Deutsch
English
Français
Italiano
Nederlands
Polski
Português
Русский
Türkçe
Svenska
Chinese
MagyarBreve análisis del portátil Acer Swift 3 SF314-51-731X
| SD Card Reader | |
| average JPG Copy Test (av. of 3 runs) | |
| Acer Aspire S 13 S5-371-71QZ | |
| Lenovo Ideapad 500s-14ISK | |
| Asus Zenbook UX330UA-FC059T | |
| Acer Swift 3 SF314-51-731X | |
| Acer TravelMate X3 X349-M-7261 | |
| maximum AS SSD Seq Read Test (1GB) | |
| Lenovo Ideapad 500s-14ISK | |
| Acer Aspire S 13 S5-371-71QZ | |
| Asus Zenbook UX330UA-FC059T | |
| Acer Swift 3 SF314-51-731X | |
| Acer TravelMate X3 X349-M-7261 | |
| Networking | |
| iperf Server (receive) TCP 1 m (ordenar por valor) | |
| Acer Swift 3 SF314-51-731X (jseb) | |
| Asus Zenbook UX330UA-FC059T | |
| Acer Aspire S 13 S5-371-71QZ | |
| Acer TravelMate X3 X349-M-7261 (jseb) | |
| Dell XPS 13 2016 9350 (FHD, i7-6560U) | |
| iperf Client (transmit) TCP 1 m (ordenar por valor) | |
| Acer Swift 3 SF314-51-731X (jseb) | |
| Asus Zenbook UX330UA-FC059T (jseb) | |
| Acer Aspire S 13 S5-371-71QZ | |
| Acer TravelMate X3 X349-M-7261 (jseb) | |
| Dell XPS 13 2016 9350 (FHD, i7-6560U) | |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
iluminación: 91 %
Brillo con batería: 215 cd/m²
Contraste: 694:1 (Negro: 0.31 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 5.6 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.92
ΔE Greyscale 4.2 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
55% sRGB (Argyll 1.6.3 3D)
35% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 1.6.3 3D)
37.81% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
55% sRGB (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
36.59% Display P3 (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
Gamma: 2.46
| Acer Swift 3 SF314-51-731X AU Optronics AUO213D B140HAN02.1, , 1920x1080, 14" | Dell XPS 13 2016 9350 (FHD, i7-6560U) Sharp SHP1449 LQ133M1, , 1920x1080, 13.3" | Asus Zenbook UX330UA-FC059T AU Optronics AUO272D / B133HAN02.7, , 1920x1080, 13.3" | Acer Aspire S 13 S5-371-71QZ AUO B133HAN04.1, , 1920x1080, 13.3" | Acer TravelMate X3 X349-M-7261 AU Optronics B140HAN02.1, , 1920x1080, 14" | Lenovo Ideapad 500s-14ISK Chi Mei CMN14A7, , 1920x1080, 14" | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Display | 50% | 71% | 1% | 11% | ||
| Display P3 Coverage | 36.59 | 54.8 50% | 64.2 75% | 36.97 1% | 40.74 11% | |
| sRGB Coverage | 55 | 82.3 50% | 90.6 65% | 55.6 1% | 60.6 10% | |
| AdobeRGB 1998 Coverage | 37.81 | 56.6 50% | 65.3 73% | 38.2 1% | 42.15 11% | |
| Response Times | -3% | 10% | -21% | -9% | 1% | |
| Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% * | 42 ? | 42.8 ? -2% | 32 ? 24% | 50 ? -19% | 42 ? -0% | 43 ? -2% |
| Response Time Black / White * | 24 ? | 24.8 ? -3% | 25 ? -4% | 29.6 ? -23% | 28 ? -17% | 23 ? 4% |
| PWM Frequency | 200 ? | |||||
| Screen | 60% | 40% | 33% | 15% | -27% | |
| Brightness middle | 215 | 385 79% | 360 67% | 375 74% | 230 7% | 249 16% |
| Brightness | 208 | 350 68% | 337 62% | 358 72% | 226 9% | 235 13% |
| Brightness Distribution | 91 | 86 -5% | 86 -5% | 87 -4% | 86 -5% | 87 -4% |
| Black Level * | 0.31 | 0.17 45% | 0.22 29% | 0.39 -26% | 0.2 35% | 0.44 -42% |
| Contrast | 694 | 2265 226% | 1636 136% | 962 39% | 1150 66% | 566 -18% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 5.6 | 4.17 26% | 5.21 7% | 4.6 18% | 5.07 9% | 9.47 -69% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 11.29 | 7.61 33% | 8.85 22% | 8.8 22% | 10.07 11% | 15.41 -36% |
