Breve análisis del Samsung Odyssey NP800G5M (7700HQ, FHD, GTX 1050)
| SD Card Reader | |
| average JPG Copy Test (av. of 3 runs) | |
| Dell XPS 15 9560 (i7-7700HQ, UHD) | |
| Asus FX502VM-AS73 | |
| Samsung Odyssey NP800G5M-X01US | |
| maximum AS SSD Seq Read Test (1GB) | |
| Dell XPS 15 9560 (i7-7700HQ, UHD) | |
| Asus FX502VM-AS73 | |
| Samsung Odyssey NP800G5M-X01US | |
| Networking | |
| iperf3 transmit AX12 | |
| HP Pavilion 15t-bc200 X7P44AV | |
| Asus FX502VM-AS73 | |
| Samsung Odyssey NP800G5M-X01US | |
| iperf3 receive AX12 | |
| HP Pavilion 15t-bc200 X7P44AV | |
| Asus FX502VM-AS73 | |
| Samsung Odyssey NP800G5M-X01US | |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
iluminación: 90 %
Brillo con batería: 255.9 cd/m²
Contraste: 533:1 (Negro: 0.48 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 5.9 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.92
ΔE Greyscale 5.6 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
70.1% sRGB (Argyll 1.6.3 3D)
44.8% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 1.6.3 3D)
48.71% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
70.4% sRGB (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
47.11% Display P3 (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
Gamma: 2.21
| Samsung Odyssey NP800G5M-X01US IPS, 15.6", 1920x1080 | Asus FX502VM-AS73 TN LED, 15.6", 1920x1080 | HP Pavilion 15t-bc200 X7P44AV LGD04D4, , 15.6", 3840x2160 | Dell XPS 15 2017 9560 (7300HQ, Full-HD) Sharp SHP1453 LQ156M1, LED IGZO IPS InfinityEdge, 15.6", 1920x1080 | Gigabyte P55W v7 LG Philips LP156WF6 (LGD046F), IPS, 15.6", 1920x1080 | Apple MacBook Pro 15 2016 (2.9 GHz, 460) Apple APPA030, IPS, 15.4", 2880x1800 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Display | -19% | 34% | 44% | 25% | 77% | |
| Display P3 Coverage | 47.11 | 38.28 -19% | 63 34% | 68.9 46% | 63.5 35% | 99 110% |
| sRGB Coverage | 70.4 | 56.9 -19% | 94.4 34% | 98.9 40% | 82 16% | 100 42% |
| AdobeRGB 1998 Coverage | 48.71 | 39.47 -19% | 64.8 33% | 70.9 46% | 59.9 23% | 87.3 79% |
| Response Times | 30% | 24% | -48% | 16% | 144% | |
| Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% * | 38.8 ? | 28.4 ? 27% | 30.4 ? 22% | 54 ? -39% | 37 ? 5% | 46 ? -19% |
| Response Time Black / White * | 33.6 ? | 22.4 ? 33% | 24.8 ? 26% | 52.4 ? -56% | 25 ? 26% | 56 ? -67% |
| PWM Frequency | 19230 ? | 119000 ? 519% | ||||
| Screen | -8% | 15% | 46% | 28% | 61% | |
| Brightness middle | 255.9 | 209.5 -18% | 259 1% | 400 56% | 287 12% | 420 64% |
| Brightness | 249 | 205 -18% | 255 2% | 392 57% | 289 16% | 401 61% |
| Brightness Distribution | 90 | 92 2% | 87 -3% | 89 -1% | 87 -3% | 90 0% |
| Black Level * | 0.48 | 0.69 -44% | 0.51 -6% | 0.26 46% | 0.29 40% | 0.3 37% |
| Contrast | 533 | 304 -43% | 508 -5% | 1538 189% | 990 86% | 1400 163% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 5.9 | 4.7 20% | 3.9 34% | 4.9 17% | 4.92 17% | 3.33 44% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 18.9 | 19.7 -4% | 6.9 63% | 11 42% | 11 42% | 5.11 73% |
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 5.6 | 1.8 68% | 4.5 20% | 7.2 -29% | 3.66 35% | 2.73 51% |
| Gamma | 2.21 100% | 2.23 99% | 2.43 91% | 2.11 104% | 2.32 95% | 2.48 89% |
| CCT | 7250 90% | 6975 93% | 7257 90% | 6911 94% | 6482 100% | 6457 101% |
| Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998) | 44.8 | 36.2 -19% | 59.5 33% | 64.2 43% | 54 21% | 78.09 74% |
| Color Space (Percent of sRGB) | 70.1 | 56.6 -19% | 98.9 41% | 82 17% | 99.97 43% | |
| Media total (Programa/Opciones) | 1% /
-5% | 24% /
21% | 14% /
33% | 23% /
26% | 94% /
80% |
* ... más pequeño es mejor
Tiempos de respuesta del display
| ↔ Tiempo de respuesta de Negro a Blanco | ||
|---|---|---|
| 33.6 ms ... subida ↗ y bajada ↘ combinada | ↗ 18.8 ms subida |  |
| ↘ 14.8 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. » 89 % de todos los dispositivos son mejores. Eso quiere decir que el tiempo de respuesta es peor que la media (21 ms) de todos los dispositivos testados. | ||
| ↔ Tiempo de respuesta 50% Gris a 80% Gris | ||
| 38.8 ms ... subida ↗ y bajada ↘ combinada | ↗ 20.8 ms subida |  |
| ↘ 18 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. » 55 % de todos los dispositivos son mejores. Eso quiere decir que el tiempo de respuesta es peor que la media (32.9 ms) de todos los dispositivos testados. | ||
Parpadeo de Pantalla / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
| Parpadeo de Pantalla / PWM detectado | 19230 Hz | ≤ 99 % de brillo |  |
La retroiluminación del display parpadea a 19230 Hz (seguramente usa PWM - Pulse-Width Modulation) a un brillo del 99 % e inferior. Sobre este nivel de brillo no debería darse parpadeo / PWM. La frecuencia de 19230 Hz es bastante alta, por lo que la mayoría de gente sensible al parpadeo no debería ver parpadeo o tener fatiga visual. Comparación: 53 % de todos los dispositivos testados no usaron PWM para atenuar el display. Si se usó, medimos una media de 8743 (mínimo: 5 - máxmo: 343500) Hz. | |||
| Cinebench R10 | |
| Rendering Multiple CPUs 32Bit | |
| Eurocom Tornado F5 | |
| Samsung Odyssey NP800G5M-X01US | |
| MSI GS63VR 7RF-228US | |
| MSI GT80 Titan SLI | |
| Asus GL702VM-GC102D | |
| Rendering Single 32Bit | |
| Eurocom Tornado F5 | |
| Samsung Odyssey NP800G5M-X01US | |
| MSI GS63VR 7RF-228US | |
| MSI GT80 Titan SLI | |
| Asus GL702VM-GC102D | |
| wPrime 2.10 - 1024m | |
| MSI GS63VR 7RF-228US | |
| Samsung Odyssey NP800G5M-X01US | |
| Eurocom Tornado F5 | |
* ... más pequeño es mejor
| PCMark 8 | |
| Home Score Accelerated v2 | |
| Asus FX502VM-AS73 | |
| Gigabyte P55W v7 | |
| Samsung Odyssey NP800G5M-X01US | |
| Asus ROG Strix GL553VD-DS71 | |
| Dell XPS 15 2017 9560 (7300HQ, Full-HD) | |
| Work Score Accelerated v2 | |
| Gigabyte P55W v7 | |
| Samsung Odyssey NP800G5M-X01US | |
| Dell XPS 15 2017 9560 (7300HQ, Full-HD) | |
| Asus ROG Strix GL553VD-DS71 | |
| Asus FX502VM-AS73 | |
| Creative Score Accelerated v2 | |
| Asus FX502VM-AS73 | |
| Samsung Odyssey NP800G5M-X01US | |
| Asus ROG Strix GL553VD-DS71 | |
| PCMark 8 Home Score Accelerated v2 | 4001 puntos | |
| PCMark 8 Creative Score Accelerated v2 | 5362 puntos | |
| PCMark 8 Work Score Accelerated v2 | 5305 puntos | |
ayuda | ||
| Samsung Odyssey NP800G5M-X01US Samsung PM961 NVMe MZVLW128HEGR | Asus FX502VM-AS73 SK Hynix HFS256G39TND-N210A | HP Pavilion 15t-bc200 X7P44AV Intel SSD 600p SSDPEKKW256G7 | Asus ROG Strix GL553VD-DS71 HGST Travelstar 7K1000 HTS721010A9E630 | Dell XPS 15 9560 (i7-7700HQ, UHD) Lite-On CX2-8B512-Q11 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CrystalDiskMark 3.0 | -46% | 19% | -93% | 94% | |
| Read Seq | 1518 | 503 -67% | 1115 -27% | 93.5 -94% | 1684 11% |
