Breve Análise do Portátil Lenovo ThinkPad A275 (A12-9800B, 256GB)
| SD Card Reader | |
| average JPG Copy Test (av. of 3 runs) | |
| HP EliteBook 820 G3 (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad X260-20F6007RGE (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad X270-20HMS00T00 (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad A275 (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
| HP EliteBook 725 G4 (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
| Lenovo Thinkpad 13-20J1001BUS (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
| maximum AS SSD Seq Read Test (1GB) | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad X270-20HMS00T00 (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
| HP EliteBook 820 G3 (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad X260-20F6007RGE (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad A275 (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
| HP EliteBook 725 G4 (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
| Lenovo Thinkpad 13-20J1001BUS (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
iluminação: 87 %
iluminação com acumulador: 130 cd/m²
Contraste: 490:1 (Preto: 0.52 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 9.76 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.91
ΔE Greyscale 11.13 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
63% sRGB (Argyll 1.6.3 3D)
40% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 1.6.3 3D)
43.48% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
62.8% sRGB (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
42.05% Display P3 (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
Gamma: 2.38
| Lenovo ThinkPad A275 Len40E0, , 1366x768, 12.5" | HP EliteBook 820 G3 LG Philips LGD0498, , 1366x768, 12.5" | Lenovo ThinkPad X260-20F6007RGE Lenovo N125HCE-GN1, , 1920x1080, 12.5" | Lenovo Thinkpad 13-20J1001BUS Lenovo LEN4094, , 1920x1080, 13.3" | HP EliteBook 725 G4 AU Optronics, , 1920x1080, 12.5" | Lenovo ThinkPad X270-20HMS00T00 Innolux N125HCE-GN1, , 1920x1080, 12.5" | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Display | -7% | 6% | -4% | 16% | 6% | |
| Display P3 Coverage | 42.05 | 38.9 -7% | 44.71 6% | 40.57 -4% | 49.16 17% | 44.6 6% 44.6 6% |
| sRGB Coverage | 62.8 | 58.5 -7% | 66.1 5% | 60.7 -3% | 72.3 15% | 65.9 5% 65.9 5% |
| AdobeRGB 1998 Coverage | 43.48 | 40.2 -8% | 46.23 6% | 41.92 -4% | 50.8 17% | 46.11 6% 46.11 6% |
| Response Times | -34% | 1% | -15% | -10% | 1041% | |
| Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% * | 41 ? | 58 ? -41% | 32.8 ? 20% | 32.8 ? 20% | 47 ? -15% | 40.8 ? -0% |
| Response Time Black / White * | 23 ? | 29.2 ? -27% | 27.2 ? -18% | 34.4 ? -50% | 24 ? -4% | 30.4 ? -32% |
| PWM Frequency | 800 ? | 26040 ? 3155% | ||||
| Screen | -4% | 32% | 18% | 61% | 30% | |
| Brightness middle | 255 | 244 -4% | 337 32% | 266.4 4% | 329 29% | 283 11% |
| Brightness | 244 | 240 -2% | 322 32% | 250 2% | 310 27% | 281 15% |
| Brightness Distribution | 87 | 84 -3% | 91 5% | 88 1% | 88 1% | 94 8% |
| Black Level * | 0.52 | 0.6 -15% | 0.32 38% | 0.31 40% | 0.19 63% | 0.25 52% |
| Contrast | 490 | 407 -17% | 1053 115% | 859 75% | 1732 253% | 1132 131% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 9.76 | 9 8% | 5.71 41% | 5.3 46% | 2.69 72% | 6.1 37% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 14.53 | 15.73 -8% | 15.39 -6% | 21 -45% | 4.47 69% | 15.4 -6% |
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 11.13 | 9.48 15% | 5.15 54% | 3.3 70% | 4.23 62% | 6 46% |
| Gamma | 2.38 92% | 2.44 90% | 2.38 92% | 2.36 93% | 2.21 100% | 2.05 107% |
| CCT | 12214 53% | 11116 58% | 6881 94% | 6843 95% | 6011 108% | 6832 95% |
| Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998) | 40 | 37.18 -7% | 42.38 6% | 38 -5% | 46 15% | 42.26 6% |
