Breve análisis del HP Omen 17 (7700HQ, GTX 1070, Full-HD)
| SD Card Reader | |
| average JPG Copy Test (av. of 3 runs) | |
| MSI GT72VR 7RE-433 (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
| Gigabyte P57X v7 (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
| Asus G752VS-BA338T (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
| HP Omen 17-w110ng (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
| Nexoc G734IV (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
| HP Omen 17-an014ng (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
| maximum AS SSD Seq Read Test (1GB) | |
| MSI GT72VR 7RE-433 (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
| Gigabyte P57X v7 (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
| Nexoc G734IV (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
| Asus G752VS-BA338T (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
| HP Omen 17-w110ng (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
| HP Omen 17-an014ng (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
| Networking | |
| iperf3 transmit AX12 | |
| MSI GT72VR 7RE-433 | |
| HP Omen 17-w110ng | |
| Nexoc G734IV | |
| Asus G752VS-BA338T | |
| HP Omen 17-an014ng | |
| iperf3 receive AX12 | |
| HP Omen 17-an014ng | |
| Asus G752VS-BA338T | |
| Nexoc G734IV | |
| HP Omen 17-w110ng | |
| MSI GT72VR 7RE-433 | |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
iluminación: 88 %
Brillo con batería: 314 cd/m²
Contraste: 924:1 (Negro: 0.34 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 3.19 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.91
ΔE Greyscale 3.49 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
93% sRGB (Argyll 1.6.3 3D)
60% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 1.6.3 3D)
66.1% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
92.9% sRGB (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
64.6% Display P3 (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
Gamma: 2.34
| HP Omen 17-an014ng AUO149D, 1920x1080, 17.3" | HP Omen 17-w110ng LG Philips LGD046E, 1920x1080, 17.3" | Nexoc G734IV LG Philips LP173WF4-SPD1 (LGD046C), 1920x1080, 17.3" | MSI GT72VR 7RE-433 Chi Mei N173HHE-G32 (CMN1747), 1920x1080, 17.3" | Gigabyte P57X v7 SHP145E, 3840x2160, 17.3" | Asus G752VS-BA338T AU Optronics B173HAN01.1 (AUO119D), 1920x1080, 17.3" | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Display | -4% | -5% | -2% | 31% | -4% | |
| Display P3 Coverage | 64.6 | 66.6 3% | 66.2 2% | 68.3 6% | 87.8 36% | 61.6 -5% |
| sRGB Coverage | 92.9 | 84.1 -9% | 83.7 -10% | 86.7 -7% | 100 8% | 90.3 -3% |
| AdobeRGB 1998 Coverage | 66.1 | 61.5 -7% | 61.2 -7% | 63.4 -4% | 98.9 50% | 62.8 -5% |
| Response Times | 20% | 8% | 57% | -39% | 17% | |
| Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% * | 45.2 ? | 37 ? 18% | 42 ? 7% | 29 ? 36% | 55.6 ? -23% | 36 ? 20% |
| Response Time Black / White * | 30.4 ? | 24 ? 21% | 28 ? 8% | 7 ? 77% | 46.8 ? -54% | 26 ? 14% |
| PWM Frequency | 1000 ? | |||||
| Screen | -5% | -5% | -48% | -4% | -26% | |
| Brightness middle | 314 | 362 15% | 348 11% | 299 -5% | 441.3 41% | 307 -2% |
| Brightness | 309 | 342 11% | 336 9% | 277 -10% | 408 32% | 300 -3% |
| Brightness Distribution | 88 | 87 -1% | 91 3% | 87 -1% | 86 -2% | 88 0% |
| Black Level * | 0.34 | 0.31 9% | 0.32 6% | 0.27 21% | 0.44 -29% | 0.32 6% |
| Contrast | 924 | 1168 26% | 1088 18% | 1107 20% | 1003 9% | 959 4% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 3.19 | 4.5 -41% | 4.13 -29% | 9.65 -203% | 5.1 -60% | 5.53 -73% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 6.1 | 9.31 -53% | 9.21 -51% | 15.43 -153% | 9.8 -61% | 11.54 -89% |
