Breve Análise do Portátil Dell Latitude 5495 (Ryzen 7 Pro, FHD)
| SD Card Reader | |
| average JPG Copy Test (av. of 3 runs) | |
| Dell Latitude 5490-TD70X (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
| Dell Latitude 14 5495 (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad A485-20MU000CGE (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
| Average of class Office (22.7 - 198.5, n=33, last 2 years) | |
| maximum AS SSD Seq Read Test (1GB) | |
| Dell Latitude 5490-TD70X (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
| Dell Latitude 14 5495 (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad A485-20MU000CGE (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
| Average of class Office (25 - 249, n=30, last 2 years) | |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
iluminação: 89 %
iluminação com acumulador: 210 cd/m²
Contraste: 922:1 (Preto: 0.23 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 4.34 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.92
ΔE Greyscale 2.81 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
61% sRGB (Argyll 1.6.3 3D)
39% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 1.6.3 3D)
42.32% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
61.4% sRGB (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
40.94% Display P3 (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
Gamma: 2.22
| Dell Latitude 14 5495 CMN14C9, , 1920x1080, 14" | Dell Latitude 5490-TD70X AU Optronics AUO263D, , 1920x1080, 14" | Lenovo ThinkPad A485-20MU000CGE NV140FHM-N46, , 1920x1080, 14" | HP EliteBook 745 G5 3UN74EA AUO383D, , 1920x1080, 14" | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Display | -11% | -2% | 47% | |
| Display P3 Coverage | 40.94 | 36.28 -11% | 40.24 -2% | 61.3 50% |
| sRGB Coverage | 61.4 | 54.6 -11% | 60 -2% | 87.6 43% |
| AdobeRGB 1998 Coverage | 42.32 | 37.48 -11% | 41.57 -2% | 62.3 47% |
| Response Times | -9% | -41% | 16% | |
| Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% * | 41 ? | 46.9 ? -14% | 44.8 ? -9% | 35 ? 15% |
| Response Time Black / White * | 30 ? | 31.2 ? -4% | 35.2 ? -17% | 25 ? 17% |
| PWM Frequency | 25000 ? | 1000 ? -96% | ||
| Screen | -13% | -13% | 36% | |
| Brightness middle | 212 | 227 7% | 275 30% | 421 99% |
| Brightness | 200 | 211 6% | 272 36% | 398 99% |
| Brightness Distribution | 89 | 88 -1% | 85 -4% | 86 -3% |
| Black Level * | 0.23 | 0.19 17% | 0.26 -13% | 0.27 -17% |
| Contrast | 922 | 1195 30% | 1058 15% | 1559 69% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 4.34 | 5.6 -29% | 5.9 -36% | 4.08 6% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 9.01 | 22.4 -149% | 20 -122% | 7.48 17% |
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 2.81 | 2.4 15% | 3.6 -28% | 2.92 -4% |
| Gamma | 2.22 99% | 2.44 90% | 2.36 93% | 2.32 95% |
| CCT | 6286 103% | 6506 100% | 6798 96% | 7043 92% |
| Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998) | 39 | 34.5 -12% | 38.1 -2% | 57 46% |
| Color Space (Percent of sRGB) | 61 | 54.4 -11% | 59.6 -2% | 87 43% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 calibrated * | 4.9 | |||
| Total Average (Program / Settings) | -11% /
-12% | -19% /
-16% | 33% /
35% |
* ... smaller is better
Display Response Times
| ↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
|---|---|---|
| 30 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 19 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 11 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. » 78 % 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 | ||
| 41 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 24 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 17 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. » 61 % 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 | 25000 Hz | ≤ 30 % brightness setting |  |
The display backlight flickers at 25000 Hz (worst case, e.g., utilizing PWM) Flickering detected at a brightness setting of 30 % and below. There should be no flickering or PWM above this brightness setting. The frequency of 25000 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. | |||
| PCMark 8 Home Score Accelerated v2 | 3256 pontos | |
| PCMark 8 Work Score Accelerated v2 | 2438 pontos | |
