Breve Análise do Portátil Lenovo ThinkPad T480s (i7-8550U, MX150 Max-Q)
| SD Card Reader | |
| average JPG Copy Test (av. of 3 runs) | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon 2018-20KGS03900 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501) | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad T470s-20HGS00V00 (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
| Dell Latitude 7480 (Toshiba (Exceria Pro SDXC UHS-II 64 GB) | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad T480s-20L8S02E00 (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
| Average of class Office (22.7 - 198.5, n=34, last 2 years) | |
| maximum AS SSD Seq Read Test (1GB) | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon 2018-20KGS03900 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501) | |
| Dell Latitude 7480 (Toshiba (Exceria Pro SDXC UHS-II 64 GB) | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad T470s-20HGS00V00 (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad T480s-20L8S02E00 (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
| Average of class Office (25 - 249, n=30, last 2 years) | |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
iluminação: 91 %
iluminação com acumulador: 313 cd/m²
Contraste: 864:1 (Preto: 0.36 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 3 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.91, calibrated: 1.7
ΔE Greyscale 4 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
96.7% sRGB (Argyll 1.6.3 3D)
66.7% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 1.6.3 3D)
72.1% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
96.6% sRGB (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
71.4% Display P3 (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
Gamma: 2.17
| Lenovo ThinkPad T480s-20L8S02E00 LP140QH2-SPB1, , 2560x1440, 14" | Lenovo ThinkPad T480s-20L8S02D00 LP140QH2-SPB1, , 2560x1440, 14" | Lenovo ThinkPad T470s-20HGS00V00 B140QAN01.5, , 2560x1440, 14" | Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon 2018-20KGS03900 B140QAN02.0, , 2560x1440, 14" | HP EliteBook 840 G4-Z2V22ES ABD AUO133D, , 1920x1080, 14" | Dell Latitude 7480 LG Philips LGD0557, , 1920x1080, 14" | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Display | 2% | -3% | 22% | -5% | -7% | |
| Display P3 Coverage | 71.4 | 72.8 2% | 69 -3% | 87.7 23% | 67.5 -5% | 65.4 -8% |
| sRGB Coverage | 96.6 | 97.9 1% | 95.1 -2% | 100 4% | 92.5 -4% | 92.3 -4% |
| AdobeRGB 1998 Coverage | 72.1 | 74.1 3% | 69.6 -3% | 99.9 39% | 67.7 -6% | 65.8 -9% |
| Response Times | -4% | -16% | -44% | 12% | -12% | |
| Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% * | 36 ? | 38.4 ? -7% | 46.4 ? -29% | 59.2 ? -64% | 33.6 ? 7% | 40.8 ? -13% |
| Response Time Black / White * | 28 ? | 28.4 ? -1% | 28.8 ? -3% | 34.4 ? -23% | 23.2 ? 17% | 31.2 ? -11% |
| PWM Frequency | ||||||
| Screen | -7% | -25% | 38% | -5% | 6% | |
| Brightness middle | 311 | 352 13% | 327 5% | 578 86% | 289 -7% | 344 11% |
| Brightness | 302 | 343 14% | 311 3% | 533 76% | 274 -9% | 321 6% |
| Brightness Distribution | 91 | 91 0% | 88 -3% | 84 -8% | 82 -10% | 85 -7% |
| Black Level * | 0.36 | 0.46 -28% | 0.25 31% | 0.38 -6% | 0.17 53% | 0.32 11% |
| Contrast | 864 | 765 -11% | 1308 51% | 1521 76% | 1700 97% | 1075 24% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 3 | 3.3 -10% | 6.1 -103% | 1.9 37% | 4.7 -57% | 2.6 13% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 6.1 | 7.3 -20% | 12.2 -100% | 3.8 38% | 8.6 -41% | 7.8 -28% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 calibrated * | 1.7 | 0.8 53% | ||||
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 4 | 5.3 -33% | 8.8 -120% | 3 25% | 6.4 -60% | 2.6 35% |
| Gamma | 2.17 101% | 2.22 99% | 2.18 101% | 2.14 103% | 2.22 99% | 2.28 96% |
| CCT | 6961 93% | 6452 101% | 6172 105% | 6377 102% | 6454 101% | 7050 92% |
| Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998) | 66.7 | 68.4 3% | 61.56 -8% | 88.8 33% | 60.3 -10% | 65.82 -1% |
| Color Space (Percent of sRGB) | 96.7 | 98 1% | 94.88 -2% | 100 3% | 92.3 -5% | 92.27 -5% |
| Total Average (Program / Settings) | -3% /
-5% | -15% /
-19% | 5% /
25% | 1% /
-3% | -4% /
