Breve Análise do Portátil Apple MacBook 12 (2017)
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: 88 %
iluminação com acumulador: 387 cd/m²
Contraste: 823:1 (Preto: 0.47 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 1.6 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.95
ΔE Greyscale 1 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
97.8% sRGB (Calman 2D)
82.2% sRGB (Argyll 1.6.3 3D)
61.6% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 1.6.3 3D)
68% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
95.4% sRGB (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
66.8% Display P3 (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
Gamma: 2.26
Apple MacBook 12 2017 APPA027, , 2304x1440, 12" | Apple MacBook 12 (Early 2016) 1.1 GHz APPA027, , 2304x1440, 12" | Apple MacBook Air 13.3" 1.8 GHz (2017) 1440x900, 13.3" | Apple MacBook Pro 13 2017 Touchbar i5 APPA034, , 2560x1600, 13.3" | Apple MacBook Pro 15 2017 (2.8 GHz, 555) APPA031, , 2880x1800, 15.4" | Apple iPad Pro 12.9 2017 2732x2048, 12.9" | Apple iPad Pro 10.5 2017 2224x1668, 10.5" | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Display | |||||||
Display P3 Coverage | 66.8 | 98.6 | 97.9 | ||||
sRGB Coverage | 95.4 | 100 | 99.9 | ||||
AdobeRGB 1998 Coverage | 68 | 86.5 | 85.9 | ||||
Response Times | -3% | -25% | -10% | -10% | 18% | 22% | |
Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% * | 40.8 ? | 41.2 ? -1% | 52.4 ? -28% | 48 ? -18% | 48 ? -18% | 41.6 ? -2% | 39.6 ? 3% |
Response Time Black / White * | 29.2 ? | 30.4 ? -4% | 28.4 ? 3% | 33.6 ? -15% | 33.8 ? -16% | 18.4 ? 37% | 17.6 ? 40% |
PWM Frequency | 116000 | 58000 -50% | 119000 ? 3% | 119000 ? 3% | |||
Screen | |||||||
Brightness middle | 387 | 551 | 545 | 650 | 634 | ||
Black Level * | 0.47 | 0.48 | 0.44 | 0.42 | 0.39 | ||
Brightness | 358 | 514 | 523 | 614 | 625 | ||
Brightness Distribution | 88 | 88 | 86 | 90 | 87 | ||
Contrast | 823 | 1148 | 1239 | 1548 | 1626 | ||
Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 1.6 | 0.8 | 1.6 | 1 | 1.9 | ||
Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 4 | 1.4 | 3.8 | 1.9 | 3.9 | ||
Greyscale dE 2000 * | 1 | 1 | 1.9 | 1.5 | 2.8 | ||
Gamma | 2.26 97% | 2.16 102% | 2.26 97% | 2.25 98% | 2.26 97% | ||
CCT | 6680 97% | 6672 97% | 6834 95% | 6734 97% | 7027 93% | ||
Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998) | 61.6 | ||||||
Color Space (Percent of sRGB) | 82.2 | ||||||
Total Average (Program / Settings) | -3% /
-3% | -25% /
-25% | -10% /
-10% | -10% /
-10% | 18% /
18% | 22% /
22% |
* ... smaller is better
Display Response Times
↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
---|---|---|
29.2 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 15.8 ms rise | |
↘ 13.4 ms fall | ||
The screen shows relatively slow response rates in our tests and may be too slow for gamers. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.1 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 76 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (21.1 ms). | ||
↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey | ||
40.8 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 19.6 ms rise | |
↘ 21.2 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. » 60 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (33.2 ms). |
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
Screen flickering / PWM detected | 116000 Hz | ||
The display backlight flickers at 116000 Hz (worst case, e.g., utilizing PWM) . The frequency of 116000 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 17365 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 3846000) Hz was measured. |
Cinebench R15 | |
CPU Single 64Bit | |
Apple MacBook Pro 13 2017 Touchbar i5 | |
Apple MacBook 12 2017 | |
Apple MacBook Air 13.3" 1.8 GHz (2017) | |
Apple MacBook 12 (Early 2015) 1.1 GHz | |
Apple MacBook 12 (Early 2015) 1.1 GHz | |
Apple MacBook 12 (Early 2015) 1.1 GHz | |
Apple MacBook 12 (Early 2016) 1.1 GHz | |
Apple MacBook 12 (Early 2016) 1.1 GHz | |
CPU Multi 64Bit | |