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 3.49 | 3.48 -0% | 3.52 -1% | 9.68 -177% | 4.3 -23% | 7 -101% |
| Gamma | 2.34 94% | 2.23 99% | 2.32 95% | 1.89 116% | 2.08 106% | 2.48 89% |
| CCT | 7261 90% | 6144 106% | 6228 104% | 11652 56% | 7345 88% | 8103 80% |
| Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998) | 60 | 55 -8% | 55 -8% | 75 25% | 87 45% | 58 -3% |
| Color Space (Percent of sRGB) | 93 | 84 -10% | 84 -10% | 100 8% | 100 8% | 90 -3% |
| Media total (Programa/Opciones) | 4% /
-2% | -1% /
-3% | 2% /
-24% | -4% /
-2% | -4% /
-16% |
* ... más pequeño es mejor
Tiempos de respuesta del display
| ↔ Tiempo de respuesta de Negro a Blanco | ||
|---|---|---|
| 30.4 ms ... subida ↗ y bajada ↘ combinada | ↗ 16.4 ms subida |  |
| ↘ 14 ms bajada | ||
| La pantalla mostró tiempos de respuesta lentos en nuestros tests y podría ser demasiado lenta para los jugones. En comparación, todos los dispositivos de prueba van de ##min### (mínimo) a 240 (máximo) ms. » 81 % de todos los dispositivos son mejores. Eso quiere decir que el tiempo de respuesta es peor que la media (20.9 ms) de todos los dispositivos testados. | ||
| ↔ Tiempo de respuesta 50% Gris a 80% Gris | ||
| 45.2 ms ... subida ↗ y bajada ↘ combinada | ↗ 20.8 ms subida |  |
| ↘ 24.4 ms bajada | ||
| La pantalla mostró tiempos de respuesta lentos en nuestros tests y podría ser demasiado lenta para los jugones. En comparación, todos los dispositivos de prueba van de ##min### (mínimo) a 636 (máximo) ms. » 75 % de todos los dispositivos son mejores. Eso quiere decir que el tiempo de respuesta es peor que la media (32.8 ms) de todos los dispositivos testados. | ||
Parpadeo de Pantalla / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
| Parpadeo de Pantalla / PWM no detectado |  | ||
Comparación: 53 % de todos los dispositivos testados no usaron PWM para atenuar el display. Si se usó, medimos una media de 8705 (mínimo: 5 - máxmo: 343500) Hz. | |||
| PCMark 8 | |
| Home Score Accelerated v2 | |
| Asus G752VS-BA338T | |
| MSI GT72VR 7RE-433 | |
| HP Omen 17-an014ng | |
| HP Omen 17-w110ng | |
| Nexoc G734IV | |
| Gigabyte P57X v7 | |
| Work Score Accelerated v2 | |
| Asus G752VS-BA338T | |
| MSI GT72VR 7RE-433 | |
| HP Omen 17-w110ng | |
| HP Omen 17-an014ng | |
| Nexoc G734IV | |
| Gigabyte P57X v7 | |
| PCMark 8 Home Score Accelerated v2 | 4989 puntos | |
| PCMark 8 Work Score Accelerated v2 | 5289 puntos | |
| PCMark 10 Score | 5137 puntos | |
ayuda | ||
| HP Omen 17-an014ng Samsung PM961 MZVLW256HEHP | HP Omen 17-w110ng Samsung PM951 NVMe MZVLV256 | Nexoc G734IV Samsung SM961 MZVKW512HMJP m.2 PCI-e | MSI GT72VR 7RE-433 Kingston RBU-SNS8152S3256GG5 | Gigabyte P57X v7 Transcend MTS800 256GB M.2 (TS256GMTS800) | Asus G752VS-BA338T Samsung SM961 MZVKW512HMJP m.2 PCI-e | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CrystalDiskMark 3.0 | -35% | 5% | -52% | -59% | 16% | |
| Write 4k QD32 | 523 | 295.3 -44% | 509 -3% | 318.3 -39% | 296 -43% | 527 1% |
| Read 4k QD32 | 582 | 600 3% | 634 9% | 331.1 -43% | 281.3 -52% | 607 4% |
| Write 4k | 144.9 | 153.3 6% | 154.9 7% | 111.1 -23% | 82.3 -43% | 163.8 13% |
| Read 4k | 59.1 | 42.7 -28% | 54 -9% | 33.35 -44% | 26.04 -56% | 55.1 -7% |
| Write 512 | 854 | 294.7 -65% | 1167 37% | 332.3 -61% | 306.1 -64% | 1606 88% |
| Read 512 | 1044 | 616 -41% | 413.8 -60% | 403.1 -61% | 315 -70% | 400.8 -62% |
| Write Seq | 1212 | 294.9 -76% | 1559 29% | 311.8 -74% | 305.7 -75% | 1596 32% |
| Read Seq | 1736 | 1156 -33% | 2268 31% | 521 -70% | 517 -70% | 2791 61% |
| 3DMark 11 - 1280x720 Performance GPU | |
| Asus G752VS-BA338T | |
| Gigabyte P57X v7 | |
| MSI GT72VR 7RE-433 | |
