Encrenca em dobro: Breve Análise do Portátil HP Omen X 2S 15
Os Top 10
» Os Top 10 Portáteis Multimídia
» Os Top 10 Portáteis de Jogos
» Os Top 10 Portáteis Leves para Jogos
» Os Top 10 Portáteis Acessíveis de Escritório/Empresariais
» Os Top 10 Portáteis Premium de Escritório/Empresariais
» Os Top 10 dos Portáteis Workstation
» Os Top 10 Subportáteis
» Os Top 10 Ultrabooks
» Os Top 10 Conversíveis
» Os Top 10 Tablets
» Os Top 10 Smartphones
» A melhores Telas de Portáteis Analisadas Pela Notebookcheck
» Top 10 dos portáteis abaixo dos 500 Euros da Notebookcheck
» Top 10 dos Portáteis abaixo dos 300 Euros
Networking | |
iperf3 transmit AX12 | |
Razer Blade 15 RTX 2080 Max-Q | |
HP Omen 15-dc1020ng | |
HP Omen X 2S 15-dg0075cl | |
HP Omen 15-dc1303ng | |
iperf3 receive AX12 | |
Razer Blade 15 RTX 2080 Max-Q | |
HP Omen X 2S 15-dg0075cl | |
HP Omen 15-dc1303ng | |
HP Omen 15-dc1020ng |
|
iluminação: 84 %
iluminação com acumulador: 324.8 cd/m²
Contraste: 1249:1 (Preto: 0.26 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 4.96 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.91, calibrated: 3.23
ΔE Greyscale 5 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
91.8% sRGB (Argyll 1.6.3 3D)
59.8% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 1.6.3 3D)
67.2% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
92.3% sRGB (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
66.2% Display P3 (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
Gamma: 2.21
HP Omen X 2S 15-dg0075cl AU Optronics AUO82ED, IPS, 15.6", 1920x1080 | HP Omen 15-dc1020ng LGD05CE, IPS, 15.6", 1920x1080 | Razer Blade 15 RTX 2080 Max-Q Sharp LQ156M1JW03 (SHP14C5), IPS, 15.6", 1920x1080 | Alienware m15 R2 P87F Sharp LQ156M1, IPS, 15.6", 1920x1080 | MSI GT63 Titan 8RG-046 N156HHE-GA1, TN, 15.6", 1920x1080 | Lenovo Legion Y740-15ICHg LP156WFG-SPB2, IPS, 15.6", 1920x1080 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Display | -40% | 3% | 0% | 25% | -3% | |
Display P3 Coverage | 66.2 | 38.37 -42% | 66.9 1% | 65.3 -1% | 91.3 38% | 63.5 -4% |
sRGB Coverage | 92.3 | 57.6 -38% | 98.1 6% | 95.1 3% | 99.9 8% | 92.4 0% |
AdobeRGB 1998 Coverage | 67.2 | 39.69 -41% | 68.5 2% | 65.9 -2% | 85.7 28% | 64.7 -4% |
Response Times | -169% | 10% | 6% | 46% | -23% | |
Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% * | 15.2 ? | 40 ? -163% | 12.8 ? 16% | 16.4 ? -8% | 8.4 ? 45% | 18.8 ? -24% |
Response Time Black / White * | 10.8 ? | 29.6 ? -174% | 10.4 ? 4% | 8.8 ? 19% | 5.8 ? 46% | 13.2 ? -22% |
PWM Frequency | 23810 ? | 23810 ? | 25510 ? | |||
Screen | -23% | 19% | -11% | 10% | 2% | |
Brightness middle | 324.8 | 251 -23% | 293 -10% | 324.2 0% | 307.1 -5% | 320.4 -1% |
Brightness | 316 | 232 -27% | 270 -15% | 304 -4% | 276 -13% | 298 -6% |
Brightness Distribution | 84 | 76 -10% | 87 4% | 90 7% | 80 -5% | 85 1% |
Black Level * | 0.26 | 0.17 35% | 0.29 -12% | 0.38 -46% | 0.37 -42% | 0.42 -62% |
Contrast | 1249 | 1476 18% | 1010 -19% | 853 -32% | 830 -34% | 763 -39% |
Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 4.96 | 6.2 -25% | 1.69 66% | 5.01 -1% | 2.53 49% | 3.21 35% |
Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 8.95 | 18.6 -108% | 3.37 62% | 12.7 -42% | 4.66 48% | 5.54 38% |
Colorchecker dE 2000 calibrated * | 3.23 | 4.8 -49% | 1.24 62% | 1.64 49% | 2.82 13% | 2.36 27% |
