Breve Análise do Portátil Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon 2017 (Core i5, Full HD)
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon 2017-20HR0021GE (ThinkPad X1 Carbon 2017 Serie)
Processador
Intel Core i5-7200U 2 x 2.5 - 3.1 GHz, Kaby Lake
Placa gráfica
Memória
8 GB
, LPDDR3-1866, dual channel, soldada
Pantalha
14.00 polegadas 16:9, 1920 x 1080 pixel 157 PPI, B140HAN03_1, IPS, Brilhante: não
placa mãe
Intel Kaby Lake-U Premium PCH
Disco rígido
Toshiba THNSF5256GPUK, 256 GB
, M.2 NVMe , 214 GB livre
peso
1.124 kg, Suprimento de energia: 346 g
Preço
1669 EUR
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.
| SD Card Reader | |
| average JPG Copy Test (av. of 3 runs) | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad T470-20HD002HGE | |
| Fujitsu LifeBook U747 | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon 2017-20HR0021GE | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon 2017-20HQS03P00 | |
| maximum AS SSD Seq Read Test (1GB) | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad T470-20HD002HGE | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon 2017-20HR0021GE | |
| Fujitsu LifeBook U747 | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon 2017-20HQS03P00 | |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
B140HAN03_1 tested with X-Rite i1Pro 2
Máximo: 288 cd/m² (Nits) Médio: 271 cd/m² Minimum: 3.8 cd/m²iluminação: 91 %
iluminação com acumulador: 277 cd/m²
Contraste: 1738:1 (Preto: 0.16 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 4.5 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.91
ΔE Greyscale 3.2 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
87.5% sRGB (Argyll 1.6.3 3D)
57% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 1.6.3 3D)
62.6% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
87.6% sRGB (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
61.6% Display P3 (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
Gamma: 2.02
| Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon 2017-20HR0021GE B140HAN03_1, , 1920x1080, 14" | Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon 2017-20HQS03P00 B140HAN03_1, , 1920x1080, 14" | Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon 20FB-005XUS 1920x1080, 14" | Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon 20FB003RGE VVX14T058J00, , 2560x1440, 14" | Lenovo ThinkPad T470s-20HGS00V00 B140QAN01.5, , 2560x1440, 14" | HP EliteBook Folio 1040 G3 AUO1136, , 2560x1440, 14" | Fujitsu LifeBook U747 LG LP140WF3, , 1920x1080, 14" | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Display | -1% | -4% | 8% | 11% | 11% | 1% | |
| Display P3 Coverage | 61.6 | 61.4 0% | 58.9 -4% | 66.7 8% | 69 12% | 67.9 10% | 66.1 7% |
| sRGB Coverage | 87.6 | 85.9 -2% | 83.1 -5% | 94.7 8% | 95.1 9% | 96.8 11% | 84.8 -3% |
| AdobeRGB 1998 Coverage | 62.6 | 62.4 0% | 60.3 -4% | 68.4 9% | 69.6 11% | 70 12% | 62 -1% |
| Response Times | 5% | 6% | 15% | 4% | 8% | 25% | |
| Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% * | 48 ? | 41.6 ? 13% | 47.2 ? 2% | 44 ? 8% | 46.4 ? 3% | 46.4 ? 3% | 36 ? 25% |
| Response Time Black / White * | 30.4 ? | 31.6 ? -4% | 27.6 ? 9% | 24 ? 21% | 28.8 ? 5% | 26.4 ? 13% | 23.2 ? 24% |
| PWM Frequency | 220 ? | ||||||
| Screen | -19% | -7% | -7% | -29% | -15% | -17% | |
| Brightness middle | 278 | 311 12% | 321.7 16% | 272 -2% | 327 18% | 327 18% | 291 5% |
| Brightness | 271 | 288 6% | 301 11% | 268 -1% | 311 15% | 316 17% | 296 9% |
| Brightness Distribution | 91 | 85 -7% | 89 -2% | 95 4% | 88 -3% | 87 -4% | 84 -8% |
| Black Level * | 0.16 | 0.24 -50% | 0.294 -84% | 0.32 -100% | 0.25 -56% | 0.35 -119% | 0.32 -100% |
| Contrast | 1738 | 1296 -25% | 1094 -37% | 850 -51% | 1308 -25% | 934 -46% | 909 -48% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 4.5 | 5.5 -22% | 3.96 12% | 2.61 42% | 6.1 -36% | 4.39 2% | 4.3 4% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 8.4 | 9 -7% | 6.69 20% | 6.43 23% | 12.2 -45% | 7.27 13% | 7.5 11% |
