Breve Análise do Conversível VAIO A12 (Core i7-8500Y, 16 GB RAM, SSD de 512 GB, FHD)
| SD Card Reader | |
| average JPG Copy Test (av. of 3 runs) | |
| Dell Latitude 5290 2-in-1 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501 UHS-II) | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Tablet G3-20KJ001NGE (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501 UHS-II) | |
| Microsoft Surface Pro 6, Core i7, 512 GB (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501 microSDXC 64GB) | |
| Average of class Convertible (17.7 - 209, n=29, last 2 years) | |
| VAIO A12-92993 (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
| maximum AS SSD Seq Read Test (1GB) | |
| Dell Latitude 5290 2-in-1 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501 UHS-II) | |
| Average of class Convertible (22.6 - 263, n=28, last 2 years) | |
| Microsoft Surface Pro 6, Core i7, 512 GB (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501 microSDXC 64GB) | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Tablet G3-20KJ001NGE (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501 UHS-II) | |
| VAIO A12-92993 (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
iluminação: 89 %
iluminação com acumulador: 315 cd/m²
Contraste: 1500:1 (Preto: 0.21 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 4.4 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.92, calibrated: 2.9
ΔE Greyscale 4.8 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
69.5% sRGB (Argyll 1.6.3 3D)
44% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 1.6.3 3D)
47.52% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
69.3% sRGB (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
46% Display P3 (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
Gamma: 2.02
| VAIO A12-92993 InfoVision IVO04E6, , 1920x1080, 12.5" | Microsoft Surface Pro 6, Core i7, 512 GB LGPhilips LP123WQ112604, , 2736x1824, 12.3" | Dell Latitude 5290 2-in-1 SHP1479, , 1920x1280, 12.3" | Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Tablet G3-20KJ001NGE LP130QP1-SPA1, , 3000x2000, 13" | HP Elite x2 1013 G3-2TT14EA AU Optronics AUO101A, , 3000x2000, 13" | HP Spectre Folio 13t-ak000 AU Optronics AUO572D, , 1920x1080, 13.3" | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Display | 42% | 48% | 46% | 44% | 43% | |
| Display P3 Coverage | 46 | 67.1 46% | 70.5 53% | 68.1 48% 67.8 47% | 67.5 47% | 66.2 44% |
| sRGB Coverage | 69.3 | 95.5 38% | 98.6 42% | 99.4 43% 99.1 43% | 96.7 40% | 97.4 41% |
| AdobeRGB 1998 Coverage | 47.52 | 67.9 43% | 71.5 50% | 69.9 47% 69.3 46% | 68.2 44% | 68.1 43% |
| Response Times | 720% | 20% | -14% | 13% | -10% | |
| Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% * | 52.8 ? | 43 ? 19% | 56.8 ? -8% | 47.2 ? 11% | 47 ? 11% | 52 ? 2% |
| Response Time Black / White * | 30.4 ? | 25 ? 18% | 36 ? -18% | 42.4 ? -39% | 26 ? 14% | 37.2 ? -22% |
| PWM Frequency | 990 ? | 22000 ? 2122% | 1852 ? 87% | |||
| Screen | 19% | 10% | 20% | 5% | 22% | |
| Brightness middle | 315 | 484 54% | 548 74% | 474 50% | 452 43% | 389.8 24% |
| Brightness | 294 | 473 61% | 545 85% | 418 42% | 412 40% | 396 35% |
| Brightness Distribution | 89 | 91 2% | 86 -3% | 76 -15% | 85 -4% | 88 -1% |
| Black Level * | 0.21 | 0.33 -57% | 0.51 -143% | 0.33 -57% | 0.48 -129% | 0.27 -29% |