Greyscale dE 2000 * | 5 | 4.2 16% | 2.3 54% | 7.9 -58% | 1.7 66% | 3.6 28% |
Gamma | 2.21 100% | 2.32 95% | 2.3 96% | 2.35 94% | 2.194 100% | 2.27 97% |
CCT | 7742 84% | 7454 87% | 6758 96% | 8455 77% | 6893 94% | 6503 100% |
Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998) | 59.8 | 36.5 -39% | 63 5% | 60.8 2% | 76 27% | 59 -1% |
Color Space (Percent of sRGB) | 91.8 | 57.4 -37% | 98.5 7% | 95.5 4% | 100 9% | 92 0% |
Total Average (Program / Settings) | -77% /
-44% | 11% /
15% | -2% /
-7% | 27% /
17% | -8% /
-2% |
* ... smaller is better
Display Response Times
↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
---|---|---|
10.8 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 6 ms rise | |
↘ 4.8 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. » 26 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (20.9 ms). | ||
↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey | ||
15.2 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 7.6 ms rise | |
↘ 7.6 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 0.165 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 26 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better 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 | 5039 pontos | |
PCMark 8 Work Score Accelerated v2 | 5931 pontos | |
PCMark 10 Score | 5991 pontos | |
Ajuda |
HP Omen X 2S 15-dg0075cl WDC PC SN720 SDAPNTW-1T00 | HP Omen 15-dc1020ng WDC PC SN720 SDAQNTW-512G | Razer Blade 15 RTX 2080 Max-Q Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB512HAJQ | Alienware m15 R2 P87F 2x Toshiba XG6 KXG60ZNV512G (RAID 0) | MSI GT63 Titan 8RG-046 CUK Cyclone 500GB M.2 NVMe | Lenovo Legion Y740-15ICHg Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB256HAHQ | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AS SSD | -7% | -1% | -15% | -8% | -20% | |
Seq Read | 2105 | 2955 40% | 1832 -13% | 1925 -9% | 2399 14% | 1953 -7% |
Seq Write | 2493 | 2440 -2% | 1864 -25% | 2371 -5% | 1665 -33% | 1629 -35% |
4K Read | 25.01 | 40.56 62% | 52.1 108% | 37.2 49% | 49.17 97% | 33.2 33% |
4K Write | 108.7 | 118.6 9% | 108.3 0% | 108.9 0% | 87.7 -19% | 88.1 -19% |
4K-64 Read | 1604 | 1283 -20% | 1159 -28% | 1177 -27% | 1144 -29% | 757 -53% |
4K-64 Write | 1593 | 1538 -3% | 1807 13% | 1135 -29% | 648 -59% | 1501 -6% |
Access Time Read * | 0.046 | 0.084 -83% | 0.05 -9% | 0.065 -41% | 0.05 -9% | 0.077 -67% |
Access Time Write * | 0.102 | 0.032 69% | 0.034 67% | 0.108 -6% | 0.042 59% | 0.043 58% |
Score Read | 1840 | 1619 -12% | 1394 -24% | 1407 -24% | 1433 -22% | 985 -46% |
Score Write | 1951 | 1901 -3% | 2102 8% | 1481 -24% | 902 -54% | 1752 -10% |
Score Total | 4743 | 4323 -9% | 4221 -11% | 3633 -23% | 3040 -36% | 3230 -32% |
Copy ISO MB/s | 2250 | 1418 -37% | 2083 -7% | 2073 -8% | 1872 -17% | |
Copy Program MB/s | 896 | 392.5 -56% | 496.5 -45% | 576 -36% | 478.2 -47% | |
Copy Game MB/s | 1854 | 907 -51% | 977 -47% | 1426 -23% | 1165 -37% |
* ... smaller is better
3DMark 11 | |
1280x720 Performance GPU | |
MSI RTX 2080 Gaming X Trio | |
HP Omen 17-cb0020ng | |
MSI RTX 2070 Gaming Z 8G | |
Alienware m15 R2 P87F | |
Eurocom Nightsky RX15 | |
Average NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q (14723 - 27694, n=31) | |
Asus Strix Hero III G731GV | |
HP Omen X 2S 15-dg0075cl | |
HP Pavilion Gaming 17-cd0085cl | |
HP Omen 17-w100ng | |
HP Omen 15-dc1020ng | |
