Deutsch
English
Español
Français
Italiano
Nederlands
Polski
Русский
Türkçe
Svenska
Chinese
MagyarBreve Análise do Portátil Acer ConceptD 5 CN515-51: Kaby Lake G leve luta com redução de custos
Rating | Date | Model | Weight | Height | Size | Resolution | Best Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 82.7 % | 02/2020 | Acer ConceptD 5 CN515-51-73Z7 i7-8705G, Vega M GL / 870 | 1.5 kg | 17 mm | 15.60" | 3840x2160 | |
| 87.8 % | 08/2019 | Dell XPS 15 7590 9980HK GTX 1650 i9-9980HK, GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile | 2 kg | 17 mm | 15.60" | 3840x2160 | |
| 89.7 % | 12/2019 | Apple MacBook Pro 16 2019 i9 5500M i9-9880H, Radeon Pro 5500M | 2 kg | 16.2 mm | 16.00" | 3072x1920 | |
| 87.1 % | 02/2020 | Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Extreme 2019 20QV000WGE i7-9750H, GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile | 1.7 kg | 18.7 mm | 15.60" | 3840x2160 |
| SD Card Reader | |
| average JPG Copy Test (av. of 3 runs) | |
| Dell XPS 15 7590 9980HK GTX 1650 (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Extreme 2019 20QV000WGE (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
| Average of class Multimedia (17.6 - 205, n=66, last 2 years) | |
| Acer ConceptD 5 CN515-51-73Z7 (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
| maximum AS SSD Seq Read Test (1GB) | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Extreme 2019 20QV000WGE (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
| Dell XPS 15 7590 9980HK GTX 1650 (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
| Average of class Multimedia (16.8 - 266, n=62, last 2 years) | |
| Acer ConceptD 5 CN515-51-73Z7 (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
iluminação: 86 %
iluminação com acumulador: 347 cd/m²
Contraste: 1321:1 (Preto: 0.265 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 5.08 | 0.5-29.43 Ø5, calibrated: 4.38
ΔE Greyscale 3.62 | 0.57-98 Ø5.3
100% sRGB (Argyll 1.6.3 3D)
88% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 1.6.3 3D)
99.2% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
100% sRGB (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
86.1% Display P3 (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
Gamma: 2.27
| Acer ConceptD 5 CN515-51-73Z7 B156ZAN03.1, LTPS IPS LED, 3840x2160, 15.60 | Dell XPS 15 7590 9980HK GTX 1650 Samsung 156WR04, SDCA029, OLED, 3840x2160, 15.60 | Apple MacBook Pro 16 2019 i9 5500M APPA044, IPS, 3072x1920, 16.00 | Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Extreme 2019 20QV000WGE NE156QUM-N66, IPS, 3840x2160, 15.60 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Display | -2% | -3% | ||
| Display P3 Coverage | 86.1 | 88.1 2% | 82 -5% | |
| sRGB Coverage | 100 | 99.6 0% | 99.1 -1% | |
| AdobeRGB 1998 Coverage | 99.2 | 91.8 -7% | 96.9 -2% | |
| Response Times | 95% | 15% | 25% | |
| Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% * | 63 ? | 2.3 ? 96% | 52.4 ? 17% | 46.4 ? 26% |
| Response Time Black / White * | 40 ? | 2.4 ? 94% | 34.9 ? 13% | 30.4 ? 24% |
| PWM Frequency | 59.5 ? | 131700 | ||
| Screen | 5% | 28% | 2% | |
| Brightness middle | 350 | 421.2 20% | 519 48% | 464 33% |
| Brightness | 329 | 417 27% | 477 45% | 448 36% |
| Brightness Distribution | 86 | 94 9% | 86 0% | 90 5% |
| Black Level * | 0.265 | 0.39 -47% | 0.36 -36% | |
| Contrast | 1321 | 1331 1% | 1289 -2% | |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 5.08 | 6.06 -19% | 2.28 55% | 4.2 17% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 10.25 | 11.89 -16% | 6.54 36% | 11.4 -11% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 calibrated * | 4.38 | 0.86 80% | 0.8 82% | |
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 3.62 | 2.8 23% | 0.9 75% | 7.2 -99% |
| Gamma | 2.27 97% | 2.15 102% | 2145 0% | 2.17 101% |
| CCT | 6389 102% | 6235 104% | 6572 99% | 6345 102% |
| Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998) | 88 | 81 -8% | 78 -11% | 85.2 -3% |
