Deutsch
English
Español
Français
Italiano
Nederlands
Polski
Русский
Türkçe
Svenska
Chinese
MagyarBreve Análise do Portátil Vaio SX14 (i5-8265U, FHD)
| Networking | |
| iperf3 transmit AX12 | |
| Fujitsu Lifebook U938 | |
| VAIO SX14 | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon 2018-20KGS03900 | |
| Asus ASUSPRO B9440UA-GV0100T | |
| iperf3 receive AX12 | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon 2018-20KGS03900 | |
| Asus ASUSPRO B9440UA-GV0100T | |
| VAIO SX14 | |
| Fujitsu Lifebook U938 | |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
iluminação: 86 %
Contraste: 1108:1 (Preto: 0.25 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 5.05 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.93
ΔE Greyscale 6.25 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
95% sRGB (Argyll 1.6.3 3D)
62% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 1.6.3 3D)
69.8% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
95.3% sRGB (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
72.4% Display P3 (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
Gamma: 2.43
| VAIO SX14 HV140FHM-N61, , 1920x1080, 14" | Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon G6-20KG0025UK Lenovo LEN40A9 / AUO B140HAK02.3, , 1920x1080, 14" | Dell Latitude 7390 LGD059B, , 1920x1080, 13.3" | Asus ASUSPRO B9440UA-GV0100T AU Optronics AUO353D / B140HAN03.5, , 1920x1080, 14" | Fujitsu Lifebook U938 Sharp LQ133M1JW28, , 1920x1080, 13.3" | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Display | -2% | -3% | -9% | -3% | |
| Display P3 Coverage | 72.4 | 68.3 -6% | 67.8 -6% | 64 -12% | 67.5 -7% |
| sRGB Coverage | 95.3 | 94.9 0% | 95.1 0% | 89.1 -7% | 94.5 -1% |
| AdobeRGB 1998 Coverage | 69.8 | 69.3 -1% | 67.8 -3% | 65.2 -7% | 68.7 -2% |
| Response Times | 17% | 13% | -2% | -25% | |
| Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% * | 43 ? | 40 ? 7% | 36.8 ? 14% | 48.8 ? -13% | 43 ? -0% |
| Response Time Black / White * | 34 ? | 25 ? 26% | 30.4 ? 11% | 30.8 ? 9% | 29 ? 15% |
| PWM Frequency | 2000 ? | 217 ? -89% | |||
| Screen | 25% | 10% | -15% | 14% | |
| Brightness middle | 277 | 298 8% | 303.8 10% | 319 15% | 344 24% |
| Brightness | 262 | 287 10% | 289 10% | 294 12% | 320 22% |
| Brightness Distribution | 86 | 91 6% | 86 0% | 87 1% | 77 -10% |
| Black Level * | 0.25 | 0.2 20% | 0.31 -24% | 0.26 -4% | 0.31 -24% |
| Contrast | 1108 | 1490 34% | 980 -12% | 1227 11% | 1110 0% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 5.05 | 2.19 57% | 2.9 43% | 7.1 -41% | 2.72 46% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 8.63 | 4.39 49% | 5.79 33% | 13.7 -59% | 5.92 31% |
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 6.25 | 1.97 68% | 3.7 41% | 9.61 -54% | 2.74 56% |
| Gamma | 2.43 91% | 2.43 91% | 2.118 104% | 2.33 94% | 2.38 92% |
| CCT | 7227 90% | 6571 99% | 6323 103% | 6021 108% | 6794 96% |
| Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998) | 62 | 62 0% | 63 2% | 54.01 -13% | 61 -2% |
| Color Space (Percent of sRGB) | 95 | 95 0% | 95 0% | 83.02 -13% | 94 -1% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 calibrated * | 1.67 | 1.72 | |||
| Total Average (Program / Settings) | 13% /
19% | 7% /
8% | -9% /
-12% | -5% /
4% |
* ... smaller is better
Display Response Times
| ↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
|---|---|---|
| 34 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 19 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 15 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. » 90 % 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 | ||
| 43 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 22 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 21 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. » 68 % 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 detected | 2000 Hz | ≤ 90 % brightness setting |  |
The display backlight flickers at 2000 Hz (worst case, e.g., utilizing PWM) Flickering detected at a brightness setting of 90 % and below. There should be no flickering or PWM above this brightness setting. The frequency of 2000 Hz is quite high, so most users sensitive to PWM should not notice any flickering. In comparison: 53 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 8774 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 343500) Hz was measured. | |||
