Breve Análise do Portátil HP EliteBook 850 G4 (Core i5, Full HD)
| SD Card Reader | |
| average JPG Copy Test (av. of 3 runs) | |
| Dell Latitude 15 E5570 | |
| Fujitsu LifeBook U757 | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad T570-20H90002GE | |
| HP EliteBook 850 G4-Z2W86ET | |
| Acer TravelMate P658-M-537B | |
| maximum AS SSD Seq Read Test (1GB) | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad T570-20H90002GE | |
| HP EliteBook 850 G4-Z2W86ET | |
| Fujitsu LifeBook U757 | |
| Networking | |
| iperf3 transmit AX12 | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad T570-20H90002GE | |
| HP EliteBook 850 G4-Z2W86ET | |
| Fujitsu LifeBook U757 | |
| iperf3 receive AX12 | |
| Fujitsu LifeBook U757 | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad T570-20H90002GE | |
| HP EliteBook 850 G4-Z2W86ET | |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
iluminação: 90 %
iluminação com acumulador: 336 cd/m²
Contraste: 417:1 (Preto: 0.81 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 10.9 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.91
ΔE Greyscale 13.3 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
83.4% sRGB (Argyll 1.6.3 3D)
53.8% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 1.6.3 3D)
58.7% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
83.7% sRGB (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
56.8% Display P3 (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
Gamma: 2.11
| HP EliteBook 850 G4-Z2W86ET AUO35ED, , 1920x1080, 15.6" | Lenovo ThinkPad T570-20H90002GE N156HCA-EAA, , 1920x1080, 15.6" | Fujitsu LifeBook U757 LP156WF6-SPP1, , 1920x1080, 15.6" | Acer TravelMate P658-M-537B LG Philips LGD04D5 / LG Display LP156WF6-SPP1, , 1920x1080, 15.6" | Dell Latitude 15 E5570 LG Philips 156WHU, , 1366x768, 15.6" | HP EliteBook 850 G3 AU Optronics, , 1920x1080, 15.6" | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Display | -22% | 8% | 9% | -28% | -5% | |
| Display P3 Coverage | 56.8 | 44.08 -22% | 65.8 16% | 66.6 17% | 40.48 -29% | 54.2 -5% |
| sRGB Coverage | 83.7 | 65.6 -22% | 84.8 1% | 85.7 2% | 60.9 -27% | 79.3 -5% |
| AdobeRGB 1998 Coverage | 58.7 | 45.66 -22% | 62 6% | 62.8 7% | 41.82 -29% | 56 -5% |
| Response Times | 4316% | -25% | -23% | -39% | -26% | |
| Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% * | 47.2 ? | 41.6 ? 12% | 36 ? 24% | 38 ? 19% | 47 ? -0% | 46.4 ? 2% |
| Response Time Black / White * | 15.2 ? | 20.8 ? -37% | 26.4 ? -74% | 25 ? -64% | 27 ? -78% | 27.2 ? -79% |
| PWM Frequency | 199.2 ? | 26040 ? 12972% | 200 ? 0% | |||
| Screen | 31% | 40% | 20% | -5% | 7% | |
| Brightness middle | 338 | 262 -22% | 313 -7% | 308 -9% | 228 -33% | 290 -14% |
| Brightness | 341 | 245 -28% | 294 -14% | 319 -6% | 236 -31% | 287 -16% |
| Brightness Distribution | 90 | 89 -1% | 84 -7% | 71 -21% | 90 0% | 85 -6% |
| Black Level * | 0.81 | 0.24 70% | 0.27 67% | 0.61 25% | 0.56 31% | 0.54 33% |
| Contrast | 417 | 1092 162% | 1159 178% | 505 21% | 407 -2% | 537 29% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 10.9 | 4.5 59% | 4.5 59% | 4.51 59% | 10.02 8% | 9.7 11% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 18.7 | 10.5 44% | 10.5 44% | 10.19 46% | 15.93 15% | 14.39 23% |
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 13.3 | 3.5 74% | 4 70% | 2.91 78% | 10.66 20% | 10.83 19% |
| Gamma | 2.11 104% | 2.32 95% | 2.24 98% | 2.4 92% | 2.48 89% | 2.91 76% |
| CCT | 16030 41% | 6524 100% | 6387 102% | 6740 96% | 11800 55% | 12761 51% |
| Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998) | 53.8 | 42.04 -22% | 55.3 3% | 56 4% | 39 -28% | 51.15 -5% |
| Color Space (Percent of sRGB) | 83.4 | 65.4 -22% | 84.74 2% | 86 3% | 61 -27% | 78.96 -5% |
| Total Average (Program / Settings) | 1442% /
825% | 8% /
25% | 2% /
12% | -24% /
-14% | -8% /
-1% |
* ... smaller is better
Display Response Times
| ↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
|---|---|---|
