Deutsch
English
Español
Français
Italiano
Nederlands
Polski
Русский
Türkçe
Svenska
Chinese
MagyarBreve Análise do Tablet Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Tablet Gen 2 (i5-7Y54)
| SD Card Reader | |
| average JPG Copy Test (av. of 3 runs) | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Yoga 2017 20JES03T00 | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Tablet Gen 2 | |
| Dell Latitude 12 5285 2-in-1 | |
| maximum AS SSD Seq Read Test (1GB) | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Tablet Gen 2 | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Yoga 2017 20JES03T00 | |
| Dell Latitude 12 5285 2-in-1 | |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
iluminação: 78 %
iluminação com acumulador: 388.1 cd/m²
Contraste: 995:1 (Preto: 0.39 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 4.6 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.93
ΔE Greyscale 6.1 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
91% sRGB (Argyll 1.6.3 3D)
59% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 1.6.3 3D)
Gamma: 2.07
| Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Tablet Gen 2 LSN120QL01L01, IPS, 12", 2160x1440 | Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Tablet INT3470, IPS, 12", 2160x1440 | Dell Latitude 12 5285 2-in-1 BOE06DC, IPS, 12.3", 1920x1280 | HP EliteBook x360 1030 G2 CMN1374, IPS, 13.3", 1920x1080 | Microsoft Surface Pro 4, Core m3 Samsung SDC3853, IPS, 12.3", 2736x1824 | Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Yoga 2017 20JES03T00 LEN4140, OLED, 14", 2560x1440 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Display | ||||||
| Display P3 Coverage | 62.4 | 62.8 | 65.5 | 67.5 | ||
| sRGB Coverage | 93 | 94 | 88.8 | 96.6 | ||
| AdobeRGB 1998 Coverage | 63.9 | 64.7 | 64.9 | 69 | ||
| Response Times | 8% | -30% | -57% | -58% | 61% | |
| Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% * | 28.4 ? | 28.4 ? -0% | 42.4 ? -49% | 55.2 ? -94% | 46 ? -62% | 3.6 ? 87% |
| Response Time Black / White * | 22.8 ? | 17.6 ? 23% | 30.8 ? -35% | 27.2 ? -19% | 31 ? -36% | 3.2 ? 86% |
| PWM Frequency | 221.2 ? | 222.2 ? 0% | 210.1 ? -5% | 50 ? -77% | 240.4 ? 9% | |
| Screen | -16% | 16% | -3% | 20% | 4% | |
| Brightness middle | 388.1 | 342.4 -12% | 523.2 35% | 262 -32% | 389.2 0% | 243 -37% |
| Brightness | 344 | 315 -8% | 522 52% | 256 -26% | 392 14% | 240 -30% |
| Brightness Distribution | 78 | 85 9% | 88 13% | 83 6% | 92 18% | 95 22% |
| Black Level * | 0.39 | 0.744 -91% | 0.42 -8% | 0.25 36% | 0.27 31% | |
| Contrast | 995 | 460 -54% | 1246 25% | 1048 5% | 1441 45% | |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 4.6 | 5.33 -16% | 4 13% | 5.13 -12% | 3.61 22% | 5.3 -15% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 9.1 | 9.25 -2% | 8.6 5% | 9.46 -4% | 8.9 2% | |
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 6.1 | 5.36 12% | 5.5 10% | 6.23 -2% | 3.8 38% | 3.7 39% |
| Gamma | 2.07 106% | 2.12 104% | 2.16 102% | 2.45 90% | 2.16 102% | 1.78 124% |
| CCT | 7104 91% | 7671 85% | 7546 86% | 6413 101% | 5969 109% | 6202 105% |
| Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998) | 59 | 57 -3% | 64.86 10% | 57.84 -2% | 63 7% | 84.8 44% |
| Color Space (Percent of sRGB) | 91 | 93 2% | 93.97 3% | 88.57 -3% | 97 7% | 100 10% |
| Total Average (Program / Settings) | -4% /
-11% | -7% /
5% | -30% /
-12% | -19% /
1% | 33% /
20% |
* ... smaller is better
Display Response Times
| ↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
|---|---|---|
| 22.8 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 13.6 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 9.2 ms fall | ||
| The screen shows good response rates in our tests, but may be too slow for competitive gamers. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.1 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 47 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is similar to the average of all tested devices (21 ms). | ||
| ↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey | ||
| 28.4 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 15.2 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 13.2 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 0.165 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 34 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (32.9 ms). | ||