| Contrast | 1500 | 1467 -2% | 1075 -28% | 1436 -4% | 942 -37% | 1444 -4% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 4.4 | 4.29 2% | 3.65 17% | 3.2 27% | 4.05 8% | 2.72 38% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 7.1 | 6.46 9% | 7.15 -1% | 6.1 14% | 6.64 6% | 5.49 23% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 calibrated * | 2.9 | 1.34 54% | 1.81 38% | 0.9 69% | 1.56 46% | 1.25 57% |
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 4.8 | 4.3 10% | 5.5 -15% | 4.5 6% | 4.87 -1% | 4.2 12% |
| Gamma | 2.02 109% | 2.51 88% | 2.154 102% | 2.07 106% | 2.71 81% | 2.1 105% |
| CCT | 7307 89% | 7315 89% | 7052 92% | 5881 111% | 7160 91% | 7470 87% |
| Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998) | 44 | 62 41% | 65.2 48% | 64 45% | 62 41% | 62.2 41% |
| Color Space (Percent of sRGB) | 69.5 | 95 37% | 99.1 43% | 99.4 43% | 97 40% | 98.2 41% |
| Total Average (Program / Settings) | 260% /
147% | 26% /
19% | 17% /
25% | 21% /
13% | 18% /
22% |
* ... smaller is better
Display Response Times
| ↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
|---|---|---|
| 30.4 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 15.6 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 14.8 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. » 81 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (21 ms). | ||
| ↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey | ||
| 52.8 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 24.4 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 28.4 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. » 88 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (32.9 ms). | ||
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
| Screen flickering / PWM detected | 990 Hz | ≤ 99 % brightness setting |  |
The display backlight flickers at 990 Hz (worst case, e.g., utilizing PWM) Flickering detected at a brightness setting of 99 % and below. There should be no flickering or PWM above this brightness setting. The frequency of 990 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 8743 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 343500) Hz was measured. | |||
| Cinebench R20 | |
| CPU (Single Core) | |
| Average of class Convertible (149.8 - 755, n=62, last 2 years) | |
| VAIO A12-92993 | |
| Average Intel Core i7-8500Y (304 - 320, n=2) | |
| CPU (Multi Core) | |
| Average of class Convertible (242 - 6954, n=63, last 2 years) | |
| Average Intel Core i7-8500Y (584 - 591, n=2) | |
| VAIO A12-92993 | |
| HWBOT x265 Benchmark v2.2 - 4k Preset | |
| Average of class Convertible (0.73 - 20.1, n=62, last 2 years) | |
| VAIO A12-92993 | |
| Average Intel Core i7-8500Y () | |
| Blender - v2.79 BMW27 CPU | |
| HP Spectre Folio 13t-ak000 | |
| Average Intel Core i7-8500Y (1772 - 2159, n=2) | |
| VAIO A12-92993 | |
| Average of class Convertible (193 - 1059, n=59, last 2 years) | |
* ... smaller is better
| PCMark 8 Home Score Accelerated v2 | 3493 pontos | |
| PCMark 8 Creative Score Accelerated v2 | 4126 pontos | |
| PCMark 8 Work Score Accelerated v2 | 4700 pontos | |
| PCMark 10 Score | 3161 pontos | |
Ajuda | ||
| VAIO A12-92993 Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB512HAJQ | Microsoft Surface Pro 6, Core i7, 512 GB Toshiba KBG30ZPZ512G | Dell Latitude 5290 2-in-1 Toshiba XG5 KXG50ZNV256G | Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Tablet G3-20KJ001NGE Samsung PM961 MZVLW256HEHP | HP Elite x2 1013 G3-2TT14EA Samsung PM961 MZVLW256HEHP | HP Spectre Folio 13t-ak000 Samsung PM961 MZVLW256HEHP | Average Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB512HAJQ | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CrystalDiskMark 5.2 / 6 | -40% | -27% | -3% | -16% | -17% | 39% | |