| PCMark 8 Home Score Accelerated v2 | 3496 pontos | |
| PCMark 8 Work Score Accelerated v2 | 4919 pontos | |
| PCMark 10 Score | 3846 pontos | |
Ajuda | ||
| VAIO SX14 Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB256HAHQ | Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon 2018-20KGS03900 Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB512HAJQ | Dell Latitude 7390 Samsung PM961 MZVLW256HEHP | Fujitsu Lifebook U938 Micron 1100 MTFDDAV256TBN | Average Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB256HAHQ | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CrystalDiskMark 5.2 / 6 | 14% | 8% | -52% | 52% | |
| Write 4K | 101.8 | 131.9 30% | 139.4 37% | 80.5 -21% | 116.1 ? 14% |
| Read 4K | 37.63 | 44.6 19% | 43.18 15% | 26.14 -31% | 189.5 ? 404% |
| Write Seq | 1384 | 1824 32% | 1075 -22% | 396.8 -71% | 1409 ? 2% |
| Read Seq | 2061 | 2163 5% | 1639 -20% | 473.1 -77% | 1624 ? -21% |
| Write 4K Q32T1 | 489.3 | 338.1 -31% | 662 35% | 264.2 -46% | 360 ? -26% |
| Read 4K Q32T1 | 281.2 | 351.9 25% | 413.9 47% | 244 -13% | 396 ? 41% |
| Write Seq Q32T1 | 1515 | 1972 30% | 1195 -21% | 464.6 -69% | 1492 ? -2% |
| Read Seq Q32T1 | 3324 | 3387 2% | 3116 -6% | 525 -84% | 3313 ? 0% |
| 3DMark 11 Performance | 2114 pontos | |
| 3DMark Cloud Gate Standard Score | 9208 pontos | |
| 3DMark Fire Strike Score | 1176 pontos | |
Ajuda | ||
| baixo | média | alto | ultra | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BioShock Infinite (2013) | 78.7 | 39.7 | 33.5 | 10.2 |
| The Witcher 3 (2015) | 17.4 | |||
| Rise of the Tomb Raider (2016) | 24.5 | 14.9 |
Barulho
| Ocioso |
| 32.5 / 32.5 / 32.5 dB |
| Carga |
| 43.3 / 43.9 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: 30.5 dB(A) | ||
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 38.7 °C / 102 F, compared to the average of 36.1 °C / 97 F, ranging from 21.4 to 281 °C for the class Subnotebook.
(±) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 42 °C / 108 F, compared to the average of 39.4 °C / 103 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 25.5 °C / 78 F, compared to the device average of 30.8 °C / 87 F.
(+) The palmrests and touchpad are cooler than skin temperature with a maximum of 28.1 °C / 82.6 F and are therefore cool to the touch.
(±) The average temperature of the palmrest area of similar devices was 28.3 °C / 82.9 F (+0.2 °C / 0.3 F).
VAIO SX14 audio analysis
(-) | not very loud speakers (67.9 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 31.9% lower than median
(+) | bass is linear (4.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 7.7% higher than median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (11.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 3.8% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (5.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(-) | overall sound is not linear (32.3% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 93% of all tested devices in this class were better, 3% similar, 5% worse
» The best had a delta of 5%, average was 19%, worst was 53%
Compared to all devices tested
» 90% of all tested devices were better, 2% similar, 8% 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 22%, worst was 53%
Compared to all devices tested
» 39% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 54% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
| desligado | 0.28 / 0.4 Watt |
| Ocioso | 4.4 / 7.9 / 8 Watt |
| Carga |
38 / 44.9 Watt |
   
| |
Key:
min: ,
med: ,
max: Metrahit Energy | |
| VAIO SX14 i5-8265U, UHD Graphics 620, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB256HAHQ, IPS LED, 1920x1080, 14" | Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon 2018-20KGS03900 i5-8550U, UHD Graphics 620, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB512HAJQ, IPS, 2560x1440, 14" | Dell Latitude 7390 i7-8650U, UHD Graphics 620, Samsung PM961 MZVLW256HEHP, IPS, 1920x1080, 13.3" | Asus ASUSPRO B9440UA-GV0100T i5-7200U, HD Graphics 620, Micron SSD 1100 (MTFDDAV256TBN), IPS, 1920x1080, 14" | Fujitsu Lifebook U938 i5-8250U, UHD Graphics 620, Micron 1100 MTFDDAV256TBN, IPS, 1920x1080, 13.3" | Average Intel UHD Graphics 620 | Average of class Subnotebook | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power Consumption | -18% | 11% | 20% | 29% | 4% | -20% | |
