Breve Análise do Portátil HP Omen 17: Jogos de gama alta com algumas limitações pequenas
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
SD Card Reader | |
average JPG Copy Test (av. of 3 runs) | |
SCHENKER XMG Ultra 17 Turing (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
Average of class Gaming (19 - 202, n=90, last 2 years) | |
HP Omen 17-cb0020ng (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
MSI GE75 9SG (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
maximum AS SSD Seq Read Test (1GB) | |
SCHENKER XMG Ultra 17 Turing (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
Average of class Gaming (25.8 - 269, n=91, last 2 years) | |
HP Omen 17-cb0020ng (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
MSI GE75 9SG (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) |
|
iluminação: 91 %
iluminação com acumulador: 360 cd/m²
Contraste: 1385:1 (Preto: 0.26 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 1.91 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.93, calibrated: 0.78
ΔE Greyscale 2.72 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
96% sRGB (Argyll 1.6.3 3D)
60% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 1.6.3 3D)
65.8% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
96% sRGB (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
63.7% Display P3 (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
Gamma: 2.37
HP Omen 17-cb0020ng CMN175D, IPS, 1920x1080 | MSI GE75 9SG Chi Mei N173HCE-G33, AHVA, 1920x1080 | MSI GT76 Titan DT 9SG Chi Mei N173HCE-G33 (CMN175C), IPS, 1920x1080 | SCHENKER XMG Ultra 17 Turing AU Optronics B173ZAN01.0 (AUO109B), IPS, 3840x2160 | Alienware Area-51m i9-9900K RTX 2080 LG Philips 173WFG, IPS, 1920x1080 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Display | -3% | -2% | 30% | 2% | |
Display P3 Coverage | 63.7 | 61.5 -3% | 62.3 -2% | 86.3 35% | 66.3 4% |
sRGB Coverage | 96 | 92 -4% | 93.4 -3% | 100 4% | 96.9 1% |
AdobeRGB 1998 Coverage | 65.8 | 63.5 -3% | 64.3 -2% | 99.1 51% | 66.5 1% |
Response Times | 34% | 23% | -115% | 15% | |
Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% * | 17.6 ? | 7.2 ? 59% | 8 ? 55% | 41.6 ? -136% | 13.2 ? 25% |
Response Time Black / White * | 11.2 ? | 6.6 ? 41% | 10 ? 11% | 21.6 ? -93% | 10.8 ? 4% |
PWM Frequency | 25510 ? | 26040 ? 2% | 26040 ? 2% | ||
Screen | -2% | -3% | -37% | -36% | |
Brightness middle | 360 | 400.7 11% | 396 10% | 343 -5% | 335.2 -7% |
Brightness | 342 | 372 9% | 373 9% | 328 -4% | 297 -13% |
Brightness Distribution | 91 | 89 -2% | 89 -2% | 82 -10% | 82 -10% |
Black Level * | 0.26 | 0.34 -31% | 0.33 -27% | 0.31 -19% | 0.66 -154% |
Contrast | 1385 | 1179 -15% | 1200 -13% | 1106 -20% | 508 -63% |
Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 1.91 | 1.33 30% | 2.04 -7% | 5.03 -163% | 2.02 -6% |
Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 4.08 | 3.51 14% | 3.85 6% | 7.91 -94% | 7.23 -77% |
Colorchecker dE 2000 calibrated * | 0.78 | 1.39 -78% | 0.82 -5% | 0.86 -10% | 1.17 -50% |
Greyscale dE 2000 * | 2.72 | 1.3 52% | 2.83 -4% | 6.29 -131% | 3.2 -18% |
Gamma | 2.37 93% | 2.24 98% | 2.49 88% | 2.38 92% | 2.16 102% |
CCT | 6692 97% | 6735 97% | 7113 91% | 6389 102% | 6746 96% |
Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998) | 60 | 58.2 -3% | 59 -2% | 88 47% | 61.3 2% |