| Write 4K | 113.9 | 83.2 -27% | 121.7 7% | 95.4 -16% | 91 -20% | 140 23% | 126.7 ? 11% |
| Read 4K | 46.8 | 43.84 -6% | 32.66 -30% | 39.19 -16% | 36.84 -21% | 52.4 12% | 44 ? -6% |
| Write Seq | 1868 | 636 -66% | 359.3 -81% | 1197 -36% | 948 -49% | 1617 ? -13% | |
| Read Seq | 2226 | 900 -60% | 1463 -34% | 1705 -23% | 922 -59% | 1716 ? -23% | |
| Write 4K Q32T1 | 313.4 | 192.9 -38% | 353.6 13% | 399.2 27% | 355.8 14% | 227.8 -27% | 413 ? 32% |
| Read 4K Q32T1 | 284.6 | 247.4 -13% | 387 36% | 260.7 -8% | 256.9 -10% | 299.2 5% | 420 ? 48% |
| Write Seq Q32T1 | 1881 | 861 -54% | 358.1 -81% | 1287 -32% | 1222 -35% | 1259 -33% | 2076 ? 10% |
| Read Seq Q32T1 | 3402 | 1615 -53% | 1779 -48% | 3025 -11% | 3460 2% | 3112 -9% | 3130 ? -8% |
| Write 4K Q8T8 | 410.2 | 381 -7% | 1264 ? 208% | ||||
| Read 4K Q8T8 | 527 | 750 42% | 1193 ? 126% | ||||
| AS SSD | -146% | -58% | -25% | -37% | -4% | -1% | |
| Seq Read | 2650 | 1154 -56% | 1385 -48% | 2243 -15% | 2062 -22% | 1693 -36% | 1976 ? -25% |
| Seq Write | 1328 | 393.6 -70% | 302.1 -77% | 847 -36% | 832 -37% | 1214 -9% | 1637 ? 23% |
| 4K Read | 56.8 | 34.42 -39% | 30.97 -45% | 42.48 -25% | 41.45 -27% | 42.69 -25% | 50.5 ? -11% |
| 4K Write | 142.5 | 68.9 -52% | 102.7 -28% | 112.2 -21% | 91.1 -36% | 95.9 -33% | 112 ? -21% |
| 4K-64 Read | 1316 | 494.1 -62% | 472.7 -64% | 741 -44% | 669 -49% | 1621 23% | 1203 ? -9% |
| 4K-64 Write | 767 | 171.3 -78% | 411.2 -46% | 597 -22% | 596 -22% | 605 -21% | 1504 ? 96% |
| Access Time Read * | 0.04 | 0.213 -433% | 0.082 -105% | 0.041 -3% | 0.063 -58% | 0.051 -28% | 0.05092 ? -27% |
| Access Time Write * | 0.029 | 0.3 -934% | 0.053 -83% | 0.032 -10% | 0.041 -41% | 0.037 -28% | 0.08337 ? -187% |
| Score Read | 1638 | 644 -61% | 642 -61% | 1008 -38% | 917 -44% | 1833 12% | 1451 ? -11% |
| Score Write | 1042 | 280 -73% | 544 -48% | 794 -24% | 770 -26% | 823 -21% | 1780 ? 71% |
| Score Total | 3462 | 1225 -65% | 1469 -58% | 2257 -35% | 2105 -39% | 3569 3% | 3966 ? 15% |
| Copy ISO MB/s | 1941 | 985 -49% | 512 -74% | 761 -61% | 1374 -29% | 1755 ? -10% | |
| Copy Program MB/s | 273.1 | 143.1 -48% | 226.9 -17% | 237.3 -13% | 631 131% | 454 ? 66% | |
| Copy Game MB/s | 876 | 676 -23% | 317.3 -64% | 512 -42% | 971 11% | 1057 ? 21% | |
| Total Average (Program / Settings) | -93% /
-107% | -43% /
-47% | -14% /
-15% | -27% /
-29% | -11% /
-9% | 19% /
16% |
* ... smaller is better
| 3DMark 11 Performance | 1291 pontos | |
| 3DMark Ice Storm Standard Score | 41219 pontos | |
| 3DMark Cloud Gate Standard Score | 5622 pontos | |
| 3DMark Fire Strike Score | 858 pontos | |
| 3DMark Fire Strike Extreme Score | 420 pontos | |
| 3DMark Time Spy Score | 328 pontos | |
Ajuda | ||
(±) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 42.4 °C / 108 F, compared to the average of 35.3 °C / 96 F, ranging from 19.6 to 60 °C for the class Convertible.
(-) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 47.1 °C / 117 F, compared to the average of 36.8 °C / 98 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 24.7 °C / 76 F, compared to the device average of 30.3 °C / 87 F.
(-) The palmrests and touchpad can get very hot to the touch with a maximum of 42.4 °C / 108.3 F.