1% |
* ... smaller is better
Display Response Times
| ↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
|---|---|---|
| 28 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 15.6 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 12.4 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. » 68 % 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 | ||
| 36 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 17.6 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 18.4 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. » 46 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is similar to 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 8702 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 343500) Hz was measured. | |||
| PCMark 8 Home Score Accelerated v2 | 3540 pontos | |
| PCMark 8 Work Score Accelerated v2 | 4909 pontos | |
| PCMark 10 Score | 3960 pontos | |
Ajuda | ||
| Lenovo ThinkPad T480s-20L8S02E00 Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB512HAJQ | Lenovo ThinkPad T470s-20HGS00V00 Samsung SSD PM961 1TB M.2 PCIe 3.0 x4 NVMe (MZVLW1T0) | Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon 2018-20KGS03900 Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB512HAJQ | Dell Latitude 7480 Intel SSDSCKKF256H6 | Average Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB512HAJQ | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CrystalDiskMark 3.0 | -16% | -25% | -64% | -18% | |
| Read Seq | 2588 | 1760 -32% | 2327 -10% | 486.5 -81% | 2002 ? -23% |
| Write Seq | 1858 | 1666 -10% | 1808 -3% | 418.6 -77% | 1656 ? -11% |
| Read 512 | 1799 | 832 -54% | 419.3 -77% | 354.3 -80% | 1213 ? -33% |
| Write 512 | 1863 | 1064 -43% | 1272 -32% | 306.8 -84% | 1641 ? -12% |
| Read 4k | 62.7 | 53.2 -15% | 60.6 -3% | 29.25 -53% | 61.4 ? -2% |
| Write 4k | 146.8 | 167.4 14% | 132.9 -9% | 90.5 -38% | 131.3 ? -11% |
| Read 4k QD32 | 446.6 | 630 41% | 340.7 -24% | 280.2 -37% | 407 ? -9% |
| Write 4k QD32 | 706 | 533 -25% | 439.7 -38% | 252.8 -64% | 402 ? -43% |
| 3DMark 06 Standard Score | 12796 pontos | |
| 3DMark Vantage P Result | 7839 pontos | |
| 3DMark 11 Performance | 3922 pontos | |
| 3DMark Ice Storm Standard Score | 65886 pontos | |
| 3DMark Cloud Gate Standard Score | 12049 pontos | |
| 3DMark Fire Strike Score | 2584 pontos | |
Ajuda | ||
| BioShock Infinite - 1366x768 High Preset | |
| Asus VivoBook Pro 17 N705UD-EH76 | |
| Average NVIDIA GeForce MX150 (59.7 - 98, n=33) | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad T480s-20L8S02E00 | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad E480-20KQS00000 | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad E480-20KQS00000 | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad X280-20KES01S00 | |
| baixo | média | alto | ultra | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BioShock Infinite (2013) | 158.3 | 87 | 77 | 28.89 |
| The Witcher 3 (2015) | 53 | 31.47 | 17.06 | |
| Star Wars Battlefront (2015) | 78.4 | 53.8 | 24.5 | 21.4 |
| Rise of the Tomb Raider (2016) | 54.6 | 32.6 | 16.5 | |
| Doom (2016) | 60.5 | 49.6 | 17.1 | |
| Civilization VI (2016) | 75.5 | 42.87 | 19.47 | |
| Warhammer 40.000: Dawn of War III (2017) | 62.5 | 23.7 | ||
| FIFA 18 (2017) | 133.9 | 83.6 | 78.1 | 73 |
| Call of Duty WWII (2017) | 87.9 | 54.6 | 24.5 | |
| Star Wars Battlefront 2 (2017) | 59.3 | 26.4 | 22.5 | 14.6 |
Barulho
| Ocioso |
| 29 / 29 / 29 dB |
| Carga |
| 36.5 / 38.2 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 dB(A) | ||
(-) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 49.2 °C / 121 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 48.2 °C / 119 F, compared to the average of 36.8 °C / 98 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 22.6 °C / 73 F, compared to the device average of 29.5 °C / 85 F.
(±) Playing The Witcher 3, the average temperature for the upper side is 36.9 °C / 98 F, compared to the device average of 29.5 °C / 85 F.
(+) The palmrests and touchpad are reaching skin temperature as a maximum (35.2 °C / 95.4 F) and are therefore not hot.
(-) The average temperature of the palmrest area of similar devices was 27.6 °C / 81.7 F (-7.6 °C / -13.7 F).
