Breve Análise do Portátil Lenovo ThinkPad E485 (Ryzen 5, Vega 8)
| SD Card Reader | |
| average JPG Copy Test (av. of 3 runs) | |
| HP ProBook 440 G6-5TK01EA (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad E480-20KNCTO1WW (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501) | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad E485-20KU000NGE (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501) | |
| HP ProBook 645 G4 3UP62EA (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501 microSDXC 64GB) | |
| Average of class Office (22.7 - 198.5, n=35, last 2 years) | |
| Dell Latitude 3490 (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
| maximum AS SSD Seq Read Test (1GB) | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad E480-20KNCTO1WW (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501) | |
| HP ProBook 645 G4 3UP62EA (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501 microSDXC 64GB) | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad E485-20KU000NGE (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501) | |
| HP ProBook 440 G6-5TK01EA (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
| Average of class Office (25 - 249, n=31, last 2 years) | |
| Dell Latitude 3490 (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
iluminação: 87 %
iluminação com acumulador: 289 cd/m²
Contraste: 1521:1 (Preto: 0.19 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 5.6 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.91, calibrated: 4.7
ΔE Greyscale 2.7 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
58.5% sRGB (Argyll 1.6.3 3D)
37.2% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 1.6.3 3D)
39.76% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
57.9% sRGB (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
38.48% Display P3 (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
Gamma: 1.96
| Lenovo ThinkPad E485-20KU000NGE B140HAN04.2, , 1920x1080, 14" | Lenovo ThinkPad E480-20KNCTO1WW Innolux N140HCA-EAC, , 1920x1080, 14" | HP ProBook 645 G4 3UP62EA Innolux N140HCA-EAB, , 1920x1080, 14" | Dell Latitude 3490 LP140WF6 / LGD059D, , 1920x1080, 14" | HP ProBook 440 G6-5TK01EA LG Philips, LGD05F1, , 1920x1080, 14" | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Display | 6% | 4% | 2% | -3% | |
| Display P3 Coverage | 39.21 38.48 | 41.56 6% | 40.67 4% | 39.81 2% | 38.08 -3% |
| sRGB Coverage | 58.8 57.9 | 62.2 6% | 61.2 4% | 59.6 1% | 57.2 -3% |
| AdobeRGB 1998 Coverage | 40.52 39.76 | 42.96 6% | 42.03 4% | 41.16 2% | 39.37 -3% |
| Response Times | 4% | 25% | 24% | 13% | |
| Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% * | 44.8 ? | 44.8 ? -0% | 33 ? 26% | 36.4 ? 19% | 41.6 ? 7% |
| Response Time Black / White * | 33.6 ? | 31.2 ? 7% | 26 ? 23% | 24 ? 29% | 27.2 ? 19% |
| PWM Frequency | 25000 ? | 100 ? | |||
| Screen | -20% | -27% | -12% | -12% | |
| Brightness middle | 289 | 262 -9% | 225 -22% | 250 -13% | 256 -11% |
| Brightness | 271 | 245 -10% | 209 -23% | 241 -11% | 238 -12% |
| Brightness Distribution | 87 | 83 -5% | 89 2% | 81 -7% | 85 -2% |
| Black Level * | 0.19 | 0.19 -0% | 0.68 -258% | 0.25 -32% | 0.23 -21% |
| Contrast | 1521 | 1379 -9% | 331 -78% | 1000 -34% | 1113 -27% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 5.6 | 7 -25% | 4.54 19% | 5.5 2% | 6.2 -11% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 20.8 | 23.6 -13% | 7.2 65% | 23.5 -13% | 18.2 12% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 calibrated * | 4.7 | 2.87 39% | 4.8 -2% | 5.2 -11% | |
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 2.7 | 6.4 -137% | 4.14 -53% | 3.5 -30% | 3.8 -41% |
| Gamma | 1.96 112% | 2.14 103% | 2.13 103% | 2.27 97% | 2.5 88% |
| CCT | 6506 100% | 6065 107% | 6624 98% | 7049 92% | 6643 98% |
| Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998) | 37.2 | 39.5 6% | 39 5% | 37.9 2% | 36.1 -3% |
| Color Space (Percent of sRGB) | 58.5 | 61.9 6% | 61 4% | 59.4 2% | 56.9 -3% |
| Total Average (Program / Settings) | -3% /
-11% | 1% /
-15% | 5% /
-5% | -1% /
-7% |
* ... smaller is better
Display Response Times
| ↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
|---|---|---|