| Write Seq | 798 | 138.2 -83% | 311 -61% | 89.6 -89% | 1106 39% |
| Read 512 | 460.5 | 343.5 -25% | 706 53% | 39.06 -92% | 977 112% |
| Write 512 | 195.8 | 137.8 -30% | 472.3 141% | 51.1 -74% | 1119 472% |
| Read 4k | 47.16 | 29.36 -38% | 31.97 -32% | 0.57 -99% | 45.14 -4% |
| Write 4k | 143.1 | 70.9 -50% | 135.1 -6% | 1.05 -99% | 134.1 -6% |
| Read 4k QD32 | 521 | 369.9 -29% | 288.3 -45% | 1.06 -100% | 509 -2% |
| Write 4k QD32 | 176.4 | 99.7 -43% | 405.5 130% | 1.04 -99% | 398.1 126% |
| 3DMark 11 Performance | 7872 puntos | |
| 3DMark Ice Storm Standard Score | 84774 puntos | |
| 3DMark Cloud Gate Standard Score | 20291 puntos | |
| 3DMark Fire Strike Score | 5455 puntos | |
| 3DMark Fire Strike Extreme Score | 2678 puntos | |
ayuda | ||
| bajo | medio | alto | ultra | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BioShock Infinite (2013) | 63.6 | |||
| Metro: Last Light (2013) | 78 | 43.8 | ||
| Thief (2014) | 73 | 40.4 | ||
| The Witcher 3 (2015) | 43 | 20.8 | ||
| Batman: Arkham Knight (2015) | 91 | 79 | 47 | 25 |
| Dota 2 Reborn (2015) | 115 | |||
| Fallout 4 (2015) | 41.5 | 34.2 | ||
| Rise of the Tomb Raider (2016) | 70.1 | 38.7 | 33.4 | |
| Ashes of the Singularity (2016) | 54.7 | 34.1 | 29.6 | |
| Doom (2016) | 47.5 | 43.5 | ||
| Overwatch (2016) | 95.3 | 54.2 |
Ruido
| Ocioso |
| 28.1 / 29.1 / 29.1 dB(A) |
| HDD |
| 29.1 dB(A) |
| Carga |
| 49.2 / 49.2 dB(A) |
 | ||
30 dB silencioso 40 dB(A) audible 50 dB(A) ruidosamente alto |
||
min:  , med:  , max:  BK Precision 732A (15 cm de distancia) environment noise: 28.1 dB(A) | ||
| Samsung Odyssey NP800G5M-X01US GeForce GTX 1050 Mobile, i7-7700HQ, Samsung PM961 NVMe MZVLW128HEGR | Asus FX502VM-AS73 GeForce GTX 1060 Mobile, i7-7700HQ, SK Hynix HFS256G39TND-N210A | HP Pavilion 15t-bc200 X7P44AV GeForce GTX 1050 Mobile, i7-7700HQ, Intel SSD 600p SSDPEKKW256G7 | Dell XPS 15 9560 (i7-7700HQ, UHD) GeForce GTX 1050 Mobile, i7-7700HQ, Lite-On CX2-8B512-Q11 | Gigabyte P55W v7 GeForce GTX 1060 Mobile, i7-7700HQ, Liteonit CV3-8D256 | Apple MacBook Pro 15 2016 (2.9 GHz, 460) Radeon Pro 460, 6920HQ, Apple SSD SM1024L | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Noise | -4% | -3% | -1% | -7% | 3% | |
| off / environment * | 28.1 | 28.7 -2% | 28.9 -3% | 28.4 -1% | 30 -7% | 29 -3% |
| Idle Minimum * | 28.1 | 30.6 -9% | 32.3 -15% | 29 -3% | 33 -17% | 30.3 -8% |
| Idle Average * | 29.1 | 30.6 -5% | 32.3 -11% | 29 -0% | 34 -17% | 30.3 -4% |
| Idle Maximum * | 29.1 | 31 -7% | 32.3 -11% | 32.2 -11% | 35 -20% | 30.3 -4% |
| Load Average * | 49.2 | 46.2 6% | 43.2 12% | 47.1 4% | 39 21% | 35.1 29% |
| Load Maximum * | 49.2 | 52.3 -6% | 45.2 8% | 47.1 4% | 50 -2% | 46 7% |
| Witcher 3 ultra * | 52 |
* ... más pequeño es mejor
(-) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 58.4 °C / 137 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 54.2 °C / 130 F, compared to the average of 43.2 °C / 110 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 25.4 °C / 78 F, compared to the device average of 33.9 °C / 93 F.
(±) Playing The Witcher 3, the average temperature for the upper side is 33.8 °C / 93 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 27 °C / 80.6 F and are therefore cool to the touch.
(±) The average temperature of the palmrest area of similar devices was 28.9 °C / 84 F (+1.9 °C / 3.4 F).
