Deutsch
English
Español
Français
Italiano
Nederlands
Polski
Русский
Türkçe
Svenska
Chinese
MagyarBreve Análise do Portátil Apple MacBook Pro 16 2019: Um portátil multimídia Core i9-9880H e Radeon Pro 5500M convincente.
Rating | Date | Model | Weight | Height | Size | Resolution | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 89.7 % v7 (old) | 12/2019 | Apple MacBook Pro 16 2019 i9 5500M i9-9880H, Radeon Pro 5500M | 2 kg | 16.2 mm | 16.00" | 3072x1920 | |
| 87.1 % v7 (old) | 02/2020 | Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Extreme 2019 20QV000WGE i7-9750H, GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile | 1.7 kg | 18.7 mm | 15.60" | 3840x2160 | |
| 87.8 % v7 (old) | 08/2019 | Dell XPS 15 7590 9980HK GTX 1650 i9-9980HK, GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile | 2 kg | 17 mm | 15.60" | 3840x2160 | |
| 89.4 % v7 (old) | 03/2020 | Apple MacBook Pro 15 2019 i9 Vega 20 i9-9980HK, Radeon Pro Vega 20 | 1.8 kg | 15.5 mm | 15.40" | 2880x1800 | |
| 87.8 % v6 (old) | 07/2018 | Asus ZenBook Pro 15 UX580GE i9-8950HK, GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Mobile | 1.9 kg | 18.9 mm | 15.60" | 3840x2160 | |
| 85 % v7 (old) | 06/2019 | MSI P65 Creator 9SF-657 i9-9880H, GeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q | 1.9 kg | 18 mm | 15.60" | 3840x2160 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
iluminação: 86 %
iluminação com acumulador: 519 cd/m²
Contraste: 1331:1 (Preto: 0.39 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 2.28 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.93, calibrated: 0.86
ΔE Greyscale 0.9 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
100% sRGB (Calman 2D)
78% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 1.6.3 3D)
Gamma: 2145
| Apple MacBook Pro 16 2019 i9 5500M APPA044, IPS, 3072x1920, 16" | Dell XPS 15 7590 9980HK GTX 1650 Samsung 156WR04, SDCA029, OLED, 3840x2160, 15.6" | Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Extreme 2019 20QV000WGE NE156QUM-N66, IPS, 3840x2160, 15.6" | Apple MacBook Pro 15 2018 (2.6 GHz, 560X) APPA040, IPS, 2880x1800, 15.4" | Asus ZenBook Pro 15 UX580GE AU Optronics B156ZAN03.1, IPS, 3840x2160, 15.6" | MSI P65 Creator 9SF-657 AU Optronics AUO41EB, IPS, 3840x2160, 15.6" | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Display | ||||||
| Display P3 Coverage | 88.1 | 82 | 98.7 | 85.9 | 84.4 | |
| sRGB Coverage | 99.6 | 99.1 | 99.9 | 100 | 100 | |
| AdobeRGB 1998 Coverage | 91.8 | 96.9 | 86.6 | 99.1 | 98.5 | |
| Response Times | 30% | 12% | 6% | 26% | 7% | |
| Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% * | 52.4 ? | 2.3 ? 96% | 46.4 ? 11% | 43.2 ? 18% | 44 ? 16% | 51 ? 3% |
| Response Time Black / White * | 34.9 ? | 2.4 ? 93% | 30.4 ? 13% | 31.2 ? 11% | 22.8 ? 35% | 31 ? 11% |
| PWM Frequency | 131700 | 59.5 ? -100% | 117000 ? -11% | |||
| Screen | -68% | -85% | 9% | -69% | -66% | |
| Brightness middle | 519 | 421.2 -19% | 464 -11% | 520 0% | 357.6 -31% | 445 -14% |
| Brightness | 477 | 417 -13% | 448 -6% | 492 3% | 350 -27% | 462 -3% |
| Brightness Distribution | 86 | 94 9% | 90 5% | 88 2% | 85 -1% | 83 -3% |
| Black Level * | 0.39 | 0.36 8% | 0.39 -0% | 0.35 10% | 0.5 -28% | |