(-) The average temperature of the palmrest area of similar devices was 28.1 °C / 82.6 F (-14.3 °C / -25.7 F).
| VAIO A12-92993 UHD Graphics 615, i7-8500Y, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB512HAJQ | Microsoft Surface Pro 6, Core i7, 512 GB UHD Graphics 620, i7-8650U, Toshiba KBG30ZPZ512G | Dell Latitude 5290 2-in-1 UHD Graphics 620, i5-8350U, Toshiba XG5 KXG50ZNV256G | Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Tablet G3-20KJ001NGE UHD Graphics 620, i5-8250U, Samsung PM961 MZVLW256HEHP | HP Elite x2 1013 G3-2TT14EA UHD Graphics 620, i5-8350U, Samsung PM961 MZVLW256HEHP | HP Spectre Folio 13t-ak000 UHD Graphics 615, i7-8500Y, Samsung PM961 MZVLW256HEHP | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Heat | -9% | -15% | -7% | -21% | -18% | |
| Maximum Upper Side * | 42.4 | 40.4 5% | 44.4 -5% | 44.3 -4% | 49.4 -17% | 44.2 -4% |
| Maximum Bottom * | 47.1 | 43.8 7% | 52 -10% | 48.9 -4% | 47.1 -0% | 48.2 -2% |
| Idle Upper Side * | 26.6 | 33.5 -26% | 32 -20% | 30 -13% | 38 -43% | 33 -24% |
| Idle Bottom * | 24.9 | 30.2 -21% | 31.2 -25% | 26.6 -7% | 30.8 -24% | 35.6 -43% |
* ... smaller is better
VAIO A12-92993 audio analysis
(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (74.8 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 26% lower than median
(+) | bass is linear (2.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 9.1% higher than median
(-) | mids are not linear (15.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 12.9% higher than median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (12.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(-) | overall sound is not linear (47.7% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 99% of all tested devices in this class were better, 1% similar, 0% worse
» The best had a delta of 6%, average was 21%, worst was 57%
Compared to all devices tested
» 95% of all tested devices were better, 0% similar, 5% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
HP Spectre Folio 13t-ak000 audio analysis
(-) | not very loud speakers (68.3 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 21.7% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (11.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4% away from median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (8.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 3.6% away from median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (8.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (27.2% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 82% of all tested devices in this class were better, 4% similar, 14% worse
» The best had a delta of 6%, average was 21%, worst was 57%
Compared to all devices tested
» 81% of all tested devices were better, 4% similar, 15% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
| desligado |   0.41 / 1.1 Watt |
| Ocioso |  4.4 / 6.5 / 7.1 Watt |
| Carga |
20.2 / 28 Watt |
    
| |
Key:
min: ,
med: ,
max: Metrahit Energy | |
| VAIO A12-92993 i7-8500Y, UHD Graphics 615, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB512HAJQ, IPS, 1920x1080, 12.5" | Microsoft Surface Pro 6, Core i7, 512 GB i7-8650U, UHD Graphics 620, Toshiba KBG30ZPZ512G, IPS, 2736x1824, 12.3" | Dell Latitude 5290 2-in-1 i5-8350U, UHD Graphics 620, Toshiba XG5 KXG50ZNV256G, IPS, 1920x1280, 12.3" | Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Tablet G3-20KJ001NGE i5-8250U, UHD Graphics 620, Samsung PM961 MZVLW256HEHP, IPS, 3000x2000, 13" | HP Elite x2 1013 G3-2TT14EA i5-8350U, UHD Graphics 620, Samsung PM961 MZVLW256HEHP, IPS, 3000x2000, 13" | HP Spectre Folio 13t-ak000 i7-8500Y, UHD Graphics 615, Samsung PM961 MZVLW256HEHP, IPS, 1920x1080, 13.3" | Average Intel UHD Graphics 615 | Average of class Convertible | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power Consumption | -29% | -28% | -63% | -38% | 4% | 7% | -74% | |
