Breve Análise do Portátil MSI GF75 Thin 3RD (i7-8750H, GTX 1050Ti Max-Q)
| Networking | |
| iperf3 transmit AX12 | |
| HP Pavilion Gaming 15-cx0003ng | |
| Asus TUF FX705GE-EW096T | |
| Medion Erazer P6705-MD61131 | |
| Acer Aspire 7 A715-72G-704Q | |
| Lenovo Legion Y730-17ICH, i7-8750H | |
| MSI GF75 8RD-001 | |
| iperf3 receive AX12 | |
| Medion Erazer P6705-MD61131 | |
| Asus TUF FX705GE-EW096T | |
| Lenovo Legion Y730-17ICH, i7-8750H | |
| HP Pavilion Gaming 15-cx0003ng | |
| Acer Aspire 7 A715-72G-704Q | |
| MSI GF75 8RD-001 | |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
iluminação: 89 %
iluminação com acumulador: 356 cd/m²
Contraste: 1319:1 (Preto: 0.27 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 2.73 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.91, calibrated: 2.14
ΔE Greyscale 2.38 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
90% sRGB (Argyll 1.6.3 3D)
59% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 1.6.3 3D)
65.2% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
90.1% sRGB (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
64% Display P3 (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
Gamma: 2.48
| MSI GF75 8RD-001 B173HAN04.2, , 1920x1080, 17.3" | Asus TUF FX705GE-EW096T AU Optronics B173HAN04.2, , 1920x1080, 17.3" | Lenovo Legion Y730-17ICH, i7-8750H LP173WF4-SPF6, , 1920x1080, 17.3" | Medion Erazer P6705-MD61131 AU Optronics B156HTN03.8 (AUO38ED), , 1920x1080, 15.6" | HP Pavilion Gaming 15-cx0003ng BOE07A1, , 1920x1080, 15.6" | Acer Aspire 7 A715-72G-704Q LG Philips LP156WFC-SPP1, , 1920x1080, 15.6" | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Display | -3% | -2% | -41% | -36% | -38% | |
| Display P3 Coverage | 64 | 63.1 -1% | 66.4 4% | 36.4 -43% | 39.72 -38% | 38.34 -40% |
| sRGB Coverage | 90.1 | 86.8 -4% | 84.9 -6% | 54.8 -39% | 59.3 -34% | 57.5 -36% |
| AdobeRGB 1998 Coverage | 65.2 | 63.5 -3% | 62.1 -5% | 37.61 -42% | 41.04 -37% | 39.65 -39% |
| Response Times | -2% | 9% | 13% | -18% | 11% | |
| Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% * | 38 ? | 39 ? -3% | 36.8 ? 3% | 44.8 ? -18% | 47 ? -24% | 35 ? 8% |
| Response Time Black / White * | 28 ? | 28 ? -0% | 24 ? 14% | 16 ? 43% | 31 ? -11% | 24 ? 14% |
| PWM Frequency | 208 ? | |||||
| Screen | -9% | -47% | -124% | -36% | -55% | |
| Brightness middle | 356 | 299 -16% | 328.7 -8% | 200 -44% | 241 -32% | 280 -21% |
| Brightness | 332 | 291 -12% | 318 -4% | 186 -44% | 236 -29% | 248 -25% |
| Brightness Distribution | 89 | 90 1% | 91 2% | 85 -4% | 75 -16% | 81 -9% |
| Black Level * | 0.27 | 0.28 -4% | 0.51 -89% | 0.43 -59% | 0.15 44% | 0.56 -107% |
| Contrast | 1319 | 1068 -19% | 645 -51% | 465 -65% | 1607 22% | 500 -62% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 2.73 | 3.02 -11% | 4.91 -80% | 11.39 -317% | 4.85 -78% | 4.75 -74% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 4.7 | 5.27 -12% | 10.15 -116% | 19.36 -312% | 8.82 -88% | 8.04 -71% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 calibrated * | 2.14 | 2.76 -29% | 4.27 -100% | 3.05 -43% | 4.93 -130% | |
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 2.38 | 2.18 8% | 3.9 -64% | 11.73 -393% | 5.15 -116% | 3.21 -35% |
| Gamma | 2.48 89% | 2.48 89% | 2.13 103% | 1.97 112% | 2.49 88% | 2.59 85% |
| CCT | 6643 98% | 6392 102% | 6911 94% | 12614 52% | 7042 92% | 6601 98% |
| Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998) | 59 | 57 -3% | 55.6 -6% | 35 -41% | 38 -36% | 36 -39% |
| Color Space (Percent of sRGB) | 90 | 87 -3% | 84.7 -6% | 55 -39% | 59 -34% | 57 -37% |
