Breve análisis del portátil Lenovo ThinkPad A275 (A12-9800B, 256GB)
Top 10 Análisis
» Top 10 Portátiles Multimedia
» Top 10 Portátiles de Juego
» Top 10 Portátiles de Juego ligeros
» Top 10 Portátiles Asequibles de Oficina/Empresa
» Top 10 Portátiles de Juego Ligeros
» Top 10 Portátiles de Oficina/Empresa Premium
» Top 10 Estaciones de Trabajo
» Top 10 Subportátiles
» Top 10 Ultrabooks
» Top 10 Convertibles
» Top 10 Tablets
» Top 10 Tablets Windows
» Top 10 Tablets de menos de 250 Euros
» Top 10 Phablets (>5.5")
» Top 10 Smartphones
» Top 10 Smartphones (≤5")
» Top 10 Smartphones de menos de 300 Euros
» Top 10 Smartphones de menos de 120 Euros
» Top 10 Portátiles de menos de 1000 Euros
» Top 10 Portátiles de menos de 500 Euros
» Top 10 Portátiles de menos de 300 Euros
» Los Mejores Displays de Portátiles Analizados por Notebookcheck
SD Card Reader | |
average JPG Copy Test (av. of 3 runs) | |
HP EliteBook 820 G3 (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
Lenovo ThinkPad X260-20F6007RGE (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
Lenovo ThinkPad X270-20HMS00T00 (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
Lenovo ThinkPad A275 (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
HP EliteBook 725 G4 (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
Lenovo Thinkpad 13-20J1001BUS (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
maximum AS SSD Seq Read Test (1GB) | |
Lenovo ThinkPad X270-20HMS00T00 (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
HP EliteBook 820 G3 (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
Lenovo ThinkPad X260-20F6007RGE (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
Lenovo ThinkPad A275 (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
HP EliteBook 725 G4 (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
Lenovo Thinkpad 13-20J1001BUS (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) |
Networking | |
iperf3 transmit AX12 | |
HP EliteBook 725 G4 | |
Lenovo ThinkPad A275 | |
Lenovo Thinkpad 13-20J1001BUS | |
Lenovo ThinkPad X270-20HMS00T00 | |
HP Envy x360 15m-bq121dx | |
Lenovo IdeaPad 320S-13IKB | |
iperf3 receive AX12 | |
Lenovo ThinkPad X270-20HMS00T00 | |
Lenovo Thinkpad 13-20J1001BUS | |
HP EliteBook 725 G4 | |
Lenovo ThinkPad A275 | |
HP Envy x360 15m-bq121dx | |
Lenovo IdeaPad 320S-13IKB |
|
iluminación: 87 %
Brillo con batería: 130 cd/m²
Contraste: 490:1 (Negro: 0.52 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 9.76 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.92
ΔE Greyscale 11.13 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
63% sRGB (Argyll 1.6.3 3D)
40% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 1.6.3 3D)
43.48% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
62.8% sRGB (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
42.05% Display P3 (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
Gamma: 2.38
Lenovo ThinkPad A275 Len40E0, , 1366x768, 12.5" | HP EliteBook 820 G3 LG Philips LGD0498, , 1366x768, 12.5" | Lenovo ThinkPad X260-20F6007RGE Lenovo N125HCE-GN1, , 1920x1080, 12.5" | Lenovo Thinkpad 13-20J1001BUS Lenovo LEN4094, , 1920x1080, 13.3" | HP EliteBook 725 G4 AU Optronics, , 1920x1080, 12.5" | Lenovo ThinkPad X270-20HMS00T00 Innolux N125HCE-GN1, , 1920x1080, 12.5" | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Display | -7% | 6% | -4% | 16% | 6% | |
Display P3 Coverage | 42.05 | 38.9 -7% | 44.71 6% | 40.57 -4% | 49.16 17% | 44.6 6% 44.6 6% |
sRGB Coverage | 62.8 | 58.5 -7% | 66.1 5% | 60.7 -3% | 72.3 15% | 65.9 5% 65.9 5% |
AdobeRGB 1998 Coverage | 43.48 | 40.2 -8% | 46.23 6% | 41.92 -4% | 50.8 17% | 46.11 6% 46.11 6% |
Response Times | -34% | 1% | -15% | -10% | 1041% | |
Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% * | 41 ? | 58 ? -41% | 32.8 ? 20% | 32.8 ? 20% | 47 ? -15% | 40.8 ? -0% |
Response Time Black / White * | 23 ? | 29.2 ? -27% | 27.2 ? -18% | 34.4 ? -50% | 24 ? -4% | 30.4 ? -32% |
PWM Frequency | 800 ? | 26040 ? 3155% | ||||
Screen | -4% | 32% | 18% | 61% | 30% | |
Brightness middle | 255 | 244 -4% | 337 32% | 266.4 4% | 329 29% | 283 11% |
