Breve análisis del portátil Fujitsu Lifebook E557 (i3-7100U, HD620)
Interfaces
| SD Card Reader | |
| average JPG Copy Test (av. of 3 runs) | |
| Dell Latitude 5580 (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
| Acer Aspire 3 A315-51-55E4 (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
| Fujitsu Lifebook E557 (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
| Asus X510UA-BR305T (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
| maximum AS SSD Seq Read Test (1GB) | |
| Dell Latitude 5580 (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
| Fujitsu Lifebook E557 (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
| Acer Aspire 3 A315-51-55E4 (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
| Asus X510UA-BR305T (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
iluminación: 88 %
Brillo con batería: 216 cd/m²
Contraste: 404:1 (Negro: 0.53 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 7.93 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.91
ΔE Greyscale 9.37 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
56% sRGB (Argyll 1.6.3 3D)
36% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 1.6.3 3D)
39.15% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
56.8% sRGB (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
37.9% Display P3 (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
Gamma: 2.32
| Fujitsu Lifebook E557 BOE0665, , 1366x768, 15.6" | Asus X510UA-BR305T Chi Mei N156BGA-EA3, , 1366x768, 15.6" | Lenovo ThinkPad E570-20H6S02M00 Lenovo NT156WHM-N42, , 1366x768, 15.6" | Dell Latitude 5580 1366x768, 15.6" | Acer Aspire 3 A315-51-55E4 AU Optronics AUO38ED, , 1920x1080, 15.6" | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Display | -3% | 6% | -5% | ||
| Display P3 Coverage | 37.9 | 36.79 -3% | 40.13 6% | 35.97 -5% | |
| sRGB Coverage | 56.8 | 55.4 -2% | 60 6% | 54.1 -5% | |
| AdobeRGB 1998 Coverage | 39.15 | 38.01 -3% | 41.5 6% | 37.17 -5% | |
| Response Times | 3951% | 18% | 7% | 33% | |
| Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% * | 50 ? | 49 ? 2% | 46 ? 8% | 30 ? 40% | 44 ? 12% |
| Response Time Black / White * | 26 ? | 14 ? 46% | 13 ? 50% | 29.6 ? -14% | 12 ? 54% |
| PWM Frequency | 210 ? | 25000 ? 11805% | 200 ? -5% | 201.6 ? -4% | |
| Screen | 13% | -14% | -15% | 24% | |
| Brightness middle | 214 | 226 6% | 242 13% | 238 11% | 241 13% |
| Brightness | 213 | 215 1% | 233 9% | 216 1% | 229 8% |
| Brightness Distribution | 88 | 90 2% | 73 -17% | 83 -6% | 87 -1% |
| Black Level * | 0.53 | 0.51 4% | 0.59 -11% | 0.53 -0% | 0.46 13% |
| Contrast | 404 | 443 10% | 410 1% | 449 11% | 524 30% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 7.93 | 6.21 22% | 10.9 -37% | 10.8 -36% | 3.4 57% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 13.9 | 8.9 36% | 20.84 -50% | 29.3 -111% | 7.61 45% |
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 9.37 | 7.06 25% | 13.07 -39% | 12.1 -29% | 1.7 82% |
| Gamma | 2.32 95% | 2.35 94% | 2.37 93% | 2.25 98% | 2.36 93% |
| CCT | 9971 65% | 8321 78% | 13123 50% | 14344 45% | 6750 96% |
| Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998) | 36 | 35 -3% | 38.3 6% | 34 -6% | |
| Color Space (Percent of sRGB) | 56 | 55 -2% | 59.9 7% | 54 -4% | |
| Media total (Programa/Opciones) | 1982% /
1087% | 0% /
-6% | -1% /
-7% | 17% /
19% |
* ... más pequeño es mejor
Tiempos de respuesta del display
| ↔ Tiempo de respuesta de Negro a Blanco | ||
|---|---|---|
| 26 ms ... subida ↗ y bajada ↘ combinada | ↗ 22 ms subida |  |
| ↘ 4 ms bajada | ||
| La pantalla mostró tiempos de respuesta relativamente lentos en nuestros tests pero podría ser demasiado lenta para los jugones. En comparación, todos los dispositivos de prueba van de ##min### (mínimo) a 240 (máximo) ms. » 59 % 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 | ||
| 50 ms ... subida ↗ y bajada ↘ combinada | ↗ 30 ms subida |  |
| ↘ 20 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. » 84 % 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 detectado | 210 Hz | ≤ 90 % de brillo |  |
La retroiluminación del display parpadea a 210 Hz (seguramente usa PWM - Pulse-Width Modulation) a un brillo del 90 % e inferior. Sobre este nivel de brillo no debería darse parpadeo / PWM. La frecuencia de 210 Hz es relativamente baja, por lo que la gente sensible debería ver parpadeos y padecer fatiga visual por la pantalla (usado al brillo indicado a continuación). 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 | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad E570-20H6S02M00 | |
| Dell Latitude 5580 | |
| Asus X510UA-BR305T | |
