Breve Análise do Chromebook Google Pixelbook
| Networking | |
| iperf3 transmit AX12 | |
| Microsoft Surface Laptop i5 | |
| Samsung Notebook 9 NP900X3N-K01US | |
| Google Pixelbook | |
| iperf3 receive AX12 | |
| Samsung Notebook 9 NP900X3N-K01US | |
| Google Pixelbook | |
| Microsoft Surface Laptop i5 | |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
iluminação: 80 %
iluminação com acumulador: 473.9 cd/m²
Contraste: 1354:1 (Preto: 0.35 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 3.9 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.91
ΔE Greyscale 5.4 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
Gamma: 2.13
| Google Pixelbook IPS, 12.3", 2400x1600 | Microsoft Surface Pro (2017) i7 LG Display LP123WQ112604, IPS, 12.3", 2736x1824 | Microsoft Surface Laptop i5 ID: MEI96A2, Name: Panasonic VVX14T092N00, IPS, 13.5", 2256x1504 | Apple MacBook Pro 13 2017 APPA033, IPS, 13.3", 2560x1600 | Apple MacBook 12 (Early 2016) 1.1 GHz APPA027, IPS, 12", 2304x1440 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Display | |||||
| Display P3 Coverage | 66.6 | 67.8 | 99.2 | 66.8 | |
| sRGB Coverage | 96.5 | 94.3 | 99.9 | 95.4 | |
| AdobeRGB 1998 Coverage | 67.8 | 69.5 | 87.1 | 68 | |
| Response Times | 889% | 6% | 24% | 23% | |
| Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% * | 59.2 ? | 37 ? 37% | 50.8 ? 14% | 42.8 ? 28% | 41.2 ? 30% |
| Response Time Black / White * | 36 ? | 25 ? 31% | 37.2 ? -3% | 28.8 ? 20% | 30.4 ? 16% |
| PWM Frequency | 820 ? | 22130 ? 2599% | |||
| Screen | -1% | 17% | 26% | 11% | |
| Brightness middle | 473.9 | 482 2% | 384.2 -19% | 588 24% | 387 -18% |
| Brightness | 443 | 466 5% | 378 -15% | 561 27% | 358 -19% |
| Brightness Distribution | 80 | 92 15% | 90 13% | 92 15% | 88 10% |
| Black Level * | 0.35 | 0.395 -13% | 0.36 -3% | 0.45 -29% | 0.47 -34% |
| Contrast | 1354 | 1220 -10% | 1067 -21% | 1307 -3% | 823 -39% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 3.9 | 4 -3% | 1.8 54% | 1.7 56% | 1.6 59% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 7.7 | 7.2 6% | 4.2 45% | 3.5 55% | 4 48% |
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 5.4 | 5.7 -6% | 1.2 78% | 1.9 65% | 1 81% |
| Gamma | 2.13 103% | 2.28 96% | 2.21 100% | 2.33 94% | 2.26 97% |
| CCT | 7643 85% | 7950 82% | 6708 97% | 6738 96% | 6680 97% |
| Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998) | 62 | 63.7 | 77.92 | 61.6 | |
| Color Space (Percent of sRGB) | 96 | 94.2 | 99.94 | 82.2 | |
| Total Average (Program / Settings) | 444% /
242% | 12% /
14% | 25% /
26% | 17% /
13% |
* ... smaller is better
Display Response Times
| ↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
|---|---|---|
| 36 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 20 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 16 ms fall | ||
| The screen shows slow response rates in our tests and will be unsatisfactory for gamers. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.1 (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 (20.9 ms). | ||
| ↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey | ||
| 59.2 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 29.6 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 29.6 ms fall | ||
| The screen shows slow response rates in our tests and will be unsatisfactory for gamers. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.165 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 95 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (32.8 ms). | ||
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
| Screen flickering / PWM detected | 820 Hz | ≤ 100 % brightness setting |  |