Brightness | 244 | 240 -2% | 322 32% | 250 2% | 310 27% | 281 15% |
Brightness Distribution | 87 | 84 -3% | 91 5% | 88 1% | 88 1% | 94 8% |
Black Level * | 0.52 | 0.6 -15% | 0.32 38% | 0.31 40% | 0.19 63% | 0.25 52% |
Contrast | 490 | 407 -17% | 1053 115% | 859 75% | 1732 253% | 1132 131% |
Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 9.76 | 9 8% | 5.71 41% | 5.3 46% | 2.69 72% | 6.1 37% |
Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 14.53 | 15.73 -8% | 15.39 -6% | 21 -45% | 4.47 69% | 15.4 -6% |
Greyscale dE 2000 * | 11.13 | 9.48 15% | 5.15 54% | 3.3 70% | 4.23 62% | 6 46% |
Gamma | 2.38 92% | 2.44 90% | 2.38 92% | 2.36 93% | 2.21 100% | 2.05 107% |
CCT | 12214 53% | 11116 58% | 6881 94% | 6843 95% | 6011 108% | 6832 95% |
Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998) | 40 | 37.18 -7% | 42.38 6% | 38 -5% | 46 15% | 42.26 6% |
Color Space (Percent of sRGB) | 63 | 58.63 -7% | 65.62 4% | 60 -5% | 72 14% | 65.43 4% |
Media total (Programa/Opciones) | -15% /
-9% | 13% /
23% | -0% /
9% | 22% /
42% | 359% /
182% |
* ... más pequeño es mejor
Tiempos de respuesta del display
↔ Tiempo de respuesta de Negro a Blanco | ||
---|---|---|
23 ms ... subida ↗ y bajada ↘ combinada | ↗ 19 ms subida | |
↘ 4 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. » 47 % de todos los dispositivos son mejores. Eso quiere decir que el tiempo de respuesta es similar al dispositivo testado medio (21 ms). | ||
↔ Tiempo de respuesta 50% Gris a 80% Gris | ||
41 ms ... subida ↗ y bajada ↘ combinada | ↗ 22 ms subida | |
↘ 19 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. » 61 % 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 | 800 Hz | ≤ 30 % de brillo | |
La retroiluminación del display parpadea a 800 Hz (seguramente usa PWM - Pulse-Width Modulation) a un brillo del 30 % e inferior. Sobre este nivel de brillo no debería darse parpadeo / PWM. La frecuencia de 800 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 R15 | |
CPU Single 64Bit | |
HP Envy x360 15m-bq121dx | |
Lenovo ThinkPad X270-20HMS00T00 | |
Lenovo ThinkPad X260-20F6007RGE | |
HP EliteBook 820 G3 | |
Lenovo Thinkpad 13-20J1001BUS | |
HP EliteBook 725 G4 | |
Lenovo ThinkPad A275 | |
CPU Multi 64Bit | |
HP Envy x360 15m-bq121dx | |
Lenovo ThinkPad X270-20HMS00T00 | |
Lenovo ThinkPad X260-20F6007RGE | |
HP EliteBook 820 G3 | |
Lenovo Thinkpad 13-20J1001BUS | |
HP EliteBook 725 G4 | |
Lenovo ThinkPad A275 |
PCMark 8 | |
Home Score Accelerated v2 | |
Lenovo ThinkPad X270-20HMS00T00 | |
HP EliteBook 820 G3 | |
HP Envy x360 15m-bq121dx | |
Lenovo ThinkPad X260-20F6007RGE | |
Lenovo Thinkpad 13-20J1001BUS | |
Lenovo ThinkPad A275 | |
HP EliteBook 725 G4 | |
Work Score Accelerated v2 | |
Lenovo ThinkPad X270-20HMS00T00 | |
HP EliteBook 820 G3 | |
Lenovo ThinkPad X260-20F6007RGE | |
Lenovo ThinkPad A275 | |
Lenovo Thinkpad 13-20J1001BUS | |
HP EliteBook 725 G4 |
PCMark 8 Home Score Accelerated v2 | 2925 puntos | |
PCMark 8 Work Score Accelerated v2 | 4156 puntos | |
PCMark 10 Score | 2312 puntos | |
ayuda |
Lenovo ThinkPad A275 Samsung PM961 MZVLW256HEHP | HP EliteBook 820 G3 Samsung SM951 MZVPV256HDGL m.2 PCI-e | Lenovo ThinkPad X260-20F6007RGE Liteonit LCH-512V2S | Lenovo Thinkpad 13-20J1001BUS | HP EliteBook 725 G4 Samsung PM961 MZVLW256HEHP | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CrystalDiskMark 3.0 | 106% | 18% | -7% | 12% | |
Read Seq | 1196 | 1255 5% | 499.6 -58% | 447.3 -63% | 1963 64% |
Write Seq | 1133 | 1240 9% | 403 -64% | 331.3 -71% | 1409 24% |
Read 512 | 943 | 1131 20% | 322.9 -66% | 315.7 -67% | 949 1% |
Write 512 | 870 | 811 -7% | 372.4 -57% | 247.2 -72% | 890 2% |
Read 4k | 33.82 | 51 51% | 27.22 -20% | 34.46 2% | 29.75 -12% |
Write 4k | 46.63 | 134.1 188% | 83.6 79% | 76.1 63% | 47.35 2% |
Read 4k QD32 | 131.5 | 549 317% | 316.5 141% | 235.3 79% | 139.7 6% |
Write 4k QD32 | 94.9 | 343.9 262% | 273.1 188% | 162.2 71% | 100.2 6% |
3DMark - 1280x720 Cloud Gate Standard Graphics | |
HP Envy x360 15m-bq121dx | |
Lenovo IdeaPad 320S-13IKB | |
Lenovo ThinkPad X260-20F6007RGE | |
