fps ∼4% -10%
Lenovo Yoga 3 Pro 13 80HE004LGE
HD Graphics 5300, 5Y70, Samsung SSD PM851 MZNTE512HMJH
3.9 fps ∼2% -61%
1024x768 Lowest Preset (sort by value)
HP Pavilion x360 13t-u100
HD Graphics 620, 7200U, SanDisk Z400s SD8SNAT-128G
17 fps ∼6%
HP Spectre x360 13-w023dx
HD Graphics 620, 7500U, Samsung PM951 NVMe MZVLV512
20.8 fps ∼7% +22%
Dell Inspiron 13 5368
HD Graphics 520, 6500U, Toshiba THNSNK256GCS8
17.3 fps ∼6% +2%
Asus VivoBook Flip TP301UA-DW006T
HD Graphics 520, 6100U, Samsung CM871 MZ7LF128HCHP
14 fps ∼5% -18%
Lenovo Yoga 3 Pro 13 80HE004LGE
HD Graphics 5300, 5Y70, Samsung SSD PM851 MZNTE512HMJH
6.6 fps ∼2% -61%
BioShock Infinite
1366x768 Medium Preset (sort by value)
HP Pavilion x360 13t-u100
HD Graphics 620, 7200U, SanDisk Z400s SD8SNAT-128G
25 fps ∼8%
HP Spectre x360 13-w023dx
HD Graphics 620, 7500U, Samsung PM951 NVMe MZVLV512
30.6 fps ∼10% +22%
Dell Inspiron 13 5368
HD Graphics 520, 6500U, Toshiba THNSNK256GCS8
32.2 fps ∼10% +29%
Asus VivoBook Flip TP301UA-DW006T
HD Graphics 520, 6100U, Samsung CM871 MZ7LF128HCHP
24.3 fps ∼8% -3%
Lenovo Yoga 3 Pro 13 80HE004LGE
HD Graphics 5300, 5Y70, Samsung SSD PM851 MZNTE512HMJH
14.8 fps ∼5% -41%
1280x720 Very Low Preset (sort by value)
HP Pavilion x360 13t-u100
HD Graphics 620, 7200U, SanDisk Z400s SD8SNAT-128G
43 fps ∼12%
HP Spectre x360 13-w023dx
HD Graphics 620, 7500U, Samsung PM951 NVMe MZVLV512
53.5 fps ∼15% +24%
Dell Inspiron 13 5368
HD Graphics 520, 6500U, Toshiba THNSNK256GCS8
59.8 fps ∼17% +39%
Asus VivoBook Flip TP301UA-DW006T
HD Graphics 520, 6100U, Samsung CM871 MZ7LF128HCHP
43 fps ∼12% 0%
Lenovo Yoga 3 Pro 13 80HE004LGE
HD Graphics 5300, 5Y70, Samsung SSD PM851 MZNTE512HMJH
30.8 fps ∼9% -28%
low med. high ultra
BioShock Infinite (2013) 432520fps
Rise of the Tomb Raider (2016) 1710fps

Stress Test

During our synthetic stress tests (using Prime95 and FurMark), the Pavilion x360 exceeded expectations. During full CPU stress, the processor managed to stay locked at 3.1 GHz for the entire duration of the test, with stable enough temperatures (76 °C max) that we are comfortable saying that we don’t expect that this would have changed over an even longer term. GPU stress, meanwhile, produced clock rates fluctuating between 950 and 1000 MHz after a short period of time.

Combined stress, of course, was a bit more problematic for the little machine. While the GPU frequencies still maintained the same values, the CPU resigned itself to just 1.6 GHz (below the base clock rate) for the duration of the test. In spite of this, temperatures still never exceeded 68 °C, suggesting that this is a TDP limitation rather than a thermal one.

Full CPU Stress
Full CPU Stress
Full GPU Stress
Full GPU Stress
Combined CPU + GPU Stress
Combined CPU + GPU Stress
CPU Clock (GHz) GPU Clock (MHz) Average CPU Temperature (°C) Average GPU Temperature (°C)
Prime95 Stress 3.1 - 76 -
FurMark Stress - 950 - 1000 - 69
Prime95 + FurMark Stress 1.6 950 - 1000 68 68

Emissions

System Noise

Fan noise profile
Fan noise profile

The Pavilion x360’s fan is relatively quiet in most cases, but it does produce a high-pitched whine which can be irritating to some users. Also, at lower fan speeds, there was a very particular rattling noise which almost sounded as though the fan bearings in our particular unit may be going bad. Nevertheless, we’ll chalk the latter symptom up to an idiosyncrasy with our specific test machine, as it very likely is not indicative of a wider problem. An overall load maximum of just 40.3 dB(A) and a median value of only 36 dB(A) are very good results.