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
| Screen flickering / PWM detected | 221.2 Hz | ≤ 49 % brightness setting |  |
The display backlight flickers at 221.2 Hz (worst case, e.g., utilizing PWM) Flickering detected at a brightness setting of 49 % and below. There should be no flickering or PWM above this brightness setting. The frequency of 221.2 Hz is relatively low, so sensitive users will likely notice flickering and experience eyestrain at the stated brightness setting and below. 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. | |||
| wPrime 2.10 - 1024m | |
| Microsoft Surface Pro 4, Core m3 | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Tablet Gen 2 | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Tablet | |
| Dell Latitude 12 5285 2-in-1 | |
* ... smaller is better
| PCMark 8 Home Score Accelerated v2 | 3092 pontos | |
| PCMark 8 Creative Score Accelerated v2 | 3924 pontos | |
| PCMark 8 Work Score Accelerated v2 | 4288 pontos | |
Ajuda | ||
| Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Tablet Gen 2 Samsung PM961 MZVLW256HEHP | Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Tablet Samsung PM871 MZYLN256HCHP | Dell Latitude 12 5285 2-in-1 Samsung PM961 MZVLW256HEHP | HP EliteBook x360 1030 G2 Sandisk SD8TN8U-256G-1006 | Microsoft Surface Pro 4, Core m3 Samsung MZFLV128 NVMe | Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Yoga 2017 20JES03T00 Samsung SSD PM961 1TB M.2 PCIe 3.0 x4 NVMe (MZVLW1T0) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CrystalDiskMark 3.0 | -42% | -5% | -42% | -52% | 58% | |
| Read Seq | 1739 | 420.3 -76% | 1294 -26% | 467.1 -73% | 663 -62% | 2004 15% |
| Write Seq | 1259 | 305.6 -76% | 865 -31% | 443.6 -65% | 158.2 -87% | 1693 34% |
| Read 512 | 698 | 324.6 -53% | 406 -42% | 312.3 -55% | 313.1 -55% | 1040 49% |
| Write 512 | 869 | 297.8 -66% | 589 -32% | 372.5 -57% | 158.2 -82% | 1292 49% |
| Read 4k | 52.3 | 32.36 -38% | 31.75 -39% | 29.43 -44% | 30.14 -42% | 58.2 11% |
| Write 4k | 120 | 73.6 -39% | 72.2 -40% | 56.5 -53% | 68 -43% | 182.2 52% |
| Read 4k QD32 | 247.9 | 325.6 31% | 493.3 99% | 311.3 26% | 243.7 -2% | 632 155% |
| Write 4k QD32 | 259 | 215.5 -17% | 434.5 68% | 225.2 -13% | 149.2 -42% | 507 96% |
| 3DMark | |
| 1280x720 Cloud Gate Standard Graphics | |
| Dell Latitude 12 5285 2-in-1 | |
| HP EliteBook x360 1030 G2 | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Yoga 2017 20JES03T00 | |
| Microsoft Surface Pro 4, Core m3 | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Tablet Gen 2 | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Tablet | |
| 1920x1080 Fire Strike Graphics | |
| Dell Latitude 12 5285 2-in-1 | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Yoga 2017 20JES03T00 | |
| HP EliteBook x360 1030 G2 | |
| Microsoft Surface Pro 4, Core m3 | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Tablet | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Tablet Gen 2 | |
| 1920x1080 Ice Storm Extreme Graphics | |
| HP EliteBook x360 1030 G2 | |
| Dell Latitude 12 5285 2-in-1 | |
| 3DMark 06 Standard Score | 6873 pontos | |
| 3DMark 11 Performance | 1274 pontos | |
| 3DMark Ice Storm Standard Score | 44515 pontos | |
| 3DMark Cloud Gate Standard Score | 4509 pontos | |
| 3DMark Fire Strike Score | 678 pontos | |
Ajuda | ||
| baixo | média | alto | ultra | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BioShock Infinite (2013) | 42 | 21 | 19 | 6 |
(-) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 47.2 °C / 117 F, compared to the average of 35.3 °C / 96 F, ranging from 19.6 to 55.7 °C for the class Convertible.
(-) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 49.8 °C / 122 F, compared to the average of 36.8 °C / 98 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 28.3 °C / 83 F, compared to the device average of 30.2 °C / 86 F.
(-) The palmrests and touchpad can get very hot to the touch with a maximum of 47.2 °C / 117 F.
(-) The average temperature of the palmrest area of similar devices was 28.1 °C / 82.6 F (-19.1 °C / -34.4 F).