The display backlight flickers at 820 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 820 Hz is quite high, so most users sensitive to PWM should not notice any flickering. In comparison: 53 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 8705 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 343500) Hz was measured. | |||
| Sunspider | |
| 1.0 Total Score | |
| Acer Chromebook 14 CP5-471-53QV | |
| Google Pixelbook | |
| HP Chromebook 13 G1 Core m5 | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad 13 Chromebook | |
| Microsoft Surface Laptop i5 | |
| 0.9.1 Total Score | |
| Google Chromebook Pixel | |
* ... smaller is better
| AnTuTu v6 - Total Score | |
| Google Pixelbook | |
| Huawei Mate 10 Pro | |
| OnePlus 5 | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 8 | |
| Sony Xperia XZ Premium | |
| Samsung Galaxy S8 | |
| Honor 8 Pro | |
| HTC U Ultra | |
| PCMark for Android | |
| Work 2.0 battery life | |
| Huawei Mate 10 Pro | |
| Samsung Galaxy S8 | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 8 | |
| Computer Vision score | |
| Google Pixelbook | |
| Huawei Mate 10 Pro | |
| Samsung Galaxy S8 | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 8 | |
| Storage score | |
| Google Pixelbook | |
| Huawei Mate 10 Pro | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 8 | |
| Samsung Galaxy S8 | |
| Work 2.0 performance score | |
| Google Pixelbook | |
| Huawei Mate 10 Pro | |
| OnePlus 5 | |
| Sony Xperia XZ Premium | |
| Honor 8 Pro | |
| Samsung Galaxy S8 | |
| HTC U Ultra | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 8 | |
| Work performance score | |
| Huawei Mate 10 Pro | |
| OnePlus 5 | |
| Sony Xperia XZ Premium | |
| Honor 8 Pro | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 8 | |
| Samsung Galaxy S8 | |
| HTC U Ultra | |
| Geekbench 4.4 | |
| Compute RenderScript Score | |
| Huawei Mate 10 Pro | |
| Samsung Galaxy S8 | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 8 | |
| OnePlus 5 | |
| Sony Xperia XZ Premium | |
| 64 Bit Multi-Core Score | |
| Google Pixelbook | |
| OnePlus 5 | |
| Huawei Mate 10 Pro | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 8 | |
| Samsung Galaxy S8 | |
| Sony Xperia XZ Premium | |
| Honor 8 Pro | |
| 64 Bit Single-Core Score | |
| Google Pixelbook | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 8 | |
| Samsung Galaxy S8 | |
| OnePlus 5 | |
| Sony Xperia XZ Premium | |
| Huawei Mate 10 Pro | |
| Honor 8 Pro | |
| Lightmark - 1920x1080 1080p | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 8 | |
| Samsung Galaxy S8 | |
| Huawei Mate 10 Pro | |
| Google Pixelbook | |
| Basemark X 1.1 | |
| High Quality | |
| Samsung Galaxy S8 | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 8 | |
| Google Pixelbook | |
| Huawei Mate 10 Pro | |
| Medium Quality | |
| Samsung Galaxy S8 | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 8 | |
| Google Pixelbook | |
| Huawei Mate 10 Pro | |
| Cinebench R15 | |
| Cinebench R15 CPU Single 64 Bit | |
| Cinebench R15 CPU Multi 64 Bit |
| Cinebench R11.5 | |
| Cinebench R11.5 CPU Multi 64 Bit | |
| Cinebench R11.5 CPU Single 64 Bit |
| Cinebench R10 | |
| Cinebench R10 Rend. Single (32bit) | |
| Cinebench R10 Rend. Multi (32bit) |
| wPrime 2.10 - 1024m wPrime 2.0 1024m |
* ... smaller is better
| Google Pixelbook | Samsung Galaxy Note 8 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | Huawei Mate 10 Pro 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | Google Pixel XL 2016 32 GB eMMC Flash | OnePlus 5 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AndroBench 3-5 | 247% | 539% | 77% | 261% | |
