Breve Análise do Portátil HP EliteBook Folio 1040 G3
HP EliteBook Folio 1040 G3 (EliteBook Folio 1040 Serie)
Processador
Intel Core i5-6300U 2 x 2.4 - 3 GHz, Skylake
Placa gráfica
Intel HD Graphics 520, Análises do: 300 MHz, 20.19.15.4331 WQHL
Memória
16 GB
, DDR4-2133, Dual-Channel, soldada, sem slot RAM
Pantalha
14.00 polegadas 16:9, 2560 x 1440 pixel 210 PPI, AUO1136, IPS, Brilhante: não
placa mãe
Intel Skylake-U Premium PCH
Disco rígido
Samsung SM951 MZVPV256HDGL m.2 PCI-e, 256 GB
peso
1.445 kg, Suprimento de energia: 309 g
Preço
2600 Euro
Links
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
AUO1136 tested with X-Rite i1Pro 2
Máximo: 335 cd/m² (Nits) Médio: 316.3 cd/m² Minimum: 26 cd/m²iluminação: 87 %
iluminação com acumulador: 324 cd/m²
Contraste: 934:1 (Preto: 0.35 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 4.39 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.91
ΔE Greyscale 4.69 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
96.71% sRGB (Argyll 1.6.3 3D)
62.52% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 1.6.3 3D)
70% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
96.8% sRGB (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
67.9% Display P3 (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
Gamma: 2.15
| HP EliteBook Folio 1040 G3 2560x1440, IPS | Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon 20FB003RGE 2560x1440, IPS | Lenovo ThinkPad T460s-20FA003GGE 2560x1440, IPS-Panel | Dell Latitude 14 7000 Series E7470 2560x1440, IPS | HP EliteBook 840 G3 T9X23ET 2560x1440, | HP EliteBook Folio 1040 G2 1920x1080, IPS | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Display | -2% | 1% | -1% | 1% | -2% | |
| Display P3 Coverage | 67.9 | 66.7 -2% | 68.7 1% | 67.2 -1% | 68.2 0% | 66.1 -3% |
| sRGB Coverage | 96.8 | 94.7 -2% | 98.1 1% | 95.9 -1% | 98.3 2% | 94.8 -2% |
| AdobeRGB 1998 Coverage | 70 | 68.4 -2% | 70.4 1% | 69.3 -1% | 70.3 0% | 68.3 -2% |
| Response Times | 7% | 6% | -3% | -7% | ||
| Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% * | 46.4 ? | 44 ? 5% | 35.6 ? 23% | 48 ? -3% | 45 ? 3% | |
| Response Time Black / White * | 26.4 ? | 24 ? 9% | 29.2 ? -11% | 27 ? -2% | 31 ? -17% | |
| PWM Frequency | 220 ? | 220 ? | ||||
| Screen | 6% | -7% | 15% | 6% | 5% | |
| Brightness middle | 327 | 272 -17% | 257 -21% | 380 16% | 355 9% | 274 -16% |
| Brightness | 316 | 268 -15% | 248 -22% | 354 12% | 335 6% | 263 -17% |
| Brightness Distribution | 87 | 95 9% | 94 8% | 81 -7% | 82 -6% | 85 -2% |
| Black Level * | 0.35 | 0.32 9% | 0.26 26% | 0.26 26% | 0.28 20% | 0.21 40% |
| Contrast | 934 | 850 -9% | 988 6% | 1462 57% | 1268 36% | 1305 40% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 4.39 | 2.61 41% | 4.59 -5% | 3.11 29% | 3.75 15% | 3.93 10% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 7.27 | 6.43 12% | 9.72 -34% | 6.73 7% | 8.58 -18% | |
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 4.69 | 3.31 29% | 6.38 -36% | 4.35 7% | 4.84 -3% | 5.28 -13% |
| Gamma | 2.15 102% | 2.35 94% | 2.51 88% | 2.37 93% | 2.33 94% | 2.49 88% |
| CCT | 7101 92% | 6360 102% | 6238 104% | 6771 96% | 7536 86% | 7108 91% |
| Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998) | 62.52 | 63 1% | 65 4% | 62 -1% | 63 1% | 61 -2% |
| Color Space (Percent of sRGB) | 96.71 | 95 -2% | 98 1% | 96 -1% | 98 1% | |
| Total Average (Program / Settings) | 4% /
4% | 0% /
-4% | 4% /
9% | 0% /
3% | 2% /
3% |
* ... smaller is better
