The MacBook has an “integrated” graphics processor (GeForce 9400M) that shares (poaches) memory from the rest of the system.

http://www.apple.com/macbook/graphics.html

The MacBook Pro has the same “integrated” graphics processor, and on top of that a “discrete” graphics processor (NVIDIA GeForce 9600M GT) that’s more powerful and -hungry.

http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/graphics.html

AMD/ATI call the chip in the HP dv2 a “discrete” chip.

http://ati.amd.com/products/MobilityRadeonhd3400/index.html

“But speed and battery life which one is better in your opinion.”

I don’t think I’d be comparing apples to apples (ha!) in that case. The MB weighs 4.5 pounds while the dv2 weighs almost a pound less. Both are pretty thin and small, but the dv2 is slightly thinner and smaller. I’m also running different OS’s on them currently, so I can’t make a straight comparison between the speed/power. The MB uses a 2.4GHz Intel Core 2 Duo and I’d expect Windows to run very well on it; I just never got around to using Boot Camp on this Mac.

As far as comparing the price: you can buy two HP dv2 devices for what I paid to get this one MacBook. However, I like the fact that I can work for around 5 hours on my MB with one charge. I also have a second battery for it, so a full 10-hour day of computing is possible. Not sure if that helps at all: again, we’re comparing two very different machines in this thread.

Give me an 11.6″ screen in a slim metal chassis, and a flush fitting 6-cell battery and i’ll be in heaven.

Or more to the point, i’ll be in heaven if it uses AMD’s new ultraportable platform that goes by the Congo moniker.

AMD dual-core in bga
AMD 780G video
AMD sb710

With the above you would have perfection.

I did find that the brightness with the LED screen made absolutely zero impact on battery times. Then again, a 25W processor will make a bigger difference here compared to a 35W mobile Core 2 Duo on the dv4. Same with integrated graphics.

Do feel free to post a comment on my blog if you like my review!

But that’s the funny part, most people won’t admit that they need battery performance when “on the run” far more than CPU and graphics performance. And even when you comment on this HP’s power compared with a netbook you add: “so it’s going to excel at things that a netbook simply can’t”…which merely prompts me to put you on the spot and ask: how much of that other stuff are you or any of us REALLY doing on the road? My bet is VERY LITTLE of what you do on the road can’t be done just fine, and for longer run time and lower cost, on a netbook. My experience is that almost nobody is actually running their CAD/CAM software on the road, editing videos in ten open windows, etc. Last night I had to wait for a flight at the San Jose airport. Located in Silicon Valley, the San Jose Airport must be the airport computer user “on the run” epicenter of the universe…yet my informal sneak peak survey of roughly 100 computer users spread out over more than a dozen terminals was that 99% of them were using their computers for low CPU demand activities like surfing the internet, blogging, emailing, writing reports, playing low CPU demand games (like solitaire), etc. So, where are the power users who actually need more CPU power while on the run?

I have this argument with friends all the time, they tell me they can’t buy a netbook because they must have the fastest processor, DVD, blah, blah, blah. These guys already HAVE full power desktops…yet convince themselves they need all that same CPU power when on the run. When we pass at the airport they are dragging some 8+ pound desktop replacement notebook…usually in a dedicated computer bag with ten pounds of other crap they don’t need. I have my 3 pound netbook taking up near zero space in a side pouch of my backpack and it will be running hours after they have become one of those sad souls sitting on the floor in an airport hallway because that was the only place they could find a wall socket (though not at San Jose airport which has powered six and eight chair bars between most terminals and pretty good free wifi…too bad it is nearly unique in this respect).

IF you can own just ONE machine, then perhaps this HP makes some sense…but then again the screen is a little small for 8 hour-a-day desktop replacement duties isn’t it? Hmm, assuming you have a proper desktop with big screen, I don’t see the case for this little HP over a 7 hour netbook unless you really need this CPU power on the road…and most just don’t. The only argument for it in my view is the greater, though netbooks are quickly pushing into bigger screens in the next few months (Dell MINI 12 was just ahead of the game).