Breve Análise do Portátil Acer Predator Triton 500 (i7-8750H, RTX 2080 Max-Q)
Os Top 10
» Os Top 10 Portáteis Multimídia
» Os Top 10 Portáteis de Jogos
» Os Top 10 Portáteis Leves para Jogos
» Os Top 10 Portáteis Acessíveis de Escritório/Empresariais
» Os Top 10 Portáteis Premium de Escritório/Empresariais
» Os Top 10 dos Portáteis Workstation
» Os Top 10 Subportáteis
» Os Top 10 Ultrabooks
» Os Top 10 Conversíveis
» Os Top 10 Tablets
» Os Top 10 Smartphones
» A melhores Telas de Portáteis Analisadas Pela Notebookcheck
» Top 10 dos portáteis abaixo dos 500 Euros da Notebookcheck
» Top 10 dos Portáteis abaixo dos 300 Euros
|
iluminação: 89 %
iluminação com acumulador: 304 cd/m²
Contraste: 1126:1 (Preto: 0.27 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 4.66 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.91, calibrated: 1.72
ΔE Greyscale 5.53 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
93% sRGB (Argyll 1.6.3 3D)
60% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 1.6.3 3D)
65.7% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
92.6% sRGB (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
64.2% Display P3 (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
Gamma: 2.5
Acer Predator Triton 500 AU Optronics B156HAN08.2 (AUO82ED), IPS, 1920x1080 | Gigabyte Aero 15-X9 LGD05C0, IPS, 1920x1080 | Razer Blade 15 RTX 2070 Max-Q LG Philips LGD05C0, IPS, 1920x1080 | MSI GS65 8RF-019DE Stealth Thin AU Optronics B156HAN08.0 (AUO80ED), IPS, 1920x1080 | Asus Zephyrus S GX531GS AU Optronics B156HAN08.2 (AUO82ED), IPS, 1920x1080 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Display | -1% | 2% | 1% | 1% | |
Display P3 Coverage | 64.2 | 63.5 -1% | 65.3 2% | 66.2 3% | 66.7 4% |
sRGB Coverage | 92.6 | 93.1 1% | 94.9 2% | 92.1 -1% | 91.2 -2% |
AdobeRGB 1998 Coverage | 65.7 | 64.5 -2% | 66.3 1% | 67.2 2% | 66.7 2% |
Response Times | -63% | -57% | -67% | 9% | |
Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% * | 8 ? | 16.4 ? -105% | 16.8 ? -110% | 17.6 ? -120% | 7.4 ? 7% |
Response Time Black / White * | 11.2 ? | 13.6 ? -21% | 11.6 ? -4% | 12.8 ? -14% | 10 ? 11% |
PWM Frequency | |||||
Screen | 15% | 7% | 14% | 11% | |
Brightness middle | 304 | 250 -18% | 314.7 4% | 254 -16% | 294 -3% |
Brightness | 299 | 235 -21% | 312 4% | 262 -12% | 275 -8% |
Brightness Distribution | 89 | 85 -4% | 90 1% | 89 0% | 84 -6% |
Black Level * | 0.27 | 0.29 -7% | 0.38 -41% | 0.22 19% | 0.24 11% |
Contrast | 1126 | 862 -23% | 828 -26% | 1155 3% | 1225 9% |
Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 4.66 | 1.46 69% | 2.56 45% | 2.37 49% | 2.57 45% |
Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 9.65 | 2.47 74% | 4.89 49% | 4.71 51% | 4.88 49% |
Colorchecker dE 2000 calibrated * | 1.72 | 1.71 1% | 1.84 -7% | 2.14 -24% | |
Greyscale dE 2000 * | 5.53 | 1.27 77% | 3.4 39% | 1.58 71% | 2.41 56% |
Gamma | 2.5 88% | 2.4 92% | 2.3 96% | 2.48 89% | 2.5 88% |
CCT | 8028 81% | 6749 96% | 6435 101% | 6785 96% | 6370 102% |
Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998) | 60 | 60 0% | 60.7 1% | 60 0% | 59 -2% |
Color Space (Percent of sRGB) | 93 | 93 0% | 94.6 2% | 92 -1% | 91 -2% |
Total Average (Program / Settings) | -16% /
1% | -16% /
-2% | -17% /
2% | 7% /
9% |
* ... smaller is better
Display Response Times
↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
---|---|---|
11.2 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 6 ms rise | |
↘ 5.2 ms fall | ||
The screen shows good response rates in our tests, but may be too slow for competitive gamers. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.1 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 27 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (20.9 ms). | ||
↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey | ||
8 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 4 ms rise | |
↘ 4 ms fall | ||