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
» 54% of all tested devices in this class were better, 9% similar, 37% worse
» The best had a delta of 7%, average was 21%, 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%
Dell Latitude 7480 audio analysis
(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (75 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(±) | reduced bass - on average 11.9% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 3.8% away from median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (7.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 6.6% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (6.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (23.2% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 62% of all tested devices in this class were better, 9% similar, 30% worse
» The best had a delta of 7%, average was 21%, worst was 53%
Compared to all devices tested
» 66% of all tested devices were better, 6% similar, 28% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon 2018-20KGS03900 audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (83.6 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 25.9% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (9.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 3.8% away from median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (9% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 2.1% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (4% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (18.7% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 30% of all tested devices in this class were better, 6% similar, 64% worse
» The best had a delta of 7%, average was 21%, worst was 53%
Compared to all devices tested
» 39% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 53% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
| desligado | 0.34 / 0.69 Watt |
| Ocioso | 3.4 / 7.5 / 10.8 Watt |
| Carga |
55.4 / 70.3 Watt |
   
| |
Key:
min: ,
med: ,
max: Metrahit Energy | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad T480s-20L8S02E00 i5-8550U, GeForce MX150, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB512HAJQ, IPS LED, 2560x1440, 14" | Lenovo ThinkPad T480s-20L8S02D00 i5-8250U, UHD Graphics 620, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB512HAJQ, IPS, 2560x1440, 14" | Lenovo ThinkPad T470s-20HGS00V00 i7-7600U, HD Graphics 620, Samsung SSD PM961 1TB M.2 PCIe 3.0 x4 NVMe (MZVLW1T0), IPS, 2560x1440, 14" | Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon 2018-20KGS03900 i5-8550U, UHD Graphics 620, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB512HAJQ, IPS, 2560x1440, 14" | Dell Latitude 7480 i7-7600U, HD Graphics 620, Intel SSDSCKKF256H6, IPS, 1920x1080, 14" | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power Consumption | 8% | 4% | -0% | 26% | |
| Idle Minimum * | 3.4 | 3.1 9% | 4.64 -36% | 3.8 -12% | 4.32 -27% |
| Idle Average * | 7.5 | 6.8 9% | 8.93 -19% | 8.9 -19% | 6.27 16% |
| Idle Maximum * | 10.8 | 10.1 6% | 9.12 16% | 11.9 -10% | 6.35 41% |
| Load Average * | 55.4 | 48.4 13% | 42.2 24% | 47.5 14% | 29.82 46% |
| Witcher 3 ultra * | 34 | ||||
| Load Maximum * | 70.3 | 67.1 5% | 47.3 33% | 52.5 25% | 30.64 56% |
* ... smaller is better
| Lenovo ThinkPad T480s-20L8S02E00 i5-8550U, GeForce MX150, 57 Wh | Lenovo ThinkPad T480s-20L8S02D00 i5-8250U, UHD Graphics 620, 57 Wh | Lenovo ThinkPad T470s-20HGS00V00 i7-7600U, HD Graphics 620, 51 Wh | Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon 2018-20KGS03900 i5-8550U, UHD Graphics 620, 57 Wh | HP EliteBook 840 G4-Z2V22ES ABD i5-7200U, HD Graphics 620, 51 Wh | Dell Latitude 7480 i7-7600U, HD Graphics 620, 60 Wh | Average of class Office | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Battery Runtime | 32% | -15% | 9% | 9% | 61% | 23% | |
| Reader / Idle | 1366 | 787 -42% | 1328 -3% | 1662 22% | 1290 ? -6% | ||
| H.264 | 550 | 721 31% | 454 -17% | 566 3% | 721 ? 31% | ||
| WiFi v1.3 | 530 | 537 1% | 417 -21% | 519 -2% | 578 9% | 719 36% | 611 ? 15% |
| Load | 76 | 124 63% | 93 22% | 106 39% | 171 125% | 115.6 ? 52% |
Pro
Contra
O desempenho da CPU, por exemplo, é excelente com o i7, mas o teste mostra que o limite do desempenho foi alcançado com este sistema de resfriamento – isto provoca que o i7, supostamente mais rápido, seja mais lento sob uso intenso contínuo que o i5 dentro do T480s mais barato. Além disso, como com o ThinkPad X280 menor, o desempenho imaturo do gerenciador da CPU faz com que o processador fique adormecido durante o teste de estresse. Outra similaridade com o X ThinkPad: A CPU é afogada no modo bateria. Sua crítica adicional é compartilhada com o T480s testado anteriormente: a temperatura no exterior é comparativamente alta (embora o MX150 não aumente ainda mais), os alto-falantes são ruins e a tampa da câmera ThinkShutter não está disponível em combinação com a câmera infravermelha para Windows Hello.
A Lenovo a quase conseguiu marcar todas as caixas de verificação com o T480s. Os pontos positivos superam por muito os negativos, motivo pelo qual também recomendamos o T480s com MX150.
Esta é uma crítica válida, embora seja confrontada com uma longa lista de pontos positivos do T480s, como os seus confortáveis dispositivos de entrada, o chassis premium, a boa selecção de portas, a boa duração da bateria e a tela IPS WQHD mate, brilhante e precisa. Com tudo isso em mente, podemos recomendar de todo o coração o T480s com MX150.
Seus principais concorrentes são o Dell Latitude 7490, o HP EliteBook 840 G5 e o ThinkPad X1 Carbon 2018 mais caro como concorrente interno – vamos testar o Latitude e o EliteBook no futuro próximo também. Todos os três vêm com suas próprias vantagens em comparação com o T480s, o Latitude poderia, por exemplo, oferecer uma duração de bateria mais longa com sua tela IPS de baixa potência, enquanto o EliteBook tem opções de tela significativamente mais brilhantes. O X1 Carbon, por outro lado, é consideravelmente mais leve e compacto e vem com uma opção de tela HDR. Dito isso, o T480s realmente não precisa se esconder de seus concorrentes, a Lenovo criou um ótimo mix de recursos.
Atualização 24.03.2018: A nova versão do Bios 1.11 resolve o adormecimento do prcecessador.
Lenovo ThinkPad T480s-20L8S02E00
- 03/19/2018 v6 (old)
Benjamin Herzig
Price comparison