| Total Average (Program / Settings) | -5% /
-7% | -13% /
-32% | -51% /
-91% | -30% /
-34% | -27% /
-44% |
* ... smaller is better
Display Response Times
| ↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
|---|---|---|
| 28 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 16 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 12 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 | ||
| 38 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 18 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 20 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. » 51 % 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 8715 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 343500) Hz was measured. | |||
| PCMark 8 | |
| Home Score Accelerated v2 | |
| Average of class Gaming (4560 - 5937, n=19, last 2 years) | |
| HP Pavilion Gaming 15-cx0003ng | |
| MSI GL73 8RD-418US | |
| Asus TUF FX705GE-EW096T | |
| Lenovo Legion Y730-17ICH, i7-8750H | |
| Acer Aspire 7 A715-72G-704Q | |
| Medion Erazer P6705-MD61131 | |
| MSI GF75 8RD-001 | |
| MSI GF63 8RC | |
| Average Intel Core i7-8750H, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q (3494 - 3969, n=4) | |
| Work Score Accelerated v2 | |
| Average of class Gaming (5520 - 6853, n=17, last 2 years) | |
| Asus TUF FX705GE-EW096T | |
| MSI GL73 8RD-418US | |
| Medion Erazer P6705-MD61131 | |
| Lenovo Legion Y730-17ICH, i7-8750H | |
| MSI GF75 8RD-001 | |
| Acer Aspire 7 A715-72G-704Q | |
| HP Pavilion Gaming 15-cx0003ng | |
| MSI GF63 8RC | |
| Average Intel Core i7-8750H, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q (4316 - 5317, n=4) | |
| PCMark 8 Home Score Accelerated v2 | 3969 pontos | |
| PCMark 8 Work Score Accelerated v2 | 5317 pontos | |
| PCMark 10 Score | 4437 pontos | |
Ajuda | ||
| MSI GF75 8RD-001 Kingston RBUSNS8154P3256GJ1 | Asus TUF FX705GE-EW096T SK hynix BC501 HFM128GDJTNG-831 | Lenovo Legion Y730-17ICH, i7-8750H Toshiba KBG30ZMT128G | Medion Erazer P6705-MD61131 Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB256HAHQ | HP Pavilion Gaming 15-cx0003ng Intel Optane 16 GB MEMPEK1J016GAH + HGST HTS721010A9E630 1 TB HDD | Acer Aspire 7 A715-72G-704Q Intel SSD 760p SSDPEKKW256G8 | Average Kingston RBUSNS8154P3256GJ1 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CrystalDiskMark 5.2 / 6 | -13% | -39% | 62% | -7% | 37% | 47% | |
| Write 4K | 72.1 | 90.3 25% | 71.4 -1% | 107 48% | 59.2 -18% | 103.4 43% | 141.1 ? 96% |
| Read 4K | 28.12 | 37.03 32% | 29.98 7% | 39.91 42% | 91.3 225% | 56 99% | 82.4 ? 193% |
| Write Seq | 746 | 320.3 -57% | 129.6 -83% | 1439 93% | 158.3 -79% | 808 8% | 722 ? -3% |
| Read Seq | 834 | 1012 21% | 843 1% | 2011 141% | 880 6% | 1939 132% | 974 ? 17% |
| Write 4K Q32T1 | 313.7 | 196.8 -37% | 88.9 -72% | 282.1 -10% | 161.8 -48% | 281.3 -10% | 418 ? 33% |
| Read 4K Q32T1 | 348.7 | 271.5 -22% | 196.4 -44% | 326.6 -6% | 286.5 -18% | 326.5 -6% | 571 ? 64% |
| Write Seq Q32T1 | 854 | 268.8 -69% | 130.5 -85% | 1441 69% | 159.8 -81% | 474.1 -44% | 717 ? -16% |
| Read Seq Q32T1 | 1587 | 1595 1% | 1037 -35% | 3516 122% | 929 -41% | 2735 72% | 1413 ? -11% |
| AS SSD | -56% | -147% | 12% | -1524% | 4% | -11% | |
| Seq Read | 1416 | 878 -38% | 979 -31% | 2724 92% | 854 -40% | 2493 76% | 1195 ? -16% |
| Seq Write | 798 | 336.8 -58% | 125.4 -84% | 1365 71% | 147 -82% | 1241 56% | 668 ? -16% |
| 4K Read | 38.92 | 23.76 -39% | 19.73 -49% | 46.14 19% | 105.1 170% | 41.22 6% | 33.6 ? -14% |
| 4K Write | 100.1 | 92 -8% | 38.73 -61% | 102.6 2% | 59.5 -41% | 112.4 12% | 82.6 ? -17% |