| 33.6 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 18 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 15.6 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. » 89 % 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 | ||
| 44.8 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 20.4 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 24.4 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. » 74 % 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 not detected |  | ||
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 | 3550 pontos | |
| PCMark 8 Creative Score Accelerated v2 | 4249 pontos | |
| PCMark 8 Work Score Accelerated v2 | 4870 pontos | |
| PCMark 10 Score | 3321 pontos | |
Ajuda | ||
| Lenovo ThinkPad E485-20KU000NGE Samsung PM961 MZVLW256HEHP | Lenovo ThinkPad E480-20KNCTO1WW Toshiba KBG30ZMT128G | HP ProBook 645 G4 3UP62EA Toshiba XG5 KXG50ZNV256G | Dell Latitude 3490 SK hynix SC311 M.2 | HP ProBook 440 G6-5TK01EA Toshiba XG5 KXG50ZNV512G | Average Samsung PM961 MZVLW256HEHP | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AS SSD | -82% | -47% | -45% | -2% | -59% | |
| Score Total | 2478 | 638 -74% | 1290 -48% | 1006 -59% | 2040 -18% | 2565 ? 4% |
| Score Write | 575 | 182 -68% | 323 -44% | 387 -33% | 669 16% | 587 ? 2% |
| Score Read | 1277 | 324 -75% | 638 -50% | 409 -68% | 954 -25% | 1378 ? 8% |
| Access Time Write * | 0.059 | 0.235 -298% | 0.063 -7% | 0.052 12% | 0.047 20% | 0.4637 ? -686% |
| Access Time Read * | 0.054 | 0.106 -96% | 0.144 -167% | 0.097 -80% | 0.067 -24% | 0.06777 ? -26% |
| 4K-64 Write | 371.5 | 92.1 -75% | 216 -42% | 286.1 -23% | 499.5 34% | 419 ? 13% |
| 4K-64 Read | 1035 | 190.9 -82% | 433.3 -58% | 332.7 -68% | 724 -30% | 1112 ? 7% |
| 4K Write | 63.9 | 78.9 23% | 76.8 20% | 68.9 8% | 119.7 87% | 91.6 ? 43% |
| 4K Read | 38.63 | 31.13 -19% | 25.35 -34% | 27.67 -28% | 31.17 -19% | 45.1 ? 17% |
| Seq Write | 1395 | 115.4 -92% | 305.2 -78% | 318.8 -77% | 493.6 -65% | 960 ? -31% |
| Seq Read | 2030 | 1015 -50% | 1797 -11% | 484.7 -76% | 1983 -2% | 2019 ? -1% |
* ... smaller is better
| 3DMark 11 - 1280x720 Performance GPU | |
| Average of class Office (1468 - 13132, n=89, last 2 years) | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad E485-20KU000NGE | |
| Average AMD Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) (1668 - 4317, n=44) | |
| HP ProBook 645 G4 3UP62EA | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad E485-20KU000NGE | |
| HP ProBook 440 G6-5TK01EA | |
| Dell Latitude 3490 | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad E480-20KNCTO1WW | |
| 3DMark - 1920x1080 Fire Strike Graphics | |
| Average of class Office (736 - 9375, n=91, last 2 years) | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad E485-20KU000NGE | |
| Average AMD Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) (1095 - 2901, n=41) | |
| HP ProBook 645 G4 3UP62EA | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad E485-20KU000NGE | |
| HP ProBook 440 G6-5TK01EA | |
| Dell Latitude 3490 | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad E480-20KNCTO1WW | |
| 3DMark 11 Performance | 2807 pontos | |
| 3DMark Cloud Gate Standard Score | 7035 pontos | |
| 3DMark Fire Strike Score | 1469 pontos | |
Ajuda | ||
| BioShock Infinite - 1920x1080 Ultra Preset, DX11 (DDOF) | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad E480-20KQS00000 | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad E485-20KU000NGE | |
| Average AMD Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) (7.6 - 28, n=30) | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad E485-20KU000NGE | |
| HP ProBook 645 G4 3UP62EA | |
| HP ProBook 440 G6-5TK01EA | |
| Dell Latitude 3490 | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad E480-20KNCTO1WW | |
| Rise of the Tomb Raider | |
| 1024x768 Lowest Preset | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad E485-20KU000NGE | |
| Average AMD Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) (27.7 - 49.3, n=10) | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad E485-20KU000NGE | |
| HP ProBook 645 G4 3UP62EA | |
| HP ProBook 440 G6-5TK01EA | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad E480-20KNCTO1WW | |