Display Response Times
ℹ
Display response times show how fast the screen is able to change from one color to the next. Slow response times can lead to afterimages and can cause moving objects to appear blurry (ghosting). Gamers of fast-paced 3D titles should pay special attention to fast response times.| ↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
|---|---|---|
| 26.4 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 6.8 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 19.6 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. » 62 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (20.9 ms). | ||
| ↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey | ||
| 46.4 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 16.4 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 30 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. » 78 % 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)
ℹ
To dim the screen, some notebooks will simply cycle the backlight on and off in rapid succession - a method called Pulse Width Modulation (PWM) . This cycling frequency should ideally be undetectable to the human eye. If said frequency is too low, users with sensitive eyes may experience strain or headaches or even notice the flickering altogether.| 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. | ||
| PCMark 8 Home Score Accelerated v2 | 3305 pontos | |
| PCMark 8 Creative Score Accelerated v2 | 4058 pontos | |
| PCMark 8 Work Score Accelerated v2 | 4241 pontos | |
Ajuda | ||
| HP EliteBook Folio 1040 G3 Samsung SM951 MZVPV256HDGL m.2 PCI-e | Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon 20FB003RGE Samsung SSD PM871 MZNLN256HCHP | Lenovo ThinkPad T460s-20FA003GGE Samsung SSD SM951a 512GB M.2 PCIe 3.0 x4 NVMe (MZVKV512) | Dell Latitude 14 7000 Series E7470 Samsung SSD PM851 M.2 2280 256GB | HP EliteBook 840 G3 T9X59ET#ABD Samsung SSD PM851 256 GB MZNTE256HMHP | HP EliteBook Folio 1040 G2 Samsung SSD PM851 256 GB MZNTE256HMHP | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CrystalDiskMark 3.0 | -56% | 2% | -54% | -58% | -55% | |
| Write 4k QD32 | 376.7 | 279.2 -26% | 277 -26% | 191.7 -49% | 242.8 -36% | 265.3 -30% |
| Read 4k QD32 | 559 | 339.6 -39% | 561 0% | 400.9 -28% | 388.5 -31% | 393.3 -30% |
| Write 4k | 159.9 | 86.5 -46% | 139.3 -13% | 110.9 -31% | 82.6 -48% | 101.2 -37% |
| Read 4k | 53.3 | 34.05 -36% | 51.3 -4% | 36.32 -32% | 27.02 -49% | 28.4 -47% |
| Write 512 | 1244 | 304.2 -76% | 1506 21% | 214 -83% | 241.8 -81% | 264.6 -79% |
| Read 512 | 1252 | 299.5 -76% | 1339 7% | 470.8 -62% | 396 -68% | 418.9 -67% |
| Write Seq | 1265 | 308.1 -76% | 1530 21% | 300.7 -76% | 241.4 -81% | 264.3 -79% |
| Read Seq | 1649 | 439.3 -73% | 1778 8% | 518 -69% | 497.8 -70% | 499.9 -70% |
Samsung SM951 MZVPV256HDGL m.2 PCI-e
Sequential Read:
1649 MB/s
Sequential Write:
1265 MB/s
512K Read:
1252 MB/s
512K Write:
1244 MB/s
4K Read:
53.3 MB/s
4K Write:
159.9 MB/s
4K QD32 Read:
559 MB/s
4K QD32 Write:
376.7 MB/s
| 3DMark 11 Performance | 1539 pontos | |
| 3DMark Cloud Gate Standard Score | 5471 pontos | |
| 3DMark Fire Strike Score | 842 pontos | |
Ajuda | ||
| baixo | média | alto | ultra | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tomb Raider (2013) | 68 | 34.9 | 23.9 | 11.1 |
| BioShock Infinite (2013) | 47.6 | 27.6 | 22.5 | 6.9 |
| The Witcher 3 (2015) | 9.7 |
Barulho
| Ocioso |
| 29.1 / 29.1 / 29.1 dB |
| Carga |
| 32.6 / 37.8 dB |
 | ||
