Deutsch
English
Español
Français
Italiano
Nederlands
Polski
Русский
Türkçe
Svenska
Chinese
MagyarBreve Análise do Alienware m15 P79F (i7-8750H, RTX 2070 Max-Q, OLED)
| Networking | |
| iperf3 transmit AX12 | |
| Razer Blade 15 RTX 2080 Max-Q | |
| Asus Zephyrus S GX502GW | |
| Alienware m15 GTX 1070 Max-Q | |
| Alienware m15 P79F | |
| iperf3 receive AX12 | |
| Alienware m15 GTX 1070 Max-Q | |
| Razer Blade 15 RTX 2080 Max-Q | |
| Asus Zephyrus S GX502GW | |
| Alienware m15 P79F | |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
iluminação: 90 %
iluminação com acumulador: 452.1 cd/m²
Contraste: ∞:1 (Preto: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 6.34 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.92
ΔE Greyscale 2.8 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
100% sRGB (Argyll 1.6.3 3D)
91% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 1.6.3 3D)
100% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
100% sRGB (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
99.9% Display P3 (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
Gamma: 2.21
| Alienware m15 P79F Samsung SDCA029, 156WR04, OLED, 15.6", 3840x2160 | Alienware m15 GTX 1070 Max-Q AU Optronics B156HAN, IPS, 15.6", 1920x1080 | Asus Zephyrus S GX502GW AU Optronics B156HAN08.2 (AUO82ED), IPS, 15.6", 1920x1080 | Aorus 15 W9 LG Philips LP156WFG-SPB2 (LGD05E8), IPS, 15.6", 1920x1080 | Dell XPS 15 9570 Core i9 UHD LQ156D1, IPS, 15.6", 3840x2160 | Lenovo Legion Y740-15ICHg LP156WFG-SPB2, IPS, 15.6", 1920x1080 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Display | -27% | -26% | -25% | -14% | -26% | |
| Display P3 Coverage | 99.9 | 63.5 -36% | 64.9 -35% | 64.3 -36% | 79.6 -20% | 63.5 -36% |
| sRGB Coverage | 100 | 89.4 -11% | 91 -9% | 93.5 -6% | 98.4 -2% | 92.4 -8% |
| AdobeRGB 1998 Coverage | 100 | 64.5 -35% | 65.9 -34% | 65.6 -34% | 79.7 -20% | 64.7 -35% |
| Response Times | -507% | -230% | -502% | -543% | -549% | |
| Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% * | 2.6 ? | 18 ? -592% | 7.2 ? -177% | 16.8 ? -546% | 52.4 ? -1915% | 18.8 ? -623% |
| Response Time Black / White * | 2.3 ? | 12 ? -422% | 8.8 ? -283% | 12.8 ? -457% | 31.6 ? -1274% | 13.2 ? -474% |
| PWM Frequency | 60.2 ? | 1000 ? 1561% | ||||
| Screen | -9% | 4% | -15% | -28% | -4% | |
| Brightness middle | 452.1 | 353.6 -22% | 286 -37% | 295 -35% | 451.9 0% | 320.4 -29% |
| Brightness | 452 | 346 -23% | 275 -39% | 292 -35% | 414 -8% | 298 -34% |
| Brightness Distribution | 90 | 86 -4% | 90 0% | 80 -11% | 81 -10% | 85 -6% |
| Black Level * | 0.3 | 0.37 | 0.34 | 0.36 | 0.42 | |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 6.34 | 4.55 28% | 2.19 65% | 3.89 39% | 5.62 11% | 3.21 49% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 12.97 | 7.91 39% | 4.4 66% | 7.28 44% | 19.1 -47% | 5.54 57% |
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 2.8 | 4.1 -46% | 2.2 21% | 4.98 -78% | 6.9 -146% | 3.6 -29% |
| Gamma | 2.21 100% | 2.27 97% | 2.41 91% | 2.45 90% | 2.2 100% | 2.27 97% |
| CCT | 6114 106% | 7434 87% | 6405 101% | 6407 101% | 6254 104% | 6503 100% |
| Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998) | 91 | 57.9 -36% | 59 -35% | 60 -34% | 71.8 -21% | 59 -35% |
| Color Space (Percent of sRGB) | 100 | 88.9 -11% | 91 -9% | 93 -7% | 98.5 -1% | 92 -8% |
| Contrast | 1179 | 773 | 868 | 1255 | 763 | |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 calibrated * | 3.37 | 2.27 | 1.44 | 2.69 | 2.36 | |
| Total Average (Program / Settings) | -181% /
-90% | -84% /
-39% | -181% /
-92% | -195% /
-135% | -193% /
-93% |
* ... smaller is better
Display Response Times
| ↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
|---|---|---|
| 2.3 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 1 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 1.3 ms fall | ||