Color Space (Percent of sRGB) | 96 | 92.1 -4% | 94 -2% | 100 4% | 96.9 1% |
Total Average (Program / Settings) | 10% /
4% | 6% /
1% | -41% /
-34% | -6% /
-23% |
* ... smaller is better
Display Response Times
↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
---|---|---|
11.2 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 6 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. » 27 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (21 ms). | ||
↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey | ||
17.6 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 8.4 ms rise | |
↘ 9.2 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 0.165 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 28 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (32.9 ms). |
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
Screen flickering / PWM detected | 25510 Hz | ≤ 44 % brightness setting | |
The display backlight flickers at 25510 Hz (worst case, e.g., utilizing PWM) Flickering detected at a brightness setting of 44 % and below. There should be no flickering or PWM above this brightness setting. The frequency of 25510 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. |
HP Omen 17-cb0020ng 2x Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB512HAJQ (RAID 0) | MSI GE75 9SG Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB1T0HALR | MSI GT76 Titan DT 9SG 2x Samsung PM961 MZVLW256HEHP (RAID 0) | SCHENKER XMG Ultra 17 Turing Samsung SSD 970 EVO Plus 500GB | Alienware Area-51m i9-9900K RTX 2080 2x SK Hynix PC400 512GB (RAID 0) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CrystalDiskMark 5.2 / 6 | -13% | -11% | 11% | 5% | |
Write 4K | 103.8 | 116.1 12% | 101.4 -2% | 183.2 76% | 111.1 7% |
Read 4K | 41.67 | 44.98 8% | 40.57 -3% | 52.4 26% | 45.47 9% |
Write Seq | 2639 | 2370 -10% | 2229 -16% | 1790 -32% | 2454 -7% |
Read Seq | 2702 | 1465 -46% | 2528 -6% | 1743 -35% | 2212 -18% |
Write 4K Q32T1 | 487.3 | 337.5 -31% | 379.6 -22% | 550 13% | 622 28% |
Read 4K Q32T1 | 555 | 453.6 -18% | 421.9 -24% | 648 17% | 695 25% |
Write Seq Q32T1 | 2967 | 2399 -19% | 2439 -18% | 3236 9% | 2675 -10% |
Read Seq Q32T1 | 3102 | 3087 0% | 3199 3% | 3538 14% | 3184 3% |
3DMark 11 Performance | 25017 pontos | |
3DMark Cloud Gate Standard Score | 44234 pontos | |
3DMark Fire Strike Score | 19351 pontos | |
3DMark Time Spy Score | 9177 pontos | |
Ajuda |
The Witcher 3 - 1920x1080 Ultra Graphics & Postprocessing (HBAO+) | |
Average of class Gaming (18.4 - 216, n=170, last 2 years) | |
Alienware Area-51m i9-9900K RTX 2080 | |
MSI GT76 Titan DT 9SG | |
Average NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Mobile (82.2 - 105, n=16) | |
MSI GE75 9SG | |
SCHENKER XMG Ultra 17 Turing | |
HP Omen 17-cb0020ng |
baixo | média | alto | ultra | |
---|---|---|---|---|
The Witcher 3 (2015) | 173 | 91.7 | ||
Hitman 2 (2018) | 81.2 | 78.5 | ||
Farming Simulator 19 (2018) | 153 | 140 | ||
Just Cause 4 (2018) | 117 | 100 | ||
Apex Legends (2019) | 144 | 144 | ||
Far Cry New Dawn (2019) | 105 | 93 | ||
Metro Exodus (2019) | 81.9 | 67.7 | ||
Anthem (2019) | 102 | 96 | ||
Dirt Rally 2.0 (2019) | 167 | 98.3 | ||
The Division 2 (2019) | 125 | 95 | ||
Anno 1800 (2019) | 78.8 | 45.3 | ||
Rage 2 (2019) | 118 | 117 | ||
F1 2019 (2019) | 153 | 142 |
Barulho
Ocioso |
| 34 / 35 / 36 dB |
HDD |
| 33 dB |
Carga |