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 3.2 | 6.2 -94% | 3.15 2% | 3.31 -3% | 8.8 -175% | 4.69 -47% | 4.3 -34% |
| Gamma | 2.02 109% | 2.02 109% | 2.34 94% | 2.35 94% | 2.18 101% | 2.15 102% | 2.31 95% |
| CCT | 7042 92% | 5950 109% | 7082 92% | 6360 102% | 6172 105% | 7101 92% | 6529 100% |
| Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998) | 57 | 55.96 -2% | 53.8 -6% | 63 11% | 61.56 8% | 62.52 10% | 55.46 -3% |
| Color Space (Percent of sRGB) | 87.5 | 85.77 -2% | 82.7 -5% | 95 9% | 94.88 8% | 96.71 11% | 84.77 -3% |
| Total Average (Program / Settings) | -5% /
-12% | -2% /
-5% | 5% /
-1% | -5% /
-17% | 1% /
-6% | 3% /
-8% |
* ... smaller is better
Display Response Times
ℹ
Display response times show how fast the screen is able to change from one color to the next. Slow response times can lead to afterimages and can cause moving objects to appear blurry (ghosting). Gamers of fast-paced 3D titles should pay special attention to fast response times.| ↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
|---|---|---|
| 30.4 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 18.8 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 11.6 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. » 81 % 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 | ||
| 48 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 22 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 26 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. » 81 % 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)
ℹ
To dim the screen, some notebooks will simply cycle the backlight on and off in rapid succession - a method called Pulse Width Modulation (PWM) . This cycling frequency should ideally be undetectable to the human eye. If said frequency is too low, users with sensitive eyes may experience strain or headaches or even notice the flickering altogether.| 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 8719 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 343500) Hz was measured. | |||
Cinebench R15 CPU Multi 64 Bit
* ... smaller is better
| PCMark 8 Home Score Accelerated v2 | 3824 pontos | |
| PCMark 8 Creative Score Accelerated v2 | 4600 pontos | |
| PCMark 8 Work Score Accelerated v2 | 4602 pontos | |
| PCMark 10 Score | 3214 pontos | |
Ajuda | ||
| Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon 2017-20HR0021GE Toshiba THNSF5256GPUK | Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon 2017-20HQS03P00 Samsung PM961 NVMe MZVLW512HMJP | Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon 20FB-005XUS Samsung SM951 MZVPV256 m.2 | Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon 20FB003RGE Samsung SSD PM871 MZNLN256HCHP | Lenovo ThinkPad T470s-20HGS00V00 Samsung SSD PM961 1TB M.2 PCIe 3.0 x4 NVMe (MZVLW1T0) | HP EliteBook Folio 1040 G3 Samsung SM951 MZVPV256HDGL m.2 PCI-e | Fujitsu LifeBook U747 Samsung MZYTY256HDHP | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CrystalDiskMark 3.0 | 79% | 68% | -30% | 83% | 76% | -24% | |
| Read Seq | 1277 | 1827 43% | 1720 35% | 439.3 -66% | 1760 38% | 1649 29% | 504 -61% |
| Write Seq | 648 | 1383 113% | 1263 95% | 308.1 -52% | 1666 157% | 1265 95% | 497.8 -23% |
| Read 512 | 972 | 814 -16% | 1223 26% | 299.5 -69% | 832 -14% | 1252 29% | 396.7 -59% |
| Write 512 | 311 | 1098 253% | 1249 302% | 304.2 -2% | 1064 242% | 1244 300% | 283.4 -9% |
| Read 4k | 34.63 | 61 76% | 49.65 43% | 34.05 -2% | 53.2 54% | 53.3 54% | 35.73 3% |
| Write 4k | 128.5 | 172.2 34% | 123 -4% | 86.5 -33% | 167.4 30% | 159.9 24% | 87.8 -32% |
| Read 4k QD32 | 477.3 | 601 26% | 464.6 -3% | 339.6 -29% | 630 32% | 559 17% | 399.1 -16% |