| PCMark 10 Score | 2585 pontos | |
Ajuda | ||
| Dell Latitude 14 5495 Intel SSDSCKKF256G8 | Dell Latitude 5490-TD70X Toshiba KSG60ZMV512G | Lenovo ThinkPad A485-20MU000CGE Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB256HAHQ | HP EliteBook 745 G5 3UN74EA Toshiba XG5 KXG50ZNV256G | Average Intel SSDSCKKF256G8 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CrystalDiskMark 5.2 / 6 | 31% | 146% | 108% | 0% | |
| Write 4K | 48.45 | 90.4 87% | 114.8 137% | 119.5 147% | 48.5 ? 0% |
| Read 4K | 25.11 | 28.24 12% | 41.33 65% | 31.9 27% | 25.1 ? 0% |
| Write Seq | 341.2 | 433.7 27% | 1271 273% | 351.1 3% | 341 ? 0% |
| Read Seq | 521 | 469.3 -10% | 1171 125% | 1665 220% | 521 ? 0% |
| Write 4K Q32T1 | 202 | 297.6 47% | 218.4 8% | 268.4 33% | 202 ? 0% |
| Read 4K Q32T1 | 243.5 | 293.9 21% | 308.5 27% | 333.1 37% | 244 ? 0% |
| Write Seq Q32T1 | 320.8 | 534 66% | 1460 355% | 351.8 10% | 321 ? 0% |
| Read Seq Q32T1 | 555 | 531 -4% | 1529 175% | 2705 387% | 555 ? 0% |
| 3DMark 11 Performance | 3129 pontos | |
| 3DMark Cloud Gate Standard Score | 8942 pontos | |
| 3DMark Fire Strike Score | 1659 pontos | |
Ajuda | ||
| baixo | média | alto | ultra | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BioShock Infinite (2013) | 85.7 | 14.4 | ||
| The Witcher 3 (2015) | 33 | 10.7 | ||
| Rise of the Tomb Raider (2016) | 37.6 | 12.3 |
Barulho
| Ocioso |
| 30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 dB |
| Carga |
| 35.4 / 43 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: 30.7 dB(A) | ||
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 37.1 °C / 99 F, compared to the average of 34.3 °C / 94 F, ranging from 21.2 to 62.5 °C for the class Office.
(-) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 45.6 °C / 114 F, compared to the average of 36.8 °C / 98 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 23.1 °C / 74 F, compared to the device average of 29.5 °C / 85 F.
(+) The palmrests and touchpad are cooler than skin temperature with a maximum of 27.2 °C / 81 F and are therefore cool to the touch.
(±) The average temperature of the palmrest area of similar devices was 27.7 °C / 81.9 F (+0.5 °C / 0.9 F).
Dell Latitude 14 5495 audio analysis
(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (76.1 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 17.1% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (9.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 5.5% higher than median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (8.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 2.1% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (5.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (17.5% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 23% of all tested devices in this class were better, 6% similar, 70% worse
» The best had a delta of 7%, average was 22%, worst was 53%
Compared to all devices tested
» 30% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 62% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
HP EliteBook 745 G5 3UN74EA audio analysis
(-) | not very loud speakers (71.2 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 27.1% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 2.4% away from median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (8.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 2.7% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (5.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (20.2% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 38% of all tested devices in this class were better, 11% similar, 50% worse
» The best had a delta of 7%, average was 22%, worst was 53%
Compared to all devices tested
» 49% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 43% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
| desligado | 0.23 / 0.9 Watt |
| Ocioso | 4.3 / 6.6 / 7.7 Watt |
| Carga |
32 / 40 Watt |
   
| |
Key:
min: ,
med: ,
max: Metrahit Energy | |