| Acer Aspire 3 A315-51-55E4 | |
| Fujitsu Lifebook E557 | |
| PCMark 8 Home Score Accelerated v2 | 3179 puntos | |
ayuda | ||
| Fujitsu Lifebook E557 Toshiba THNSNK256GCS8 | Asus X510UA-BR305T Seagate Mobile HDD 1TB ST1000LM035 | Lenovo ThinkPad E570-20H6S02M00 Samsung PM961 MZVLW256HEHP | Dell Latitude 5580 Seagate ST500LM021-1KJ15 | Acer Aspire 3 A315-51-55E4 Micron 1100 MTFDDAV256TBN | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CrystalDiskMark 3.0 | -89% | 199% | -86% | 34% | |
| Read Seq | 417.2 | 89.4 -79% | 1589 281% | 132.3 -68% | 485.8 16% |
| Write Seq | 262.6 | 84.2 -68% | 1217 363% | 131.1 -50% | 456.1 74% |
| Read 512 | 389.5 | 29.55 -92% | 1155 197% | 27.04 -93% | 328 -16% |
| Write 512 | 263 | 61.7 -77% | 783 198% | 56.6 -78% | 446.8 70% |
| Read 4k | 17.5 | 0.326 -98% | 59.7 241% | 0.459 -97% | 26.95 54% |
| Write 4k | 60.6 | 0.438 -99% | 148.8 146% | 0.812 -99% | 86.7 43% |
| Read 4k QD32 | 311.4 | 1.047 -100% | 473.6 52% | 1.1 -100% | 245.9 -21% |
| Write 4k QD32 | 201.1 | 0.967 -100% | 428.7 113% | 0.828 -100% | 300.2 49% |
| 3DMark 11 - 1280x720 Performance GPU | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad E570-20H6S02M00 | |
| Asus X510UA-BR305T | |
| Fujitsu Lifebook E557 | |
| Dell Latitude 5580 | |
| Acer Aspire 3 A315-51-55E4 | |
| 3DMark 11 Performance | 1410 puntos | |
ayuda | ||
| bajo | medio | alto | ultra | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BioShock Infinite (2013) | 30.96 | 15.87 | 12.94 |
Ruido
| Ocioso |
| 30.3 / 30.3 / 30.3 dB(A) |
| Carga |
| 34.2 / 34.2 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: 30.3 dB(A) | ||
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 29.7 °C / 85 F, compared to the average of 34.3 °C / 94 F, ranging from 21.2 to 62.5 °C for the class Office.
(+) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 31.1 °C / 88 F, compared to the average of 36.8 °C / 98 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 24.6 °C / 76 F, compared to the device average of 29.5 °C / 85 F.
(+) The palmrests and touchpad are cooler than skin temperature with a maximum of 28.9 °C / 84 F and are therefore cool to the touch.
(±) The average temperature of the palmrest area of similar devices was 27.6 °C / 81.7 F (-1.3 °C / -2.3 F).
Fujitsu Lifebook E557 audio analysis
(-) | not very loud speakers (69.7 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 30.7% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (9.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | reduced mids - on average 7.7% lower than median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (10.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 5.2% higher than median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (7.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(-) | overall sound is not linear (33.4% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 94% of all tested devices in this class were better, 3% similar, 3% worse
» The best had a delta of 7%, average was 22%, worst was 53%
Compared to all devices tested
» 91% of all tested devices were better, 1% similar, 7% 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 | 0.34 / 0.35 Watt |
| Ocioso | 2.7 / 4.9 / 5.8 Watt |
| Carga |
26 / 24.6 Watt |
   
| |
Clave:
min: ,
med: ,
max: Metrahit Energy | |
| Battery Runtime - WiFi Websurfing | |
| Dell Latitude 5580 | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad E570-20H6S02M00 | |
| Asus X510UA-BR305T | |
| Acer Aspire 3 A315-51-55E4 | |
| Fujitsu Lifebook E557 | |
Pro
Contra
El Lifebook E557 se distingue por su diseño modular y su E/S, que no es fácil de encontrar actualmente. Por el precio de 790 Euros, el rendimiento proporcionado está en bien. Sin embargo, Fujitsu ha ahorrado demasiado en la carcasa. El diseño se puede describir como "retro". Los materiales parecen baratos, pero todo lo demás parece ser robusto. Como nota positiva, nos gustan mucho las opciones de mantenimiento provistas.
Sobre todo, el Lifebook E557 se distingue por su inusual E/S y muchas opciones de mantenimiento.
Para los compradores que pueden vivir con la mala calidad de los materiales y que necesitan un dispositivo con E/S especial, vale la pena considerar el Lifebook E557. La variante de hardware que hemos probado ofrece el rendimiento suficiente para las tareas diarias. Quienes deseen gastar más dinero pueden obtener un mejor display y una gama de procesadores más rápidos.
Ésta es una versión acortada del análisis original. Puedes leer el análisis completo en inglés aquí.
Fujitsu Lifebook E557
- 10/26/2017 v6 (old)
Mike Wobker
Price comparison