30 dB silencioso 40 dB(A) audível 50 dB(A) ruidosamente alto |
||
min:  , med:  , max:  ECM8000 + Voltcraft SL-451 (15 cm de distância) environment noise: 29.1 dB(A) | ||
| HP EliteBook Folio 1040 G3 6300U, HD Graphics 520 | Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon 20FB003RGE 6500U, HD Graphics 520 | Lenovo ThinkPad T460s-20FA003GGE 6600U, HD Graphics 520 | Dell Latitude 14 7000 Series E7470 6600U, HD Graphics 520 | HP EliteBook 840 G3 T9X59ET#ABD 6500U, HD Graphics 520 | HP EliteBook Folio 1040 G2 5600U, HD Graphics 5500 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Noise | -2% | -1% | -2% | -8% | -5% | |
| off / environment * | 29.1 | 29.1 -0% | 29.2 -0% | 31.2 -7% | 31.2 -7% | |
| Idle Minimum * | 29.1 | 29.1 -0% | 29.2 -0% | 31.2 -7% | 31.2 -7% | 29.6 -2% |
| Idle Average * | 29.1 | 29.1 -0% | 29.2 -0% | 31.2 -7% | 32.1 -10% | 29.6 -2% |
| Idle Maximum * | 29.1 | 29.1 -0% | 29.2 -0% | 31.2 -7% | 33.1 -14% | 32.2 -11% |
| Load Average * | 32.6 | 35.6 -9% | 33.7 -3% | 31.9 2% | 36.2 -11% | 36.4 -12% |
| Load Maximum * | 37.8 | 38.1 -1% | 38.5 -2% | 31.9 16% | 37.8 -0% | 36.4 4% |
* ... smaller is better
(±) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 36.3 °C / 97 F, compared to the average of 29.5 °C / 85 F for the devices in the class Office.
(±) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 43.2 °C / 110 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 47.1 °C / 117 F, compared to the average of 36.8 °C / 98 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 28.7 °C / 84 F, compared to the device average of 29.5 °C / 85 F.
(+) The palmrests and touchpad are reaching skin temperature as a maximum (34.4 °C / 93.9 F) and are therefore not hot.
(-) The average temperature of the palmrest area of similar devices was 27.6 °C / 81.7 F (-6.8 °C / -12.2 F).
(±) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 43.2 °C / 110 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 47.1 °C / 117 F, compared to the average of 36.8 °C / 98 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 28.7 °C / 84 F, compared to the device average of 29.5 °C / 85 F.
(+) The palmrests and touchpad are reaching skin temperature as a maximum (34.4 °C / 93.9 F) and are therefore not hot.
(-) The average temperature of the palmrest area of similar devices was 27.6 °C / 81.7 F (-6.8 °C / -12.2 F).
| HP EliteBook Folio 1040 G3 6300U, HD Graphics 520 | Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon 20FB003RGE 6500U, HD Graphics 520 | Lenovo ThinkPad T460s-20FA003GGE 6600U, HD Graphics 520 | Dell Latitude 14 7000 Series E7470 6600U, HD Graphics 520 | HP EliteBook 840 G3 T9X59ET#ABD 6500U, HD Graphics 520 | HP EliteBook Folio 1040 G2 5600U, HD Graphics 5500 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Heat | 2% | 10% | 18% | 17% | 11% | |
| Maximum Upper Side * | 43.2 | 43.2 -0% | 40.8 6% | 38.2 12% | 37 14% | 35.9 17% |
| Maximum Bottom * | 47.1 | 45 4% | 40.3 14% | 36.5 23% | 37.1 21% | 42.4 10% |
| Idle Upper Side * | 30.5 | 30.2 1% | 27.6 10% | 25.1 18% | 25.3 17% | 28.5 7% |
| Idle Bottom * | 31.5 | 30.6 3% | 28.7 9% | 25.8 18% | 26.6 16% | 29 8% |
* ... smaller is better
Consumo de energia
| desligado | 0.22 / 0.6 Watt |
| Ocioso | 6.3 / 9.4 / 10.1 Watt |
| Carga |
33.3 / 49.5 Watt |
   
| |
Key:
min: ,
med: ,
max: Metrahit Energy | |