| 51 / 51 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 dB(A) |
HP Omen 17-cb0020ng i9-9880H, GeForce RTX 2080 Mobile | MSI GE75 9SG i9-9880H, GeForce RTX 2080 Mobile | MSI GT76 Titan DT 9SG i9-9900K, GeForce RTX 2080 Mobile | SCHENKER XMG Ultra 17 Turing i9-9900K, GeForce RTX 2080 Mobile | Alienware Area-51m i9-9900K RTX 2080 i9-9900K, GeForce RTX 2080 Mobile | Average of class Gaming | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Noise | 5% | -5% | 1% | -1% | 16% | |
off / environment * | 30 | 28.2 6% | 30 -0% | 30 -0% | 28.1 6% | 24 ? 20% |
Idle Minimum * | 34 | 30.4 11% | 33 3% | 30 12% | 28.1 17% | 25.4 ? 25% |
Idle Average * | 35 | 30.4 13% | 34 3% | 33 6% | 28.6 18% | 27.1 ? 23% |
Idle Maximum * | 36 | 33.4 7% | 44 -22% | 35 3% | 51 -42% | 30.1 ? 16% |
Load Average * | 51 | 37.1 27% | 47 8% | 44 14% | 51 -0% | 42.4 ? 17% |
Witcher 3 ultra * | 47 | 54.2 -15% | 53 -13% | 55 -17% | 51 -9% | |
Load Maximum * | 51 | 56.4 -11% | 59 -16% | 58 -14% | 51 -0% | 53.4 ? -5% |
* ... smaller is better
(-) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 47 °C / 117 F, compared to the average of 40.5 °C / 105 F, ranging from 21.2 to 68.8 °C for the class Gaming.
(-) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 54 °C / 129 F, compared to the average of 43.2 °C / 110 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 29.2 °C / 85 F, compared to the device average of 33.9 °C / 93 F.
(-) Playing The Witcher 3, the average temperature for the upper side is 42.6 °C / 109 F, compared to the device average of 33.9 °C / 93 F.
(±) The palmrests and touchpad can get very hot to the touch with a maximum of 38 °C / 100.4 F.
(-) The average temperature of the palmrest area of similar devices was 28.9 °C / 84 F (-9.1 °C / -16.4 F).
HP Omen 17-cb0020ng i9-9880H, GeForce RTX 2080 Mobile | MSI GE75 9SG i9-9880H, GeForce RTX 2080 Mobile | MSI GT76 Titan DT 9SG i9-9900K, GeForce RTX 2080 Mobile | SCHENKER XMG Ultra 17 Turing i9-9900K, GeForce RTX 2080 Mobile | Alienware Area-51m i9-9900K RTX 2080 i9-9900K, GeForce RTX 2080 Mobile | Average of class Gaming | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Heat | -15% | 3% | -1% | -6% | 2% | |
Maximum Upper Side * | 47 | 48.8 -4% | 51 -9% | 45 4% | 47 -0% | 46.2 ? 2% |
Maximum Bottom * | 54 | 52 4% | 57 -6% | 45 17% | 58.8 -9% | 49.2 ? 9% |
Idle Upper Side * | 32 | 36.2 -13% | 26 19% | 36 -13% | 31 3% | 31.1 ? 3% |
Idle Bottom * | 30 | 44.4 -48% | 28 7% | 33 -10% | 35 -17% | 32.2 ? -7% |
* ... smaller is better
HP Omen 17-cb0020ng audio analysis
(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (78 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(±) | reduced bass - on average 13.7% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 2% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (5.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 4.8% away from median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (10.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (15.1% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 30% of all tested devices in this class were better, 6% similar, 63% worse
» The best had a delta of 6%, average was 18%, worst was 132%
Compared to all devices tested
» 18% of all tested devices were better, 4% similar, 78% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