| Contrast | 1331 | 1289 -3% | 1333 0% | 1022 -23% | 890 -33% | |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 2.28 | 6.06 -166% | 4.2 -84% | 1.2 47% | 4.12 -81% | 4.75 -108% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 6.54 | 11.89 -82% | 11.4 -74% | 2.3 65% | 9.91 -52% | 7.79 -19% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 calibrated * | 0.86 | 0.8 7% | 4.23 -392% | |||
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 0.9 | 2.8 -211% | 7.2 -700% | 1.3 -44% | 1.8 -100% | 4.49 -399% |
| Gamma | 2145 0% | 2.15 102% | 2.17 101% | 2.18 101% | 2.17 101% | 2.49 88% |
| CCT | 6572 99% | 6235 104% | 6345 102% | 6738 96% | 6613 98% | 7374 88% |
| Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998) | 78 | 81 4% | 85.2 9% | 87.5 12% | 87 12% | |
| Color Space (Percent of sRGB) | 99.6 | 99 | 100 | 100 | ||
| Total Average (Program / Settings) | -19% /
-39% | -37% /
-69% | 8% /
8% | -22% /
-53% | -30% /
-53% |
* ... smaller is better
Display Response Times
| ↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
|---|---|---|
| 34.9 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 17.8 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 17.1 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. » 92 % 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 | ||
| 52.4 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 23.9 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 28.5 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 | 131700 Hz |  | |
The display backlight flickers at 131700 Hz (worst case, e.g., utilizing PWM) . The frequency of 131700 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 8774 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 343500) Hz was measured. | |||
| PCMark 8 Home Score Accelerated v2 | 4900 pontos | |
| PCMark 8 Creative Score Accelerated v2 | 7359 pontos | |
| PCMark 8 Work Score Accelerated v2 | 4812 pontos | |
| PCMark 10 Score | 5500 pontos | |
Ajuda | ||
| Apple MacBook Pro 16 2019 i9 5500M Apple SSD AP1024 7171 | Dell XPS 15 7590 9980HK GTX 1650 Toshiba XG6 KXG60ZNV1T02 | Microsoft Surface Laptop 3 15 Ryzen 5 3580U SK hynix BC501 HFM256GDGTNG | Dell Precision 5540 SK hynix PC400 512 GB | Gigabyte Aero 17 XA RP77 Intel SSD 760p SSDPEKKW512G8 | Eurocom Nightsky RX15 Samsung SSD 970 Pro 512GB | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CrystalDiskMark 5.2 / 6 | 30% | -11% | 8% | 52% | 58% | |
| Write 4K | 55.5 | 104.3 88% | 99 78% | 98 77% | 169.6 206% | 153 176% |
| Read 4K | 16.21 | 45.23 179% | 35.63 120% | 41.25 154% | 58 258% | 60.5 273% |
| Write Seq | 1959 | 1729 -12% | 706 -64% | 1295 -34% | 1516 -23% | 1938 -1% |
| Read Seq | 1763 | 1861 6% | 1044 -41% | 1441 -18% | 2362 34% | 1932 10% |
| Write 4K Q32T1 | 398.5 | 509 28% | 326.6 -18% | 429.2 8% | 481.8 21% | 482.5 21% |
| Read 4K Q32T1 | 648 | 388.5 -40% | 270 -58% | 400.1 -38% | 506 -22% | 594 -8% |
| Write Seq Q32T1 | 2727 | 2813 3% | 820 -70% | 1366 -50% | 1530 -44% | 2324 -15% |
| Read Seq Q32T1 | 3242 | 2906 -10% | 2028 -37% | 2201 -32% | 2645 -18% | 3539 9% |
| AS SSD | 34% | -26% | 8% | -17% | 21% | |
| Seq Read | 2531 | 1723 -32% | 1122 -56% | 1743 -31% | 1812 -28% | 2352 -7% |
| Seq Write | 2289 | 1386 -39% | 514 -78% | 930 -59% | 1512 -34% | 2184 -5% |