| Nexoc G734IV | |
| HP Omen 17-an014ng | |
| HP Omen 17-w110ng | |
| 3DMark | |
| 1280x720 Cloud Gate Standard Graphics | |
| HP Omen 17-an014ng | |
| MSI GT72VR 7RE-433 | |
| Asus G752VS-BA338T | |
| HP Omen 17-w110ng | |
| Nexoc G734IV | |
| Gigabyte P57X v7 | |
| 1920x1080 Fire Strike Graphics | |
| Asus G752VS-BA338T | |
| MSI GT72VR 7RE-433 | |
| Nexoc G734IV | |
| HP Omen 17-an014ng | |
| Gigabyte P57X v7 | |
| HP Omen 17-w110ng | |
| 3DMark 11 Performance | 16190 puntos | |
| 3DMark Cloud Gate Standard Score | 28209 puntos | |
| 3DMark Fire Strike Score | 13658 puntos | |
ayuda | ||
| The Witcher 3 | |
| 1024x768 Low Graphics & Postprocessing | |
| Asus G752VS-BA338T | |
| HP Omen 17-an014ng | |
| HP Omen 17-w110ng | |
| 1366x768 Medium Graphics & Postprocessing | |
| Asus G752VS-BA338T | |
| HP Omen 17-an014ng | |
| HP Omen 17-w110ng | |
| 1920x1080 High Graphics & Postprocessing (Nvidia HairWorks Off) | |
| Asus G752VS-BA338T | |
| HP Omen 17-an014ng | |
| HP Omen 17-w110ng | |
| 1920x1080 Ultra Graphics & Postprocessing (HBAO+) | |
| Asus G752VS-BA338T | |
| HP Omen 17-an014ng | |
| HP Omen 17-w110ng | |
| Rise of the Tomb Raider | |
| 1024x768 Lowest Preset | |
| HP Omen 17-an014ng | |
| Asus G752VS-BA338T | |
| Nexoc G734IV | |
| HP Omen 17-w110ng | |
| 1366x768 Medium Preset AF:2x | |
| Asus G752VS-BA338T | |
| HP Omen 17-an014ng | |
| Nexoc G734IV | |
| HP Omen 17-w110ng | |
| 1920x1080 High Preset AA:FX AF:4x | |
| Asus G752VS-BA338T | |
| HP Omen 17-an014ng | |
| HP Omen 17-w110ng | |
| Nexoc G734IV | |
| 1920x1080 Very High Preset AA:FX AF:16x | |
| Asus G752VS-BA338T | |
| HP Omen 17-an014ng | |
| Nexoc G734IV | |
| HP Omen 17-w110ng | |
| bajo | medio | alto | ultra | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Witcher 3 (2015) | 209.6 | 168.7 | 108.8 | 58 |
| Rise of the Tomb Raider (2016) | 225.3 | 170.2 | 107.9 | 90.9 |
| Doom (2016) | 165.4 | 156.3 | 140.2 | 135.8 |
Ruido
| Ocioso |
| 30 / 37 / 39 dB(A) |
| HDD |
| 34 dB(A) |
| DVD |
| 40 / dB(A) |
| Carga |
| 44 / 55 dB(A) |
 | ||
30 dB silencioso 40 dB(A) audible 50 dB(A) ruidosamente alto |
||
min:  , med:  , max:  Audix TM1, Arta (15 cm de distancia) environment noise: 30 dB(A) | ||
| HP Omen 17-an014ng GeForce GTX 1070 Mobile, i7-7700HQ | HP Omen 17-w110ng GeForce GTX 1070 Mobile, 6700HQ | Nexoc G734IV GeForce GTX 1070 Mobile, i7-7700HQ | MSI GT72VR 7RE-433 GeForce GTX 1070 Mobile, i7-7700HQ | Gigabyte P57X v7 GeForce GTX 1070 Mobile, i7-7700HQ | Asus G752VS-BA338T GeForce GTX 1070 Mobile, i7-7700HQ | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Noise | 2% | -7% | 5% | 6% | 6% | |
| off / environment * | 30 | 30 -0% | 30 -0% | 31 -3% | 29 3% | 30 -0% |
| Idle Minimum * | 30 | 33 -10% | 34 -13% | 34 -13% | 30.4 -1% | 30 -0% |
| Idle Average * | 37 | 34 8% | 35 5% | 35 5% | 32.1 13% | 32 14% |
| Idle Maximum * | 39 | 35 10% | 46 -18% | 37 5% | 32.1 18% | 36 8% |
| Load Average * | 44 | 45 -2% | 49 -11% | 37 16% | 45.6 -4% | 43 2% |
| Witcher 3 ultra * | 47 | 43 9% | ||||
| Load Maximum * | 55 | 52 5% | 56 -2% | 44 20% | 51.5 6% | 49 11% |
* ... más pequeño es mejor
| HP Omen 17-an014ng GeForce GTX 1070 Mobile, i7-7700HQ | HP Omen 17-w110ng GeForce GTX 1070 Mobile, 6700HQ | Nexoc G734IV GeForce GTX 1070 Mobile, i7-7700HQ | MSI GT72VR 7RE-433 GeForce GTX 1070 Mobile, i7-7700HQ | Gigabyte P57X v7 GeForce GTX 1070 Mobile, i7-7700HQ | Asus G752VS-BA338T GeForce GTX 1070 Mobile, i7-7700HQ | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Heat | 11% | 10% | 19% | 7% | 22% | |
| Maximum Upper Side * | 48 | 45 6% | 48.1 -0% | 41.5 14% | 51.2 -7% | 41 15% |