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 4.2 | 5.39 -28% | 6.23 -48% | 4 5% | 3.64 13% | 10.22 -143% |
| Gamma | 2.46 89% | 2.12 104% | 2.5 88% | 2.34 94% | 2.46 89% | 2.34 94% |
| CCT | 6564 99% | 7404 88% | 6506 100% | 7304 89% | 6521 100% | 11451 57% |
| Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998) | 35 | 62.7 79% | 59 69% | 57.9 65% | 35 0% | 39 11% |
| Color Space (Percent of sRGB) | 55 | 99.8 81% | 90 64% | 88.7 61% | 55 0% | 57 4% |
| Media total (Programa/Opciones) | 36% /
50% | 40% /
42% | 6% /
24% | 2% /
9% | -5% /
-16% |
* ... más pequeño es mejor
Tiempos de respuesta del display
| ↔ Tiempo de respuesta de Negro a Blanco | ||
|---|---|---|
| 24 ms ... subida ↗ y bajada ↘ combinada | ↗ 8 ms subida |  |
| ↘ 16 ms bajada | ||
| La pantalla mostró buenos tiempos de respuesta en nuestros tests pero podría ser demasiado lenta para los jugones competitivos. En comparación, todos los dispositivos de prueba van de ##min### (mínimo) a 240 (máximo) ms. » 50 % 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 | ||
| 42 ms ... subida ↗ y bajada ↘ combinada | ↗ 18 ms subida |  |
| ↘ 24 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. » 64 % 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 no detectado | ||
Comparación: 53 % de todos los dispositivos testados no usaron PWM para atenuar el display. Si se usó, medimos una media de 8746 (mínimo: 5 - máxmo: 343500) Hz. | ||
| PCMark 8 Home Score Accelerated v2 | 3503 puntos | |
| PCMark 8 Work Score Accelerated v2 | 4385 puntos | |
ayuda | ||
| Acer Swift 3 SF314-51-731X Liteonit CV3-8D512 | Asus Zenbook UX330UA-FC059T SanDisk SD8SNAT256G1002 | Acer Aspire S 13 S5-371-71QZ LiteOn CV1-8B512 | Acer TravelMate X3 X349-M-7261 Liteonit CV3-8D512 | Lenovo Ideapad 500s-14ISK Samsung PM871 MZYLN256HCHP | Dell XPS 13 2016 9350 (FHD, i7-6560U) Samsung PM951 NVMe MZ-VLV256D | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CrystalDiskMark 3.0 | -14% | 14% | 19% | 20% | 56% | |
| Read Seq | 471 | 447.6 -5% | 502 7% | 484.1 3% | 507 8% | 1131 140% |
| Write Seq | 398.3 | 309.4 -22% | 418.9 5% | 449.8 13% | 309.5 -22% | 311.4 -22% |
| Read 512 | 295.1 | 265.9 -10% | 341.3 16% | 399.1 35% | 409.5 39% | 685 132% |
| Write 512 | 283.3 | 275.2 -3% | 389.7 38% | 355.1 25% | 308.3 9% | 276.3 -2% |
| Read 4k | 24.14 | 18.89 -22% | 29.69 23% | 33.44 39% | 36.24 50% | 39.63 64% |
| Write 4k | 66 | 75.1 14% | 86.8 32% | 67.5 2% | 93.3 41% | 133.9 103% |
| Read 4k QD32 | 284.3 | 142.2 -50% | 301.3 6% | 368.5 30% | 394.5 39% | 399.7 41% |
| Write 4k QD32 | 260.2 | 228.9 -12% | 211.2 -19% | 280.6 8% | 241.6 -7% | 245.6 -6% |
| 3DMark | |
| 1280x720 Cloud Gate Standard Graphics | |
| Dell XPS 13 2016 9350 (FHD, i7-6560U) | |
| Lenovo Ideapad 500s-14ISK | |
| Asus Zenbook UX330UA-FC059T | |
| Acer TravelMate X3 X349-M-7261 | |
| Acer Swift 3 SF314-51-731X | |
| 1920x1080 Fire Strike Graphics | |
| Lenovo Ideapad 500s-14ISK | |
| Dell XPS 13 2016 9350 (FHD, i7-6560U) | |
| Acer Aspire S 13 S5-371-71QZ | |
| Acer TravelMate X3 X349-M-7261 | |
| 3DMark 11 Performance | 1643 puntos | |
| 3DMark Cloud Gate Standard Score | 5839 puntos | |
ayuda | ||
| BioShock Infinite - 1366x768 Medium Preset | |
| Asus Zenbook UX330UA-FC059T | |
| Acer Aspire S 13 S5-371-71QZ | |
| Acer Swift 3 SF314-51-731X | |
| Acer TravelMate X3 X349-M-7261 | |
| The Witcher 3 - 1024x768 Low Graphics & Postprocessing | |
| Lenovo Ideapad 500s-14ISK | |
| Dell XPS 13 2016 9350 (FHD, i7-6560U) | |
| Acer Aspire S 13 S5-371-71QZ | |