| 4K Read | 15.85 | 43.25 173% | 34.98 121% | 39.1 147% | 32.68 106% | 28.65 81% |
| 4K Write | 39.88 | 98.3 146% | 96.8 143% | 92.1 131% | 107.7 170% | 61.3 54% |
| 4K-64 Read | 1267 | 1078 -15% | 492 -61% | 956 -25% | 504 -60% | 1317 4% |
| 4K-64 Write | 1749 | 1456 -17% | 339.9 -81% | 863 -51% | 534 -69% | 2156 23% |
| Access Time Read * | 0.122 | 0.05 59% | 0.056 54% | 0.074 39% | 0.05 59% | 0.101 17% |
| Access Time Write * | 0.095 | 0.039 59% | 0.11 -16% | 0.053 44% | 0.227 -139% | 0.09 5% |
| Score Read | 1536 | 1294 -16% | 639 -58% | 1170 -24% | 718 -53% | 1581 3% |
| Score Write | 2018 | 1693 -16% | 488 -76% | 1048 -48% | 793 -61% | 2435 21% |
| Score Total | 4317 | 3638 -16% | 1434 -67% | 2781 -36% | 1871 -57% | 4813 11% |
| Copy ISO MB/s | 1995 | 3182 59% | 828 -58% | 946 -53% | 2705 36% | |
| Copy Program MB/s | 584 | 984 68% | 200.5 -66% | 414.3 -29% | 666 14% | |
| Copy Game MB/s | 1135 | 1824 61% | 387.4 -66% | 1263 11% | 1583 39% | |
| PCMark 8 | ||||||
| Storage Score v2 | 1818 | |||||
| Total Average (Program / Settings) | 32% /
33% | -19% /
-21% | 8% /
8% | 18% /
8% | 40% /
35% |
* ... smaller is better
| Unigine Valley 1.0 - 1920x1080 Extreme HD Preset OpenGL AA:x8 | |
| Apple iMac Pro | |
| Apple iMac Pro | |
| Apple MacBook Pro 16 2019 i9 5500M | |
| Average NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile () | |
| Apple MacBook Pro 15 2019 i9 Vega 20 | |
| Apple MacBook Pro 15 2018 (2.9 GHz, Vega 20) | |
| Apple MacBook Pro 15 2018 (2.9 GHz, Vega 20) | |
| Average of class Multimedia (19.4 - 26.7, n=2, last 2 years) | |
| Apple MacBook Pro 15 2018 (2.6 GHz, 560X) | |
| Apple MacBook Pro 13 2018 Touchbar i5 | |
| 3DMark 06 Standard Score | 34321 pontos | |
| 3DMark 11 Performance | 14097 pontos | |
| 3DMark Cloud Gate Standard Score | 30690 pontos | |
| 3DMark Fire Strike Score | 9196 pontos | |
| 3DMark Time Spy Score | 3629 pontos | |
Ajuda | ||
SpecViewPerf 13
| Performance Rating - Percent | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad P53-20QN000YGE | |
| Razer Blade 15 Studio Edition | |
| MSI WS75 9TL-636 | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad P73-20QR002DGE | |
| Apple MacBook Pro 16 2019 i9 5500M | |
| Dell Precision 5540 | |
| Acer Aspire Nitro 5 AN517-51-7887 | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad P1 2019-20QT000RGE | |
| Acer Nitro 5 -1! | |
| Deus Ex Mankind Divided - 1920x1080 Ultra Preset AA:2xMS AF:8x | |
| Average NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile () | |
| Apple MacBook Pro 16 2019 i9 5500M | |
| Average NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile () | |
| Apple MacBook Pro 15 2018 (2.6 GHz, 560X) | |
| Rage 2 - 1920x1080 Ultra Preset (Resolution Scale Off) | |
| Average NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile (67.9 - 68.8, n=2) | |
| Average NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q (58.2 - 64.8, n=2) | |
| MSI Alpha 15 A3DDK | |
| Average NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile (45.1 - 60, n=3) | |
| Apple MacBook Pro 16 2019 i9 5500M | |
| Ghost Recon Breakpoint - 1920x1080 Ultra Preset AA:T | |
| Average NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile (51 - 55, n=2) | |