| 1920x1080 High Preset AA:FX AF:4x | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad E485-20KU000NGE | |
| Average AMD Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) (5.9 - 15.4, n=11) | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad E485-20KU000NGE | |
| HP ProBook 645 G4 3UP62EA | |
| HP ProBook 440 G6-5TK01EA | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad E480-20KNCTO1WW | |
| baixo | média | alto | ultra | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BioShock Infinite (2013) | 74.4 | 13.26 | ||
| Rise of the Tomb Raider (2016) | 30.4 | 10.8 | ||
| Doom (2016) | 25.1 | 10.4 | ||
| Civilization VI (2016) | 56.3 | 12.4 | ||
| Star Wars Battlefront 2 (2017) | 26.5 | 9.1 |
Barulho
| Ocioso |
| 29.4 / 29.4 / 31.2 dB |
| Carga |
| 32.7 / 35.3 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: 29.4 dB(A) | ||
| Lenovo ThinkPad E485-20KU000NGE Vega 8, R5 2500U, Samsung PM961 MZVLW256HEHP | Lenovo ThinkPad E480-20KNCTO1WW UHD Graphics 620, i5-8250U, Toshiba KBG30ZMT128G | HP ProBook 645 G4 3UP62EA Vega 8, R5 PRO 2500U, Toshiba XG5 KXG50ZNV256G | Dell Latitude 3490 UHD Graphics 620, i5-8250U, SK hynix SC311 M.2 | HP ProBook 440 G6-5TK01EA UHD Graphics 620, i7-8565U, Toshiba XG5 KXG50ZNV512G | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Noise | 2% | -4% | -7% | 2% | |
| off / environment * | 29.4 | 29.1 1% | 30.8 -5% | 29.8 -1% | 29.4 -0% |
| Idle Minimum * | 29.4 | 29.1 1% | 30.8 -5% | 29.8 -1% | 29.4 -0% |
| Idle Average * | 29.4 | 29.1 1% | 30.8 -5% | 29.8 -1% | 29.4 -0% |
| Idle Maximum * | 31.2 | 30.3 3% | 30.8 1% | 29.8 4% | 30.2 3% |
| Load Average * | 32.7 | 31.8 3% | 34.7 -6% | 39.1 -20% | 31.8 3% |
| Load Maximum * | 35.3 | 33.8 4% | 36.4 -3% | 44.3 -25% | 33.1 6% |
* ... smaller is better
(±) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 42.3 °C / 108 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 45.2 °C / 113 F, compared to the average of 36.8 °C / 98 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 26.9 °C / 80 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 25.7 °C / 78.3 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 (+1.9 °C / 3.4 F).
Lenovo ThinkPad E485-20KU000NGE audio analysis
(-) | not very loud speakers (70.5 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 21.5% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (12.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.3% away from median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (8.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 2.8% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (6.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (26.4% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 79% of all tested devices in this class were better, 7% similar, 13% worse
» The best had a delta of 7%, average was 21%, worst was 53%
Compared to all devices tested
» 79% of all tested devices were better, 4% similar, 17% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
HP ProBook 440 G6-5TK01EA 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 (12.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 3.3% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (6.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 5.7% higher than median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (7.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (20.8% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 44% of all tested devices in this class were better, 10% similar, 46% worse
» The best had a delta of 7%, average was 21%, worst was 53%
Compared to all devices tested
» 53% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 39% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
| desligado | 0.43 / 0.57 Watt |
| Ocioso | 6.2 / 8.6 / 9.7 Watt |
| Carga |
37.4 / 44.8 Watt |
   
| |
Key:
min: ,
med: ,