| Dell Latitude 14 5495 R7 2700U, Vega 10, Intel SSDSCKKF256G8, IPS LED, 1920x1080, 14" | Dell Latitude 5490-TD70X i5-8350U, UHD Graphics 620, Toshiba KSG60ZMV512G, IPS, 1920x1080, 14" | Lenovo ThinkPad A485-20MU000CGE R5 PRO 2500U, Vega 8, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB256HAHQ, IPS LED, 1920x1080, 14" | HP EliteBook 745 G5 3UN74EA R7 2700U, Vega 10, Toshiba XG5 KXG50ZNV256G, IPS LED, 1920x1080, 14" | Average AMD Radeon RX Vega 10 | Average of class Office | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power Consumption | -10% | -30% | -16% | -13% | -25% | |
| Idle Minimum * | 4.3 | 3.3 23% | 5.3 -23% | 4.9 -14% | 4.73 ? -10% | 4.54 ? -6% |
| Idle Average * | 6.6 | 5.54 16% | 8.3 -26% | 8.1 -23% | 7.61 ? -15% | 7.49 ? -13% |
| Idle Maximum * | 7.7 | 6.59 14% | 11.4 -48% | 10.6 -38% | 9.63 ? -25% | 9.14 ? -19% |
| Load Average * | 32 | 42.4 -33% | 42 -31% | 32.2 -1% | 33.3 ? -4% | 42.8 ? -34% |
| Load Maximum * | 40 | 67.6 -69% | 48.8 -22% | 42.3 -6% | 45.1 ? -13% | 61.3 ? -53% |
* ... smaller is better
| Dell Latitude 14 5495 R7 2700U, Vega 10, 61 Wh | Dell Latitude 5490-TD70X i5-8350U, UHD Graphics 620, 68 Wh | Lenovo ThinkPad A485-20MU000CGE R5 PRO 2500U, Vega 8, 48 Wh | HP EliteBook 745 G5 3UN74EA R7 2700U, Vega 10, 50 Wh | Average of class Office | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Battery Runtime | 22% | -44% | -35% | 3% | |
| Reader / Idle | 1089 | 1556 43% | 671 -38% | 639 -41% | 1300 ? 19% |
| H.264 | 708 | 791 12% | 368 -48% | 426 -40% | 704 ? -1% |
| WiFi v1.3 | 562 | 897 60% | 330 -41% | 394 -30% | 600 ? 7% |
| Load | 136 | 97 -29% | 68 -50% | 95 -30% | 118.1 ? -13% |
Pro
Contra
O Dell Latitude 5495 pode ser um portátil muito bom com o AMD Ryzen mobile. O foco aqui está no "poderia", dado que a Dell faz quase tantas coisas erradas quanto coisas certas.
Primeiro: Estávamos muito interessados em saber se o Latitude utilizaria o potencial de desempenho de Ryzen - o veredicto nesse aspecto é "muito bom". O Latitude 5495 consegue derrotar seu modelo irmão Intel Dell Latitude 5490 dado que os concorrentes conhecidos como o Lenovo ThinkPad A485 e o HP EliteBook 745 G5. Ambos também são muito piores em termos de duração da bateria, apesar da bateria do Latitude ter uma capacidade menor do que a anunciada. Além dessas vantagens, o Latitude 5495 também oferece um leitor de cartões SD muito rápido, um chassi robusto com boa capacidade de atualização e, principalmente, bons dispositivos de entrada. Além disso, o ventilador permaneceu silencioso durante o modo ocioso, enquanto o chassi não esquentou muito, mesmo sob uso intenso.
Onde há luz também há sombra. Neste caso, a sombra é representada pela tela. A tela brilha com luz, mas vagamente, com apenas 200 cd/m² em média. Isto deveria e poderia ser melhor, dado que 200 cd/m² podem inclusive ser problemáticos em interiores claros. Além disso, a tela exibiu bleeding de luz de fundo e sua cobertura de espaço de cor foi insuficiente. A tela é a questão mais gritante, mas não a única. O chassi é mais pesado e muito mais grosso do que os concorrentes, o que provavelmente explica como a Dell conseguiu colocar uma bateria tão grande. O Dell Latitude 5495 também sente falta de recursos que esperamos encontrar em um portátil comercial dessa faixa de preço. Exemplos são um leitor de digitais, um Pointing Stick ou um teclado retro iluminado - esses recursos estão disponíveis apenas como opções caras. O Thunderbolt 3 também não está disponível, embora, neste caso, nem mesmo como uma opção. Além disso, a Dell faz recortes no SSD - essa é a única maneira que podemos explicar o lento SSD SATA III. O mesmo vale para a garantia padrão curta de apenas 12 meses.
Avaliação difícil: O Dell Latitude 5495 tem muitos aspectos positivos, mas também muitos inconvenientes.
Nesses casos, é difícil para nós recomendar um dispositivo ou aconselhar a não comprá-lo. O Dell Latitude 5495 certamente tem suas vantagens, mas, para nós, a tela escura é simplesmente inadmissível - mas também sabemos que muitos clientes corporativos geralmente têm prioridades diferentes da qualidade da tela. Considerando tudo, nós provavelmente preferimos os competidores Lenovo ThinkPad A485 e HP EliteBook 745 G5, apesar de que sua pior duração da bateria seja um grande argumento para o Latitude. Em qualquer caso, ainda é verdade que o portátil perfeito com AMD Ryzen ainda não foi inventado.
Dell Latitude 14 5495
- 04/06/2019 v6 (old)
Benjamin Herzig
Price comparison
