Breve Análise do Portátil Lenovo ThinkPad E590 (i7-8565U, UHD 620, FHD)
| SD Card Reader | |
| average JPG Copy Test (av. of 3 runs) | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad E590-20NC0003GE (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501 64 GB UHS-II) | |
| HP ProBook 450 G6-5TJ93EA (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
| Average of class Office (22.7 - 198.5, n=33, last 2 years) | |
| Acer TravelMate P2510-G2-MG-50WE (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
| Toshiba Tecra A50-E-110 (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
| maximum AS SSD Seq Read Test (1GB) | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad E590-20NC0003GE (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501 64 GB UHS-II) | |
| HP ProBook 450 G6-5TJ93EA (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
| Average of class Office (25 - 249, n=30, last 2 years) | |
| Toshiba Tecra A50-E-110 (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
| Acer TravelMate P2510-G2-MG-50WE (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
| Networking | |
| iperf3 transmit AX12 | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad E590-20NC0003GE | |
| HP ProBook 450 G6-5TJ93EA | |
| Acer TravelMate P2510-G2-MG-50WE | |
| Toshiba Tecra A50-E-110 | |
| iperf3 receive AX12 | |
| HP ProBook 450 G6-5TJ93EA | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad E590-20NC0003GE | |
| Acer TravelMate P2510-G2-MG-50WE | |
| Toshiba Tecra A50-E-110 | |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
iluminação: 90 %
iluminação com acumulador: 251 cd/m²
Contraste: 1270:1 (Preto: 0.2 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 5.6 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.92, calibrated: 4.9
ΔE Greyscale 3.1 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
57.1% sRGB (Argyll 1.6.3 3D)
36.3% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 1.6.3 3D)
39.47% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
57.5% sRGB (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
38.21% Display P3 (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
Gamma: 2.22
| Lenovo ThinkPad E590-20NC0003GE LP156WFC-SPDB, , 1920x1080, 15.6" | HP ProBook 450 G6-5TJ93EA Chi Mei CMN15FE, , 1920x1080, 15.6" | Acer TravelMate P2510-G2-MG-50WE Chi Mei CMN15D3, , 1920x1080, 15.6" | Toshiba Tecra A50-E-110 TOS508F, , 1920x1080, 15.6" | Lenovo ThinkPad E580-20KSCTO1WW BOE NV156FHM-N49, , 1920x1080, 15.6" | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Display | 12% | 11% | 59% | 3% | |
| Display P3 Coverage | 38.21 | 42.83 12% | 42.27 11% | 65 70% | 39.83 4% |
| sRGB Coverage | 57.5 | 64.2 12% | 63.5 10% | 85.9 49% | 58.5 2% |
| AdobeRGB 1998 Coverage | 39.47 | 44.29 12% | 43.69 11% | 62.8 59% | 41.15 4% |
| Response Times | 13% | -8% | -10% | -29% | |
| Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% * | 40 ? | 34.4 ? 14% | 40 ? -0% | 44 ? -10% | 48.4 ? -21% |
| Response Time Black / White * | 27.6 ? | 24.4 ? 12% | 32 ? -16% | 30 ? -9% | 37.6 ? -36% |
| PWM Frequency | 26040 ? | 25000 ? | 20000 ? | 22030 ? | |
| Screen | 2% | 18% | 3% | -7% | |
| Brightness middle | 254 | 242 -5% | 259 2% | 290 14% | 292 15% |
| Brightness | 251 | 226 -10% | 230 -8% | 249 -1% | 272 8% |
| Brightness Distribution | 90 | 88 -2% | 82 -9% | 78 -13% | 84 -7% |
| Black Level * | 0.2 | 0.21 -5% | 0.19 5% | 0.38 -90% | 0.3 -50% |
| Contrast | 1270 | 1152 -9% | 1363 7% | 763 -40% | 973 -23% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 5.6 | 4.7 16% | 3.13 44% | 4.35 22% | 5.8 -4% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 15.4 | 18.5 -20% | 7.81 49% | 11.06 28% | 22.4 -45% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 calibrated * | 4.9 | 4 18% | 3.09 37% | ||
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 3.1 | 2.7 13% | 1.42 54% | 3.01 3% | 2.3 26% |
