• out of stock

[Refurb] HP ENVY 13-ba0059TU Laptop with Intel Core i5-1035G1 CPU, 8GB RAM, 256GB SSD $659 Delivered @ HP


HP ENVY 13-ba0059TU

  • 10th Generation Intel® Core™ i5 processor
  • Windows 10 Home 64
  • 13.3" diagonal, FHD (1920 x 1080), IPS, edge-to-edge glass, micro-edge, BrightView, 300 nits, 72% NTSC
  • 8 GB DDR4-2666 SDRAM (onboard)
  • 256 GB PCIe® NVMe™ M.2 SSD
  • Ready whenever inspiration strikes
  • Intel® UHD Graphics
  • 1 Thunderbolt™ 3 (40Gbps signaling rate) with SuperSpeed USB Type-C® 10Gbps signaling rate (USB Power Delivery, DisplayPort™ 1.4, HP Sleep and Charge); 1 SuperSpeed USB Type-A 5Gbps signaling rate (HP Sleep and Charge); 1 AC smart pin; 1 headphone/microphone combo
  • 1 year limited parts and labour

HP Pavilion x360 Refurbished 14-dh1143T - $599

Related Stores

HP Australia
HP Australia


  • -2 votes

    Unless you really need the thunderbolt 3 (useful for external gpus) the Lenovo deal (new vs refurb) for $70 more would be better: https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/631568


      Hi bro the lenovo is good?


        its 15 which i hate


        Display: 15.6" FHD (1920x1080) TN 250nits Anti-glare, 45% NTSC

        I mean really? TN???

        No thanks.

        also refurb on the HP. dunno if that means someone has used it???

        • +1 vote

          CPU in HP is alot slower than the one in Lenovo and Ram is not upgradable. It might have a better screen but the i5 is only a quad core vs the six core in the AMD.

          The i5 scores 7913 in Passmark,


          whilst the AMD Ryzen 5500u scores 13640 in Passmark


          Thunderbolt is pretty much useless for eGpu on this laptop because it's not powerful enough, and doesn't have enough bandwidth to push high frame rates.


            @shellshocked: Screen is much more important unless you plan to use a monitor with this. The fast SSD will have the biggest impact on user perceptible performance unless users are running apps that demand cpu. This is no gaming laptop.


            @shellshocked: Benchmarks aren’t really important since any i5 from the last 3 generations would more than meet the needs for 90% of users. I doubt anyone is running a workload on it that needs 6 cores.

            The lack of RAM is the sole problem, I have this laptop for work and the 8gb kills me when working with large data sets (even just teams and chrome suck up so much ram)


              @freefall101: What both of you are saying is subjective. I merely stated that the AMD CPU was a lot faster then the Intel CPU and backed it up with data. Please provide data which indicates 90% users needs are met with a quad-core processor. This is what Intel marketing was telling us until 2017, whilst charging us astronomical prices for six cores and above. AMD forced Intel to start offering more cores at competitive prices.

              I'm currently using a laptop with a 8 core processor. I thought 4 cores was enough too, until realised how much quicker and smoother my operating systems run after upgrading. I can allocate 4 cores to a task and still have 4 cores left for MS Office for example.


                @shellshocked: That's not how cores work, they're not either in use or not in use, the schedule a whole bunch of tiny tasks. If you can make full use of 4 cores at 100% then you're probably not the average user, but office can't run faster by having 4 cores sitting there for it. Also, pretty sure 99.99999% of users are allocating specific cores to a task. If you actually are setting affinity to specific apps in windows, I'd recommend not, the system can better decide that than most users can.

                It is absolutely subjective, but it still doesn't change that x is faster than y will not reflect in any change for most users. I don't have data, I just have common sense. When was the last time you were running 100% on 4 cores? What were you doing to do that? How long did it last? Compare that to how long you stare at the screen for. A better screen is infinately better value.

                Intel marketing is, not surprisingly, rubbish. They marketed clock speeds back in the day, then moved to cores. Neither tells you everything, otherwise this would barely be an upgrade over my 4 core, 3ghz chip from 2008.

        • +1 vote

          i bought a HP refurb from a previous deal, it was pristine, no scratches on screen or case , would have said new except for refurb sticker on the bottom. it had all the original packing but was in plain cardboard box, i’d buy HP refurb again …it was HP refurb not a 3rd party refurb.

    • +1 vote

      This is has a 13.3" 300 nit display as opposed to the Lenovo's 15.6" 250nit panel.


        Better screen but much slower CPU and non upgradeable RAM


    Was wondering if 10% cashback is applicable to these refurbished laptops?


    Is the SSD upgradable?


      Check the TnCs as it may void warranty if you try to open the chassis.

  • +1 vote

    Don’t forget Cashrewards 10%

  • +1 vote

    Thanks op, got the last one. The build quality should be far better than then Lenovo one. Definitely worth this price.

  • -3 votes

    This is laptop is a POS btw