The screen shows fast response rates in our tests and should be suited for gaming. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.165 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 17 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (32.8 ms). |
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
Screen flickering / PWM not detected | |||
In comparison: 53 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 8715 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 343500) Hz was measured. |
Acer Predator Triton 500 2x WDC PC SN720 SDAPNTW-256G-1014 (RAID 0) | Gigabyte Aero 15-X9 Intel SSD 760p SSDPEKKW010T8 | Razer Blade 15 RTX 2070 Max-Q Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB512HAJQ | MSI GS65 8RF-019DE Stealth Thin Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB512HAJQ | Asus Zephyrus S GX531GS WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-512G | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
AS SSD | -16% | 1% | -3% | -21% | |
Score Total | 3770 | 2722 -28% | 4079 8% | 4122 9% | 3294 -13% |
Seq Write | 2492 | 1471 -41% | 1822 -27% | 1834 -26% | 1261 -49% |
Seq Read | 2913 | 2113 -27% | 1840 -37% | 1266 -57% | 903 -69% |
4K Write | 107.2 | 107.1 0% | 110.7 3% | 107.2 0% | 103.6 -3% |
4K Read | 38.7 | 55 42% | 52.3 35% | 48.94 26% | 40.02 3% |
Score Write | 1435 | 957 -33% | 2010 40% | 2051 43% | 1515 6% |
Score Read | 1558 | 1180 -24% | 1362 -13% | 1346 -14% | 1161 -25% |
3DMark 11 Performance | 20149 pontos | |
Ajuda |
The Witcher 3 | |
1920x1080 High Graphics & Postprocessing (Nvidia HairWorks Off) | |
Average of class Gaming (40.1 - 449, n=120, last 2 years) | |
Acer Predator Triton 500 | |
Razer Blade 15 RTX 2070 Max-Q | |
MSI GS65 8RF-019DE Stealth Thin | |
Asus Zephyrus S GX531GS | |
Gigabyte Aero 15-X9 | |
1920x1080 Ultra Graphics & Postprocessing (HBAO+) | |
Average of class Gaming (18.4 - 216, n=163, last 2 years) | |
Acer Predator Triton 500 | |
Razer Blade 15 RTX 2070 Max-Q | |
Gigabyte Aero 15-X9 | |
MSI GS65 8RF-019DE Stealth Thin | |
Asus Zephyrus S GX531GS |
baixo | média | alto | ultra | |
---|---|---|---|---|
The Witcher 3 (2015) | 136 | 76.5 | ||
Battlefield 1 (2016) | 134 | 129 | ||
Assassin´s Creed Origins (2017) | 65 | 62 |
Barulho
Ocioso |
| 30 / 32 / 34 dB |
Carga |
| 44 / 47 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: 29 dB(A) |
Acer Predator Triton 500 GeForce RTX 2080 Max-Q, i7-8750H | Gigabyte Aero 15-X9 GeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q, i7-8750H | Razer Blade 15 RTX 2070 Max-Q GeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q, i7-8750H | MSI GS65 8RF-019DE Stealth Thin GeForce GTX 1070 Max-Q, i7-8750H | Asus Zephyrus S GX531GS GeForce GTX 1070 Max-Q, i7-8750H | Average of class Gaming | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Noise | -2% | 9% | 2% | -9% | 8% | |
off / environment * | 29 | 30 -3% | 28.8 1% | 30 -3% | 29 -0% | 24 ? 17% |
Idle Minimum * | 30 | 32 -7% | 28.8 4% | 30 -0% | 33 -10% | 25.5 ? 15% |
Idle Average * | 32 | 34 -6% | 28.8 10% | 31 3% | 34 -6% | 27.3 ? 15% |
Idle Maximum * | 34 | 36 -6% | 29.4 14% | 34 -0% | 40 -18% | 30.4 ? 11% |
Load Average * | 44 | 42 5% | 35.7 19% | 43 2% | 47 -7% | 42.8 ? 3% |
Witcher 3 ultra * | 46 | 44 4% | 42.5 8% | 42 9% | 51 -11% | |
Load Maximum * | 47 | 48 -2% | 45 4% | 44 6% | 53 -13% | 53.4 ? -14% |
* ... smaller is better
(-) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 49 °C / 120 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 58 °C / 136 F, compared to the average of 43.2 °C / 110 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 30.2 °C / 86 F, compared to the device average of 33.9 °C / 93 F.
(-) Playing The Witcher 3, the average temperature for the upper side is 42.8 °C / 109 F, compared to the device average of 33.9 °C / 93 F.
(±) The palmrests and touchpad can get very hot to the touch with a maximum of 39 °C / 102.2 F.
(-) The average temperature of the palmrest area of similar devices was 28.9 °C / 84 F (-10.1 °C / -18.2 F).