max: Metrahit Energy | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad E485-20KU000NGE R5 2500U, Vega 8, Samsung PM961 MZVLW256HEHP, IPS, 1920x1080, 14" | Lenovo ThinkPad E480-20KNCTO1WW i5-8250U, UHD Graphics 620, Toshiba KBG30ZMT128G, IPS LED, 1920x1080, 14" | HP ProBook 645 G4 3UP62EA R5 PRO 2500U, Vega 8, Toshiba XG5 KXG50ZNV256G, IPS, 1920x1080, 14" | Dell Latitude 3490 i5-8250U, UHD Graphics 620, SK hynix SC311 M.2, IPS LED, 1920x1080, 14" | HP ProBook 440 G6-5TK01EA i7-8565U, UHD Graphics 620, Toshiba XG5 KXG50ZNV512G, IPS, 1920x1080, 14" | Average AMD Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) | Average of class Office | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power Consumption | 29% | -9% | 8% | 24% | -0% | 0% | |
| Idle Minimum * | 6.2 | 3.5 44% | 7.2 -16% | 3.2 48% | 2.98 52% | 5.68 ? 8% | 4.46 ? 28% |
| Idle Average * | 8.6 | 5.3 38% | 9.7 -13% | 5.5 36% | 5.4 37% | 8.75 ? -2% | 7.42 ? 14% |
| Idle Maximum * | 9.7 | 6.1 37% | 10.3 -6% | 8.1 16% | 7.9 19% | 10.1 ? -4% | 8.9 ? 8% |
| Load Average * | 37.4 | 30 20% | 42 -12% | 40.8 -9% | 34.5 8% | 37.8 ? -1% | 42 ? -12% |
| Load Maximum * | 44.8 | 42.3 6% | 44.2 1% | 68.1 -52% | 43.3 3% | 46.2 ? -3% | 61.6 ? -38% |
* ... smaller is better
| Lenovo ThinkPad E485-20KU000NGE R5 2500U, Vega 8, 45 Wh | Lenovo ThinkPad E480-20KNCTO1WW i5-8250U, UHD Graphics 620, 45 Wh | HP ProBook 645 G4 3UP62EA R5 PRO 2500U, Vega 8, 48 Wh | Dell Latitude 3490 i5-8250U, UHD Graphics 620, 56 Wh | HP ProBook 440 G6-5TK01EA i7-8565U, UHD Graphics 620, 45 Wh | Average of class Office | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Battery Runtime | 61% | 1% | 115% | 78% | 102% | |
| Reader / Idle | 545 | 1106 103% | 560 3% | 1024 88% | 1239 ? 127% | |
| H.264 | 341 | 431 26% | 253 -26% | 458 34% | 716 ? 110% | |
| WiFi v1.3 | 323 | 495 53% | 290 -10% | 694 115% | 504 56% | 608 ? 88% |
| Load | 65 | 105 62% | 88 35% | 151 132% | 117.4 ? 81% |
Pro
Contra
O ThinkPad E485 deixa uma impressão um pouco confusa. Olhando para ele por si só, é um sólido portátil empresarial de nível de entrada com uma carcaça robusta, uma tela decente e ótimos dispositivos de entrada. No entanto, se você compará-lo ao ThinkPad E480, o modelo supostamente idêntico com um processador Intel, existem várias diferenças. Estamos falando principalmente da falta da iluminação de fundo do teclado, que não está disponível nem como opção, e também do material plástico na parte superior da unidade base, que é de qualidade um pouco inferior. Às vezes, temos a sensação de que o fabricante quer distanciá-lo artificialmente dos modelos da Intel.
Por outro lado, há, claro, o preço mais baixo do ThinkPad E485 e a maioria dos usuários deve ser capaz de conviver com as diferenças nos materiais. Outra questão é o equipamento um pouco inferior. Embora todos saibam que as GPUs AMD integradas se beneficiam enormemente da RAM de canal duplo, infelizmente todos os modelos pré-configurados estão equipados apenas com um único módulo de RAM. Embora você possa atualizar de forma relativamente fácil, em princípio 8 GB devem ser suficientes para muitos usuários e mais RAM também custa mais. Teria sido melhor se a Lenovo tivesse colocado dois módulos de 4 GB diretamente. Mas o problema mais significativo é provavelmente o maior consumo de energia que leva a uma duração de bateria muito mais curta. Se isso é apenas devido a uma falta de otimização ou a plataforma da AMD simplesmente consome mais energia é uma questão diferente.
Uma oportunidade perdida: Comparado ao seu irmão Intel, o ThinkPad E485 mostra alguns pontos fracos que nada têm a ver com o seu processador AMD. Por exemplo, é incompreensível que os usuários do E485 tenham que se contentar em não ter luz de fundo do teclado. No entanto, quem pode viver com isso e também com a duração da bateria mais curta terá um dispositivo de nível de entrada muito sólido a um preço atraente com o ThinkPad E485.
O ThinkPad E485 também oferece toda uma série de vantagens que não são oferecidas nessa faixa de preço. O processador oferece desempenho mais que suficiente para a maioria das tarefas e, graças ao rápido SSD da Samsung, você pode esperar um dispositivo muito responsivo na operação cotidiana. Além disso, há uma tela IPS decente (no entanto, pode haver algumas pequenas diferenças dependendo do fornecedor). Particularmente para o baixo preço, podemos recomendar o E485 em qualquer caso.
Lenovo ThinkPad E485-20KU000NGE
- 04/05/2019 v6 (old)
Andreas Osthoff
Price comparison