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Tablet Gen 2 audio analysis
(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (74 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 16.1% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (9.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 9.6% higher than median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (11.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 7% higher than median
(-) | highs are not linear (16.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(-) | overall sound is not linear (42.5% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 98% of all tested devices in this class were better, 1% similar, 1% worse
» The best had a delta of 6%, average was 21%, worst was 57%
Compared to all devices tested
» 95% of all tested devices were better, 0% similar, 5% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
HP EliteBook x360 1030 G2 audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (86.3 dB)
Analysis not possible as minimum curve is missing or too high
| desligado |   0.3 / 2.6 Watt |
| Ocioso |  5 / 6.3 / 7.8 Watt |
| Carga |
19.5 / 19.6 Watt |
    
| |
Key:
min: ,
med: ,
max: Metrahit Energy | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Tablet Gen 2 i5-7Y54, HD Graphics 615, Samsung PM961 MZVLW256HEHP, IPS, 2160x1440, 12" | Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Tablet 6Y75, HD Graphics 515, Samsung PM871 MZYLN256HCHP, IPS, 2160x1440, 12" | Dell Latitude 12 5285 2-in-1 i7-7600U, HD Graphics 620, Samsung PM961 MZVLW256HEHP, IPS, 1920x1280, 12.3" | HP EliteBook x360 1030 G2 i5-7300U, HD Graphics 620, Sandisk SD8TN8U-256G-1006, IPS, 1920x1080, 13.3" | Microsoft Surface Pro 4, Core m3 6Y30, HD Graphics 515, Samsung MZFLV128 NVMe, IPS, 2736x1824, 12.3" | Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Yoga 2017 20JES03T00 i7-7600U, HD Graphics 620, Samsung SSD PM961 1TB M.2 PCIe 3.0 x4 NVMe (MZVLW1T0), OLED, 2560x1440, 14" | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power Consumption | -4% | -23% | -19% | -61% | ||
| Idle Minimum * | 5 | 5.87 -17% | 2.85 43% | 3.2 36% | 4.9 2% | |
| Idle Average * | 6.3 | 6.05 4% | 6.76 -7% | 5.5 13% | 7.6 -21% | |
| Idle Maximum * | 7.8 | 6.13 21% | 6.91 11% | 6.5 17% | 13.8 -77% | |
| Load Average * | 19.5 | 21.27 -9% | 32.88 -69% | 29.7 -52% | 33.4 -71% | |
| Load Maximum * | 19.6 | 23.03 -18% | 37.41 -91% | 41.3 -111% | 46.5 -137% |
* ... smaller is better
| Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Tablet Gen 2 i5-7Y54, HD Graphics 615, 37 Wh | Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Tablet 6Y75, HD Graphics 515, 37 Wh | Dell Latitude 12 5285 2-in-1 i7-7600U, HD Graphics 620, 42 Wh | HP EliteBook x360 1030 G2 i5-7300U, HD Graphics 620, 57 Wh | Microsoft Surface Pro 4, Core m3 6Y30, HD Graphics 515, 38 Wh | Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Yoga 2017 20JES03T00 i7-7600U, HD Graphics 620, 56 Wh | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Battery Runtime | -16% | 17% | 78% | 11% | -3% | |
| Reader / Idle | 662 | 628 -5% | 1075 62% | 1387 110% | 791 19% | 784 18% |
| WiFi v1.3 | 441 | 300 -32% | 486 10% | 630 43% | 488 11% | 368 -17% |
| Load | 134 | 118 -12% | 105 -22% | 244 82% | 138 3% | 120 -10% |
Pro
Contra
Embora seja verdade que que o tablet ThinkPad X1 (“Gen 2”) deste ano seja mais que apenas uma atualização de chipset, as vantagens conferidas por essa atualização no que diz respeito ao seu desempenho total em nossos testes hoje foram mínimas. Por exemplo, três das maiores reclamações que tivemos sobre o predecessor de 2016, equipado com m7 — desempenho contínuo da CPU/GPU, temperaturas, e durações da bateria — foram parcialmente abordadas na unidade de teste atual. Sim, o desempenho contínuo do SoC ainda está abaixo de suas capacidades de explosão de prazo curto, mas não é por muito: medimos uma queda de apenas 12% em nosso teste Cinebench realista (como foi detalhado na seção do Processador da análise atual), que não está nada mal considerando a ausência de uma ventoinha ativa. Enquanto isso, as temperaturas da superfície e a duração da bateria agora são aceitáveis ou inclusive boas, dependendo de como planeja usar o aparelho. Além disso, o painel da tela também teve algumas melhorias razoáveis, mais notáveis na área do brilho e contraste (que foram nossos maiores pontos de crítica do ano passado).
Sem importar isso, no entanto, é compreensível por que algumas pessoas ficaram decepcionadas pela falta de revisões no design da carcaça, seleção de portas, e qualidade dos alto falantes. Os concorrentes estão aumentando em número - e com os recém-chegados, como o 2-em-1 Dell Latitude 12 5285, a complacência do X1 pode muito bem contribuir para sua destruição. Além disso, os conversíveis convencionais estão cada vez mais portáteis, diminuindo a vantagem que do design do teclado desmontável dos tablets tem mantido durante muito tempo na área do tamanho e peso.
Um ano se passou, mas o Tablet ThinkPad X1 Gen 2 só fez melhorias marginais em relação ao seu antecessor. Independentemente disso, no entanto, continua sendo uma das poucas opções que combina os benefícios de uma máquina empresarial de gama alta com a versatilidade de um tablet.
No entanto, por enquanto, a diferença de preços e a falta geral de outras opções ainda oferecem ao X1 o luxo da exclusividade. Para os usuários empresariais que sempre estão em movimento, é uma das poucas opções que combina tanto a capacidade de manutenção, a durabilidade e o gerenciamento fácil de uma máquina empresarial de ponta com a versatilidade de um tablet com base de teclado desmontável. Para o usuário certo e para o propósito correto, apesar da sua estratégia evolutiva e inexperiente, ainda faz sentido.
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Tablet Gen 2
-
06/15/2017 v6 (old)
Steve Schardein
Price comparison
