Deutsch
English
Español
Français
Italiano
Nederlands
Polski
Русский
Türkçe
Svenska
Chinese
MagyarBreve Análise do Portátil HP Omen 17 (7700HQ, GTX 1070, Full-HD)
| SD Card Reader | |
| average JPG Copy Test (av. of 3 runs) | |
| MSI GT72VR 7RE-433 (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
| Gigabyte P57X v7 (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
| Asus G752VS-BA338T (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
| HP Omen 17-w110ng (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
| Nexoc G734IV (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
| HP Omen 17-an014ng (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
| maximum AS SSD Seq Read Test (1GB) | |
| MSI GT72VR 7RE-433 (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
| Gigabyte P57X v7 (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
| Nexoc G734IV (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
| Asus G752VS-BA338T (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
| HP Omen 17-w110ng (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
| HP Omen 17-an014ng (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
| Networking | |
| iperf3 transmit AX12 | |
| MSI GT72VR 7RE-433 | |
| HP Omen 17-w110ng | |
| Nexoc G734IV | |
| Asus G752VS-BA338T | |
| HP Omen 17-an014ng | |
| iperf3 receive AX12 | |
| HP Omen 17-an014ng | |
| Asus G752VS-BA338T | |
| Nexoc G734IV | |
| HP Omen 17-w110ng | |
| MSI GT72VR 7RE-433 | |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
iluminação: 88 %
iluminação com acumulador: 314 cd/m²
Contraste: 924:1 (Preto: 0.34 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 3.19 | 0.5-29.43 Ø5
ΔE Greyscale 3.49 | 0.57-98 Ø5.3
93% sRGB (Argyll 1.6.3 3D)
60% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 1.6.3 3D)
66.1% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
92.9% sRGB (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
64.6% Display P3 (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
Gamma: 2.34
| HP Omen 17-an014ng AUO149D, 1920x1080, 17.30 | HP Omen 17-w110ng LG Philips LGD046E, 1920x1080, 17.30 | Nexoc G734IV LG Philips LP173WF4-SPD1 (LGD046C), 1920x1080, 17.30 | MSI GT72VR 7RE-433 Chi Mei N173HHE-G32 (CMN1747), 1920x1080, 17.30 | Gigabyte P57X v7 SHP145E, 3840x2160, 17.30 | Asus G752VS-BA338T AU Optronics B173HAN01.1 (AUO119D), 1920x1080, 17.30 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Display | -4% | -5% | -2% | 31% | -4% | |
| Display P3 Coverage | 64.6 | 66.6 3% | 66.2 2% | 68.3 6% | 87.8 36% | 61.6 -5% |
| sRGB Coverage | 92.9 | 84.1 -9% | 83.7 -10% | 86.7 -7% | 100 8% | 90.3 -3% |
| AdobeRGB 1998 Coverage | 66.1 | 61.5 -7% | 61.2 -7% | 63.4 -4% | 98.9 50% | 62.8 -5% |
| Response Times | 20% | 8% | 57% | -39% | 17% | |
| Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% * | 45.2 ? | 37 ? 18% | 42 ? 7% | 29 ? 36% | 55.6 ? -23% | 36 ? 20% |
| Response Time Black / White * | 30.4 ? | 24 ? 21% | 28 ? 8% | 7 ? 77% | 46.8 ? -54% | 26 ? 14% |
| PWM Frequency | 1000 ? | |||||
| Screen | -5% | -5% | -48% | -4% | -26% | |
| Brightness middle | 314 | 362 15% | 348 11% | 299 -5% | 441.3 41% | 307 -2% |
| Brightness | 309 | 342 11% | 336 9% | 277 -10% | 408 32% | 300 -3% |
| Brightness Distribution | 88 | 87 -1% | 91 3% | 87 -1% | 86 -2% | 88 0% |
| Black Level * | 0.34 | 0.31 9% | 0.32 6% | 0.27 21% | 0.44 -29% | 0.32 6% |
| Contrast | 924 | 1168 26% | 1088 18% | 1107 20% | 1003 9% | 959 4% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 3.19 | 4.5 -41% | 4.13 -29% | 9.65 -203% | 5.1 -60% | 5.53 -73% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 6.1 | 9.31 -53% | 9.21 -51% | 15.43 -153% | 9.8 -61% | 11.54 -89% |