| Color Space (Percent of sRGB) | 63 | 58.63 -7% | 65.62 4% | 60 -5% | 72 14% | 65.43 4% |
| Total Average (Program / Settings) | -15% /
-9% | 13% /
23% | -0% /
9% | 22% /
42% | 359% /
182% |
* ... smaller is better
Display Response Times
| ↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
|---|---|---|
| 23 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 19 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 4 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. » 48 % 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 | ||
| 41 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 22 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. » 61 % 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 | 800 Hz | ≤ 30 % brightness setting |  |
The display backlight flickers at 800 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 800 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 8705 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 343500) Hz was measured. | |||
| PCMark 8 Home Score Accelerated v2 | 2925 pontos | |
| PCMark 8 Work Score Accelerated v2 | 4156 pontos | |
| PCMark 10 Score | 2312 pontos | |
Ajuda | ||
| Lenovo ThinkPad A275 Samsung PM961 MZVLW256HEHP | HP EliteBook 820 G3 Samsung SM951 MZVPV256HDGL m.2 PCI-e | Lenovo ThinkPad X260-20F6007RGE Liteonit LCH-512V2S | Lenovo Thinkpad 13-20J1001BUS | HP EliteBook 725 G4 Samsung PM961 MZVLW256HEHP | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CrystalDiskMark 3.0 | 106% | 18% | -7% | 12% | |
| Read Seq | 1196 | 1255 5% | 499.6 -58% | 447.3 -63% | 1963 64% |
| Write Seq | 1133 | 1240 9% | 403 -64% | 331.3 -71% | 1409 24% |
| Read 512 | 943 | 1131 20% | 322.9 -66% | 315.7 -67% | 949 1% |
| Write 512 | 870 | 811 -7% | 372.4 -57% | 247.2 -72% | 890 2% |
| Read 4k | 33.82 | 51 51% | 27.22 -20% | 34.46 2% | 29.75 -12% |
| Write 4k | 46.63 | 134.1 188% | 83.6 79% | 76.1 63% | 47.35 2% |
| Read 4k QD32 | 131.5 | 549 317% | 316.5 141% | 235.3 79% | 139.7 6% |
| Write 4k QD32 | 94.9 | 343.9 262% | 273.1 188% | 162.2 71% | 100.2 6% |
| 3DMark - 1280x720 Cloud Gate Standard Graphics | |
| HP Envy x360 15m-bq121dx | |
| Lenovo IdeaPad 320S-13IKB | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad X260-20F6007RGE | |
| HP EliteBook 820 G3 | |
| Lenovo Thinkpad 13-20J1001BUS | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad A275 | |
| HP EliteBook 725 G4 | |
| 3DMark Cloud Gate Standard Score | 3942 pontos | |
Ajuda | ||
| BioShock Infinite - 1280x720 Very Low Preset | |
| HP Envy x360 15m-bq121dx | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad A275 | |
| Rise of the Tomb Raider - 1024x768 Lowest Preset | |
| HP Envy x360 15m-bq121dx | |
| Lenovo IdeaPad 320S-13IKB | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad A275 | |
| Battlefield 4 - 1024x768 Low Preset | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad A275 | |
| baixo | média | alto | ultra | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BioShock Infinite (2013) | 45.4 | 26.9 | 23 | |
| Battlefield 4 (2013) | 29 | 20.1 | 12.6 | |
| Rise of the Tomb Raider (2016) | 21.6 | 13.2 | 7 |
Barulho
| Ocioso |
| 30.15 / 30.4 / 32.4 dB |
| Carga |
| 32.4 / 32.4 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: 30.15 dB(A) | ||
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 38.7 °C / 102 F, compared to the average of 35.9 °C / 97 F, ranging from 21.4 to 59 °C for the class Subnotebook.
(-) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 47 °C / 117 F, compared to the average of 39.4 °C / 103 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 26.5 °C / 80 F, compared to the device average of 30.8 °C / 87 F.
(+) The palmrests and touchpad are cooler than skin temperature with a maximum of 29.3 °C / 84.7 F and are therefore cool to the touch.
(±) The average temperature of the palmrest area of similar devices was 28.3 °C / 82.9 F (-1 °C / -1.8 F).