| 4K-64 Read | 726 | 248.9 -66% | 168.6 -77% | 567 -22% | 42.09 -94% | 522 -28% | 667 ? -8% |
| 4K-64 Write | 584 | 112.5 -81% | 31.38 -95% | 459.8 -21% | 137.3 -76% | 470.7 -19% | 561 ? -4% |
| Access Time Read * | 0.072 | 0.141 -96% | 0.519 -621% | 0.08 -11% | 14.99 -20719% | 0.058 19% | 0.117 ? -63% |
| Access Time Write * | 0.044 | 0.054 -23% | 0.324 -636% | 0.037 16% | 0.043 2% | 0.099 -125% | 0.05571 ? -27% |
| Score Read | 907 | 360 -60% | 286 -68% | 886 -2% | 233 -74% | 812 -10% | 820 ? -10% |
| Score Write | 764 | 238 -69% | 86 -89% | 699 -9% | 211 -72% | 707 -7% | 710 ? -7% |
| Score Total | 2112 | 764 -64% | 479 -77% | 1983 -6% | 577 -73% | 1883 -11% | 1931 ? -9% |
| Copy ISO MB/s | 608 | 224.1 -63% | 272.7 -55% | 110.1 -82% | 968 59% | 773 ? 27% | |
| Copy Program MB/s | 350.7 | 111.9 -68% | 182.9 -48% | 94.1 -73% | 319.4 -9% | 375 ? 7% | |
| Copy Game MB/s | 478.7 | 229.2 -52% | 134.6 -72% | 81.7 -83% | 648 35% | 509 ? 6% | |
| Total Average (Program / Settings) | -35% /
-41% | -93% /
-108% | 37% /
33% | -766% /
-972% | 21% /
16% | 18% /
10% |
* ... smaller is better
| 3DMark 11 - 1280x720 Performance GPU | |
| Average of class Gaming (1029 - 72178, n=183, last 2 years) | |
| Asus TUF FX705GE-EW096T | |
| Dell XPS 15 9570 i7 UHD | |
| HP Spectre x360 15-df0126ng | |
| Average NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q (8317 - 9079, n=7) | |
| MSI GF75 8RD-001 | |
| Medion Erazer P6705-MD61131 | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Extreme-20MF000XGE | |
| HP Pavilion Gaming 15-cx0003ng | |
| MSI GF63 8RC | |
| 3DMark 11 Performance | 9171 pontos | |
| 3DMark Cloud Gate Standard Score | 28253 pontos | |
| 3DMark Fire Strike Score | 6714 pontos | |
Ajuda | ||
| The Witcher 3 | |
| 1920x1080 High Graphics & Postprocessing (Nvidia HairWorks Off) | |
| Average of class Gaming (40.1 - 449, n=120, last 2 years) | |
| SCHENKER XMG Neo 17 | |
| Gigabyte Aero 15-Y9 | |
| MSI GF75 8RD-001 | |
| Lenovo Legion Y730-17ICH, i7-8750H | |
| Acer Aspire 7 A715-72G-704Q | |
| Average NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q (42.6 - 60, n=6) | |
| Asus TUF FX705GE-EW096T | |
| HP Spectre x360 15-df0126ng | |
| Medion Erazer P6705-MD61131 | |
| HP Pavilion Gaming 15-cx0003ng | |
| Acer Aspire 5 A515-52G-723L | |
| 1920x1080 Ultra Graphics & Postprocessing (HBAO+) | |
| Average of class Gaming (18.4 - 216, n=163, last 2 years) | |
| MSI GS75 8SG Stealth | |
| SCHENKER XMG Neo 17 | |
| Gigabyte Aero 15-Y9 | |
| MSI GF75 8RD-001 | |
| Acer Aspire 7 A715-72G-704Q | |
| Average NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q (23.5 - 43, n=7) | |
| Lenovo Legion Y730-17ICH, i7-8750H | |
| Asus TUF FX705GE-EW096T | |
| HP Spectre x360 15-df0126ng | |
| Medion Erazer P6705-MD61131 | |
| HP Pavilion Gaming 15-cx0003ng | |
| Acer Aspire 5 A515-52G-723L | |
| baixo | média | alto | ultra | QHD | 4K | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Witcher 3 (2015) | 145 | 99 | 60 | 43 | ||
| Final Fantasy XV Benchmark (2018) | 75.1 | 37.7 | 25 | |||
| Far Cry New Dawn (2019) | 89 | 50 | 46 | 43 | 29 | 15 |
| Metro Exodus (2019) | 60.4 | 31.4 | 23.5 | 19.3 |
Barulho
| Ocioso |
| 32 / 32 / 32.1 dB |
| Carga |
| 33.6 / 40.6 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: 30.7 dB(A) | ||
(±) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 44.2 °C / 112 F, compared to the average of 40.5 °C / 105 F, ranging from 21.2 to 68.8 °C for the class Gaming.
(+) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 39.1 °C / 102 F, compared to the average of 43.2 °C / 110 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 23.3 °C / 74 F, compared to the device average of 33.9 °C / 93 F.