| The screen shows very fast response rates in our tests and should be very well suited for fast-paced gaming. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.1 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 9 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (21 ms). | ||
| ↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey | ||
| 2.6 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 1.2 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 1.4 ms fall | ||
| The screen shows very fast response rates in our tests and should be very well suited for fast-paced gaming. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.165 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 8 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (32.9 ms). | ||
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
| Screen flickering / PWM detected | 60.2 Hz | ≤ 100 % brightness setting |  |
The display backlight flickers at 60.2 Hz (worst case, e.g., utilizing PWM) Flickering detected at a brightness setting of 100 % and below. There should be no flickering or PWM above this brightness setting. The frequency of 60.2 Hz is very low, so the flickering may cause eyestrain and headaches after extended use. In comparison: 53 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 8746 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 343500) Hz was measured. | |||
| PCMark 8 Home Score Accelerated v2 | 3570 pontos | |
| PCMark 8 Work Score Accelerated v2 | 4465 pontos | |
| PCMark 10 Score | 5485 pontos | |
Ajuda | ||
| Alienware m15 P79F Toshiba XG5 KXG50ZNV512G | Alienware m15 GTX 1070 Max-Q Toshiba XG5 KXG50ZNV512G | Razer Blade 15 RTX 2080 Max-Q Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB512HAJQ | Asus Zephyrus S GX502GW 2x Intel SSD 660p SSDPEKNW512G8 (RAID 0) | Aorus 15 W9 Intel SSD 760p SSDPEKKW512G8 | Dell XPS 15 9570 Core i9 UHD Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB1T0HALR | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AS SSD | -24% | 36% | 8% | 21% | 31% | |
| Seq Read | 1937 | 1967 2% | 1832 -5% | 2506 29% | 2611 35% | 1320 -32% |
| Seq Write | 1066 | 1135 6% | 1864 75% | 1712 61% | 1545 45% | 1500 41% |
| 4K Read | 31.76 | 29.17 -8% | 52.1 64% | 48.32 52% | 55.2 74% | 30.73 -3% |
| 4K Write | 102.6 | 93.4 -9% | 108.3 6% | 103.6 1% | 111.9 9% | 94.4 -8% |
| 4K-64 Read | 1140 | 995 -13% | 1159 2% | 624 -45% | 884 -22% | 1453 27% |
| 4K-64 Write | 938 | 656 -30% | 1807 93% | 1253 34% | 941 0% | 1815 93% |
| Access Time Read * | 0.058 | 0.116 -100% | 0.05 14% | 0.08 -38% | 0.045 22% | 0.061 -5% |
| Access Time Write * | 0.04 | 0.063 -58% | 0.034 15% | 0.04 -0% | 0.033 17% | 0.044 -10% |
| Score Read | 1366 | 1221 -11% | 1394 2% | 923 -32% | 1200 -12% | 1616 18% |
| Score Write | 1147 | 862 -25% | 2102 83% | 1528 33% | 1207 5% | 2059 80% |
| Score Total | 3168 | 2667 -16% | 4221 33% | 2896 -9% | 2982 -6% | 4507 42% |
| Copy ISO MB/s | 946 | 642 -32% | 2083 120% | 2131 125% | 2577 172% | |
| Copy Program MB/s | 452.8 | 431.5 -5% | 496.5 10% | 407.2 -10% | 515 14% | |
| Copy Game MB/s | 1013 | 706 -30% | 977 -4% | 1094 8% | 1120 11% |
* ... smaller is better
| 3DMark 11 Performance | 19009 pontos | |
| 3DMark Cloud Gate Standard Score | 24876 pontos | |
| 3DMark Fire Strike Score | 16197 pontos | |
| 3DMark Time Spy Score | 6901 pontos | |
Ajuda | ||
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider - 1920x1080 Highest Preset AA:T | |
| MSI GE75 9SG | |
| Alienware m15 P79F | |
| Average NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q (57 - 89, n=12) | |
| Asus Zephyrus S GX502GW | |
| baixo | média | alto | ultra | 4K | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BioShock Infinite (2013) | 296.7 | 261.5 | 243.7 | 153.7 | |
| The Witcher 3 (2015) | 261.8 | 200.6 | 123.8 | 64.4 | 47.2 |