HP EliteBook 820 G3 | |
Lenovo Thinkpad 13-20J1001BUS | |
Lenovo ThinkPad A275 | |
HP EliteBook 725 G4 |
3DMark Cloud Gate Standard Score | 3942 puntos | |
ayuda |
BioShock Infinite - 1280x720 Very Low Preset | |
HP Envy x360 15m-bq121dx | |
Lenovo ThinkPad A275 |
Rise of the Tomb Raider - 1024x768 Lowest Preset | |
HP Envy x360 15m-bq121dx | |
Lenovo IdeaPad 320S-13IKB | |
Lenovo ThinkPad A275 |
Battlefield 4 - 1024x768 Low Preset | |
Lenovo ThinkPad A275 |
bajo | medio | alto | ultra | |
---|---|---|---|---|
BioShock Infinite (2013) | 45.4 | 26.9 | 23 | |
Battlefield 4 (2013) | 29 | 20.1 | 12.6 | |
Rise of the Tomb Raider (2016) | 21.6 | 13.2 | 7 |
Ruido
Ocioso |
| 30.15 / 30.4 / 32.4 dB(A) |
Carga |
| 32.4 / 32.4 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: 30.15 dB(A) |
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 38.7 °C / 102 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 47 °C / 117 F, compared to the average of 39.4 °C / 103 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 26.5 °C / 80 F, compared to the device average of 30.8 °C / 87 F.
(+) The palmrests and touchpad are cooler than skin temperature with a maximum of 29.3 °C / 84.7 F and are therefore cool to the touch.
(±) The average temperature of the palmrest area of similar devices was 28.3 °C / 82.9 F (-1 °C / -1.8 F).
Lenovo ThinkPad A275 audio analysis
(-) | not very loud speakers (63.7 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 20% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (13.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4% away from median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (13% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 2.5% away from median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (9.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (22.8% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 76% of all tested devices in this class were better, 4% similar, 20% worse
» The best had a delta of 5%, average was 19%, worst was 53%
Compared to all devices tested
» 64% of all tested devices were better, 6% similar, 30% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
HP EliteBook 820 G3 audio analysis
(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (76.5 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 20.2% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (14.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 2% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (5% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 6.7% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (6.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (22.1% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 72% of all tested devices in this class were better, 6% similar, 22% worse
» The best had a delta of 5%, average was 19%, worst was 53%
Compared to all devices tested
» 60% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 33% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Lenovo Thinkpad 13-20J1001BUS audio analysis
(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (75.1 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 16.8% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (14.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 2.1% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (6.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 2.5% away from median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (8.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (18.4% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 28% of all tested devices in this class were better, 7% similar, 65% worse
» The best had a delta of 7%, average was 22%, worst was 53%
Compared to all devices tested
» 37% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 55% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Off / Standby | 0.48 / 0.6 Watt |
Ocioso | 4.2 / 8.2 / 10 Watt |
Carga |
34.5 / 37 Watt |
Clave:
min: ,
med: ,
max: Metrahit Energy |