| Gamma | 2.22 99% | 2.26 97% | 2.36 93% | 2.44 90% | 2.12 104% |
| CCT | 6450 101% | 6442 101% | 6391 102% | 7198 90% | 6223 104% |
| Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998) | 36.3 | 40.8 12% | 40 10% | 56 54% | 37.6 4% |
| Color Space (Percent of sRGB) | 57.1 | 64 12% | 63 10% | 86 51% | 58 2% |
| Total Average (Program / Settings) | 9% /
5% | 7% /
14% | 17% /
12% | -11% /
-8% |
* ... smaller is better
Display Response Times
| ↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
|---|---|---|
| 27.6 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 16.8 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 10.8 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. » 67 % 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 | ↗ 21.2 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 18.8 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 not detected |  | ||
In comparison: 53 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 8743 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 343500) Hz was measured. | |||
| PCMark 8 Home Score Accelerated v2 | 2577 pontos | |
| PCMark 8 Work Score Accelerated v2 | 3596 pontos | |
| PCMark 10 Score | 2486 pontos | |
Ajuda | ||
| Lenovo ThinkPad E590-20NC0003GE Toshiba KBG30ZMT512G | HP ProBook 450 G6-5TJ93EA Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB512HAJQ | Acer TravelMate P2510-G2-MG-50WE SK Hynix HFS256G39TND-N210A | Toshiba Tecra A50-E-110 Samsung SSD PM871b MZNLN256HAJQ | Lenovo ThinkPad E580-20KSCTO1WW Toshiba KBG30ZMT128G | Average Toshiba KBG30ZMT512G | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CrystalDiskMark 5.2 / 6 | 160% | 1% | 12% | -7% | 42% | |
| Write Seq | 624 | 1669 167% | 257.1 -59% | 505 -19% | 131.1 -79% | 624 ? 0% |
| Read Seq | 835 | 2224 166% | 476.3 -43% | 528 -37% | 910 9% | 838 ? 0% |
| Write 4K Q32T1 | 87.4 | 410.4 370% | 202.6 132% | 204.9 134% | 122.1 40% | 163.4 ? 87% |
| Read 4K Q32T1 | 135.9 | 338.1 149% | 282 108% | 226.6 67% | 199.3 47% | 366 ? 169% |
| Write Seq Q32T1 | 784 | 1979 152% | 265.6 -66% | 533 -32% | 133 -83% | 763 ? -3% |
| Read Seq Q32T1 | 1623 | 3368 108% | 559 -66% | 551 -66% | 935 -42% | 1606 ? -1% |
| Write 4K | 53.4 | 126.1 136% | 71.8 34% | 80.1 50% | 81.8 53% | 81.5 ? 53% |
| Read 4K | 33.03 | 43.92 33% | 21.23 -36% | 32.05 -3% | 33.33 1% | 42.6 ? 29% |
| 3DMark 11 - 1280x720 Performance GPU | |
| Average of class Office (1468 - 13132, n=88, last 2 years) | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad E580-20KS001RGE | |
| HP ProBook 450 G6-5TJ93EA | |
| Acer TravelMate P2510-G2-MG-50WE | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad E590-20NC0003GE | |
| Average Intel UHD Graphics 620 (1144 - 3432, n=244) | |
| Toshiba Tecra A50-E-110 | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad E580-20KSCTO1WW | |
| 3DMark 11 Performance | 1989 pontos | |
| 3DMark Cloud Gate Standard Score | 6847 pontos | |
| 3DMark Fire Strike Score | 1068 pontos | |
Ajuda | ||
| baixo | média | alto | ultra | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BioShock Infinite (2013) | 62.5 | 32.4 | 26.3 | 8.4 |
| The Witcher 3 (2015) | 16.6 | |||
| Rise of the Tomb Raider (2016) | 21.5 |
Barulho
| Ocioso |
| 29.3 / 29.3 / 29.3 dB |
| Carga |
| 30.6 / 30.6 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: 29.3 dB(A) | ||
(±) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 43.8 °C / 111 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 43.9 °C / 111 F, compared to the average of 36.8 °C / 98 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 24.1 °C / 75 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 23.5 °C / 74.3 F and are therefore cool to the touch.
(+) The average temperature of the palmrest area of similar devices was 27.7 °C / 81.9 F (+4.2 °C / 7.6 F).