MSI GE75 9SG audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (92.8 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(±) | reduced bass - on average 12.2% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (8.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 6.7% higher than median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (11.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 2.9% 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 (16.5% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 40% of all tested devices in this class were better, 6% similar, 54% worse
» The best had a delta of 6%, average was 18%, worst was 132%
Compared to all devices tested
» 25% of all tested devices were better, 5% similar, 70% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
desligado | 0.1 / 0.1 Watt |
Ocioso | 26 / 29 / 38 Watt |
Carga |
106 / 287 Watt |
Key:
min: ,
med: ,
max: Metrahit Energy |
HP Omen 17-cb0020ng i9-9880H, GeForce RTX 2080 Mobile | MSI GE75 9SG i9-9880H, GeForce RTX 2080 Mobile | MSI GT76 Titan DT 9SG i9-9900K, GeForce RTX 2080 Mobile | SCHENKER XMG Ultra 17 Turing i9-9900K, GeForce RTX 2080 Mobile | Alienware Area-51m i9-9900K RTX 2080 i9-9900K, GeForce RTX 2080 Mobile | Average of class Gaming | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Power Consumption | 19% | 6% | -33% | -22% | 25% | |
Idle Minimum * | 26 | 13.9 47% | 14 46% | 39 -50% | 23.3 10% | 13.5 ? 48% |
Idle Average * | 29 | 18.8 35% | 18 38% | 45 -55% | 33.5 -16% | 19 ? 34% |
Idle Maximum * | 38 | 23.1 39% | 23 39% | 55 -45% | 38.4 -1% | 26.7 ? 30% |
Load Average * | 106 | 112.3 -6% | 114 -8% | 122 -15% | 114.1 -8% | 106.7 ? -1% |
Witcher 3 ultra * | 228 | 231 -1% | 283 -24% | 259 -14% | 339.5 -49% | |
Load Maximum * | 287 | 291.5 -2% | 443 -54% | 346 -21% | 485.1 -69% | 251 ? 13% |
* ... smaller is better
HP Omen 17-cb0020ng i9-9880H, GeForce RTX 2080 Mobile, 70 Wh | MSI GE75 9SG i9-9880H, GeForce RTX 2080 Mobile, 65 Wh | MSI GT76 Titan DT 9SG i9-9900K, GeForce RTX 2080 Mobile, 90 Wh | SCHENKER XMG Ultra 17 Turing i9-9900K, GeForce RTX 2080 Mobile, 82 Wh | Alienware Area-51m i9-9900K RTX 2080 i9-9900K, GeForce RTX 2080 Mobile, 90 Wh | Average of class Gaming | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Battery Runtime | 50% | 34% | -21% | -23% | 84% | |
Reader / Idle | 250 | 409 64% | 165 -34% | 155 -38% | 565 ? 126% | |
WiFi v1.3 | 196 | 294 50% | 302 54% | 135 -31% | 127 -35% | 375 ? 91% |
Load | 63 | 52 -17% | 65 3% | 66 5% | 85.3 ? 35% | |
H.264 | 135 | 408 ? |
Pro
Contra
No final do dia, o HP Omen 17-cb0020ng consegue as melhores avaliações.
Vamos começar com os pontos positivos. Além da relativamente boa relação preço/desempenho em comparação com o concorrente RTX 2080 (concedido, o portátil de 17 polegadas é bastante caro, no entanto), também ficamos impressionados com o design da carcaça. O áudio e a seleção das portas (Thunderbolt 3), bem como a excelente tela de 144-Hz com suporte para G-Sync, todos contribuem em fazer deste dispositivo um bom portátil.
Ficamos menos impressionados com o nível de ruído do sistema durante o uso de aplicativos 3D, as opções de manutenção inferiores e a modesta velocidade da CPU sob carga de vários núcleos. A duração limitada da bateria completa a lista de aspectos bastante decepcionantes.
HP Omen 17-cb0020ng
-
05/14/2020 v7 (old)
Florian Glaser