Lenovo ThinkPad A275 audio analysis
(-) | not very loud speakers (63.7 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 20% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (13.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4% away from median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (13% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 2.5% away from median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (9.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (22.8% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 76% of all tested devices in this class were better, 4% similar, 20% worse
» The best had a delta of 5%, average was 19%, worst was 53%
Compared to all devices tested
» 64% of all tested devices were better, 6% similar, 30% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
HP EliteBook 820 G3 audio analysis
(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (76.5 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 20.2% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (14.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 2% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (5% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 6.7% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (6.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (22.1% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 73% of all tested devices in this class were better, 6% similar, 21% worse
» The best had a delta of 5%, average was 19%, worst was 53%
Compared to all devices tested
» 61% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 33% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Lenovo Thinkpad 13-20J1001BUS audio analysis
(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (75.1 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 16.8% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (14.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 2.1% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (6.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 2.5% away from median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (8.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (18.4% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 29% of all tested devices in this class were better, 7% similar, 64% worse
» The best had a delta of 7%, average was 21%, worst was 53%
Compared to all devices tested
» 37% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 55% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
| desligado | 0.48 / 0.6 Watt |
| Ocioso | 4.2 / 8.2 / 10 Watt |
| Carga |
34.5 / 37 Watt |
   
| |
Key:
min: ,
med: ,
max: Metrahit Energy | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad A275 PRO A12-9800B, Radeon R7 (Bristol Ridge), Samsung PM961 MZVLW256HEHP, TN, 1366x768, 12.5" | HP EliteBook 820 G3 6300U, HD Graphics 520, Samsung SM951 MZVPV256HDGL m.2 PCI-e, TN LED, 1366x768, 12.5" | Lenovo ThinkPad X260-20F6007RGE 6500U, HD Graphics 520, Liteonit LCH-512V2S, IPS, 1920x1080, 12.5" | Lenovo Thinkpad 13-20J1001BUS i3-7100U, HD Graphics 620, , IPS, 1920x1080, 13.3" | HP EliteBook 725 G4 PRO A12-9800B, Radeon R7 (Bristol Ridge), Samsung PM961 MZVLW256HEHP, IPS, 1920x1080, 12.5" | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power Consumption | 21% | 17% | 28% | 12% | |
| Idle Minimum * | 4.2 | 3.5 17% | 3.5 17% | 3.5 17% | 4.5 -7% |
| Idle Average * | 8.2 | 5.4 34% | 5.5 33% | 5.7 30% | 6.3 23% |
| Idle Maximum * | 10 | 6.2 38% | 6.7 33% | 6.2 38% | 8.3 17% |
| Load Average * | 34.5 | 27.3 21% | 28.9 16% | 24.1 30% | 27.6 20% |
| Load Maximum * | 37 | 39.5 -7% | 42.1 -14% | 28.5 23% | 34.5 7% |
* ... smaller is better
| Lenovo ThinkPad A275 PRO A12-9800B, Radeon R7 (Bristol Ridge), 71 Wh | HP EliteBook 820 G3 6300U, HD Graphics 520, 44 Wh | Lenovo ThinkPad X260-20F6007RGE 6500U, HD Graphics 520, 46 Wh | Lenovo Thinkpad 13-20J1001BUS i3-7100U, HD Graphics 620, 42 Wh | HP EliteBook 725 G4 PRO A12-9800B, Radeon R7 (Bristol Ridge), 49 Wh | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Battery Runtime | -29% | -23% | -14% | -35% | |
| Reader / Idle | 961 | 826 -14% | 953 -1% | 989 3% | 700 -27% |
| WiFi v1.3 | 538 | 373 -31% | 501 -7% | 580 8% | 380 -29% |
| Load | 243 | 144 -41% | 92 -62% | 113 -53% | 123 -49% |
| H.264 | 495 | 466 | 344 |
Pro
Contra
O A275 certamente não é um sucessor da série ThinkPad Edge. Embora a qualidade da construção seja um pouco reminiscente da série Edge Edge descontinuada e ficamos muito decepcionados com a falta de rigidez da base, as outras qualidades do A275 foram bastante impressionantes. Isso é, assumindo que você opte pelo painel FHD, caso em que o A275 esteja no mesmo nível de outros subportáteis de gama média, como o ThinkPad 13 ou o X260 .
O que mais nos impressionou são os dispositivos de entrada de classe alta que são 95% semelhantes ao ThinkPad 13 em termos de feedback e layout. A seleção das portas também é excelente, com Ethernet, 3 USB 3.0 Gen. 1, e DisplayPort, além do suporte para a porta USB Type-C. Os recursos de segurança incluem um leitor de digitais, rápido e confiável, um leitor de cartões inteligentes e um chip TPM 2.0.
A maior desvantagem foi, de longe, a tela HD baseada em painel TN. Recomendamos insistentemente que, em vez disso, você opte pelo painel FHD - ele se adequa muito melhor ao preço do que o painel HD.
A manutenção também é um pouco confusa. Enquanto a bateria externa pode ser trocada a quente graças à bateria primária não substituível integrada 23-Wh, o A275 não possui uma escotilha de manutenção dedicada. Toda a carcaça superior deve ser removida para acessar o SSD (M.2), o ventilador ou o único slot de RAM.
Em tudo, o A275 é certamente um cavalo de trabalho decente com qualidades incontestáveis, como a duração da bateria de 9 horas no nosso teste Wi-Fi, seus excelentes dispositivos de entrada, sua infinidade de portas e seus recursos de segurança. No entanto, em mais de $1.000, achamos é um pouco caro, considerando o lento e, neste ponto também desatualizado, SoC AMD Bristol Ridge.
O HP EliteBook 820 G3 equipado com um processador i5-6200U Skylake pode ser adquirido por menos de $1.000, e também o ThinkPad 13 G2 equipado com i5-7200U.
Estamos tendo sérios problemas para encontrar motivos convincentes para comprar este portátil, além do fato de que o EliteBook 725 G4 baseado em Bristol Ridge custa quase o mesmo. No entanto, consideramos que o portátil também é muito caro. Um preço de menos de $1.000 seria mais razoável para superar o desempenho significativamente mais lento.
Lenovo ThinkPad A275
- 12/21/2017 v6 (old)
Sebastian Jentsch
Price comparison