| Idle Minimum * | 4.4 | 3.8 14% | 3.3 25% | 3.1 30% | 2.4 45% | 3.81 ? 13% | 4.54 ? -3% |
| Idle Average * | 7.9 | 8.9 -13% | 5.9 25% | 6.1 23% | 5.5 30% | 6.94 ? 12% | 7.75 ? 2% |
| Idle Maximum * | 8 | 11.9 -49% | 6.2 22% | 6.8 15% | 6 25% | 8.75 ? -9% | 9.65 ? -21% |
| Load Average * | 38 | 47.5 -25% | 43.2 -14% | 27.4 28% | 31 18% | 35 ? 8% | 46.7 ? -23% |
| Load Maximum * | 44.9 | 52.5 -17% | 45.2 -1% | 43.7 3% | 32.6 27% | 47.5 ? -6% | 68.8 ? -53% |
* ... smaller is better
| VAIO SX14 i5-8265U, UHD Graphics 620, 38 Wh | Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon 2018-20KGS03900 i5-8550U, UHD Graphics 620, 57 Wh | Dell Latitude 7390 i7-8650U, UHD Graphics 620, 60 Wh | Asus ASUSPRO B9440UA-GV0100T i5-7200U, HD Graphics 620, 48 Wh | Fujitsu Lifebook U938 i5-8250U, UHD Graphics 620, 50 Wh | Average of class Subnotebook | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Battery Runtime | 57% | 96% | 59% | 45% | 106% | |
| Reader / Idle | 605 | 1328 120% | 1137 88% | 1167 93% | 1599 ? 164% | |
| H.264 | 390 | 566 45% | 433 11% | 896 ? 130% | ||
| WiFi v1.3 | 339 | 519 53% | 664 96% | 531 57% | 506 49% | 710 ? 109% |
| Load | 96 | 106 10% | 126 31% | 123 28% | 116 ? 21% |
Pro
Contra
O Vaio SX14 deve ser o grande retorno do Vaio ao mercado de PC ocidental. Este retorno é uma história de sucesso? Em alguns aspectos sim, mas infelizmente o Vaio cometeu dois grandes erros.
Vamos nos concentrar nos aspectos positivos do sucessor do Sony Vaio moderno primeiro. Nós gostamos muito do chassi extremamente leve, que também tem um certo nível de estabilidade, apesar de sua leveza. Também gostamos do teclado confortável. A tela mate não é muito brilhante, mas possui uma cobertura suficientemente alta da gama de cores sRGB para permitir a edição de fotos. A seleção de portas é abundante. A porta VGA em particular é algo que você não vai encontrar na maioria dos outros portáteis atualmente. Também é louvável que todos os modelos (pelo menos aqui na Alemanha) apresentem LTE - que não é o caso de todos os concorrentes. Por último, mas não menos importante, o Vaio SX14 oferece um bom desempenho da CPU e mantém-se frio no exterior, mesmo sob uso intenso.
Um portátil ultra leve com internet móvel e muitas portas - isso soa como uma excelente máquina de trabalho móvel, mas de que adianta a grande conectividade em movimento se o dispositivo tiver uma bateria com pouca duração? Infelizmente, a bateria interna é muito pequena e nem consegue manter o Vaio SX14 funcionando por 5 horas no teste de WiFi. Parece que Vaio colocou muita ênfase no baixo peso, propositalmente colocando uma bateria menor para economizar peso. Isso significa que o Vaio não é utilizável por muito tempo em movimento sem um banco de energia. A segunda grande desvantagem é o controle do ventilador: Achamos extremamente irritante que o ventilador sempre funcione, não importa se o dispositivo está ocioso ou sob uso intenso. Isto é simplesmente desnecessário. Com esses problemas em mente, os problemas remanescentes do Vaio SX14, como a falta da porta Thunderbolt 3, o touchpad pequeno, os alto-falantes ruins, a opção de teclado ISO ausente e o alto preço parecem pequenos.
A duração da bateria ruim e um ventilador irritante resultam em um xeque-mate contra o Vaio SX14 - apesar de suas qualidades inegáveis.
Gostaríamos de recomendar o Vaio SX14. O design compacto e leve é muito atraente. Infelizmente, nós simplesmente não podemos fazê-lo, devido à duração ruim da bateria e controle irritante do ventilador. Uma pena, porque esse dispositivo tem muito potencial. O Vaio só precisa revisar o controle do ventilador e colocar uma bateria maior na próxima versão - mesmo que isso resulte em um peso ligeiramente maior.
VAIO SX14
-
04/30/2019 v6 (old)
Benjamin Herzig
Price comparison