| Sequential Write 256KB SDCard | 59.3 | ||||
| Sequential Read 256KB SDCard | 67.9 | ||||
| Random Write 4KB | 12.6 | 14.55 15% | 164.4 1205% | 14.56 16% | 19.3 53% |
| Random Read 4KB | 28.87 | 122.5 324% | 132.3 358% | 87.7 204% | 141 388% |
| Sequential Write 256KB | 112.1 | 205.9 84% | 208.7 86% | 83.4 -26% | 201.5 80% |
| Sequential Read 256KB | 120.3 | 797 563% | 732 508% | 258.2 115% | 748 522% |
Barulho
| Ocioso |
| / / dB |
| Carga |
| / dB |
 | ||
30 dB silencioso 40 dB(A) audível 50 dB(A) ruidosamente alto |
||
min:  , med:  , max:  Audix TM1, Arta (15 cm de distância) | ||
| Google Pixelbook HD Graphics 615, i5-7Y57 | Microsoft Surface Pro (2017) i7 Iris Plus Graphics 640, i7-7660U, Samsung PM971 KUS040202M | Microsoft Surface Laptop i5 HD Graphics 620, i5-7200U, Toshiba THNSN0128GTYA | Apple MacBook Pro 13 2017 Iris Plus Graphics 640, i5-7360U, Apple SSD AP0128 | Huawei MateBook X HD Graphics 620, i5-7200U, LITEON CB1-SD256 | Samsung Notebook 9 NP900X3N-K01US HD Graphics 620, i5-7200U, Samsung CM871a MZNTY256HDHP | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Noise | ||||||
| off / environment * | 29.6 | 28.2 | 30.2 | 28.4 | ||
| Idle Minimum * | 29.6 | 28.2 | 30.2 | 28.4 | ||
| Idle Average * | 29.6 | 28.2 | 30.2 | 28.4 | ||
| Idle Maximum * | 29.6 | 29 | 30.2 | 28.4 | ||
| Load Average * | 33.4 | 30.3 | 32.9 | 33.2 | ||
| Witcher 3 ultra * | 33.4 | |||||
| Load Maximum * | 34.1 | 39.3 | 39.3 | 35.2 |
* ... smaller is better
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 38.8 °C / 102 F, compared to the average of 35.4 °C / 96 F, ranging from 19.6 to 60 °C for the class Convertible.
(+) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 38 °C / 100 F, compared to the average of 36.8 °C / 98 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 25.6 °C / 78 F, compared to the device average of 30.3 °C / 87 F.
(+) The palmrests and touchpad are cooler than skin temperature with a maximum of 28.8 °C / 83.8 F and are therefore cool to the touch.
(±) The average temperature of the palmrest area of similar devices was 28 °C / 82.4 F (-0.8 °C / -1.4 F).
Google Pixelbook audio analysis
(-) | not very loud speakers (70.7 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 17.1% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 5.4% higher than median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (8.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 5.7% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (5.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (24.8% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 73% of all tested devices in this class were better, 7% similar, 20% worse
» The best had a delta of 6%, average was 21%, worst was 57%
Compared to all devices tested
» 73% of all tested devices were better, 6% similar, 21% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
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 / 0 Watt |
| Ocioso | 0 / 0 / 0 Watt |
| Carga |
0 / 0 Watt |
   
| |
Key:
min: ,
med: ,
max: Metrahit Energy | |
| Google Pixelbook i5-7Y57, HD Graphics 615, , IPS, 2400x1600, 12.3" | Microsoft Surface Pro (2017) i7 i7-7660U, Iris Plus Graphics 640, Samsung PM971 KUS040202M, IPS, 2736x1824, 12.3" | Microsoft Surface Laptop i5 i5-7200U, HD Graphics 620, Toshiba THNSN0128GTYA, IPS, 2256x1504, 13.5" | Apple MacBook Pro 13 2017 i5-7360U, Iris Plus Graphics 640, Apple SSD AP0128, IPS, 2560x1600, 13.3" | Apple MacBook 12 2017 m3-7Y32, HD Graphics 615, Apple SSD AP0256, LED IPS, 2304x1440, 12" | Samsung Notebook 9 NP900X3N-K01US i5-7200U, HD Graphics 620, Samsung CM871a MZNTY256HDHP, IPS, 1920x1080, 13.3" | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power Consumption | ||||||