Lenovo ThinkPad E590-20NC0003GE audio analysis
(-) | not very loud speakers (70 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 19.7% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (13.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.1% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (6.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 3.5% away from median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (14.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (24.7% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 70% of all tested devices in this class were better, 8% similar, 22% worse
» The best had a delta of 7%, average was 22%, worst was 53%
Compared to all devices tested
» 72% of all tested devices were better, 6% similar, 22% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
HP ProBook 450 G6-5TJ93EA audio analysis
(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (74.4 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 21.8% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 5.7% higher than median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (7.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 5.1% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (4.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (27.1% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 83% of all tested devices in this class were better, 6% similar, 11% worse
» The best had a delta of 7%, average was 22%, worst was 53%
Compared to all devices tested
» 81% of all tested devices were better, 4% similar, 15% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
| desligado | 0.63 / 0.78 Watt |
| Ocioso | 3.72 / 7.8 / 10.32 Watt |
| Carga |
30.24 / 44 Watt |
   
| |
Key:
min: ,
med: ,
max: Metrahit Energy | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad E590-20NC0003GE i7-8565U, UHD Graphics 620, Toshiba KBG30ZMT512G, IPS LED, 1920x1080, 15.6" | Lenovo ThinkPad E580-20KSCTO1WW i5-8250U, UHD Graphics 620, Toshiba KBG30ZMT128G, IPS LED, 1920x1080, 15.6" | HP ProBook 450 G6-5TJ93EA i7-8565U, GeForce MX130, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB512HAJQ, IPS, 1920x1080, 15.6" | Acer TravelMate P2510-G2-MG-50WE i5-8250U, GeForce MX130, SK Hynix HFS256G39TND-N210A, IPS, 1920x1080, 15.6" | Toshiba Tecra A50-E-110 i5-8250U, UHD Graphics 620, Samsung SSD PM871b MZNLN256HAJQ, IPS, 1920x1080, 15.6" | Average Intel UHD Graphics 620 | Average of class Office | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power Consumption | 9% | -21% | -12% | 5% | 0% | -18% | |
| Idle Minimum * | 3.72 | 3.4 9% | 3.12 16% | 3.3 11% | 3.8 -2% | 3.81 ? -2% | 4.54 ? -22% |
| Idle Average * | 7.8 | 6.7 14% | 6.3 19% | 5.6 28% | 7.7 1% | 6.94 ? 11% | 7.49 ? 4% |
| Idle Maximum * | 10.32 | 7.7 25% | 9.78 5% | 7.8 24% | 9.3 10% | 8.75 ? 15% | 9.14 ? 11% |
| Load Average * | 30.24 | 31.1 -3% | 57.6 -90% | 54 -79% | 31 -3% | 35 ? -16% | 42.8 ? -42% |
| Load Maximum * | 44 | 42.9 2% | 67.3 -53% | 63 -43% | 34.6 21% | 47.5 ? -8% | 61.3 ? -39% |
| Witcher 3 ultra * | 42 |
* ... smaller is better
| Lenovo ThinkPad E590-20NC0003GE i7-8565U, UHD Graphics 620, 45 Wh | Lenovo ThinkPad E580-20KSCTO1WW i5-8250U, UHD Graphics 620, 45 Wh | HP ProBook 450 G6-5TJ93EA i7-8565U, GeForce MX130, 45 Wh | Acer TravelMate P2510-G2-MG-50WE i5-8250U, GeForce MX130, 48 Wh | Toshiba Tecra A50-E-110 i5-8250U, UHD Graphics 620, 45 Wh | Average of class Office | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Battery Runtime | -9% | 12% | 15% | -24% | 32% | |
| Reader / Idle | 1098 | 864 -21% | 876 -20% | 1300 ? 18% | ||
| H.264 | 506 | 435 -14% | 462 -9% | 516 2% | 704 ? 39% | |
| WiFi v1.3 | 383 | 421 10% | 583 52% | 505 32% | 291 -24% | 600 ? 57% |
| Load | 105 | 96 -9% | 131 25% | 118 12% | 118.1 ? 12% |
Pro
Contra
O Lenovo ThinkPad E590 é um dos portáteis empresariais mais acessíveis da Lenovo. Comparado com o ThinkPad E580, a Lenovo não mudou muitas coisas e como o seu predecessor, o ThinkPad E590 é um sólido portátil de escritório. Os pontos fortes deste portátil incluem o excelente teclado, bem como o típico TrackPoint ThinkPad, a excelente capacidade de expansão e o sistema de resfriamento extremamente silencioso, mesmo sob carga. O E590 também permanece frio sob uso intenso e o desempenho da CPU melhorou em comparação com o predecessor. O chassi ainda é bem feito e de alta qualidade para um portátil mais econômico.
Não é de estranhar que o E590 não apenas compartilhe muitos de seus aspectos positivos com o E580, como também compartilha os aspectos negativos com seu predecessor. Por exemplo, o E590 ainda possui apenas um slot para cartão microSD, apesar de ter um chassi espaçoso. A duração da bateria é abaixo do esperado e a tela tem uma cobertura de gama de cores ruim, assim como bleeding da luz de fundo. Outro problema da nossa unidade de análise foi o SSD extremamente lento, que impactou até mesmo o uso diário. Além disso, achamos que a garantia de 12 meses é bastante curta e a porta USB no lado direito não deve ser limitada a USB 2.0 - o padrão USB 3.0 deveria ser padrão em 2019.
Sólido portátil ThinkPad de home-office por menos de 1.000 Euros (~$1.137): O Lenovo ThinkPad E590.
No geral, o modelo ThinkPad E590 iGPU é recomendado como um portátil de escritório de preço comparável - embora seu tamanho e peso, bem como a duração ruim da bateria, qualificam o E590 mais para o home-office do que um uso mais móvel. Além disso, os compradores devem estar atentos quando se trata do SSD, pois não recomendamos o SSD Toshiba que a Lenovo utilizou em nosso dispositivo de análise. Infelizmente, neste caso, o usuário tem que jogar na loteria em relação às peças que estão instaladas.
Lenovo ThinkPad E590-20NC0003GE
- 09/26/2019 v7 (old)
Benjamin Herzig
Price comparison