| Asus Zenbook UX330UA-FC059T | |
| Acer Swift 3 SF314-51-731X | |
| Rise of the Tomb Raider - 1024x768 Lowest Preset | |
| Lenovo Ideapad 500s-14ISK | |
| Acer Swift 3 SF314-51-731X | |
| bajo | medio | alto | ultra | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BioShock Infinite (2013) | 57.2 | 28.7 | 24 | 7.1 |
| The Witcher 3 (2015) | 11.2 | 8 | 3.8 | |
| Rise of the Tomb Raider (2016) | 18.9 | 11.6 | 4.7 |
Ruido
| Ocioso |
| 31.4 / 31.4 / 31.4 dB(A) |
| Carga |
| 31.5 / 31.3 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: 30.5 dB(A) | ||
(±) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 44.3 °C / 112 F, compared to the average of 35.9 °C / 97 F, ranging from 21.4 to 59 °C for the class Subnotebook.
(±) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 41.1 °C / 106 F, compared to the average of 39.4 °C / 103 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 23.9 °C / 75 F, compared to the device average of 30.8 °C / 87 F.
(+) The palmrests and touchpad are reaching skin temperature as a maximum (32.4 °C / 90.3 F) and are therefore not hot.
(-) The average temperature of the palmrest area of similar devices was 28.3 °C / 82.9 F (-4.1 °C / -7.4 F).
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%
Asus Zenbook UX330UA-FC059T audio analysis
(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (77 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(±) | reduced bass - on average 12.3% lower than median
(+) | bass is linear (5.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 2.6% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (5.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 8.8% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (6.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (17.6% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 45% of all tested devices in this class were better, 8% similar, 47% worse
» The best had a delta of 5%, average was 19%, worst was 53%
Compared to all devices tested
» 31% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 61% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Lenovo Ideapad 500s-14ISK audio analysis
(-) | not very loud speakers (68 dB)
Analysis not possible as minimum curve is missing or too high
Dell XPS 13 2016 9350 (FHD, i7-6560U) audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (83.8 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 19.4% lower than median
(-) | bass is not linear (15.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.7% away from median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (9.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 3.5% away from median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (7.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (18.8% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 54% of all tested devices in this class were better, 7% similar, 40% worse
» The best had a delta of 5%, average was 19%, worst was 53%
Compared to all devices tested
» 40% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 53% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
| Off / Standby | 0.42 / 0.53 Watt |
| Ocioso | 4.9 / 7.4 / 9.2 Watt |
| Carga |
34 / 32.2 Watt |
   
| |
Clave:
min: ,
med: ,
max: Metrahit Energy | |