| HP EliteBook Folio 1040 G3 6300U, HD Graphics 520 | Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon 20FB003RGE 6500U, HD Graphics 520 | Lenovo ThinkPad T460s-20FA003GGE 6600U, HD Graphics 520 | Dell Latitude 14 7000 Series E7470 6600U, HD Graphics 520 | HP EliteBook 840 G3 T9X59ET#ABD 6500U, HD Graphics 520 | HP EliteBook Folio 1040 G2 5600U, HD Graphics 5500 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power Consumption | 21% | 17% | 12% | 29% | 35% | |
| Idle Minimum * | 6.3 | 3.8 40% | 3.8 40% | 5.1 19% | 3.8 40% | 3.2 49% |
| Idle Average * | 9.4 | 7.1 24% | 7.1 24% | 8.5 10% | 6.3 33% | 6.5 31% |
| Idle Maximum * | 10.1 | 7.7 24% | 7.8 23% | 10.1 -0% | 6.8 33% | 7.4 27% |
| Load Average * | 33.3 | 30.2 9% | 36.3 -9% | 35.2 -6% | 34.4 -3% | 25.6 23% |
| Load Maximum * | 49.5 | 44.7 10% | 46 7% | 31 37% | 28.3 43% | 26.1 47% |
* ... smaller is better
| HP EliteBook Folio 1040 G3 45.6 Wh | Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon 20FB003RGE 52 Wh | Lenovo ThinkPad T460s-20FA003GGE 49 Wh | Dell Latitude 14 7000 Series E7470 55 Wh | HP EliteBook 840 G3 T9X59ET#ABD 46 Wh | HP EliteBook Folio 1040 G2 42 Wh | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Battery Runtime | 39% | 8% | -2% | 50% | 34% | |
| Reader / Idle | 530 | 942 78% | 833 57% | 1020 92% | 901 70% | |
| H.264 | 339 | 510 50% | 397 17% | |||
| WiFi v1.3 | 309 | 429 39% | 340 10% | 346 12% | 453 47% | 452 46% |
| Load | 131 | 115 -12% | 62 -53% | 112 -15% | 146 11% | 112 -15% |
Pro
+ Ótimo painel WQHD sem PWM
+ Qualidade de construção muito boa
+ Fino e leve
+ Teclado muito bom
+ LTE integrado + dados móveis grátis
+ Adaptador para VGA/Ethernet incluído
+ Muito bom desempenho
Contra
- Durações medíocres da bateria
- Sem leitor de cartões SD
- Sem suporte para Thunderbolt 3
- Preço
O HP EliteBook Folio 1040 G3 certamente não é uma revolução, mas isto não era necessário quando considerar o bom predecessor. Ainda estamos impressionados pela carcaça, embora a estabilidade no lado direito do teclado deveria ser melhorada. As portas foram atualizadas, mas a HP perde um pouco de potencial com a porta USB-C (sem Thunderbolt 3). Outra melhoria é o teclado com um deslocamento maior, que também é adequado para os escritores frequentes. Gostamos muito do painel WQHD brilhante e mate, que é controlado sem PWM, bem como o cartão SIM com dados grátis.
O HP EliteBook Folio 1040 G3 é, sem dúvida, um ótimo portátil, mas tem dificuldade em justificar o preço adicional sobre a concorrência mais forte.
O maior consumo de energia tem um efeito notório sobre as durações da bateria. Nosso teste Wi-Fi realista determina 2,5 horas a menos em comparação com o predecessor. Ainda não recomendaríamos o painel Full HD, porque se baseia na tecnologia TN de acordo com a folha de especificações. Também há alguns problemas menores como o barulho da ventoinha ou a ausência do leitor de cartões SD. O período de garantia também é limitado para apenas um ano e você terá que investir outros 140 Euros (~$160) para ter acesso aos habituais 3 anos.
Isto nos traz para o maior problema: o preço. Em cerca de 2.600 Euros (~$2976), o Folio 1040 G3 é muito mais caro que seus rivais, mas eles também não são muito piores. Não há motivos contra o Folio se o preço não for importante, mas alguns dos rivais oferecem uma melhor razão de preço-desempenho.
Esta é uma versão reduzida da análise original. Você pode ler a análise completa em inglês aqui.
HP EliteBook Folio 1040 G3
- 04/21/2016 v5.1 (old)
Andreas Osthoff
Office - Médio equilibrado
Price comparison