| Idle Minimum * | 4.4 | 3.2 27% | 3 32% | 4.8 -9% | 4.9 -11% | 1.8 59% | 3.55 ? 19% | 5.21 ? -18% |
| Idle Average * | 6.5 | 8.7 -34% | 7.2 -11% | 9 -38% | 8.9 -37% | 3.8 42% | 6.17 ? 5% | 8.16 ? -26% |
| Idle Maximum * | 7.1 | 10.4 -46% | 10 -41% | 10.5 -48% | 11 -55% | 7.7 -8% | 7.61 ? -7% | 11.1 ? -56% |
| Load Average * | 20.2 | 29.2 -45% | 37.1 -84% | 42.8 -112% | 32 -58% | 26.9 -33% | 18.2 ? 10% | 46.2 ? -129% |
| Load Maximum * | 28 | 40.8 -46% | 38.2 -36% | 57.8 -106% | 36 -29% | 38.5 -38% | 25.4 ? 9% | 67 ? -139% |
* ... smaller is better
| VAIO A12-92993 i7-8500Y, UHD Graphics 615, 23.4 Wh | Microsoft Surface Pro 6, Core i7, 512 GB i7-8650U, UHD Graphics 620, 45 Wh | Dell Latitude 5290 2-in-1 i5-8350U, UHD Graphics 620, 42 Wh | Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Tablet G3-20KJ001NGE i5-8250U, UHD Graphics 620, 42 Wh | HP Elite x2 1013 G3-2TT14EA i5-8350U, UHD Graphics 620, 50 Wh | HP Spectre Folio 13t-ak000 i7-8500Y, UHD Graphics 615, 54.28 Wh | Average of class Convertible | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Battery Runtime | 55% | -22% | 42% | 43% | 161% | 116% | |
| Reader / Idle | 514 | 1083 111% | 790 54% | 781 52% | 1882 266% | 1344 ? 161% | |
| H.264 | 223 | 523 135% | 389 74% | 773 ? 247% | |||
| WiFi v1.3 | 431 | 509 18% | 300 -30% | 395 -8% | 459 6% | 852 98% | 594 ? 38% |
| Load | 97 | 131 35% | 84 -13% | 83 -14% | 137 41% | 212 119% | 114.9 ? 18% |
Pro
Contra
O VAIO A12 é uma espécie de enigma. O preço é muito alto e tem inúmeros inconvenientes, embora o VAIO seja bom em algumas áreas.
O processador da série Y é mais eficiente em termos energéticos do que os seus homólogos da série U e ainda é poderoso o suficiente para o trabalho de escritório diário. No entanto, a CPU dual-core atingirá seus limites em programas que exigem muitos recursos. Os 16 GB de RAM parecem um exagero aqui, no entanto, os recebem muito bem, e o SSD de 512 GB também. No geral, não tivemos problemas de desempenho inesperados, e o A12 até nos surpreendeu com comparativamente boas pontuações nos benchmarks de desempenho do sistema.
O VAIO A12 é simplesmente muito caro. Não oferece nada que seus concorrentes não possam fazer melhor e também tem uma série de problemas. Procure outra coisa e poupe algum dinheiro
O A12 também tem a aparência de deve ser um dispositivo robusto com seu design grosso e o uso de materiais premium, mas ocorre o oposto. O tablet se flexiona muito facilmente para o nosso gosto e o dock de teclado se curva no meio ao digitar. Da mesma forma, apreciamos que a VAIO tenha equipado o A12 com um leitor de cartão SD em tamanho completo, mas a decisão de incluir um USB 2.0 em um dispositivo tão caro é desconcertante.
Em última análise, não seriamos tão duros com o A12 se fosse mais barato. Poderíamos perdoar um dispositivo por ter uma tela fraca, uma bateria pequena, alto-falantes abaixo da média e portas mal pensadas se fosse uma barganha, mas nenhuma que custasse € 2.799 (~$3148). O Surface Pro 6 não tem nenhum dos problemas que o A12 traz, tem uma CPU mais potente e é quase € 800 (~$900) mais barato também.
Em suma, o A12 está muito aquém das nossas expectativas, e pouco faz para justificar o seu preço alto. Embora o VAIO A12 tenha recebido respeitáveis 82% no geral, recomendamos que você considere um de seus concorrentes: você gastará menos e obterá um dispositivo melhor.
VAIO A12-92993
- 05/02/2019 v6 (old)
Sebastian Bade
Price comparison