| Idle Minimum * | 4.2 | 3.2 | 3.7 | 2 | 3.8 | |
| Idle Average * | 10.1 | 6.5 | 5.2 | 5.4 | 11 | |
| Idle Maximum * | 14 | 6.8 | 7.6 | 6.6 | 11.3 | |
| Load Average * | 37.4 | 28.2 | 41.6 | 22 | 35.6 | |
| Load Maximum * | 34 | 36 | 50.5 | 20 | 37.2 | |
| Witcher 3 ultra * | 38.1 |
* ... smaller is better
| Google Pixelbook i5-7Y57, HD Graphics 615, 41 Wh | Microsoft Surface Pro (2017) i7 i7-7660U, Iris Plus Graphics 640, 45 Wh | Microsoft Surface Laptop i5 i5-7200U, HD Graphics 620, 45 Wh | Apple MacBook Pro 13 2017 i5-7360U, Iris Plus Graphics 640, 54.5 Wh | Samsung Notebook 9 NP900X3N-K01US i5-7200U, HD Graphics 620, 30 Wh | Apple MacBook 12 2017 m3-7Y32, HD Graphics 615, 41.4 Wh | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Battery Runtime | -40% | -22% | -38% | -62% | -35% | |
| Reader / Idle | 1425 | 1351 -5% | 695 -51% | |||
| WiFi v1.3 | 835 | 489 -41% | 602 -28% | 681 -18% | 279 -67% | 540 -35% |
| Load | 182 | 112 -38% | 124 -32% | 78 -57% | 60 -67% | |
| Witcher 3 ultra | 115 |
Pro
Contra
Não há como negar que o Pixelbook se sente ótimo para segurar e usar. O próprio chassi é o melhor que a Lenovo, a HP e a Dell têm para oferecer na categoria conversível de subportáteis leves, se mantendo firme e surpreendentemente inflexível. Seria um belo concorrente no espaço dos Ultrabooks no caso improvável de ver um Pixelbook baseado em Windows.
Será que definitivamente podemos chamar o Pixelbook de o melhor Chromebook disponível? Embora seja definitivamente rápido e o mais caro, o Pixelbook sacrifica recursos importantes em comparação com os Chromebooks de $300 USD para satisfazer suas dimensões apertadas. Por um lado, a falta de um USB Type-A e de um leitor de cartões SD inevitavelmente se tornará um aborrecimento, especialmente em uma máquina tão portátil, onde a conectividade deve estar prontamente disponível. O HP Chromebook 13 G1 inclui ambas as opções que estão faltando com um processador mais rápido e as mesmas duas portas USB Type-C por cerca de $300 USD a menos. Além disso, a HP e a maioria dos Chromebooks de nível básico podem receber manutenções mais facilmente em comparação com a natureza fechada do Pixelbook que os entusiastas e os departamentos de TI apreciarão.
Outros detalhes menores estragam o que de outra forma é uma experiência excelente e barebone do Chromebook. A tela não está tão calibrada quanto a do Surface Pro ou MacBook Pro e os tempos de resposta mais lentos do preto-branco e cinza-cinza se tornam muito notórios ao navegar pela web no modo tablet. O SSD interno de 128 GB é superado por SSDs SATA III padrão e o teclado com barulho de alta frequência é muito perceptível se estiver em uma sala de aula ou biblioteca.
O Pixelbook é ideal para aqueles que querem um Chromebook duradouro, autossuficiente e amigável para viagens, que também, por acaso, tem um modo de tablet brilhante para aplicativos Android da Play Store. Se esses pontos fortes não são tentadores, então um Chromebook mais barato, como o Lenovo ThinkPad 13 ou Asus Chromebook Flip com suporte para Play Store, podem servir igualmente e com uma maior variedade de portas integradas.
O Pixelbook é fino e resistente ao custo elevado de ter menos recursos integrados. Sua leveza, forte apelo visual e modos versáteis 2-em-1 são retidos por suas opções de conectividade limitadas e uma tela que não é tão precisa quanto a melhor da Microsoft ou da Apple com ghosting e cintilações mais visíveis.
Google Pixelbook
- 11/10/2017 v6 (old)
Allen Ngo
Price comparison