| Write 4k QD32 | 241.2 | 495.6 105% | 354.7 47% | 279.2 16% | 533 121% | 376.7 56% | 249.7 4% |
Toshiba THNSF5256GPUK
Sequential Read:
1277 MB/s
Sequential Write:
648 MB/s
512K Read:
972 MB/s
512K Write:
311 MB/s
4K Read:
34.63 MB/s
4K Write:
128.5 MB/s
4K QD32 Read:
477.3 MB/s
4K QD32 Write:
241.2 MB/s
| 3DMark 11 Performance | 1706 pontos | |
| 3DMark Ice Storm Standard Score | 67643 pontos | |
| 3DMark Cloud Gate Standard Score | 6140 pontos | |
| 3DMark Fire Strike Score | 950 pontos | |
| 3DMark Fire Strike Extreme Score | 435 pontos | |
| 3DMark Time Spy Score | 367 pontos | |
Ajuda | ||
| baixo | média | alto | ultra | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BioShock Infinite (2013) | 46.1 | 28.6 | 27.7 | 8.5 |
| Battlefield 4 (2013) | 36.2 | 27.6 | 18.5 | 6.1 |
| The Witcher 3 (2015) | 11.1 | |||
| Rise of the Tomb Raider (2016) | 16.9 | 8.7 |
Barulho
| Ocioso |
| 29.6 / 29.6 / 32.2 dB |
| Carga |
| 34.2 / 36.1 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: 29.6 dB(A) | ||
| Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon 2017-20HR0021GE HD Graphics 620, i5-7200U, Toshiba THNSF5256GPUK | Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon 2017-20HQS03P00 HD Graphics 620, i7-7500U, Samsung PM961 NVMe MZVLW512HMJP | Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon 20FB-005XUS HD Graphics 520, 6300U, Samsung SM951 MZVPV256 m.2 | Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon 20FB003RGE HD Graphics 520, 6500U, Samsung SSD PM871 MZNLN256HCHP | Lenovo ThinkPad T470s-20HGS00V00 HD Graphics 620, i7-7600U, Samsung SSD PM961 1TB M.2 PCIe 3.0 x4 NVMe (MZVLW1T0) | HP EliteBook Folio 1040 G3 HD Graphics 520, 6300U, Samsung SM951 MZVPV256HDGL m.2 PCI-e | Fujitsu LifeBook U747 HD Graphics 620, i5-7200U, Samsung MZYTY256HDHP | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Noise | -1% | 3% | 1% | -2% | 3% | 8% | |
| off / environment * | 29.6 | 29.3 1% | 28.8 3% | 29.1 2% | 28.9 2% | 29.1 2% | 28.2 5% |
| Idle Minimum * | 29.6 | 29.3 1% | 28.8 3% | 29.1 2% | 28.9 2% | 29.1 2% | 28.2 5% |
| Idle Average * | 29.6 | 29.3 1% | 28.9 2% | 29.1 2% | 28.9 2% | 29.1 2% | 28.2 5% |
| Idle Maximum * | 32.2 | 32.2 -0% | 28.9 10% | 29.1 10% | 30.1 7% | 29.1 10% | 28.2 12% |
| Load Average * | 34.2 | 34.3 -0% | 35 -2% | 35.6 -4% | 39.2 -15% | 32.6 5% | 31.2 9% |
| Load Maximum * | 36.1 | 39.3 -9% | 35.8 1% | 38.1 -6% | 39.2 -9% | 37.8 -5% | 33 9% |
* ... smaller is better
| Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon 2017-20HR0021GE HD Graphics 620, i5-7200U, Toshiba THNSF5256GPUK | Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon 2017-20HQS03P00 HD Graphics 620, i7-7500U, Samsung PM961 NVMe MZVLW512HMJP | Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon 20FB-005XUS HD Graphics 520, 6300U, Samsung SM951 MZVPV256 m.2 | Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon 20FB003RGE HD Graphics 520, 6500U, Samsung SSD PM871 MZNLN256HCHP | Lenovo ThinkPad T470s-20HGS00V00 HD Graphics 620, i7-7600U, Samsung SSD PM961 1TB M.2 PCIe 3.0 x4 NVMe (MZVLW1T0) | HP EliteBook Folio 1040 G3 HD Graphics 520, 6300U, Samsung SM951 MZVPV256HDGL m.2 PCI-e | Fujitsu LifeBook U747 HD Graphics 620, i5-7200U, Samsung MZYTY256HDHP | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Heat | 9% | 8% | -1% | 9% | -3% | 15% | |
| Maximum Upper Side * | 48.5 | 48 1% | 40 18% | 43.2 11% | 43.5 10% | 43.2 11% | 42.6 12% |
| Maximum Bottom * | 46.1 | 47.2 -2% | 42.8 7% | 45 2% | 46.1 -0% | 47.1 -2% | 34.4 25% |
| Idle Upper Side * | 28.5 | 23.5 18% | 26.6 7% | 30.2 -6% | 24.7 13% | 30.5 -7% | 25.1 12% |
| Idle Bottom * | 27.8 | 22.6 19% | 27.4 1% | 30.6 -10% | 24.3 13% | 31.5 -13% | 24.6 12% |
* ... smaller is better
(-) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 39.8 °C / 104 F, compared to the average of 29.5 °C / 85 F for the devices in the class Office.