| Rise of the Tomb Raider (2016) | 204.7 | 162.3 | 125.8 | 105.7 | 45.6 |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider (2018) | 119 | 93 | 87 | 84 | 33 |
| Alienware m15 P79F GeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q, i7-8750H, Toshiba XG5 KXG50ZNV512G | Alienware m15 GTX 1070 Max-Q GeForce GTX 1070 Max-Q, i7-8750H, Toshiba XG5 KXG50ZNV512G | Razer Blade 15 RTX 2080 Max-Q GeForce RTX 2080 Max-Q, i7-9750H, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB512HAJQ | Asus Zephyrus S GX502GW GeForce RTX 2070 Mobile, i7-9750H, 2x Intel SSD 660p SSDPEKNW512G8 (RAID 0) | Aorus 15 W9 GeForce RTX 2060 Mobile, i7-8750H, Intel SSD 760p SSDPEKKW512G8 | Dell XPS 15 9570 Core i9 UHD GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q, i9-8950HK, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB1T0HALR | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Noise | 13% | 17% | 1% | -1% | 15% | |
| off / environment * | 28.2 | 28.6 -1% | 28.3 -0% | 30 -6% | 29 -3% | 28.2 -0% |
| Idle Minimum * | 30.3 | 28.6 6% | 28.8 5% | 31 -2% | 34 -12% | 28.5 6% |
| Idle Average * | 35.4 | 28.6 19% | 28.8 19% | 33 7% | 36 -2% | 28.6 19% |
| Idle Maximum * | 50.3 | 28.6 43% | 29 42% | 38 24% | 38 24% | 28.8 43% |
| Load Average * | 50.3 | 40.8 19% | 33.5 33% | 50 1% | 52 -3% | 36.2 28% |
| Witcher 3 ultra * | 50.2 | 49.6 1% | 45 10% | 53 -6% | 52 -4% | 47.6 5% |
| Load Maximum * | 50.2 | 49.6 1% | 45.2 10% | 56 -12% | 53 -6% | 47.6 5% |
* ... smaller is better
Barulho
| Ocioso |
| 30.3 / 35.4 / 50.3 dB |
| Carga |
| 50.3 / 50.2 dB |
 | ||
30 dB silencioso 40 dB(A) audível 50 dB(A) ruidosamente alto |
||
min:  , med:  , max:  Audix TM1, Arta (15 cm de distância) environment noise: 28.2 dB(A) | ||
(-) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 55.6 °C / 132 F, compared to the average of 40.5 °C / 105 F, ranging from 21.2 to 68.8 °C for the class Gaming.
(-) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 62.4 °C / 144 F, compared to the average of 43.2 °C / 110 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 31.7 °C / 89 F, compared to the device average of 33.9 °C / 93 F.
(-) Playing The Witcher 3, the average temperature for the upper side is 43.6 °C / 110 F, compared to the device average of 33.9 °C / 93 F.
(+) The palmrests and touchpad are reaching skin temperature as a maximum (35.2 °C / 95.4 F) and are therefore not hot.
(-) The average temperature of the palmrest area of similar devices was 28.9 °C / 84 F (-6.3 °C / -11.4 F).
Alienware m15 P79F audio analysis
(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (75 dB)
Analysis not possible as minimum curve is missing or too high
Apple MacBook 12 (Early 2016) 1.1 GHz audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (83.6 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(±) | reduced bass - on average 11.3% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (14.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 2.4% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (5.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 2% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (4.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(+) | overall sound is linear (10.2% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 6% of all tested devices in this class were better, 2% similar, 92% worse
» The best had a delta of 5%, average was 19%, worst was 53%
Compared to all devices tested
» 4% of all tested devices were better, 1% similar, 95% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
| desligado | 0.04 / 0.11 Watt |
| Ocioso | 10.9 / 12.3 / 19 Watt |
| Carga |
96 / 229.1 Watt |
   
| |
Key:
min: ,
med: ,
max: Metrahit Energy | |