| Color Space (Percent of sRGB) | 100 | 99.6 0% | 99 -1% | |
| Total Average (Program / Settings) | 33% /
17% | 22% /
26% | 8% /
4% |
* ... smaller is better
Display Response Times
| ↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
|---|---|---|
| 40 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 24 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 16 ms fall | ||
| The screen shows slow response rates in our tests and will be unsatisfactory for gamers. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.1 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 97 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (21.5 ms). | ||
| ↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey | ||
| 63 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 32 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 31 ms fall | ||
| The screen shows slow response rates in our tests and will be unsatisfactory for gamers. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.2 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 97 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (33.7 ms). | ||
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
| Screen flickering / PWM not detected |  | ||
In comparison: 53 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 17900 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 3846000) Hz was measured. | |||
| PCMark 8 Home Score Accelerated v2 | 3551 pontos | |
| PCMark 8 Creative Score Accelerated v2 | 4031 pontos | |
| PCMark 8 Work Score Accelerated v2 | 4359 pontos | |
| PCMark 10 Score | 4583 pontos | |
Ajuda | ||
| Acer ConceptD 5 CN515-51-73Z7 WDC PC SN720 SDAPNTW-512G | Dell XPS 15 7590 9980HK GTX 1650 Toshiba XG6 KXG60ZNV1T02 | Apple MacBook Pro 16 2019 i9 5500M Apple SSD AP1024 7171 | Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Extreme 2019 20QV000WGE Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB512HAJQ | Average WDC PC SN720 SDAPNTW-512G | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CrystalDiskMark 5.2 / 6 | 1% | -7% | 11% | -8% | |
| Write 4K | 120.6 | 104.3 -14% | 55.5 -54% | 148.1 23% | 110 ? -9% |
| Read 4K | 41.43 | 45.23 9% | 16.21 -61% | 47.31 14% | 36.9 ? -11% |
| Write Seq | 2402 | 1729 -28% | 1959 -18% | 1414 -41% | 1976 ? -18% |
| Read Seq | 1997 | 1861 -7% | 1763 -12% | 1320 -34% | 1710 ? -14% |
| Write 4K Q32T1 | 335.2 | 509 52% | 398.5 19% | 493.6 47% | 339 ? 1% |
| Read 4K Q32T1 | 381.7 | 388.5 2% | 648 70% | 594 56% | 417 ? 9% |
| Write Seq Q32T1 | 2553 | 2813 10% | 2727 7% | 2970 16% | 2218 ? -13% |
| Read Seq Q32T1 | 3356 | 2906 -13% | 3242 -3% | 3472 3% | 2940 ? -12% |
| 3DMark 11 Performance | 9104 pontos | |
| 3DMark Cloud Gate Standard Score | 15911 pontos | |
| 3DMark Fire Strike Score | 5879 pontos | |
| 3DMark Time Spy Score | 2121 pontos | |
Ajuda | ||
| baixo | média | alto | ultra | 4K | |
| BioShock Infinite (2013) | 216.3 | 165.3 | 148 | 59.8 | |
| The Witcher 3 (2015) | 116.6 | 75.9 | 41.3 | 24.3 | 14.4 |
| F1 2019 (2019) | 105 | 65 | 56 | 38 | 16 |
Barulho
| Ocioso |
| 30.3 / 30.3 / 30.3 dB |
| Carga |
| 32.6 / 40.2 dB |
 | ||
30 dB silencioso 40 dB(A) audível 50 dB(A) ruidosamente alto |
||
min:  , med:  , max:  Audix TM1, Arta (15 cm de distância) environment noise: 30.3 dB(A) | ||
(±) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 44.6 °C / 112 F, compared to the average of 36.9 °C / 98 F, ranging from 21.1 to 71 °C for the class Multimedia.
(-) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 45.4 °C / 114 F, compared to the average of 39.1 °C / 102 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 24.4 °C / 76 F, compared to the device average of 31.2 °C / 88 F.
(+) The palmrests and touchpad are cooler than skin temperature with a maximum of 29.7 °C / 85.5 F and are therefore cool to the touch.
(±) The average temperature of the palmrest area of similar devices was 28.8 °C / 83.8 F (-0.9 °C / -1.7 F).