| Average NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q (48 - 51, n=2) | |
| Apple MacBook Pro 16 2019 i9 5500M | |
| Average NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile (30 - 37, n=2) | |
| MSI Alpha 15 A3DDK | |
| Apple MacBook Pro 15 2018 (2.6 GHz, 560X) | |
| baixo | média | alto | ultra | QHD | 4K | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Counter-Strike: GO (2012) | 208 | 118 | 71.4 | |||
| GTA V (2015) | 168 | 91.4 | 47.6 | 34.5 | 32.3 | |
| The Witcher 3 (2015) | 68 | 38.8 | ||||
| Dota 2 Reborn (2015) | 137 | 125 | 111 | 107 | 53.9 | |
| World of Warships (2015) | 43.4 | |||||
| Rainbow Six Siege (2015) | 126 | 44.8 | ||||
| Overwatch (2016) | 98 | |||||
| Deus Ex Mankind Divided (2016) | 52 | 27.8 | 16.9 | |||
| Rocket League (2017) | 153 | 107 | 59 | |||
| Final Fantasy XV Benchmark (2018) | 48.4 | 20.4 | ||||
| World of Tanks enCore (2018) | 76 | 49.1 | 24.6 | |||
| Far Cry 5 (2018) | 55 | 40 | 20 | |||
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider (2018) | 120 | 58 | 54 | 46 | 30 | 13 |
| Battlefield V (2018) | 85 | 76 | 62 | 58.9 | 47 | 14.4 |
| Apex Legends (2019) | 63 | 43.5 | ||||
| Far Cry New Dawn (2019) | 86 | 67 | 64 | 57 | 41 | 21 |
| Metro Exodus (2019) | 92 | 47.1 | 34.3 | 28.6 | 22 | |
| Dirt Rally 2.0 (2019) | 90 | 50.2 | 35.8 | |||
| The Division 2 (2019) | 56 | 39 | ||||
| Anno 1800 (2019) | 67 | 44.6 | 21.7 | |||
| Rage 2 (2019) | 113 | 53.7 | 45.2 | 44.4 | 28.4 | |
| Total War: Three Kingdoms (2019) | 175 | 64.1 | 40.5 | 29.7 | 19 | 7 |
| F1 2019 (2019) | 174 | 105 | 97 | 65 | 49 | |
| Control (2019) | 139 | 41.5 | 29.2 | 18.1 | ||
| Borderlands 3 (2019) | 41.4 | 30.8 | 21.4 | 3.8 | ||
| FIFA 20 (2019) | 144 | 124 | 90 | |||
| Ghost Recon Breakpoint (2019) | 50 | 35 | ||||
| GRID 2019 (2019) | 46.3 | 36.6 | 23.2 | |||
| Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2019 (2019) | 34.7 | |||||
| Need for Speed Heat (2019) | 74 | 56.7 | 50.9 | 44.7 | 28 | 12.8 |
| Star Wars Jedi Fallen Order (2019) | 75 | 61 | 54.3 | 35 | 16.2 | |
| Red Dead Redemption 2 (2019) | 97.6 | 55.2 | 35.8 | 20.9 | 0 () | 0 () |
| Fall Guys (2020) | 59.4 | 59.4 | 38.1 | |||
| Hearthstone (2020) | 33.2 | 32 | 59.7 | 59.6 | ||
| Doom Eternal (2020) | 84.8 | 47.5 | 27.5 | 21.9 | 15.1 | |
| Gears Tactics (2020) | 60 | 47.6 | 30.7 | |||
| F1 2020 (2020) | 0 game wont start | |||||
| Flight Simulator 2020 (2020) | 47.4 | 28 | 19.2 | 12.2 | ||
| Mafia Definitive Edition (2020) | 52.5 | 37.5 | ||||
| Star Wars Squadrons (2020) | 95.6 | 69.7 | 26.4 | |||
| FIFA 21 (2020) | 151 | 115 | 70 | |||
| Cyberpunk 2077 1.0 (2020) | 54.8 | 29.9 | 23.5 | |||
| Hitman 3 (2021) | 157 | 81.3 | 66.3 | 62 | ||
| Outriders (2021) | 70.7 | 44.4 | 36 | 27.6 | ||
| Resident Evil Village (2021) | 81.7 | 38.9 | 40.6 | |||
| Far Cry 6 (2021) | 0 game wont start | |||||
| Riders Republic (2021) | 61 | 41 | 28 | |||
| Call of Duty Vanguard (2021) | 43.1 | 21.7 | ||||
| Forza Horizon 5 (2021) | 85 | 31 |
Barulho
| Ocioso |
| 29.9 / 29.9 / 29.9 dB |
| Carga |
| 43 / 46.1 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: 29.8 dB(A) | ||
(±) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 42 °C / 108 F, compared to the average of 36.9 °C / 98 F, ranging from 21.1 to 71 °C for the class Multimedia.