Acer Predator Triton 500 GeForce RTX 2080 Max-Q, i7-8750H | Gigabyte Aero 15-X9 GeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q, i7-8750H | Razer Blade 15 RTX 2070 Max-Q GeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q, i7-8750H | MSI GS65 8RF-019DE Stealth Thin GeForce GTX 1070 Max-Q, i7-8750H | Asus Zephyrus S GX531GS GeForce GTX 1070 Max-Q, i7-8750H | Average of class Gaming | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Heat | 2% | 14% | 11% | 1% | 7% | |
Maximum Upper Side * | 49 | 56 -14% | 49 -0% | 49 -0% | 54 -10% | 46.2 ? 6% |
Maximum Bottom * | 58 | 66 -14% | 49 16% | 63 -9% | 60 -3% | 49.1 ? 15% |
Idle Upper Side * | 33 | 27 18% | 25.4 23% | 24 27% | 30 9% | 31.3 ? 5% |
Idle Bottom * | 33 | 27 18% | 27.2 18% | 25 24% | 30 9% | 32.3 ? 2% |
* ... smaller is better
Acer Predator Triton 500 audio analysis
(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (81 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(±) | reduced bass - on average 13% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (12.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 3.8% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (5.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 2.3% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (4.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(+) | overall sound is linear (14.5% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 26% of all tested devices in this class were better, 7% similar, 68% worse
» The best had a delta of 6%, average was 18%, worst was 132%
Compared to all devices tested
» 16% of all tested devices were better, 4% similar, 80% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Acer Predator Triton 700 audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (83 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 15.2% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 8% higher than median
(+) | mids are linear (6.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 2% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (4.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (19.9% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 68% of all tested devices in this class were better, 6% similar, 26% worse
» The best had a delta of 6%, average was 18%, worst was 132%
Compared to all devices tested
» 48% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 45% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
desligado | 0.3 / 1.7 Watt |
Ocioso | 16 / 22 / 32 Watt |
Carga |
89 / 173 Watt |
Key:
min: ,
med: ,
max: Metrahit Energy |
Acer Predator Triton 500 GeForce RTX 2080 Max-Q, i7-8750H | Gigabyte Aero 15-X9 GeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q, i7-8750H | Razer Blade 15 RTX 2070 Max-Q GeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q, i7-8750H | MSI GS65 8RF-019DE Stealth Thin GeForce GTX 1070 Max-Q, i7-8750H | Asus Zephyrus S GX531GS GeForce GTX 1070 Max-Q, i7-8750H | Average of class Gaming | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Power Consumption | 11% | 18% | 23% | -7% | -4% | |
Idle Minimum * | 16 | 16 -0% | 10.4 35% | 7 56% | 17 -6% | 13.6 ? 15% |
Idle Average * | 22 | 18 18% | 14.6 34% | 11 50% | 20 9% | 19 ? 14% |
Idle Maximum * | 32 | 23 28% | 16.3 49% | 20 37% | 29 9% | 26.8 ? 16% |
Load Average * | 89 | 88 1% | 88.5 1% | 98 -10% | 112 -26% | 106.3 ? -19% |
Witcher 3 ultra * | 147 | 120 18% | 155.4 -6% | 132 10% | 152 -3% | |
Load Maximum * | 173 | 167 3% | 182.4 -5% | 182 -5% | 211 -22% | 249 ? -44% |
* ... smaller is better
Acer Predator Triton 500 GeForce RTX 2080 Max-Q, i7-8750H, 82 Wh | Gigabyte Aero 15-X9 GeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q, i7-8750H, 94.24 Wh | Razer Blade 15 RTX 2070 Max-Q GeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q, i7-8750H, 80 Wh | MSI GS65 8RF-019DE Stealth Thin GeForce GTX 1070 Max-Q, i7-8750H, 82 Wh | Asus Zephyrus S GX531GS GeForce GTX 1070 Max-Q, i7-8750H, 50 Wh | Average of class Gaming | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Battery Runtime | 93% | 72% | 47% | -34% | 57% | |
Reader / Idle | 335 | 549 64% | 682 104% | 507 51% | 213 -36% | 565 ? 69% |
WiFi v1.3 | 190 | 382 101% | 387 104% | 362 91% | 157 -17% | 375 ? 97% |
Load | 81 | 174 115% | 88 9% | 81 0% | 42 -48% | 85.6 ? 6% |
H.264 | 364 | 356 | 409 ? |
Pro
Contra
O Acer Predator Triton 500 perde uma avaliação "muito boa". O portátil de 15 polegadas preenche quase todos os critérios que distinguem um portátil moderno para jogos. Além da tela com marcos finos e carcaça fina, devemos também mencionar o painel de 144 Hz aqui, que ganha pontos com G-Sync.
O Triton 500 também não apresenta falta de desempenho. Nossa versão testada com um Core i7-8750H e GeForce GTX 2080 Max-Q pode lidar sem esforço com qualquer jogo atual com resolução Full HD.
No entanto, é incompreensível para nós a razão pela qual a Acer não utilizou a comutação de gráficos. Em termos de mobilidade, o +Optimus absolutamente se ofereceria como uma vantagem. Vemos fraquezas adicionais em termos de manutenção. O design do interior é tal que os compradores dificilmente podem acessar qualquer componente (palavras-chave: solução de armazenamento e RAM).
Apesar de tudo isso, o Triton 500 é significativamente mais bem sucedido em nossa opinião do que o antigo Triton 700.
Acer Predator Triton 500
- 02/14/2019 v6 (old)
Florian Glaser