| Maximum Bottom * | 54 | 54.3 -1% | 59.3 -10% | 50.6 6% | 56.8 -5% | 39.3 27% |
| Idle Upper Side * | 35 | 29.6 15% | 28.2 19% | 26.4 25% | 29.2 17% | 28.8 18% |
| Idle Bottom * | 37 | 28.6 23% | 26 30% | 25.4 31% | 29.2 21% | 27.3 26% |
* ... más pequeño es mejor
(-) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 48 °C / 118 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 54 °C / 129 F, compared to the average of 43.2 °C / 110 F
(±) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 33 °C / 91 F, compared to the device average of 33.9 °C / 93 F.
(-) Playing The Witcher 3, the average temperature for the upper side is 40.3 °C / 105 F, compared to the device average of 33.9 °C / 93 F.
(±) The palmrests and touchpad can get very hot to the touch with a maximum of 36 °C / 96.8 F.
(-) The average temperature of the palmrest area of similar devices was 28.9 °C / 84 F (-7.1 °C / -12.8 F).
HP Omen 17-an014ng audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (88 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 24.3% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (9.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 3.7% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (3.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 2.9% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (3.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (16.6% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 41% of all tested devices in this class were better, 7% similar, 52% worse
» The best had a delta of 6%, average was 18%, worst was 132%
Compared to all devices tested
» 26% of all tested devices were better, 5% similar, 69% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
HP Omen 17-w110ng audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (85 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 22.3% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (13.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 2.7% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (4.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 5.9% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (5.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (18.5% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 58% of all tested devices in this class were better, 8% similar, 34% worse
» The best had a delta of 6%, average was 18%, worst was 132%
Compared to all devices tested
» 38% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 54% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Nexoc G734IV audio analysis
(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (77 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(±) | reduced bass - on average 14.7% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (13.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 3.5% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (4% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 3.3% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (6.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (17.3% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 45% of all tested devices in this class were better, 12% similar, 43% worse
» The best had a delta of 6%, average was 18%, worst was 132%
Compared to all devices tested
» 29% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 63% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
| Off / Standby | 0.3 / 0.7 Watt |
| Ocioso | 22 / 28 / 35 Watt |
| Carga |
93 / 208 Watt |
   
| |
Clave:
min: ,
med: ,
max: Metrahit Energy | |
