Deutsch
English
Español
Français
Italiano
Nederlands
Polski
Русский
Türkçe
Svenska
Chinese
MagyarBreve Análise do Portátil HP Pavilion 14 (i7-8550U, MX150)
| SD Card Reader | |
| average JPG Copy Test (av. of 3 runs) | |
| HP Spectre x360 15-ch011nr (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
| Average of class Multimedia (18.4 - 201, n=61, last 2 years) | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad T480s-20L8S02E00 (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
| HP Pavilion 14-ce0002ng (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
| HP Pavilion 15-cw0003ng (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
| Asus Zenbook UX430UN (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
| Lenovo IdeaPad 530s-14IKB (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
| maximum AS SSD Seq Read Test (1GB) | |
| HP Spectre x360 15-ch011nr (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
| Average of class Multimedia (25.8 - 266, n=60, last 2 years) | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad T480s-20L8S02E00 (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
| Asus Zenbook UX430UN (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
| HP Pavilion 14-ce0002ng (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
| HP Pavilion 15-cw0003ng (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
| Lenovo IdeaPad 530s-14IKB (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
iluminação: 88 %
iluminação com acumulador: 205 cd/m²
Contraste: 885:1 (Preto: 0.27 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 5.3 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.92, calibrated: 3.64
ΔE Greyscale 5.85 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
59% sRGB (Argyll 1.6.3 3D)
38% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 1.6.3 3D)
40.96% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
59.3% sRGB (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
39.64% Display P3 (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
Gamma: 2.45
| HP Pavilion 14-ce0002ng BOE072C, , 1920x1080, 14" | HP Pavilion 15-cw0003ng AU Optronics AUO23ED, , 1920x1080, 15.6" | Huawei MateBook X Pro, i7 JDI LPM139M422A, , 3000x2000, 13.9" | Lenovo IdeaPad 530s-14IKB AUO B140QAN02.3, , 2560x1440, 14" | Lenovo ThinkPad T480s-20L8S02E00 LP140QH2-SPB1, , 2560x1440, 14" | Asus Zenbook UX430UN NV140FHM-N62, BOE0718, , 1920x1080, 14" | HP Spectre x360 15-ch011nr BOE0730, , 3840x2160, 15.6" | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Display | -7% | 65% | 63% | 73% | 52% | 63% | |
| Display P3 Coverage | 39.64 | 36.7 -7% | 65.8 66% | 65.5 65% | 71.4 80% | 64.6 63% | 68.5 73% |
| sRGB Coverage | 59.3 | 55 -7% | 97.7 65% | 96.2 62% | 96.6 63% | 84.8 43% | 90.7 53% |
| AdobeRGB 1998 Coverage | 40.96 | 37.91 -7% | 67.5 65% | 66.1 61% | 72.1 76% | 62 51% | 66.3 62% |
| Response Times | 8% | 7% | -24% | 10% | -12% | 129% | |
| Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% * | 40 ? | 40 ? -0% | 42 ? -5% | 58.4 ? -46% | 36 ? 10% | 43.6 ? -9% | 38 ? 5% |
| Response Time Black / White * | 31 ? | 26 ? 16% | 25 ? 19% | 31.2 ? -1% | 28 ? 10% | 39.2 ? -26% | 27.6 ? 11% |
| PWM Frequency | 200 ? | 200 ? 0% | 943 ? 372% | ||||
| Screen | -3% | 64% | 24% | 31% | 21% | 14% | |
| Brightness middle | 239 | 186 -22% | 550 130% | 311 30% | 311 30% | 310.4 30% | 329.3 38% |
| Brightness | 223 | 180 -19% | 512 130% | 293 31% | 302 35% | 303 36% | 316 42% |
| Brightness Distribution | 88 | 88 0% | 88 0% | 85 -3% | 91 3% | 89 1% | 84 -5% |
| Black Level * | 0.27 | 0.15 44% | 0.32 -19% | 0.2 26% | 0.36 -33% | 0.31 -15% | 0.31 -15% |
| Contrast | 885 | 1240 40% | 1719 94% | 1555 76% | 864 -2% | 1001 13% | 1062 20% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 5.3 | 5.94 -12% | 2.28 57% | 6 -13% | 3 43% | 4.07 23% | 4.78 10% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 10.03 | 10.81 -8% | 4.36 57% | 11.6 -16% | 6.1 39% | 8.33 17% | 11.75 -17% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 calibrated * | 3.64 | 6.07 -67% | 0.8 78% | 1.6 56% | 1.7 53% | 4.07 -12% | 3.51 4% |