Noise Level

Idle
28.9 / 28.9 / 29.2 dB(A)
Load
36 / 40.3 dB(A)
 
 
 
30 dB
silent
40 dB(A)
audible
50 dB(A)
loud
 
min: dark, med: mid, max: light   BK Precision 732A (15 cm distance)   environment noise: 28.9 dB(A)
HP Pavilion x360 13t-u100
HD Graphics 620, 7200U, SanDisk Z400s SD8SNAT-128G
HP Spectre x360 13-w023dx
HD Graphics 620, 7500U, Samsung PM951 NVMe MZVLV512
Dell Inspiron 13 5368
HD Graphics 520, 6500U, Toshiba THNSNK256GCS8
Asus VivoBook Flip TP301UA-DW006T
HD Graphics 520, 6100U, Samsung CM871 MZ7LF128HCHP
Lenovo Yoga 3 Pro 13 80HE004LGE
HD Graphics 5300, 5Y70, Samsung SSD PM851 MZNTE512HMJH
Noise
-2%
3%
-3%
-1%
off / environment *
28.9
29.1
-1%
29
-0%
31
-7%
31.2
-8%
Idle Minimum *
28.9
29.1
-1%
29
-0%
31.3
-8%
31.2
-8%
Idle Average *
28.9
29.1
-1%
29
-0%
31.3
-8%
31.4
-9%
Idle Maximum *
29.2
31.2
-7%
29
1%
32.9
-13%
31.8
-9%
Load Average *
36
37.3
-4%
31
14%
35
3%
32.3
10%
Load Maximum *
40.3
39.6
2%
40.3
-0%
34.9
13%
32
21%

* ... smaller is better

Temperature

Overall, the Pavilion x360 maintains comfortable temperatures, though there is a particular hot spot in the top center of the underside which reached an uncomfortable 49 °C. Fortunately, even while lap-borne, the user’s legs will not often touch this spot. Average temperatures on top and bottom were just 27.9 °C and 29.6 °C respectively (room temperature 20 °C).

The internal cooling fan
The internal cooling fan
Thermal analysis, top of base unit
Thermal analysis, top of base unit
Thermal analysis, underside
Thermal analysis, underside
Max. Load
 42 °C33.6 °C31 °C 
 24 °C27.2 °C29 °C 
 21.2 °C21.2 °C22.2 °C 
Maximum: 42 °C
Average: 27.9 °C
35.6 °C49 °C23 °C
34.2 °C31.2 °C22.8 °C
24.6 °C23.6 °C22.8 °C
Maximum: 49 °C
Average: 29.6 °C
Power Supply (max.)  37 °C | Room Temperature 20 °C | Fluke 62 Mini IR Thermometer

Speakers

The Pavilion x360’s speakers perform squarely within the parameters of the budget category. As usual, we experience essentially no low-frequency reproduction, so those hoping for some bass will need to have an external audio solution handy (speakers or headphones—at least we have Bluetooth support to make that easier). Volume levels are merely average as well—enough to fill a medium-sized room without notable distortion.

The internal speakers
The internal speakers
Speaker analysis
Speaker analysis
dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2036.735.236.7253532353134.232.134.24033.131.733.15031.83031.86330.431.230.48030.530.930.510029.62829.612532.83232.816030.326.730.320038.126.838.125046.825.546.831550.525.150.540054.225.154.250057.423.557.463065.523.865.580065.623.465.6100065.222.665.2125068.122.768.1160068.122.368.1200062.722.462.7250064.522.164.5315061.822.261.8400063.222.163.2500068.722.168.7630062.321.962.3800060.222.160.21000054.822.154.81250052.322.152.31600048.522.248.5SPL76.934.876.9N37.92.337.9median 60.2HP Pavilion x360 13t-u100median 22.6median 60.2Delta8.31.88.339.339.536.838.136.336.234.733.933.935.233.335.332.831.932.2313131.429.435.829.648.52955.228.657.42859.826.260.125.660.22561.624.36724.57024.466.923.864.523.757.723.757.323.560.223.562.423.663.523.964.92461.72462.125.166.336.676.22.837.2median 24.5HP Spectre x360 13-w023dxmedian 60.22.24.4hearing rangehide median Pink Noise
HP Pavilion x360 13t-u100 audio analysis