| 15.2 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 10 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. » 33 % 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 | ||
| 47.2 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 26.8 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 20.4 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. » 80 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (32.8 ms). | ||
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
| Screen flickering / PWM detected | 199.2 Hz | ≤ 50 % brightness setting |  |
The display backlight flickers at 199.2 Hz (worst case, e.g., utilizing PWM) Flickering detected at a brightness setting of 50 % and below. There should be no flickering or PWM above this brightness setting. The frequency of 199.2 Hz is relatively low, so sensitive users will likely notice flickering and experience eyestrain at the stated brightness setting and below. In comparison: 53 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 8705 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 343500) Hz was measured. | |||
| Cinebench R15 | |
| CPU Single 64Bit | |
| HP EliteBook 850 G3 | |
| Fujitsu LifeBook U757 | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad T570-20H90002GE | |
| HP EliteBook 850 G4-Z2W86ET | |
| Dell Latitude 15 E5570 | |
| Acer TravelMate P658-M-537B | |
| CPU Multi 64Bit | |
| Fujitsu LifeBook U757 | |
| HP EliteBook 850 G4-Z2W86ET | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad T570-20H90002GE | |
| HP EliteBook 850 G3 | |
| Dell Latitude 15 E5570 | |
| Acer TravelMate P658-M-537B | |
| PCMark 8 | |
| Home Score Accelerated v2 | |
| HP EliteBook 850 G4-Z2W86ET | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad T570-20H90002GE | |
| Acer TravelMate P658-M-537B | |
| Fujitsu LifeBook U757 | |
| Dell Latitude 15 E5570 | |
| Work Score Accelerated v2 | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad T570-20H90002GE | |
| Acer TravelMate P658-M-537B | |
| HP EliteBook 850 G4-Z2W86ET | |
| Dell Latitude 15 E5570 | |
| PCMark 8 Home Score Accelerated v2 | 3542 pontos | |
| PCMark 8 Work Score Accelerated v2 | 4330 pontos | |
Ajuda | ||
| HP EliteBook 850 G4-Z2W86ET Samsung PM951 NVMe MZVLV256 | Lenovo ThinkPad T570-20H90002GE Samsung PM961 MZVLW256HEHP | Fujitsu LifeBook U757 Samsung CM871a MZNTY256HDHP | Acer TravelMate P658-M-537B Kingston RBU-SNS8152S3256GG2 | Dell Latitude 15 E5570 Samsung SSD PM871 MZ7LN128HCHP | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CrystalDiskMark 3.0 | 75% | -13% | -32% | -44% | |
| Read Seq | 1245 | 1318 6% | 509 -59% | 479.1 -62% | 474.7 -62% |
| Write Seq | 298.6 | 1166 290% | 488.4 64% | 333.1 12% | 155 -48% |
| Read 512 | 673 | 933 39% | 414.3 -38% | 418 -38% | 393.6 -42% |
| Write 512 | 298.8 | 860 188% | 321.7 8% | 320.5 7% | 119.7 -60% |
| Read 4k | 41.79 | 56.6 35% | 36.43 -13% | 25.66 -39% | 34 -19% |
| Write 4k | 138.4 | 130.6 -6% | 88.4 -36% | 64.7 -53% | 96.6 -30% |
| Read 4k QD32 | 495 | 510 3% | 402.8 -19% | 226.2 -54% | 383.3 -23% |
| Write 4k QD32 | 297.5 | 426.4 43% | 256.7 -14% | 211.4 -29% | 100.2 -66% |
| 3DMark 11 - 1280x720 Performance GPU | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad T570-20H90002GE | |
| HP EliteBook 850 G4-Z2W86ET | |
| Acer TravelMate P658-M-537B | |
| HP EliteBook 850 G3 | |
| Fujitsu LifeBook U757 | |
| Dell Latitude 15 E5570 | |
| 3DMark | |
| 1280x720 Cloud Gate Standard Graphics | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad T570-20H90002GE | |
| Acer TravelMate P658-M-537B | |
| HP EliteBook 850 G4-Z2W86ET | |
| Dell Latitude 15 E5570 | |
| HP EliteBook 850 G3 | |
| 1920x1080 Fire Strike Graphics | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad T570-20H90002GE | |
| HP EliteBook 850 G4-Z2W86ET | |
| HP EliteBook 850 G3 | |
| Dell Latitude 15 E5570 | |
| 3DMark 11 Performance | 1534 pontos | |
| 3DMark Cloud Gate Standard Score | 5666 pontos | |
| 3DMark Fire Strike Score | 748 pontos | |
Ajuda | ||