| HP Omen 17-an014ng GeForce GTX 1070 Mobile, i7-7700HQ | HP Omen 17-w110ng GeForce GTX 1070 Mobile, 6700HQ | Nexoc G734IV GeForce GTX 1070 Mobile, i7-7700HQ | MSI GT72VR 7RE-433 GeForce GTX 1070 Mobile, i7-7700HQ | Gigabyte P57X v7 GeForce GTX 1070 Mobile, i7-7700HQ | Asus G752VS-BA338T GeForce GTX 1070 Mobile, i7-7700HQ | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power Consumption | 9% | 24% | 9% | -6% | 4% | |
| Idle Minimum * | 22 | 19 14% | 12 45% | 20 9% | 15.7 29% | 21 5% |
| Idle Average * | 28 | 25 11% | 17 39% | 27 4% | 23.4 16% | 27 4% |
| Idle Maximum * | 35 | 31 11% | 22 37% | 31 11% | 23.5 33% | 32 9% |
| Load Average * | 93 | 90 3% | 86 8% | 86 8% | 184.6 -98% | 86 8% |
| Witcher 3 ultra * | 157 | 165 -5% | ||||
| Load Maximum * | 208 | 193 7% | 224 -8% | 184 12% | 233.1 -12% | 206 1% |
* ... más pequeño es mejor
| HP Omen 17-an014ng i7-7700HQ, GeForce GTX 1070 Mobile, 86 Wh | HP Omen 17-w110ng 6700HQ, GeForce GTX 1070 Mobile, 95 Wh | Nexoc G734IV i7-7700HQ, GeForce GTX 1070 Mobile, 60 Wh | MSI GT72VR 7RE-433 i7-7700HQ, GeForce GTX 1070 Mobile, 83 Wh | Gigabyte P57X v7 i7-7700HQ, GeForce GTX 1070 Mobile, 75.81 Wh | Asus G752VS-BA338T i7-7700HQ, GeForce GTX 1070 Mobile, 90 Wh | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Duración de Batería | 11% | -7% | -7% | -17% | 13% | |
| Reader / Idle | 349 | 432 24% | 463 33% | 316 -9% | 256 -27% | 445 28% |
| H.264 | 255 | 233 -9% | 195 -24% | 228 -11% | 257 1% | |
| WiFi v1.3 | 267 | 247 -7% | 205 -23% | 230 -14% | 155 -42% | 293 10% |
| Load | 84 | 115 37% | 71 -15% | 91 8% | 98 17% | 96 14% |
Pro
Contra
El nuevo Omen sabe separarse de su propio predecesor Skylake en más categorías además del aspecto. HP ha logrado mejorar el dispositivo del año pasado y ha eliminado casi todas nuestras quejas, taels como conectividad, mantenimiento, y touchpad. Además, el nuevo modelo tiene un panel 120 Hz compatible con G-Sync, un veloz SSD, Thunderbolt 3, y teclas macro programables para rematar. Además, el rendimiento aumentó en un 10 %.
Por desgracia, la virtud del portátil del soporte G-Sync es también su mayor defecto ya que implica una incompatibilidad inherente con Nvidia Optimus. En consecuencia, la GTX 1070 siempre está activa, la cual requiere mucha energía, lo que redunda en temperaturas y ruido mucho más elevados. En general, el Omen 7 resulta ruidoso y caliente bajo carga. Además, encontramos latencias dpc y tampoco nos gustó el elevado peso del dispositivo. A cambio, la ralentización CPU/GPU en batería no es infrecuente en portátiles gaming potentes como este.
El Omen 17 es un reemplazo de sobremesa gaming decente. Está claramente dedicado a entusiastas del gaming con gran énfasis en rendimiento a los cuales no les importe el peso elevado y la falta de soporte Optimus.
El nuevo Omen puede conseguirse por menos de $2,000, lo que lo convierte en uno de los portátiles gaming más asequibles de su categoría a día de hoy.
Alternativas
Entre sus competidores, el Asus ROG G752VS-BA338T fue el más notable. Logró un 86 % en nuestro análisis exhaustivo y dejó atrás al nuevo Omen 17 en la mayoría de comparaciones.
Resultan particularmente intrigantes las bajas temperaturas del Asus y su soundscape relativamente quedo a pesar de su falta de Optimus. Fue ligeramente más rápido que le nuevo Omen 17, y tenía más aguante de batería encima.
A cambio, fue uno de los dispositivos más grandes y pesados de nuestro grupo de pruebas, y por ello hasta menos portable que el Omen 17. También sufría sangrado de pantalla (aunque eso depende mucho del display) y también es más caro.
Ésta es una versión acortada del análisis original. Puedes leer el análisis completo en inglés aquí.
HP Omen 17-an014ng
- 08/04/2017 v6 (old)
Christian Hintze
Price comparison