| Alienware m15 P79F i7-8750H, GeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q, Toshiba XG5 KXG50ZNV512G, OLED, 3840x2160, 15.6" | Alienware m15 GTX 1070 Max-Q i7-8750H, GeForce GTX 1070 Max-Q, Toshiba XG5 KXG50ZNV512G, IPS, 1920x1080, 15.6" | Razer Blade 15 RTX 2080 Max-Q i7-9750H, GeForce RTX 2080 Max-Q, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB512HAJQ, IPS, 1920x1080, 15.6" | Asus Zephyrus S GX502GW i7-9750H, GeForce RTX 2070 Mobile, 2x Intel SSD 660p SSDPEKNW512G8 (RAID 0), IPS, 1920x1080, 15.6" | Aorus 15 W9 i7-8750H, GeForce RTX 2060 Mobile, Intel SSD 760p SSDPEKKW512G8, IPS, 1920x1080, 15.6" | Dell XPS 15 9570 Core i9 UHD i9-8950HK, GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB1T0HALR, IPS, 3840x2160, 15.6" | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power Consumption | 12% | -6% | -59% | -21% | 20% | |
| Idle Minimum * | 10.9 | 7.6 30% | 12.5 -15% | 24 -120% | 18 -65% | 7.1 35% |
| Idle Average * | 12.3 | 13.8 -12% | 15.3 -24% | 27 -120% | 20 -63% | 13.6 -11% |
| Idle Maximum * | 19 | 14.6 23% | 20.7 -9% | 33 -74% | 28 -47% | 14.1 26% |
| Load Average * | 96 | 97.6 -2% | 90.2 6% | 129 -34% | 87 9% | 103.9 -8% |
| Witcher 3 ultra * | 161.7 | 145.8 10% | 162 -0% | 176 -9% | 135 17% | 103 36% |
| Load Maximum * | 229.1 | 172.5 25% | 209.3 9% | 216 6% | 175 24% | 130.9 43% |
* ... smaller is better
| Alienware m15 P79F i7-8750H, GeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q, 90 Wh | Alienware m15 GTX 1070 Max-Q i7-8750H, GeForce GTX 1070 Max-Q, 90 Wh | Razer Blade 15 RTX 2080 Max-Q i7-9750H, GeForce RTX 2080 Max-Q, 80 Wh | Asus Zephyrus S GX502GW i7-9750H, GeForce RTX 2070 Mobile, 76 Wh | Aorus 15 W9 i7-8750H, GeForce RTX 2060 Mobile, 62 Wh | Dell XPS 15 9570 Core i9 UHD i9-8950HK, GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q, 97 Wh | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Battery Runtime | 50% | 27% | -29% | -54% | 66% | |
| WiFi v1.3 | 309 | 463 50% | 393 27% | 220 -29% | 141 -54% | 514 66% |
| Reader / Idle | 627 | 953 | 353 | 176 | 899 | |
| Load | 103 | 102 | 62 | 81 | 62 |
Pro
Contra
O Alienware m15 é capaz de obter mais desempenho do que outro portátil de jogos quando recebe as mesmas CPU e GPU. O Core i7-8750H e o RTX 2070 Max-Q, por exemplo, são 8 a 9 por cento mais rápidos do que i7-8750H ou RTX 2070 Max-Q em nosso banco de dados. Se você quiser o desempenho mais rápido possível em um design de chassi fino, o Alienware m15 deve se ajustar à conta.
As desvantagens são as temperaturas mais altas e os ventiladores mais barulhentos associados à tentativa de extrair todo os MHz possíveis de cada processador. Espere temperaturas da CPU tão altas quanto 90 °C e ventiladores tão barulhentos quanto 50 dB(A) se você quiser tirar o máximo proveito do Alienware m15.
O curinga, no entanto, é a tela OLED 4K UHD. Embora mais de duas vezes o preço do painel IPS de 144 ou 240 Hz, queremos enfatizar que ele não oferece objetivamente a melhor experiência de jogo ou invalida automaticamente as SKUs IPS. Sua resolução nativa mais alta, cores mais profundas, luz de fundo mais brilhante e tempos de resposta em preto e branco mais rápidos certamente proporcionam uma vantagem, mas sua taxa de atualização de 60 Hz nativa é uma desvantagem em determinados títulos em que 144 Hz é preferível. Overwatch, Rocket League, CS: GO e Apex Legends, por exemplo, são possivelmente melhores em 144 Hz, enquanto jogos single-player como Shadow of the Tomb Raider ou Metro Exodus podem se beneficiar mais da tela OLED. Por mais impressionante que seja, o OLED não é para todos no momento, especialmente porque as opções IPS têm se tornado mais lucrativas.
Dependendo de quais jogos você joga mais, pode escolher sabiamente entre IPS de 144/240 Hz 1080p ou OLED 2160p 60 Hz. É um excelente começo para o OLED, mas continua sendo uma opção de nicho até que mais resoluções e taxas de atualização se tornem disponíveis para competir com o IPS.
Alienware m15 P79F
- 06/13/2019 v6 (old)
Allen Ngo
Price comparison