(+) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 38 °C / 100 F, compared to the average of 39.2 °C / 103 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 22.8 °C / 73 F, compared to the device average of 31.3 °C / 88 F.
(+) The palmrests and touchpad are cooler than skin temperature with a maximum of 27 °C / 80.6 F and are therefore cool to the touch.
(±) The average temperature of the palmrest area of similar devices was 28.8 °C / 83.8 F (+1.8 °C / 3.2 F).
Apple MacBook Pro 16 2019 i9 5500M audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (82.3 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(+) | good bass - only 2.3% away from median
(+) | bass is linear (5% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 2.7% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (3.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 2.1% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (2.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(+) | overall sound is linear (6.9% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 3% of all tested devices in this class were better, 1% similar, 96% worse
» The best had a delta of 5%, average was 18%, worst was 45%
Compared to all devices tested
» 1% of all tested devices were better, 0% similar, 99% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Dell XPS 15 7590 9980HK GTX 1650 audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (88.4 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 24.9% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (14.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 2.8% away from median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (7.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 1.9% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (5.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (17.8% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 48% of all tested devices in this class were better, 8% similar, 44% worse
» The best had a delta of 5%, average was 18%, worst was 45%
Compared to all devices tested
» 32% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 60% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Apple MacBook Pro 15 2018 (2.6 GHz, 560X) audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (85 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(+) | good bass - only 4.7% away from median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (8.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 1.8% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (3.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 2.6% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (5.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(+) | overall sound is linear (6.4% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 2% of all tested devices in this class were better, 1% similar, 97% worse
» The best had a delta of 5%, average was 18%, worst was 45%
Compared to all devices tested
» 0% of all tested devices were better, 0% similar, 99% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
| desligado | 0.05 / 0.95 Watt |
| Ocioso | 3.7 / 12.1 / 17 Watt |
| Carga |
91.5 / 102.3 Watt |
   
| |
Key:
min: ,
med: ,
max: Metrahit Energy | |
| Apple MacBook Pro 16 2019 i9 5500M i9-9880H, Radeon Pro 5500M, Apple SSD AP1024 7171, IPS, 3072x1920, 16" | Apple MacBook Pro 15 2018 (2.6 GHz, 560X) i7-8850H, Radeon Pro 560X, Apple SSD AP0512, IPS, 2880x1800, 15.4" | Dell XPS 15 7590 9980HK GTX 1650 i9-9980HK, GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile, Toshiba XG6 KXG60ZNV1T02, OLED, 3840x2160, 15.6" | MSI P65 Creator 9SF-657 i9-9880H, GeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q, 2x Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB512HAJQ (RAID 0), IPS, 3840x2160, 15.6" | Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Extreme 2019 20QV000WGE i7-9750H, GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB512HAJQ, IPS, 3840x2160, 15.6" | Average of class Multimedia | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power Consumption | 11% | -18% | -67% | -31% | -11% | |
| Idle Minimum * | 3.7 | 3.4 8% | 6.2 -68% | 9.4 -154% | 8.5 -130% | 6.96 ? -88% |
| Idle Average * | 12.1 | 11 9% | 9.6 21% | 17.4 -44% | 14.7 -21% | 11.3 ? 7% |
| Idle Maximum * | 17 | 14.9 12% | 21.2 -25% | 19.6 -15% | 19.4 -14% | 13.5 ? 21% |