Apple MacBook Pro 13 2017 Touchbar i5 | |
Apple MacBook Air 13.3" 1.8 GHz (2017) | |
Apple MacBook 12 2017 | |
Apple MacBook 12 (Early 2016) 1.1 GHz | |
Apple MacBook 12 (Early 2015) 1.1 GHz | |
Apple MacBook 12 (Early 2015) 1.1 GHz | |
Apple MacBook 12 (Early 2015) 1.1 GHz |
PCMark 8 Home Score Accelerated v2 | 3078 pontos | |
PCMark 8 Creative Score Accelerated v2 | 3904 pontos | |
PCMark 8 Work Score Accelerated v2 | 3946 pontos | |
PCMark 10 Score | 2568 pontos | |
Ajuda |
Apple MacBook 12 2017 Apple SSD AP0256 | Apple MacBook 12 (Early 2016) 1.1 GHz Apple SSD AP0256 | Apple MacBook Pro 13 2017 Touchbar i5 Apple SSD AP0256 | Apple MacBook Pro 15 2017 (2.8 GHz, 555) Apple SSD SM0256L | Apple MacBook Air 13.3" 1.8 GHz (2017) Apple SSD SM0128G | Asus Zenbook UX310UA-FC347T iGP Micron SSD 1100 (MTFDDAV256TBN) | Dell XPS 13 9360 FHD i5 Toshiba NVMe THNSN5256GPUK | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CrystalDiskMark 3.0 | 15% | 25% | 36% | 52% | 167% | 257% | |
Read Seq | 955 | 754 -21% | 1540 61% | 1557 63% | 1390 46% | 489.4 -49% | 1233 29% |
Write Seq | 899 | 638 -29% | 1353 51% | 1505 67% | 731 -19% | 431.6 -52% | 733 -18% |
Read 4k | 9.721 | 14.6 50% | 9.92 2% | 10.76 11% | 16.29 68% | 26.68 174% | 29.31 202% |
Write 4k | 12.78 | 20.5 60% | 10.74 -16% | 12.87 1% | 27.17 113% | 88.7 594% | 116.9 815% |
CrystalDiskMark 5.2 / 6 | 14% | 33% | 12% | ||||
Read Seq | 940 | 1509 61% | 1572 67% | 1491 59% | |||
Write Seq | 867 | 1345 55% | 1473 70% | 741 -15% | |||
Read 4K | 22.8 | 23.77 4% | 23.33 2% | 21.26 -7% | |||
Write 4K | 95.7 | 32.94 -66% | 86.7 -9% | 105.9 11% | |||
Total Average (Program / Settings) | 15% /
15% | 20% /
19% | 35% /
34% | 32% /
32% | 167% /
167% | 257% /
257% |
3DMark 11 Performance | 1324 pontos | |
3DMark Cloud Gate Standard Score | 5035 pontos | |
Ajuda |
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 38.9 °C / 102 F, compared to the average of 35.9 °C / 97 F, ranging from 21.4 to 59 °C for the class Subnotebook.
(±) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 42.5 °C / 109 F, compared to the average of 39.4 °C / 103 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 29.1 °C / 84 F, compared to the device average of 30.8 °C / 87 F.
(+) The palmrests and touchpad are reaching skin temperature as a maximum (32.8 °C / 91 F) and are therefore not hot.
(-) The average temperature of the palmrest area of similar devices was 28.3 °C / 82.9 F (-4.5 °C / -8.1 F).
Apple MacBook 12 2017 audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (83.9 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 15% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (8.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 2% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (3.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 2.3% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (3.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(+) | overall sound is linear (11.6% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 10% of all tested devices in this class were better, 3% similar, 86% worse
» The best had a delta of 5%, average was 19%, worst was 53%
Compared to all devices tested
» 6% of all tested devices were better, 2% similar, 92% 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
» 5% of all tested devices in this class were better, 2% similar, 93% 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 | ![]() ![]() |
Ocioso | ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Carga |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
Apple MacBook 12 2017 m3-7Y32, HD Graphics 615, Apple SSD AP0256, LED IPS, 2304x1440, 12" | Apple MacBook 12 (Early 2016) 1.1 GHz 6Y30, HD Graphics 515, Apple SSD AP0256, IPS, 2304x1440, 12" | Apple MacBook Air 13.3" 1.8 GHz (2017) 5350U, HD Graphics 6000, Apple SSD SM0128G, TN LED, 1440x900, 13.3" | Apple MacBook Pro 13 2017 Touchbar i5 i5-7267U, Iris Plus Graphics 650, Apple SSD AP0256, IPS, 2560x1600, 13.3" | Apple iPad Pro 12.9 2017 A10X Fusion, A10X Fusion GPU, Toshiba THGBX669D4LLDXG 64 GB NAND , IPS, 2732x2048, 12.9" | Apple iPad Pro 10.5 2017 A10X Fusion, A10X Fusion GPU, Toshiba THGBX669D4LLDXG 64 GB NAND , IPS, 2224x1668, 10.5" | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Power Consumption | 1% | -50% | -111% | 7% | 26% | |