| baixo | média | alto | ultra | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BioShock Infinite (2013) | 42.4 | 24.2 | 20.5 | |
| Company of Heroes 2 (2013) | 21.6 | |||
| Rise of the Tomb Raider (2016) | 17.7 |
Barulho
| Ocioso |
| 29 / 29 / 29 dB |
| Carga |
| 31 / 33.4 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) | ||
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 37 °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 41.1 °C / 106 F, compared to the average of 36.8 °C / 98 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 21.8 °C / 71 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 24.8 °C / 76.6 F and are therefore cool to the touch.
(+) The average temperature of the palmrest area of similar devices was 27.6 °C / 81.7 F (+2.8 °C / 5.1 F).
HP EliteBook 850 G4-Z2W86ET audio analysis
(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (74.6 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 15.5% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (11% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 1.7% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (3.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 3.2% away from median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (7.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (17.7% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 25% of all tested devices in this class were better, 6% similar, 69% worse
» The best had a delta of 7%, average was 21%, worst was 53%
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 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
» 6% of all tested devices in this class were better, 2% similar, 92% 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 | 0.56 / 0.65 Watt |
| Ocioso | 3.58 / 5.97 / 6.81 Watt |
| Carga |
29.4 / 39.7 Watt |
   
| |
Key:
min: ,
med: ,
max: Metrahit Energy | |
| HP EliteBook 850 G4-Z2W86ET i5-7200U, HD Graphics 620, TN LED, 1920x1080 | Lenovo ThinkPad T570-20H90002GE i5-7200U, HD Graphics 620, IPS, 1920x1080 | Fujitsu LifeBook U757 i5-7200U, HD Graphics 620, IPS LED, 1920x1080 | Acer TravelMate P658-M-537B 6200U, HD Graphics 520, IPS, 1920x1080 | Dell Latitude 15 E5570 6300U, HD Graphics 520, TN LED, 1366x768 | HP EliteBook 850 G3 6500U, HD Graphics 520, TN LED, 1920x1080 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power Consumption | -14% | -9% | -51% | -10% | -20% | |
| Idle Minimum * | 3.58 | 3.6 -1% | 3.96 -11% | 6.6 -84% | 4.5 -26% | 5 -40% |
| Idle Average * | 5.97 | 7.7 -29% | 7.74 -30% | 10.4 -74% | 7.6 -27% | 7.8 -31% |
| Idle Maximum * | 6.81 | 8.2 -20% | 8.64 -27% | 12.7 -86% | 8.7 -28% | 8.4 -23% |
| Load Average * | 29.4 | 30.8 -5% | 28.8 2% | 36 -22% | 28.5 3% | 28.8 2% |
| Load Maximum * | 39.7 | 46.1 -16% | 32 19% | 35 12% | 29.2 26% | 43 -8% |
* ... smaller is better
| HP EliteBook 850 G4-Z2W86ET i5-7200U, HD Graphics 620, 51 Wh | Lenovo ThinkPad T570-20H90002GE i5-7200U, HD Graphics 620, 56 Wh | Fujitsu LifeBook U757 i5-7200U, HD Graphics 620, 50 Wh | Acer TravelMate P658-M-537B 6200U, HD Graphics 520, 55 Wh | Dell Latitude 15 E5570 6300U, HD Graphics 520, 62 Wh | HP EliteBook 850 G3 6500U, HD Graphics 520, 46 Wh | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Battery Runtime | 3% | -17% | -16% | 4% | -20% | |
| Reader / Idle | 1081 | 1167 8% | 840 -22% | 1231 14% | 915 -15% | |
| H.264 | 637 | 587 -8% | 571 -10% | 430 -32% | ||
| WiFi v1.3 | 530 | 454 -14% | 440 -17% | 512 -3% | 632 19% | 417 -21% |
| Load | 160 | 201 26% | 123 -23% | 151 -6% | 142 -11% |
Resumir o EliteBook 850 G4 é bastante frustrante. Embora a HP marque todas as caixas de verificação corretas com este aparelho, ainda consegue nos decepcionar no final. A carcaça é sólida e muito bem construída, os dispositivos de entrada são bons (embora não perfeitos), o resfriamento funciona brilhantemente, e a duração da bateria é muito boa, considerando a capacidade da bateria. Em resumo, não há muito o que criticar mais que a ausência do Thunderbolt 3, a manutenção complicada, ou seu alto preço.