Acer ConceptD 5 CN515-51-73Z7 audio analysis
(-) | not very loud speakers (67.1 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 21.2% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 5.8% higher than median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (10% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 4.3% away from median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (10.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (26.3% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 91% of all tested devices in this class were better, 2% similar, 7% worse
» The best had a delta of 5%, average was 18%, worst was 45%
Compared to all devices tested
» 78% of all tested devices were better, 4% similar, 18% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Dell XPS 15 7590 9980HK GTX 1650 audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (88.4 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 24.9% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (14.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 2.8% away from median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (7.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 1.9% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (5.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (17.8% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 46% of all tested devices in this class were better, 8% similar, 46% worse
» The best had a delta of 5%, average was 18%, worst was 45%
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%
| desligado | 0.28 / 0.45 Watt |
| Ocioso | 12 / 17.8 / 19.7 Watt |
| Carga |
59 / 87 Watt |
   
| |
| Acer ConceptD 5 CN515-51-73Z7 i7-8705G, Vega M GL / 870, WDC PC SN720 SDAPNTW-512G, LTPS IPS LED, 3840x2160, 15.60 | Dell XPS 15 7590 9980HK GTX 1650 i9-9980HK, GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile, Toshiba XG6 KXG60ZNV1T02, OLED, 3840x2160, 15.60 | Apple MacBook Pro 16 2019 i9 5500M i9-9880H, Radeon Pro 5500M, Apple SSD AP1024 7171, IPS, 3072x1920, 16.00 | Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Extreme 2019 20QV000WGE i7-9750H, GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB512HAJQ, IPS, 3840x2160, 15.60 | Average AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL / 870 | Average of class Multimedia | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power Consumption | -9% | 8% | -11% | 2% | 6% | |
| Idle Minimum * | 12 | 6.2 48% | 3.7 69% | 8.5 29% | 9.97 ? 17% | 7.29 ? 39% |
| Idle Average * | 17.8 | 9.6 46% | 12.1 32% | 14.7 17% | 15.8 ? 11% | 11.8 ? 34% |
| Idle Maximum * | 19.7 | 21.2 -8% | 17 14% | 19.4 2% | 17.4 ? 12% | 14.6 ? 26% |
| Load Average * | 59 | 104.3 -77% | 91.5 -55% | 89.6 -52% | 72.5 ? -23% | 77.7 ? -32% |
| Load Maximum * | 87 | 135.3 -56% | 102.3 -18% | 129.8 -49% | 93.8 ? -8% | 121 ? -39% |
| Witcher 3 ultra * | 91.7 | 103 | 96.1 |
* ... smaller is better
| Acer ConceptD 5 CN515-51-73Z7 i7-8705G, Vega M GL / 870, 48 Wh | Dell XPS 15 7590 9980HK GTX 1650 i9-9980HK, GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile, 97 Wh | Apple MacBook Pro 16 2019 i9 5500M i9-9880H, Radeon Pro 5500M, 99.8 Wh | Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Extreme 2019 20QV000WGE i7-9750H, GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile, 80 Wh | Average of class Multimedia | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Battery Runtime | 100% | 56% | -14% | 74% | |
| Reader / Idle | 462 | 910 97% | 933 ? 102% | ||
| H.264 | 416 | 580 39% | 284 -32% | 710 ? 71% | |
| WiFi v1.3 | 275 | 467 70% | 718 161% | 285 4% | 572 ? 108% |
| Load | 85 | 199 134% | 58 -32% | 72 -15% | 97.7 ? 15% |
| Witcher 3 ultra | 54 | 81.8 ? |
Pro
Contra
A Acer criou um portátil multimídia fora do comum com o ConceptD 5 CN515-51.
Ele se vê diferente de outros modelos desta classe e tem um foco forte no peso baixo graças aos materiais do chassi. Isso é algo bom, mas a tampa fraca da tela parece ser um efeito secundário negativa deste foco sob uma iluminação baixa. No que se refere às portas, a Acer não incluiu Thunderbolt 3. Também é utilizado um leitor de cartões SD extremamente lento, que está completamente mal posicionado em um portátil multimídia caro. O mesmo é verdade para o módulo Wi-Fi desatualizado, que nem sequer suporta o mais recente padrão Bluetooth. Louvável e censurável é a capacidade de atualização: Enquanto a RAM é completamente soldada, a capacidade de armazenamento em massa pode ser atualizada facilmente, graças ao slot M.2 2280 disponível.
A tela do portátil Acer possui uma excelente cobertura de cores, seu brilho mais baixo do que o prometido e o bleeding da luz de fundo relativamente forte, nos decepcionam. Em termos de desempenho, o ConceptD oferece aproximadamente o que esperávamos do Kaby Lake G. Um bom desempenho para um portátil multimídia, mas muitos outros portáteis com CPUs Intel mais recentes e GPUs Nvidia dedicadas oferecem melhor desempenho. Infelizmente, isto não resulta em uma melhor duração da bateria, em troca. Em vez disso, a bateria arruina a equação, pois é muito pequena. Além disso, temos que pesar negativamente o ruído da bobina, a limitação de desempenho quando o dispositivo funciona com energia da bateria e os falantes abaixo da média (para um portátil multimídia).
Não sem compromissos: Infelizmente, a Acer decidiu cortar custos em componentes cruciais. Não pode competir com os concorrentes mais caros.
Para nós, não está claro para quem a Acer deseja comercializar o ConceptD 5 CN515-51. A característica positiva mais destacada é o baixo peso e a tela colorida. Com esses dois pontos fortes, parece destinado a ser um sonho dos fotógrafos. Este grupo, no entanto, provavelmente ficará extremamente irritado com o lento leitor de cartões SD Além disso, a baixa duração da bateria é um problema. O ConceptD pode ser usado para jogar, mas também não foi feito para isso.
Acer ConceptD 5 CN515-51-73Z7
-
02/17/2020 v7
Benjamin Herzig
Pricecompare