(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (76.86 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 22.2% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (11.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 5.4% higher than median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (8% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 3.6% away from median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (9.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (25.5% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 67% of all tested devices in this class were better, 6% similar, 27% worse
» The best had a delta of 11%, average was 23%, worst was 53%
Compared to all devices tested
» 70% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 23% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 22%, worst was 53%

HP Spectre x360 13-w023dx audio analysis

(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (76.21 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 17% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (12.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 3.7% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (6.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 2.4% away from median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (7.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (19% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 32% of all tested devices in this class were better, 8% similar, 61% worse
» The best had a delta of 11%, average was 23%, worst was 53%
Compared to all devices tested
» 36% of all tested devices were better, 5% similar, 59% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 22%, worst was 53%

Frequency Comparison (Checkbox selectable!)
Graph 1: Pink Noise 100% Vol.; Graph 2: Audio off

Energy Management

Power Consumption

Thanks in part to its low-resolution display panel, the Pavilion x360 is relatively energy efficient. The Idle Average we measured was just 6 W, which is below all of the machines in our comparison field apart from the Asus VivoBook (the VivoBook does feature a 1080p panel, but it also uses TN LED technology versus IPS, which is more power efficient).

Power Consumption
Off / Standbydarklight 0.2 / 0.5 Watt
Idledarkmidlight 3.7 / 6 / 6.9 Watt
Load midlight 23.4 / 28.8 Watt
 color bar
Key: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        Metrahit Energy
HP Pavilion x360 13t-u100
7200U, HD Graphics 620, SanDisk Z400s SD8SNAT-128G, IPS, 1366x768, 13.3
HP Spectre x360 13-w023dx
7500U, HD Graphics 620, Samsung PM951 NVMe MZVLV512, IPS, 1920x1080, 13.3
Dell Inspiron 13 5368
6500U, HD Graphics 520, Toshiba THNSNK256GCS8, IPS, 1920x1080, 13.3
Asus VivoBook Flip TP301UA-DW006T
6100U, HD Graphics 520, Samsung CM871 MZ7LF128HCHP, TN, 1920x1080, 13.3
Lenovo Yoga 3 Pro 13 80HE004LGE
5Y70, HD Graphics 5300, Samsung SSD PM851 MZNTE512HMJH, IPS, 3200x1800, 13.3
Power Consumption
-25%
-11%
7%
-25%
Idle Minimum *
3.7
5.5
-49%
4.4
-19%
2.95
20%
4.8
-30%
Idle Average *
6
6.7
-12%
6.1
-2%
5.6
7%
10.7
-78%
Idle Maximum *
6.9
7.1
-3%
6.8
1%
7.7
-12%
11.8
-71%
Load Average *
23.4
33.1
-41%
29
-24%
22.6
3%
18.3
22%
Load Maximum *
28.8
35.2
-22%
31.9
-11%
23.5
18%
19.7
32%

* ... smaller is better

Battery Life

We’d expect battery runtimes on the Pavilion x360 to be somewhat of a challenge thanks to the rather small 43 Wh internal battery which is supplied with the machine. By comparison, the Spectre x360 13 packs a 57.8 Wh battery, and it sees correspondingly higher runtimes (roughly 37% higher overall—and the battery is 34.4% larger). However, the Dell Inspiron 13 5368 sees much shorter life per charge overall in spite of a nearly identical battery size (42 Wh), and the Asus VivoBook inexplicably performs far worse in our realistic Wi-Fi surfing benchmark (27% shorter runtime) even despite its 55 Wh battery.

In the aforementioned Wi-Fi Surfing test, which is perhaps the most applicable of all of the battery benchmarks we perform, the Pavilion x360 records 6 hours and 37 minutes of life—practically-speaking, a very usable performance, even though when taking into account its low-resolution screen we could potentially hope for quite a bit more. Again, from the perspective of the average user simply looking for an affordable but well-rounded budget convertible, the Pavilion x360 gets the job done well enough.