Samsung Odyssey NP800G5M-X01US audio analysis
(-) | not very loud speakers (63.1 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 15.2% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (13.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 2% away from median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (10.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 8.4% higher than median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (11.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(-) | overall sound is not linear (37.2% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 99% of all tested devices in this class were better, 0% similar, 1% worse
» The best had a delta of 6%, average was 18%, worst was 132%
Compared to all devices tested
» 94% of all tested devices were better, 1% similar, 6% 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%
| Off / Standby | 0.28 / 0.78 Watt |
| Ocioso | 6.7 / 8.9 / 10.8 Watt |
| Carga |
81.8 / 122.7 Watt |
   
| |
Clave:
min: ,
med: ,
max: Metrahit Energy | |
| Samsung Odyssey NP800G5M-X01US | Asus FX502VM-AS73 | Dell XPS 15 2017 9560 (7300HQ, Full-HD) | Asus ROG Strix GL553VD-DS71 | Gigabyte P55W v7 | Apple MacBook Pro 15 2016 (2.9 GHz, 460) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power Consumption | -57% | 0% | -12% | -28% | 14% | |
| Idle Minimum * | 6.7 | 14.9 -122% | 6.6 1% | 7.7 -15% | 8 -19% | 3 55% |
| Idle Average * | 8.9 | 15.1 -70% | 9 -1% | 11.7 -31% | 13 -46% | 9.9 -11% |
| Idle Maximum * | 10.8 | 15.2 -41% | 10.7 1% | 12 -11% | 18 -67% | 12.5 -16% |
| Load Average * | 81.8 | 105.8 -29% | 77.5 5% | 80.5 2% | 76 7% | 70.6 14% |
| Witcher 3 ultra * | 92.2 | |||||
| Load Maximum * | 122.7 | 148.8 -21% | 130 -6% | 128.4 -5% | 143 -17% | 90.8 26% |
* ... más pequeño es mejor
| Samsung Odyssey NP800G5M-X01US i7-7700HQ, GeForce GTX 1050 Mobile, 43 Wh | Asus FX502VM-AS73 i7-7700HQ, GeForce GTX 1060 Mobile, 64 Wh | Dell XPS 15 2017 9560 (7300HQ, Full-HD) i5-7300HQ, GeForce GTX 1050 Mobile, 56 Wh | Asus ROG Strix GL553VD-DS71 i7-7700HQ, GeForce GTX 1050 Mobile, 48 Wh | Gigabyte P55W v7 i7-7700HQ, GeForce GTX 1060 Mobile, 63 Wh | Apple MacBook Pro 15 2016 (2.9 GHz, 460) 6920HQ, Radeon Pro 460, 76 Wh | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Duración de Batería | -17% | 10% | -20% | 30% | 52% | |
| Reader / Idle | 612 | 363 -41% | 565 -8% | 440 -28% | 789 29% | |
| WiFi v1.3 | 263 | 277 5% | 334 27% | 276 5% | 346 32% | 619 135% |
| Load | 76 | 64 -16% | 84 11% | 47 -38% | 98 29% | 52 -32% |
Pro
Contra
El primer portátil Odyssey nos provoca sentimientos encontrados. Por un lado, el sistema rinde admirablemente sin ralentizaciones CPU o GPU y funciona con temperaturas aceptablemente bajas para un portátil gaming. Su capacidad de mantener altos valores Turbo Boost es algo con lo que los portátiles gaming superdelgados tienden a tener problemas, por lo que el Odyssey al menos tiene el rendimiento al dedillo.
Fuera de su fiable rendimiento, el Odyssey tiene problemas con otros factores. Notablemente, el ruido del ventilador es muy alto durante el juego, incluso para un portátil gaming. Con casi 50 dB(A), este nivel se espera de GPUs más potentes como GTX 1070 o GTX 1080 - no la GTX 1050. Los controles manuales de ventilador habrían ganado mucho si permitieran que el usuario equilibrara ruido y temperaturas internas para experiencias de juego más disfrutables.
Los recortes también se vuelven más obvios cuanto más tiempos pasamos con el portátil. El lector SD es lento, la conectividad está en los huesos, ya VRAM de la GPU está a la mitad, la capacidad de batería es escasa, y tanto el contraste como el color no son tan profundos como en alternativas más costosas. Las teclas WASD extra cálidas también son una extraña decisión de diseño; un fabricante de coches nunca diseñaría un volante incómodamente cálido por el mismo motivo por el que un portátil gaming nunca debería tener teclas WASD incómodamente cálidas.
El HP Pavilion 15t con las mismas CPU y GPU tambié está en el segmento de $1100 a $1200 USD como nuestra configuración del Odyssey. Si bien el Samsung brilla con su rendimiento, en el resto de aspecots es del montón y no ofrece bastante para que supere otros portátiles GTX 1050.
El primer portátil gaming Samsung Odyssey ha llegado por fin y.. es soso y nada especial. Los rendimientos CPU y GPU son geniales sin ralentización alguna, pero el ruido de ventilador es severo.
Ésta es una versión acortada del análisis original. Puedes leer el análisis completo en inglés aquí.
Samsung Odyssey NP800G5M-X01US
- 04/24/2017 v6 (old)
Allen Ngo
Price comparison