Lenovo ThinkPad A275 PRO A12-9800B, Radeon R7 (Bristol Ridge), Samsung PM961 MZVLW256HEHP, TN, 1366x768, 12.5" | HP EliteBook 820 G3 6300U, HD Graphics 520, Samsung SM951 MZVPV256HDGL m.2 PCI-e, TN LED, 1366x768, 12.5" | Lenovo ThinkPad X260-20F6007RGE 6500U, HD Graphics 520, Liteonit LCH-512V2S, IPS, 1920x1080, 12.5" | Lenovo Thinkpad 13-20J1001BUS i3-7100U, HD Graphics 620, , IPS, 1920x1080, 13.3" | HP EliteBook 725 G4 PRO A12-9800B, Radeon R7 (Bristol Ridge), Samsung PM961 MZVLW256HEHP, IPS, 1920x1080, 12.5" | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Power Consumption | 21% | 17% | 28% | 12% | |
Idle Minimum * | 4.2 | 3.5 17% | 3.5 17% | 3.5 17% | 4.5 -7% |
Idle Average * | 8.2 | 5.4 34% | 5.5 33% | 5.7 30% | 6.3 23% |
Idle Maximum * | 10 | 6.2 38% | 6.7 33% | 6.2 38% | 8.3 17% |
Load Average * | 34.5 | 27.3 21% | 28.9 16% | 24.1 30% | 27.6 20% |
Load Maximum * | 37 | 39.5 -7% | 42.1 -14% | 28.5 23% | 34.5 7% |
* ... más pequeño es mejor
Lenovo ThinkPad A275 PRO A12-9800B, Radeon R7 (Bristol Ridge), 71 Wh | HP EliteBook 820 G3 6300U, HD Graphics 520, 44 Wh | Lenovo ThinkPad X260-20F6007RGE 6500U, HD Graphics 520, 46 Wh | Lenovo Thinkpad 13-20J1001BUS i3-7100U, HD Graphics 620, 42 Wh | HP EliteBook 725 G4 PRO A12-9800B, Radeon R7 (Bristol Ridge), 49 Wh | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Duración de Batería | -29% | -23% | -14% | -35% | |
Reader / Idle | 961 | 826 -14% | 953 -1% | 989 3% | 700 -27% |
WiFi v1.3 | 538 | 373 -31% | 501 -7% | 580 8% | 380 -29% |
Load | 243 | 144 -41% | 92 -62% | 113 -53% | 123 -49% |
H.264 | 495 | 466 | 344 |
Pro
Contra
El A275 ciertamente no es el sucesor de la serie ThinkPad Edge. Si bien la calidad de su construcción es en cierto modo una reminiscencia de la descontinuada serie Edge de la gama baja y estábamos muy decepcionados por la falta de rigidez de la base, las otras cualidades de la A275 fueron bastante impresionantes. Eso es asumiendo que optes por el panel FHD, en cuyo caso el A275 está a la par con otros subportátiles de gama medio como el ThinkPad 13 o el X260.
Lo que más nos impresionó fueron los dispositivos de entrada de alta gama que son 95% idénticos al ThinkPad 13 en lo que respecta a la retroalimentación y el diseño. La selección de puertos también es excelente, con Ethernet, 3x USB 3.0 Gen. 1 y soporte de paso de DisplayPort para el puerto USB TipoC. Las características de seguridad incluyen un lector de huellas rápido y confiable, un lector de smartcards y un chip TPM 2.0.
El mayor inconveniente fue, con diferencia, la pantalla HD basada en el panel TN. Te pedimos encarecidamente que elijas el panel FHD en su lugar, encaja mucho mejor que el panel HD.
El mantenimiento también tiene sus cosas. Mientras que la batería externa puede intercambiarse en caliente gracias a la batería integrada principal no reemplazable de 23 Wh, el A275 carece de una escotilla de mantenimiento dedicada. Se tiene que quitar toda la carcasa superior para acceder al SSD (M.2), al ventilador o a la ranura de RAM individual.
Teniendo todo en cuenta, el A275 es ciertamente un caballo de batalla decente con cualidades indiscutibles, como el aguante de batería de 9 horas en nuestra prueba de Wi-Fi, sus excelentes dispositivos de entrada, su gran cantidad de puertos y sus características de seguridad. Sin embargo, por más de $1,000 nos parece que es un poco caro considerando el lento y desactualizado SoC AMD Bristol Ridge.
El HP EliteBook 820 G3 equipado con un procesador más rápido i5-6200U Skylake se puede encontrar por menos de $1,000, de la mismo modo que el ThinkPad 13 G2 equipado con i5-7200U.
Estamos teniendo serios problemas para encontrar una razón convincente para comprar este portátil en particular, aparte del hecho de que el EliteBook 725 G4 basado en Bristol Ridge de HP cuesta aproximadamente lo mismo. Sin embargo, consideramos que ese portátil es demasiado caro también. Un precio menor a $1,000 sería adecuado para compensar el rendimiento significativamente más lento.
Ésta es una versión acortada del análisis original. Puedes leer el análisis completo en inglés aquí.
Lenovo ThinkPad A275
- 12/21/2017 v6 (old)
Sebastian Jentsch