| Acer Swift 3 SF314-51-731X 6500U, HD Graphics 520, Liteonit CV3-8D512, IPS, 1920x1080, 14" | Asus Zenbook UX330UA-FC059T 6500U, HD Graphics 520, SanDisk SD8SNAT256G1002, IPS, 1920x1080, 13.3" | Acer Aspire S 13 S5-371-71QZ 6500U, HD Graphics 520, LiteOn CV1-8B512, IPS, 1920x1080, 13.3" | Acer TravelMate X3 X349-M-7261 6500U, HD Graphics 520, Liteonit CV3-8D512, IPS, 1920x1080, 14" | Lenovo Ideapad 500s-14ISK 6500U, GeForce 940M, Samsung PM871 MZYLN256HCHP, TN, 1920x1080, 14" | Dell XPS 13 2016 9350 (FHD, i7-6560U) 6560U, Iris Graphics 540, Samsung PM951 NVMe MZ-VLV256D, IPS, 1920x1080, 13.3" | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power Consumption | 14% | 10% | 2% | -7% | 0% | |
| Idle Minimum * | 4.9 | 3 39% | 4.1 16% | 4.9 -0% | 3.8 22% | 5.8 -18% |
| Idle Average * | 7.4 | 6.3 15% | 6.7 9% | 7.3 1% | 7.2 3% | 7.3 1% |
| Idle Maximum * | 9.2 | 7.5 18% | 7.4 20% | 9.4 -2% | 7.6 17% | 8.5 8% |
| Load Average * | 34 | 36 -6% | 32.4 5% | 26 24% | 40 -18% | 30.6 10% |
| Load Maximum * | 32.2 | 31.5 2% | 32.4 -1% | 36 -12% | 52 -61% | 32.5 -1% |
* ... más pequeño es mejor
| Acer Swift 3 SF314-51-731X 6500U, HD Graphics 520, 48.9 Wh | Asus Zenbook UX330UA-FC059T 6500U, HD Graphics 520, 57 Wh | Acer Aspire S 13 S5-371-71QZ 6500U, HD Graphics 520, 45 Wh | Acer TravelMate X3 X349-M-7261 6500U, HD Graphics 520, 48.9 Wh | Lenovo Ideapad 500s-14ISK 6500U, GeForce 940M, 30 Wh | Dell XPS 13 2016 9350 (FHD, i7-6560U) 6560U, Iris Graphics 540, 56 Wh | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Duración de Batería | 55% | 27% | 9% | -35% | 35% | |
| Reader / Idle | 707 | 1225 73% | 1028 45% | 675 -5% | 346 -51% | 944 34% |
| H.264 | 343 | 400 17% | 246 -28% | |||
| WiFi v1.3 | 354 | 612 73% | 472 33% | 392 11% | 257 -27% | 436 23% |
| Load | 96 | 115 20% | 99 3% | 109 14% | 64 -33% | 141 47% |
Pro
Contra
El Acer Swift 3 es un buen modelo de entrada en el segmento de los subportátiles. Tiene un sofisticado chasis de aluminio que nos ha gustado. El acceso al interior para tareas de mantenimiento podría haber sido más sencillo. Los dispositivos de entrada son sorprendentemente buenos, especialmente el touchpad que ha ejecutado varios gestos multitáctiles con mucha facilidad. Esta característica hace muy recomendable la compra de este portátil de 14 pulgadas. El primer problema que encontramos es la pantalla, porque no es suficientemente brillo para nuestro gusto. Una mirada a los modelos de la competencia muestra que los portátiles de este rango de precios suelen estar equipados con paneles más brillantes. Lo que nos ha gustado del Swift 3 es el rendimiento en todos los escenarios. Incluso tareas muy exigentes no suponen un problema para este modelo. Además tanto la temperatura como el ruido generado por los ventiladores han sido más que aceptables. Solo la duración de la batería está por debajo de la competencia.
Ejemplar, sin puntos flacos: El Acer Swift 3 resulta convincente como portátil de oficina o como dispositivo multimedia.
Si puedes gastar más, deberías echar un ojo al Dell XPS 13. Gracias a su buena pantalla, mayor duración de batería y rendimiento gráfico, es una alternativa de gran calidad. El puerto Thunderbolt 3 adicional asegura una buena expandabilidad a pesar de la escasa selección de puertos gracias al soporte PCIe. El Asus ZenBook es particularmente interesante para usuarios que planean el uso del dispositivo en movilidad. Además de mayor duración de batería también tiene una pantalla muy brillante.
Todas las ventajas del Asus ZenBook se aplican tambien al Acer Aspire S 13, de precio similar.
Ésta es una versión acortada del análisis original. Puedes leer el análisis completo en inglés aquí.
Acer Swift 3 SF314-51-731X
- 12/14/2016 v6 (old)
Nino Ricchizzi
Price comparison