MSI GT72S-6QEG16SR421BW | |
1280x720 Performance Combined | |
Eurocom Nightsky RX15 | |
HP Omen 17-cb0020ng | |
MSI RTX 2070 Gaming Z 8G | |
MSI RTX 2080 Gaming X Trio | |
Average NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q (9107 - 17603, n=30) | |
HP Omen X 2S 15-dg0075cl | |
Asus Strix Hero III G731GV | |
HP Pavilion Gaming 17-cd0085cl | |
Alienware m15 R2 P87F | |
MSI GT72S-6QEG16SR421BW | |
HP Omen 15-dc1020ng | |
HP Omen 17-w100ng |
3DMark 11 Performance | 16707 pontos | |
3DMark Cloud Gate Standard Score | 33377 pontos | |
3DMark Fire Strike Score | 14914 pontos | |
3DMark Time Spy Score | 6349 pontos | |
Ajuda |
Shadow of the Tomb Raider - 1920x1080 Highest Preset AA:T | |
MSI RTX 2080 Gaming X Trio | |
MSI GE75 9SG | |
MSI RTX 2070 Gaming Z 8G | |
Eurocom Nightsky RX15 | |
Alienware m15 R2 P87F | |
HP Omen X 2S 15-dg0075cl | |
Average NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q (57 - 89, n=12) | |
Asus Strix Hero III G731GV | |
HP Pavilion Gaming 17-cd0085cl | |
Asus ROG Zephyrus G15 GA502DU | |
MSI GF75 Thin 9SC |
baixo | média | alto | ultra | |
---|---|---|---|---|
BioShock Infinite (2013) | 306.6 | 257.7 | 234.4 | 147.8 |
The Witcher 3 (2015) | 295.3 | 222.9 | 136.6 | 69 |
Shadow of the Tomb Raider (2018) | 128 | 98 | 91 | 83 |
HP Omen X 2S 15-dg0075cl GeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q, i7-9750H, WDC PC SN720 SDAPNTW-1T00 | HP Omen 15-dc1020ng GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile, i5-9300H, WDC PC SN720 SDAQNTW-512G | Razer Blade 15 RTX 2080 Max-Q GeForce RTX 2080 Max-Q, i7-9750H, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB512HAJQ | Alienware m15 R2 P87F GeForce RTX 2080 Max-Q, i7-9750H, 2x Toshiba XG6 KXG60ZNV512G (RAID 0) | MSI GT63 Titan 8RG-046 GeForce GTX 1080 Mobile, i7-8750H, CUK Cyclone 500GB M.2 NVMe | Lenovo Legion Y740-15ICHg GeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q, i7-8750H, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB256HAHQ | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Noise | 11% | 9% | -9% | 3% | 5% | |
off / environment * | 29 | 28.8 1% | 28.3 2% | 28.3 2% | 28 3% | 28 3% |
Idle Minimum * | 30.5 | 28.8 6% | 28.8 6% | 28.5 7% | 31.4 -3% | 32.6 -7% |
Idle Average * | 31.5 | 29.5 6% | 28.8 9% | 28.5 10% | 31.4 -0% | 32.7 -4% |
Idle Maximum * | 31.5 | 31.1 1% | 29 8% | 49 -56% | 32.2 -2% | 32.7 -4% |
Load Average * | 40.6 | 35.2 13% | 33.5 17% | 49 -21% | 35.5 13% | 33.3 18% |
Witcher 3 ultra * | 49.5 | 35.2 29% | 45 9% | 49 1% | 47.6 4% | 41.6 16% |
Load Maximum * | 53.4 | 41 23% | 45.2 15% | 55 -3% | 50.8 5% | 45.2 15% |
* ... smaller is better
Barulho
Ocioso |
| 30.5 / 31.5 / 31.5 dB |
Carga |
| 40.6 / 53.4 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 48.8 °C / 120 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 55 °C / 131 F, compared to the average of 43.2 °C / 110 F
(±) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 35.3 °C / 96 F, compared to the device average of 33.9 °C / 93 F.
(-) Playing The Witcher 3, the average temperature for the upper side is 38.2 °C / 101 F, compared to the device average of 33.9 °C / 93 F.
(+) The palmrests and touchpad are reaching skin temperature as a maximum (34 °C / 93.2 F) and are therefore not hot.
(-) The average temperature of the palmrest area of similar devices was 28.9 °C / 84 F (-5.1 °C / -9.2 F).