(-) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 48.5 °C / 119 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 46.1 °C / 115 F, compared to the average of 36.8 °C / 98 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 27 °C / 81 F, compared to the device average of 29.5 °C / 85 F.
(+) The palmrests and touchpad are reaching skin temperature as a maximum (33.9 °C / 93 F) and are therefore not hot.
(-) The average temperature of the palmrest area of similar devices was 27.6 °C / 81.7 F (-6.3 °C / -11.3 F).
(-) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 48.5 °C / 119 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 46.1 °C / 115 F, compared to the average of 36.8 °C / 98 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 27 °C / 81 F, compared to the device average of 29.5 °C / 85 F.
(+) The palmrests and touchpad are reaching skin temperature as a maximum (33.9 °C / 93 F) and are therefore not hot.
(-) The average temperature of the palmrest area of similar devices was 27.6 °C / 81.7 F (-6.3 °C / -11.3 F).
Consumo de energia
| desligado | 0.25 / 0.42 Watt |
| Ocioso | 3.8 / 7.1 / 8.3 Watt |
| Carga |
34.2 / 43.3 Watt |
   
| |
Key:
min: ,
med: ,
max: Metrahit Energy | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon 2017-20HR0021GE i5-7200U, HD Graphics 620, Toshiba THNSF5256GPUK, IPS, 1920x1080, 14" | Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon 2017-20HQS03P00 i7-7500U, HD Graphics 620, Samsung PM961 NVMe MZVLW512HMJP, IPS, 1920x1080, 14" | Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon 20FB-005XUS 6300U, HD Graphics 520, Samsung SM951 MZVPV256 m.2, IPS, 1920x1080, 14" | Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon 20FB003RGE 6500U, HD Graphics 520, Samsung SSD PM871 MZNLN256HCHP, 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" | HP EliteBook Folio 1040 G3 6300U, HD Graphics 520, Samsung SM951 MZVPV256HDGL m.2 PCI-e, IPS, 2560x1440, 14" | Fujitsu LifeBook U747 i5-7200U, HD Graphics 620, Samsung MZYTY256HDHP, IPS LED, 1920x1080, 14" | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power Consumption | -6% | -17% | 3% | -18% | -26% | 3% | |
| Idle Minimum * | 3.8 | 3.84 -1% | 7.6 -100% | 3.8 -0% | 4.64 -22% | 6.3 -66% | 4.11 -8% |
| Idle Average * | 7.1 | 6.3 11% | 9 -27% | 7.1 -0% | 8.93 -26% | 9.4 -32% | 7.87 -11% |
| Idle Maximum * | 8.3 | 8.6 -4% | 9.6 -16% | 7.7 7% | 9.12 -10% | 10.1 -22% | 8.74 -5% |
| Load Average * | 34.2 | 41.9 -23% | 24.5 28% | 30.2 12% | 42.2 -23% | 33.3 3% | 30.2 12% |
| Load Maximum * | 43.3 | 48.7 -12% | 30.3 30% | 44.7 -3% | 47.3 -9% | 49.5 -14% | 32.4 25% |
* ... smaller is better
| Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon 2017-20HR0021GE i5-7200U, HD Graphics 620, 57 Wh | Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon 2017-20HQS03P00 i7-7500U, HD Graphics 620, 57 Wh | Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon 20FB-005XUS 6300U, HD Graphics 520, 52 Wh | Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon 20FB003RGE 6500U, HD Graphics 520, 52 Wh | Lenovo ThinkPad T470-20HD002HGE i5-7200U, HD Graphics 620, 48 Wh | HP EliteBook Folio 1040 G3 6300U, HD Graphics 520, 45.6 Wh | Fujitsu LifeBook U747 i5-7200U, HD Graphics 620, 50 Wh | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Battery Runtime | 15% | -10% | -6% | -7% | -28% | -11% | |
| Reader / Idle | 819 | 1252 53% | 776 -5% | 942 15% | 530 -35% | 782 -5% | |
| H.264 | 573 | 711 24% | 510 -11% | 623 9% | 339 -41% | 490 -14% | |