Infelizmente, tudo isto é manchado pela tradição da HP de equipar seus portáteis premium com telas TN de má qualidade. Depois de tudo, o modelo que testamos custa mais de 1.400 Euros (~$1491), e inclusive o modelo top que deixará um buraco de 1.700-Euros (~$1811) em seu bolso vem com exatamente a mesma tela. Sim, ela é brilhante, mas fora isso, mostra todas as "qualidades" que você esperaria de um painel TN. A opção UHD IPS listada na folha de especificações, ainda não está disponível na Alemanha.
A HP marca todas as caixas de verificação corretas... exceto uma: o painel TN do EliteBook 850 G4 estraga a muito boa impressão que ele deixou.
É por isso, apesar de todas suas capacidades e qualidades que não podemos recomendar o EliteBook 850 G4. Cinco anos atrás teria sido uma história completamente diferente: antes, quase todos os portáteis empresariais vinham equipados com telas similarmente ruins. No entanto, a HP aprece ser a única que não recebeu o memorando, e os paineis TN estão extintos em portáteis da mesma faixa de preços. Seu principal concorrente oferece paineis IPS Full HD exclusivamente em seus aparelhos empresariais premium, hoje em dia. Inclusive o painel IPS desagradável do ThinkPad T570 derrota facilmente o painel TN do EliteBook, sem mencionar os paineis IPS de alta qualidade, como o do Fujitsu Lifebook U757.
Pro
Contra
Summing up the EliteBook 850 G4 is rather frustrating. While HP does tick all the right boxes with this device, it still manages to disappoint in the end. The case is very well built and sturdy, the input devices are decent (although not perfect), cooling works brilliantly, and battery life is very good considering the battery capacity. All-in-all, there's not much to criticize other than maybe the lack of Thunderbolt 3, the rather intricate maintenance, or its high price.
Unfortunately, all this is overshadowed by HP's tradition of equipping its premium and upscale business laptops with shoddy TN displays. After all, the model we've tested clocks in at slightly over 1,400 Euros (~$1491), and even the top model that will leave a 1,700-Euro (~$1811) dent in your pocket comes with the exact same display. Yes, it's bright, but other than that it shows all the "qualities" you come to expect from a TN panel. The UHD IPS option listed in the laptop's spec sheet is not yet available in Germany.
HP ticks all the right boxes...except for one: the EliteBook 850 G4's TN panel ruins the otherwise very good impression it makes.
This is why, despite all of its capabilities and qualities, we cannot recommend the EliteBook 850 G4. Five years ago it would've been a completely different story: back then almost all business laptops came equipped with similarly poor displays. However, HP seems to be the only one that hasn't gotten the memo, and TN panels are all but extinct in similarly priced laptops. Its main competitors offer Full HD IPS panels exclusively in their premium business devices these days. Even the ThinkPad T570's rather dodgy IPS panel beats the EliteBook's shoddy TN panel hands down, not to mention high-quality IPS panels such as the one in Fujitsu's Lifebook U757.
HP EliteBook 850 G4-Z2W86ET
- 03/25/2017 v6 (old)
Benjamin Herzig
Price comparison