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 5.85 | 4.44 24% | 3.27 44% | 8.7 -49% | 4 32% | 2.8 52% | 7.9 -35% |
| Gamma | 2.45 90% | 2.81 78% | 2.35 94% | 2.19 100% | 2.17 101% | 2.217 99% | 2.24 98% |
| CCT | 7169 91% | 6272 104% | 6819 95% | 8426 77% | 6961 93% | 7033 92% | 8323 78% |
| Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998) | 38 | 35 -8% | 62 63% | 60.9 60% | 66.7 76% | 55.3 46% | 58.8 55% |
| Color Space (Percent of sRGB) | 59 | 55 -7% | 98 66% | 96 63% | 96.7 64% | 84.6 43% | 90.4 53% |
| Total Average (Program / Settings) | -1% /
-3% | 45% /
57% | 21% /
25% | 38% /
36% | 20% /
21% | 69% /
43% |
* ... smaller is better
Display Response Times
| ↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
|---|---|---|
| 31 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 18 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 13 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. » 82 % 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 | ||
| 40 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 21 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 19 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. » 57 % 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 | 200 Hz | ≤ 90 % brightness setting |  |
The display backlight flickers at 200 Hz (worst case, e.g., utilizing PWM) Flickering detected at a brightness setting of 90 % and below. There should be no flickering or PWM above this brightness setting. The frequency of 200 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 8746 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 343500) Hz was measured. | |||
| PCMark 8 Home Score Accelerated v2 | 3379 pontos | |
| PCMark 8 Work Score Accelerated v2 | 4456 pontos | |
Ajuda | ||
| HP Pavilion 14-ce0002ng SanDisk X600 SD9SN8W-128G | Huawei MateBook X Pro, i7 Toshiba XG5 KXG50ZNV512G | Lenovo IdeaPad 530s-14IKB SK Hynix PC401 512GB M.2 (HFS512GD9TNG) | Lenovo ThinkPad T480s-20L8S02E00 Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB512HAJQ | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CrystalDiskMark 3.0 | 103% | 138% | 446% | |
| Read Seq | 508 | 1317 159% | 1360 168% | 2588 409% |
| Write Seq | 202.4 | 459.9 127% | 733 262% | 1858 818% |
| Read 512 | 309.6 | 628 103% | 769 148% | 1799 481% |
| Write 512 | 158.2 | 461.4 192% | 642 306% | 1863 1078% |
| Read 4k | 33.15 | 33.79 2% | 39.83 20% | 62.7 89% |
| Write 4k | 68.7 | 117.5 71% | 100 46% | 146.8 114% |
| Read 4k QD32 | 262.1 | 360 37% | 330.3 26% | 446.6 70% |
| Write 4k QD32 | 116.4 | 273.6 135% | 260.2 124% | 706 507% |
| 3DMark 11 Performance | 3130 pontos | |
| 3DMark Cloud Gate Standard Score | 12943 pontos | |
| 3DMark Fire Strike Score | 3215 pontos | |
Ajuda | ||
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | |
| 1280x720 Lowest Preset | |
| Average of class Multimedia (56 - 204, n=9, last 2 years) | |
| Average NVIDIA GeForce MX150 (30 - 50, n=5) | |
| HP Pavilion 14-ce0002ng | |
| 1920x1080 Medium Preset | |
| Average of class Multimedia (25 - 150, n=13, last 2 years) | |
| Average NVIDIA GeForce MX150 (11 - 18, n=5) | |
| HP Pavilion 14-ce0002ng | |
| 1920x1080 High Preset AA:SM | |
| Average of class Multimedia (23 - 146, n=15, last 2 years) | |
| Average NVIDIA GeForce MX150 (9 - 15, n=5) | |
| HP Pavilion 14-ce0002ng | |
| Final Fantasy XV Benchmark | |
| 1280x720 Lite Quality | |
| Average of class Multimedia (19 - 225, n=67, last 2 years) | |
| Average NVIDIA GeForce MX150 (23 - 36.9, n=7) | |
| Asus Zenbook UX430UN | |
| HP Pavilion 14-ce0002ng | |
| 1920x1080 Standard Quality | |
| Average of class Multimedia (9.75 - 162.4, n=78, last 2 years) | |
| Average NVIDIA GeForce MX150 (12 - 17.4, n=6) | |
| Asus Zenbook UX430UN | |
| HP Pavilion 14-ce0002ng | |
| 1920x1080 High Quality | |
| Average of class Multimedia (6.53 - 141.8, n=81, last 2 years) | |
| Average NVIDIA GeForce MX150 (7 - 10.9, n=5) | |
| Asus Zenbook UX430UN | |
| baixo | média | alto | ultra | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Final Fantasy XV Benchmark (2018) | 23 | 12 | ||