| WiFi v1.3 | 547 | 496 -9% | 411 -25% | 429 -22% | 438 -20% | 309 -44% | 430 -21% |
| Load | 122 | 110 -10% | 123 1% | 115 -6% | 110 -10% | 131 7% | 117 -4% |
Pro
+ Carcaça excelente
+ Posicionamento bem-pensado das conexões
+ Portas modernas
+ Acabamento impecável
+ Baixo peso
+ Silencioso durante o funcionamento do dia a dia
+ Bom desempenho do sistema
+ Tela IPS com ângulos de visão estáveis
+ Dispositivos de entrada de alta qualidade
+ Boa duração da bateria
+ Adaptador mini RJ45 incluído
+ Garantia de 36 meses
Contra
- Altas temperaturas da carcaça
- Afogamento da sob uso intenso contínuo
- Sem leitor de cartões SD
- Leitor de cartões microSD (difícil de acessar)
- LAN apenas possível com adaptador incluído
O Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon 2017 é um portátil empresarial de alta qualidade com acabamento impecável. A mobilidade à qual o fabricante aspira com esta série, não decepciona de forma alguma, dado que um peso de pouco mais de apenas e 1 quilograma (~2,2 lb) é algo com o que outros conversíveis apenas poderiam sonhar. Em comparação, o modelo 2016, além de um formato menor, a nova carcaça também oferece conexões modernas, como portas Thunderbolt 3 (porta USB-C). Com isso, o aparelho também está preparado para o futuro. O bom desempenho completa o pacote, que custa 1669 Euros (~$1869) com o equipamento da nossa unidade de teste.
A Lenovo continua fiel a seus padrões e com o Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon 2017 apresenta um portátil empresarial muito bom. Além disso, o portátil nos convenceu com seus excelentes dispositivos de entrada - mas não esperávamos outra coisa da Lenovo.
Embora a tela IPS Full HD oferece bons resultados, não consegue superar o painel WQHD do predecessor. No geral, o aparelho é atraente e agradável para trabalhar. O bom desempenho do sistema garante um bom ritmo de trabalho para a vida diária.
No entanto, ainda dá motivos para reclamos. A ausência de um leitor de cartões SD somente pode ser compensado com um adaptador, que é desconfortável de usar, que se usa muito os cartões SD. Dado que as altas temperaturas da carcaça sob uso intenso também são desagradáveis e poderia tornar desconfortável trabalhar com ele sobre as pernas.
Finalmente, também está a questão de qual dos aparelhos Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon 2017 é melhor. à primeira vista nos dados técnicos, é claro que se fala muito do modelo com o processador Intel Core i7-7500U mais rápido, que também chama a atenção com 16 GB de RAM. Apesar disso, o Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon 2017 baseado no Intel Core i5-7200U também se sai muito bem. Apesar de ter 8 GB (a metade) de memória de trabalho, garante um funcionamento fluente no futuro próximo. Em termos de desempenho, o mais veloz e evidentemente mais caro X1 Carbon é atraente durante um curto período, dado que sob uso intenso constante funciona com quase a mesma velocidade do modelo Core i5 consideravelmente mais econômico. Por este motivo, criticamos muito o cargo alto cobrado e preferiríamos optar pelo Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon 2017 com o Intel Core i5-7200U. As vantagens do Core i7 são pequenas demais e também 16 GB de RAM não são absolutamente necessários.
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon 2017-20HR0021GE
- 06/14/2017 v6 (old)
Sebastian Bade
Office - Médio equilibrado
Price comparison