| Load Average * | 91.5 | 78.9 14% | 104.3 -14% | 103 -13% | 89.6 2% | 72.3 ? 21% |
| Witcher 3 ultra * | 103 | 91.7 11% | 96.1 7% | |||
| Load Maximum * | 102.3 | 91.2 11% | 135.3 -32% | 216 -111% | 129.8 -27% | 119.2 ? -17% |
* ... smaller is better
| Apple MacBook Pro 16 2019 i9 5500M i9-9880H, Radeon Pro 5500M, 99.8 Wh | Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Extreme 2019 20QV000WGE i7-9750H, GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile, 80 Wh | Dell XPS 15 7590 9980HK GTX 1650 i9-9980HK, GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile, 97 Wh | Asus ZenBook Pro 15 UX580GE i9-8950HK, GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Mobile, 71 Wh | MSI P65 Creator 9SF-657 i9-9880H, GeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q, 82 Wh | Apple MacBook Pro 15 2018 (2.6 GHz, 560X) i7-8850H, Radeon Pro 560X, 83 Wh | Average of class Multimedia | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Battery Runtime | -29% | 104% | -9% | -19% | 23% | 33% | |
| H.264 | 580 | 284 -51% | 701 21% | 793 ? 37% | |||
| WiFi v1.3 | 718 | 285 -60% | 467 -35% | 375 -48% | 357 -50% | 614 -14% | 613 ? -15% |
| Witcher 3 ultra | 54 | 88 63% | 76.3 ? 41% | ||||
| Load | 58 | 72 24% | 199 243% | 76 31% | 65 12% | 98.3 ? 69% |
Pro
Contra
Veredicto - Um portátil multimídia fantástico, mas caro
A Apple aprimorou o antigo design de 15 polegadas com o novo MacBook Pro de 16 polegadas, fazendo algumas mudanças pequenas, mas importantes. Em primeiro lugar, a empresa substituiu seu mecanismo de teclado borboleta, muito criticado, por um design de teclas scissor-switch que não é apenas comprovado e oferece mais profundidade do que as teclas borboleta, mas também deve ser mais durável. Embora a Apple tenha adotado muito o design do seu mais recente MacBook Pro 15 para o novo modelo de 16 polegadas, o último é um pouco mais grosso que o seu antecessor e também oferece um resfriamento mais eficiente.
Infelizmente, a Apple persistiu, incluindo apenas quatro portas Thunderbolt 3 e um conector para fones de ouvido no novo MacBook Pro. Ethernet, HDMI, um leitor de cartão e portas USB tipo A são coisas do passado no ecossistema da Apple, portanto, provavelmente seja necessário comprar pelo menos um dongle. Da mesma forma, as opções de atualização e reparação são tão ruins quanto antes, com a Apple soldando o chip de CPU, GPU, RAM, SSD e Wi-Fi na placa lógica. Isso significa que você não deve viver apenas com um chip Wi-Fi 802.11ac Broadcom desatualizado, mas também precisará substituir a placa lógica se algum desses componentes apresentar uma falha.
O MacBook Pro 16 é um portátil multimídia excelente e luxuoso, com pouca capacidade de reparação.
O novo painel de 16 polegadas também não oferece surpresas. O painel não suporta taxas de atualização de 120 Hz nem o Adaptive Sync, mas sua qualidade de imagem é tão boa quanto as telas nos MacBook Pros anteriores que analisamos. O chassi maior também permitiu à Apple equipar o MacBook Pro 16 com alto-falantes significativamente melhores do que o seu antecessor de 15 polegadas. Um resfriamento mais eficiente também está muito atrasado e permite que nossa unidade de análise obtenha desempenho significativamente melhor do seu processador Core i9-9880H do que seu antecessor. Embora sua nova GPU Navi não acenda o mundo do Windows, ela representa uma boa atualização das GPUs Vega com as quais a Apple equipou o último MacBook Pro 15.
O MacBook Pro 16 não estabeleceu nenhum recorde de duração para portáteis multimídia, apesar de ter uma bateria de 100 Wh, pois seu processador Core i9, tela grande e GPU dedicada são componentes que consomem muita energia. No entanto, você deve demorar duas horas a mais entre as cargas ao navegar na Web do que no MacBook Pro 15, o que é uma melhoria tangível. O MacBook Pro 16 também deve durar pelo menos um dia útil entre as cargas, algo que nenhum de nossos dispositivos de comparação poderia alcançar.
No geral, o MacBook Pro 16 é um excelente portátil multimídia. Sofre de algumas fraquezas, a maior das quais é o seu preço exorbitante. US$ 2.799 também garantem um ano de garantia e você pode considerar comprar pelo menos um dongle USB tipo C.
Apple MacBook Pro 16 2019 i9 5500M
-
12/02/2019 v7 (old)
Klaus Hinum, Andreas Osthoff
Price comparison