Classic Test
Classic Test
Readers Test
Readers Test
Surfing w/ Wi-Fi
Surfing w/ Wi-Fi
The internal battery
The internal battery
Battery Runtime
Idle (without WLAN, min brightness)
14h 39min
WiFi Surfing v1.3
6h 37min
Load (maximum brightness)
1h 33min
HP Pavilion x360 13t-u100
7200U, HD Graphics 620, 43 Wh
HP Spectre x360 13-w023dx
7500U, HD Graphics 620, 57.8 Wh
Dell Inspiron 13 5368
6500U, HD Graphics 520, 42 Wh
Asus VivoBook Flip TP301UA-DW006T
6100U, HD Graphics 520, 55 Wh
Lenovo Yoga 3 Pro 13 80HE004LGE
5Y70, HD Graphics 5300, 44 Wh
Battery Runtime
37%
-24%
41%
-34%
Reader / Idle
879
1233
40%
674
-23%
1260
43%
WiFi v1.3
397
558
41%
240
-40%
290
-27%
263
-34%
Load
93
121
30%
86
-8%
193
108%

Pros

+ good CPU performance devoid of throttling
+ M.2 SSD included in lieu of conventional mechanical storage
+ good thermal management
+ overall system performance rivals more expensive competitors
+ IPS screen with good viewing angles and acceptable brightness/contrast parameters
+ attractive case design

Cons

- low-resolution screen
- subpar clickpad
- poor single-band wireless-N adapter performance (no AC)
- difficult and limited maintenance options
- fan noise resembles a high-pitched whine
- weak speakers
- plastic casing is stable enough, but still suffers flex in some areas

Verdict

In review: HP Pavilion x360 13t-u100. Test model provided by CUKUSA.com
In review: HP Pavilion x360 13t-u100. Test model provided by CUKUSA.com

The Pavilion x360 13t-u100 is a solid machine for a particular target user, but it is not without its compromises. Specifically, it’s worth considering for anyone not terribly concerned with case quality and durability, flexible maintenance and upgrades, or high-end Ultrabook-grade amenities (such as 1080p+ resolution screens, NVMe storage, and exceptionally long battery life). There are other significant shortcomings as well, such as the subpar wireless connectivity and the lack of an Ethernet alternative. It’s hardly the complete package, but again, that’s not what anyone should be expecting, especially for this price (currently $665 at Amazon).

But what you do get for that price is great CPU performance (from a Kaby Lake Core i5 in this case) without throttling, reasonable case temperatures and noise levels (apart from a conspicuously high-pitched fan), solid-state storage, and plenty of RAM for general use—all part of a somewhat practical convertible with manageable weight and size (especially as compared to the 15.6-inch Envy x360 we reviewed last month). So ultimately, those in the market for a no-frills convertible for general use but who are still savvy enough to appreciate the speed and reliability offered by an SSD may see some value here.

HP Pavilion x360 13t-u100 - 01/08/2017 v6
Steve Schardein

Chassis
62 / 98 → 63%
Keyboard
73%
Pointing Device
69%
Connectivity
35 / 80 → 44%
Weight
68 / 78 → 77%
Battery
Display
76%
Games Performance
57 / 68 → 84%
Application Performance
85 / 87 → 98%
Temperature
93%
Noise
89%
Audio
40 / 91 → 44%
Camera
58 / 85 → 68%
Average
67%
75%
Convertible - Weighted Average

Pricecompare

static version load dynamic
Loading Comments
Comment this article
Please share our article, every link counts!
> Notebook / Laptop Reviews and News > Reviews > HP Pavilion x360 13t-u100 Convertible Review
Steve Schardein, 2017-01-10 (Update: 2017-01-10)
Steve Schardein
Steve Schardein - Review Editor - @othersteve
In grade school, my first computer—an Apple IIGS—started it all for me. Later, in the nineties, if I wasn’t repairing computers for family and friends, I was busy cooking up nifty Visual Basic projects and playing PC games like Command & Conquer and Heroes of Might and Magic. Soon, much of my free time was spent moderating popular gaming forums and covering the industry for various websites. All the while, I never stopped repairing computers, and in 2006, I started a technology consulting company in Louisville, KY—Triple-S Computers—which I have been fortunate to nurture to great success by specializing in not only repairs, but also new machine consultations and purchasing, data recovery, and malware/security. And since 2012, I have proudly contributed many dozens of reviews to Notebookcheck, a site which I have long considered to be the ultimate authority on laptops and related technology. Today, I am truly living my dream: still a child at heart, ever-curious, constantly learning, and thankful to you, our readers.