Idle Minimum * | 2 | 2.7 -35% | 3.4 -70% | 2.8 -40% | 1.55 22% | 1.44 28% |
Idle Average * | 5.4 | 2.7 50% | 6.3 -17% | 10.9 -102% | 8.58 -59% | 6.12 -13% |
Idle Maximum * | 6.6 | 7.2 -9% | 7 -6% | 11.4 -73% | 8.59 -30% | 6.14 7% |
Load Average * | 22 | 22 -0% | 34.5 -57% | 55.4 -152% | 10.09 54% | 8.55 61% |
Load Maximum * | 20 | 20.5 -3% | 40 -100% | 57.5 -188% | 10.61 47% | 10.62 47% |
* ... smaller is better
Apple MacBook 12 2017 m3-7Y32, HD Graphics 615, 41.4 Wh | Apple MacBook 12 (Early 2016) 1.1 GHz 6Y30, HD Graphics 515, 41.4 Wh | Apple MacBook Air 13.3" 1.8 GHz (2017) 5350U, HD Graphics 6000, 54 Wh | Apple MacBook Pro 13 2017 Touchbar i5 i5-7267U, Iris Plus Graphics 650, 49.2 Wh | Apple iPad Pro 12.9 2017 A10X Fusion, A10X Fusion GPU, 41 Wh | Apple iPad Pro 10.5 2017 A10X Fusion, A10X Fusion GPU, 30.8 Wh | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Battery Runtime | -7% | 18% | -4% | 36% | 28% | |
WiFi v1.3 | 540 | 501 -7% | 638 18% | 519 -4% | 736 36% | 693 28% |
H.264 | 512 | 415 | 676 | 629 | ||
Load | 231 | 70 | 257 | 199 | ||
Reader / Idle | 2919 | 2036 |
Pro
Contra
Como o novo MacBook 12 da Apple se sai cerca de 2 anos após seu primeiro lançamento? Bem, não diríamos que está "anos-luz" à frente, já que outros fabricantes não dormiram durante este tempo e também oferecem computadores móveis finos e igualmente poderosos. No entanto, o MacBook 12 ainda apresenta muitas qualidades, que são tão importantes hoje quanto dois anos atrás.
Em primeiro lugar, não só a carcaça de alumínio de gama alta se sente muito bem ao toque, mas também é muito robusto, fino e leve (1,3 cm, 0,92 kg / ~ 0,5 pol, ~ 2 lb). A única desvantagem: Há apenas uma porta USB Type-C, que também é utilizada para carregar Sem hubs ou adaptadores compatíveis, você rapidamente alcançará os limites aqui.
Em comparação com outros portáteis, incluindo os novos MacBook Pros, o teclado ainda apresenta um deslocamento extremamente curto. No entanto, o mecanismo de borboleta revisado traz vantagens significativas em comparação com o antecessor. Em contraste, o touchpad implementa uma tecnologia Force Touch totalmente desenvolvida.
A tela permaneceu inalterada desde o primeiro lançamento. No entanto, ainda é um dos melhores painéis do seu tamanho disponível no mercado em função de sua especificação e valores medidos. Em contraste com os pressupostos anteriores, a Apple aparentemente usa PWM para controle de brilho. No entanto, isso é insignificante devido à alta frequência utilizada.
O desempenho da CPU, GPU e SSD é superior que o do antecessor. No entanto, o ganho de desempenho não é suficientemente alto para justificar a substituição de um modelo de 2015 ou 2016. A perda de desempenho durante o uso intenso prolongado continua a ser um ponto crucial. No entanto, uma vez que leva cerca de 15 minutos até ocorrer (carga total!), isso não deve causar problemas, na prática.
Operação sempre silenciosa, boas durações da bateria de até 9 horas durante o uso realista, e alto-falantes muito bons, que não indicam estar espremidos em uma caixa extremamente fina, ainda são pontos positivos importantes para o MacBook 12.
O Apple MacBook 12 pode ser recomendado para usuários ultra-móveis, que precisam transportar seu dispositivo com freqüência e não possuem requisitos elevados nas reservas de desempenho de seu companheiro (as tarefas de escritório sempre rodam rapidamente). Embora haja vários companheiros melhor equipados disponíveis no mundo do Windows por um preço de 1499 euros (~ $1710), o MacBook 12 da Apple é uma opção atraente para os usuários que possam aceitar seus poucos compromissos (falta de portas, teclado com deslocamento curto das teclas, desempenho reduzido em longo prazo).
Apple MacBook 12 2017
-
06/27/2017 v6 (old)
J. Simon Leitner