| Far Cry 5 (2018) | 31 | 12 | 10 | 9 |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider (2018) | 33 | 13 | 11 |
Barulho
| Ocioso |
| 32.7 / 32.7 / 32.7 dB |
| HDD |
| 33.4 dB |
| Carga |
| 42.9 / 45 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: 30.5 dB(A) | ||
(-) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 49.2 °C / 121 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 47 °C / 117 F, compared to the average of 39.2 °C / 103 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 21.8 °C / 71 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 31.3 °C / 88.3 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 (-2.5 °C / -4.5 F).
HP Pavilion 14-ce0002ng audio analysis
(-) | not very loud speakers (69.9 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 26.7% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (12.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 2.3% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (6.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 1.5% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (2.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (20.6% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 67% of all tested devices in this class were better, 9% similar, 24% worse
» The best had a delta of 5%, average was 18%, worst was 45%
Compared to all devices tested
» 51% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 41% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Huawei MateBook X Pro, i7 audio analysis
(-) | not very loud speakers (70.2 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(±) | reduced bass - on average 12.1% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (13.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.1% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (6.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 2.3% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (4.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (16.2% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 37% of all tested devices in this class were better, 4% similar, 59% worse
» The best had a delta of 5%, average was 19%, worst was 53%
Compared to all devices tested
» 23% of all tested devices were better, 5% similar, 72% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Lenovo IdeaPad 530s-14IKB audio analysis
(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (78.1 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 17.2% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (14.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 2.4% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (6.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 3.6% away from median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (8.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (16.8% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 40% of all tested devices in this class were better, 8% similar, 52% worse
» The best had a delta of 5%, average was 19%, worst was 53%
Compared to all devices tested
» 26% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 67% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Lenovo ThinkPad T480s-20L8S02E00 audio analysis
(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (78.9 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 19.4% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (12.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 6.5% higher than median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (9.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 3.5% 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 (22.1% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 53% of all tested devices in this class were better, 9% similar, 37% worse
» The best had a delta of 7%, average was 22%, worst was 53%
Compared to all devices tested
» 60% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 33% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
| desligado | 0.18 / 0.4 Watt |
| Ocioso | 6.3 / 8.4 / 10.2 Watt |