HP Omen X 2S 15-dg0075cl audio analysis
(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (80.5 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 16.8% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (12.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | reduced mids - on average 5.5% lower than median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (10.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 2.5% away from median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (7.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (21.8% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 76% of all tested devices in this class were better, 6% similar, 18% worse
» The best had a delta of 6%, average was 18%, worst was 132%
Compared to all devices tested
» 59% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 34% 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 | 0.09 / 1.54 Watt |
Ocioso | 46 / 59 / 65.5 Watt |
Carga |
99.8 / 222.7 Watt |
Key:
min: ,
med: ,
max: Metrahit Energy |
HP Omen X 2S 15-dg0075cl i7-9750H, GeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q, WDC PC SN720 SDAPNTW-1T00, IPS, 1920x1080, 15.6" | HP Omen 15-dc1020ng i5-9300H, GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile, WDC PC SN720 SDAQNTW-512G, IPS, 1920x1080, 15.6" | Razer Blade 15 RTX 2080 Max-Q i7-9750H, GeForce RTX 2080 Max-Q, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB512HAJQ, IPS, 1920x1080, 15.6" | Alienware m15 R2 P87F i7-9750H, GeForce RTX 2080 Max-Q, 2x Toshiba XG6 KXG60ZNV512G (RAID 0), IPS, 1920x1080, 15.6" | MSI GT63 Titan 8RG-046 i7-8750H, GeForce GTX 1080 Mobile, CUK Cyclone 500GB M.2 NVMe, TN, 1920x1080, 15.6" | Lenovo Legion Y740-15ICHg i7-8750H, GeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB256HAHQ, IPS, 1920x1080, 15.6" | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Power Consumption | 59% | 38% | 10% | 15% | 36% | |
Idle Minimum * | 46 | 4.04 91% | 12.5 73% | 19 59% | 26.4 43% | 22.9 50% |
Idle Average * | 59 | 7.2 88% | 15.3 74% | 40.5 31% | 30 49% | 27.2 54% |
Idle Maximum * | 65.5 | 11.4 83% | 20.7 68% | 52 21% | 30.6 53% | 27.5 58% |
Load Average * | 99.8 | 80.8 19% | 90.2 10% | 132.3 -33% | 90.4 9% | 83.4 16% |
Witcher 3 ultra * | 154.1 | 93.6 39% | 162 -5% | 183.3 -19% | 255.6 -66% | 143.6 7% |
Load Maximum * | 222.7 | 144.5 35% | 209.3 6% | 217.2 2% | 224.4 -1% | 160.5 28% |
* ... smaller is better
HP Omen X 2S 15-dg0075cl i7-9750H, GeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q, 72 Wh | HP Omen 15-dc1020ng i5-9300H, GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile, 52.5 Wh | Razer Blade 15 RTX 2080 Max-Q i7-9750H, GeForce RTX 2080 Max-Q, 80 Wh | Alienware m15 R2 P87F i7-9750H, GeForce RTX 2080 Max-Q, 76 Wh | MSI GT63 Titan 8RG-046 i7-8750H, GeForce GTX 1080 Mobile, 75.24 Wh | Lenovo Legion Y740-15ICHg i7-8750H, GeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q, 57 Wh | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Battery Runtime | 172% | 188% | 88% | 50% | -2% | |
Reader / Idle | 221 | 951 330% | 953 331% | 554 151% | 235 6% | |
WiFi v1.3 | 129 | 385 198% | 393 205% | 332 157% | 194 50% | 166 29% |
Load | 80 | 71 -11% | 102 28% | 44 -45% | 46 -42% | |
Witcher 3 ultra | 59 |
Pro
Contra
A segunda tela de 6 polegadas não faz do Omen um melhor portátil para jogos ou companheiro de viagem. A duração da bateria é incrivelmente curta e o uso da segunda tela em exteriores atrairá reflexos intensos. As cores são mal calibradas para serem piores do que mesmo um smartphone Android de gama média. Na verdade, seria melhor usar seu smartphone mais rápido e responsivo para procurar guias e fóruns de jogos, em vez desta segunda tela integrada de ângulos abaixo do ideal.
Se você pretende usar o Omen X 2S 15 para muitas tarefas de processamento de texto, reprodução de vídeo, navegação ou outras tarefas com várias janelas em uma pequena mesa onde o espaço é limitado, então haverá valor na segunda tela. Caso contrário, você também pode conectar um monitor externo.
O desempenho dos jogos é excelente, como seria de esperar de qualquer portátil de jogos vendido por US$ 2000. Os principais problemas são quase tudo, desde a difícil manutenção até os marcos superiores e inferiores grossos da frágil tampa e os ventiladores barulhentos do sistema. A HP pode querer primeiro criar um portátil padrão para jogos atraente antes de integrar novidades caras.
Os fortes reflexos, a curta duração da bateria e um ângulo de visão abaixo do ideal tornam a segunda tela quase inútil quando estiver em exteriores. Ela tem seus usos em interiores, onde a iluminação é controlada, mas seria melhor investir em um monitor externo, se o portátil estiver fixo frequentemente.
HP Omen X 2S 15-dg0075cl
- 09/13/2019 v7 (old)
Allen Ngo