(+) The palmrests and touchpad are cooler than skin temperature with a maximum of 26.8 °C / 80.2 F and are therefore cool to the touch.
(+) The average temperature of the palmrest area of similar devices was 28.9 °C / 84 F (+2.1 °C / 3.8 F).
MSI GF75 8RD-001 audio analysis
(-) | not very loud speakers (66.8 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 17.3% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (13.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 6.9% higher than median
(-) | mids are not linear (16.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 3.8% away from median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (9.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(-) | overall sound is not linear (31.4% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 97% of all tested devices in this class were better, 1% similar, 2% worse
» The best had a delta of 6%, average was 18%, worst was 132%
Compared to all devices tested
» 89% of all tested devices were better, 2% similar, 9% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Apple MacBook 12 (Early 2016) 1.1 GHz audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (83.6 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(±) | reduced bass - on average 11.3% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (14.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 2.4% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (5.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 2% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (4.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(+) | overall sound is linear (10.2% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 6% of all tested devices in this class were better, 2% similar, 92% worse
» The best had a delta of 5%, average was 19%, worst was 53%
Compared to all devices tested
» 4% of all tested devices were better, 1% similar, 95% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
| desligado | 0.38 / 0.6 Watt |
| Ocioso | 6.5 / 11.9 / 13.1 Watt |
| Carga |
86 / 131 Watt |
   
| |
Key:
min: ,
med: ,
max: Metrahit Energy | |
| MSI GF75 8RD-001 i7-8750H, GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q, Kingston RBUSNS8154P3256GJ1, IPS, 1920x1080, 17.3" | Asus TUF FX705GE-EW096T i7-8750H, GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Mobile, SK hynix BC501 HFM128GDJTNG-831, IPS, 1920x1080, 17.3" | Lenovo Legion Y730-17ICH, i7-8750H i7-8750H, GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Mobile, Toshiba KBG30ZMT128G, IPS, 1920x1080, 17.3" | Medion Erazer P6705-MD61131 i7-8750H, GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Mobile, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB256HAHQ, TN, 1920x1080, 15.6" | HP Pavilion Gaming 15-cx0003ng i7-8750H, GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Mobile, Intel Optane 16 GB MEMPEK1J016GAH + HGST HTS721010A9E630 1 TB HDD, IPS, 1920x1080, 15.6" | Acer Aspire 7 A715-72G-704Q i7-8750H, GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Mobile, Intel SSD 760p SSDPEKKW256G8, IPS, 1920x1080, 15.6" | Average NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q | Average of class Gaming | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power Consumption | 15% | 4% | 18% | 7% | 23% | 4% | -78% | |
| Idle Minimum * | 6.5 | 3.8 42% | 6.3 3% | 4 38% | 5.5 15% | 3.9 40% | 5.8 ? 11% | 13.6 ? -109% |