| Carga |
59 / 66.3 Watt |
   
| |
Key:
min: ,
med: ,
max: Metrahit Energy | |
| HP Pavilion 14-ce0002ng i5-8550U, GeForce MX150, SanDisk X600 SD9SN8W-128G, IPS, 1920x1080, 14" | Huawei MateBook X Pro, i7 i5-8550U, GeForce MX150, Toshiba XG5 KXG50ZNV512G, LTPS, 3000x2000, 13.9" | Lenovo IdeaPad 530s-14IKB i5-8550U, GeForce MX150, SK Hynix PC401 512GB M.2 (HFS512GD9TNG), IPS, 2560x1440, 14" | Lenovo ThinkPad T480s-20L8S02E00 i5-8550U, GeForce MX150, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB512HAJQ, IPS LED, 2560x1440, 14" | Asus Zenbook UX430UN i5-8550U, GeForce MX150, SanDisk SD8SN8U512G1002, IPS, 1920x1080, 14" | HP Spectre x360 15-ch011nr i5-8550U, GeForce MX150, SK hynix PC401 NVMe 500 GB, IPS, 3840x2160, 15.6" | Average NVIDIA GeForce MX150 | Average of class Multimedia | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power Consumption | 19% | 23% | 10% | 29% | -14% | 10% | -36% | |
| Idle Minimum * | 6.3 | 4.7 25% | 3.9 38% | 3.4 46% | 3 52% | 5.3 16% | 4.48 ? 29% | 6.85 ? -9% |
| Idle Average * | 8.4 | 8.7 -4% | 5.76 31% | 7.5 11% | 5.8 31% | 9.8 -17% | 7.88 ? 6% | 11.4 ? -36% |
| Idle Maximum * | 10.2 | 9.8 4% | 7.14 30% | 10.8 -6% | 6.2 39% | 12.6 -24% | 9.76 ? 4% | 13.5 ? -32% |
| Load Average * | 59 | 39.4 33% | 50.8 14% | 55.4 6% | 54.1 8% | 73 -24% | 54.7 ? 7% | 72 ? -22% |
| Load Maximum * | 66.3 | 40.4 39% | 65.8 1% | 70.3 -6% | 56.4 15% | 80 -21% | 63.5 ? 4% | 118.6 ? -79% |
| Witcher 3 ultra * | 34 | 45.9 | 67.6 |
* ... smaller is better
| HP Pavilion 14-ce0002ng i5-8550U, GeForce MX150, 41 Wh | Huawei MateBook X Pro, i7 i5-8550U, GeForce MX150, 57 Wh | Lenovo IdeaPad 530s-14IKB i5-8550U, GeForce MX150, 45 Wh | Lenovo ThinkPad T480s-20L8S02E00 i5-8550U, GeForce MX150, 57 Wh | Asus Zenbook UX430UN i5-8550U, GeForce MX150, 50 Wh | HP Spectre x360 15-ch011nr i5-8550U, GeForce MX150, 84 Wh | Average of class Multimedia | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Battery Runtime | 25% | 5% | 27% | 11% | 20% | 50% | |
| Reader / Idle | 797 | 1160 46% | 881 11% | 1366 71% | 1039 30% | 927 16% | 1146 ? 44% |
| H.264 | 350 | 428 22% | 550 57% | 821 ? 135% | |||
| WiFi v1.3 | 414 | 506 22% | 520 26% | 530 28% | 560 35% | 625 51% | 627 ? 51% |
| Load | 145 | 157 8% | 85 -41% | 76 -48% | 98 -32% | 135 -7% | 98.6 ? -32% |
Pro
Contra
O novo HP Pavilion 14 é um dispositivo multimídia acessível, porém elegante, que é impulsionado por um processador Intel Core i7-8550U e uma GPU Nvidia GeForce MX150. Nosso dispositivo de teste tem desempenho de sistema aceitável, exceto pelo seu SSD lento da SanDisk. Positivamente, o dispositivo também não possui afogamento térmico. Apesar disso, o Pavilion 14 não pode competir com outros dispositivos equipados com GeForce MX150 no desempenho gráfico; o IdeaPad 530s alcançou taxas de quadros até 50% melhores em benchmarks de jogos, por exemplo.
Indiscutivelmente, nossa maior crítica ao novo HP Pavilion 14 é a sua tela. Uma combinação de um acabamento mate e uma luminosidade máxima de 239 cd/m² torna o dispositivo inutilizável em exteriores num dia de sol.
Além disso, nosso dispositivo de teste tem um gerenciamento térmico ruim. O Pavilion 14 esquenta muito para um portátil multimídia, especialmente devido ao seu modesto desempenho em jogos e gráficos. Da mesma forma, o ventilador fica incrivelmente alto, mas não consegue resfriar o suficiente o dispositivo. No geral, o sistema de resfriamento é inadequado para um Core i7-8550U e uma GeForce MX150.
O Pavilion 14 é mais adequado para aplicativos do dia a dia e trabalho de escritório. O dispositivo terá desempenho suficiente para a maioria das tarefas e ficará esteticamente melhor do que muitos de seus concorrentes. Dito isso, recomendamos que você dê uma olhada no Pavilion 15 impulsionado por uma AMD Ryzen 5 2500U, que possui uma tela melhor e um resfriamento mais eficiente. Também custa 200 Euros (~$231) a menos, embora você deva renunciar a uma GPU dedicada e ajustar-se ao desempenho mais fraco do sistema.
HP Pavilion 14-ce0002ng
- 10/07/2018 v6 (old)
Daniel Puschina
Price comparison