| Idle Average * | 11.9 | 9 24% | 11 8% | 7 41% | 8.5 29% | 6.6 45% | 11.2 ? 6% | 19 ? -60% |
| Idle Maximum * | 13.1 | 11.2 15% | 11.5 12% | 11 16% | 11.9 9% | 8.5 35% | 13.5 ? -3% | 26.8 ? -105% |
| Load Average * | 86 | 101 -17% | 89.8 -4% | 72 16% | 94 -9% | 89 -3% | 86.9 ? -1% | 106.3 ? -24% |
| Load Maximum * | 131 | 119.7 9% | 130.7 -0% | 158 -21% | 144 -10% | 134 -2% | 122.4 ? 7% | 249 ? -90% |
| Witcher 3 ultra * | 102 | 79 | 86 |
* ... smaller is better
| MSI GF75 8RD-001 i7-8750H, GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q, 51 Wh | Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Extreme-20MF000XGE i7-8750H, GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q, 80 Wh | HP Spectre x360 15-df0126ng i7-8750H, GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q, 84 Wh | Acer Aspire 7 A715-72G-704Q i7-8750H, GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Mobile, 48.9 Wh | Asus Zephyrus S GX531GX i7-8750H, GeForce RTX 2080 Max-Q, 50 Wh | Medion Erazer P6705-MD61131 i7-8750H, GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Mobile, 62 Wh | Average of class Gaming | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Battery Runtime | 70% | 129% | 53% | -36% | 68% | 53% | |
| Reader / Idle | 375 | 691 84% | 1127 201% | 736 96% | 534 42% | 565 ? 51% | |
| H.264 | 204 | 371 82% | 459 125% | 361 77% | 409 ? 100% | ||
| WiFi v1.3 | 281 | 384 37% | 528 88% | 383 36% | 181 -36% | 400 42% | 375 ? 33% |
| Load | 67 | 119 78% | 135 101% | 70 4% | 147 119% | 85.6 ? 28% | |
| Witcher 3 ultra | 63 | 78.3 ? |
Pro
Contra
A MSI tentou se concentrar no essencial para o GF75 e conseguiu criar um dispositivo decente. Ele tem desempenho suficiente para ser considerado um portátil de jogos, ao mesmo tempo em que oferece uma carcaça fina e uma construção leve. Embora a energeticamente eficiente GeForce 1050 Ti Max-Q com velocidade um pouco limitada não consiga exibir jogos atuais com detalhes altos, deve rodar a maioria dos títulos fluentemente com configurações médias
Em vez disso, a MSI optou por manter a seleção de portas no mínimo absoluto. Provavelmente isto se deve à construção fina, bem para manter o preço do dispositivo abaixo de um certo limite.
Se você pode viver sem thunderbolt e um conector DisplayPort e não precisa de um leitor de cartão SD ou recursos especiais de segurança, como um leitor de digitais, então você pode ficar muito feliz com este dispositivo acessível que inclui uma GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q.
A tela IPS é muito boa e pode facilmente acompanhar a concorrência do GF75. Os resultados do Cinebench não são tão cor-de-rosa quanto o GF75. Temos a impressão de que o fabricante foi um pouco cuidadoso demais para manter o ruído do sistema baixo. O ventilador é muito silencioso e poderia ter atingido RPM mais altas. A bateria também poderia ter um aumento de energia. Embora as durações sejam suficientes para um gamer de 17 polegadas que está sempre conectado à fonte de alimentação em casa, as coisas podem ficar apertadas ao usar o dispositivo em movimento.
No geral, poderíamos dizer que os jogadores de gama média que jogam jogos atuais devem ficar muito felizes com a relação preço-desempenho que o MSI GF75 Thin oferece. E seu exterior é muito atraente. Compradores em potencial terão que decidir por si mesmos se podem aceitar as desvantagens, como o parte inferior de plástico barato. Se este for o caso, eles serão recompensados com um dispositivo razoavelmente rápido que oferece um desempenho sólido.
MSI GF75 8RD-001
- 04/30/2019 v7 (old)
Daniel Puschina
Price comparison