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 3.49 | 3.48 -0% | 3.52 -1% | 9.68 -177% | 4.3 -23% | 7 -101% |
| Gamma | 2.34 94% | 2.23 99% | 2.32 95% | 1.89 116% | 2.08 106% | 2.48 89% |
| CCT | 7261 90% | 6144 106% | 6228 104% | 11652 56% | 7345 88% | 8103 80% |
| Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998) | 60 | 55 -8% | 55 -8% | 75 25% | 87 45% | 58 -3% |
| Color Space (Percent of sRGB) | 93 | 84 -10% | 84 -10% | 100 8% | 100 8% | 90 -3% |
| Total Average (Program / Settings) | 4% /
-2% | -1% /
-3% | 2% /
-24% | -4% /
-2% | -4% /
-16% |
* ... smaller is better
Display Response Times
| ↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
|---|---|---|
| 30.4 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 16.4 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 14 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. » 80 % 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 | ||
| 45.2 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 20.8 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 24.4 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. » 74 % 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 17924 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 3846000) Hz was measured. | |||
| PCMark 8 | |
| Home Score Accelerated v2 | |
| Asus G752VS-BA338T | |
| MSI GT72VR 7RE-433 | |
| HP Omen 17-an014ng | |
| HP Omen 17-w110ng | |
| Nexoc G734IV | |
| Gigabyte P57X v7 | |
| Work Score Accelerated v2 | |
| Asus G752VS-BA338T | |
| MSI GT72VR 7RE-433 | |
| HP Omen 17-w110ng | |
| HP Omen 17-an014ng | |
| Nexoc G734IV | |
| Gigabyte P57X v7 | |
| PCMark 8 Home Score Accelerated v2 | 4989 pontos | |
| PCMark 8 Work Score Accelerated v2 | 5289 pontos | |
| PCMark 10 Score | 5137 pontos | |
Ajuda | ||
| HP Omen 17-an014ng Samsung PM961 MZVLW256HEHP | HP Omen 17-w110ng Samsung PM951 NVMe MZVLV256 | Nexoc G734IV Samsung SM961 MZVKW512HMJP m.2 PCI-e | MSI GT72VR 7RE-433 Kingston RBU-SNS8152S3256GG5 | Gigabyte P57X v7 Transcend MTS800 256GB M.2 (TS256GMTS800) | Asus G752VS-BA338T Samsung SM961 MZVKW512HMJP m.2 PCI-e | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CrystalDiskMark 3.0 | -35% | 5% | -52% | -59% | 16% | |
| Write 4k QD32 | 523 | 295.3 -44% | 509 -3% | 318.3 -39% | 296 -43% | 527 1% |
| Read 4k QD32 | 582 | 600 3% | 634 9% | 331.1 -43% | 281.3 -52% | 607 4% |
| Write 4k | 144.9 | 153.3 6% | 154.9 7% | 111.1 -23% | 82.3 -43% | 163.8 13% |
| Read 4k | 59.1 | 42.7 -28% | 54 -9% | 33.35 -44% | 26.04 -56% | 55.1 -7% |
| Write 512 | 854 | 294.7 -65% | 1167 37% | 332.3 -61% | 306.1 -64% | 1606 88% |
| Read 512 | 1044 | 616 -41% | 413.8 -60% | 403.1 -61% | 315 -70% | 400.8 -62% |
| Write Seq | 1212 | 294.9 -76% | 1559 29% | 311.8 -74% | 305.7 -75% | 1596 32% |
| Read Seq | 1736 | 1156 -33% | 2268 31% | 521 -70% | 517 -70% | 2791 61% |
| 3DMark 11 - 1280x720 Performance GPU | |
| Asus G752VS-BA338T | |
| Gigabyte P57X v7 | |
| MSI GT72VR 7RE-433 | |
| Nexoc G734IV | |
| HP Omen 17-an014ng | |
| HP Omen 17-w110ng | |
| 3DMark | |
| 1280x720 Cloud Gate Standard Graphics | |
| HP Omen 17-an014ng | |
| MSI GT72VR 7RE-433 | |
| Asus G752VS-BA338T | |
| HP Omen 17-w110ng | |
| Nexoc G734IV | |
| Gigabyte P57X v7 | |
| 1920x1080 Fire Strike Graphics | |
| Asus G752VS-BA338T | |
| MSI GT72VR 7RE-433 | |
| Nexoc G734IV | |
| HP Omen 17-an014ng | |
| Gigabyte P57X v7 | |
| HP Omen 17-w110ng | |
| 3DMark 11 Performance | 16190 pontos | |
| 3DMark Cloud Gate Standard Score | 28209 pontos | |
| 3DMark Fire Strike Score | 13658 pontos | |
Ajuda | ||
| The Witcher 3 | |
| 1024x768 Low Graphics & Postprocessing | |
| Asus G752VS-BA338T | |
| HP Omen 17-an014ng | |
| HP Omen 17-w110ng | |
| 1366x768 Medium Graphics & Postprocessing | |
| Asus G752VS-BA338T | |
| HP Omen 17-an014ng | |
| HP Omen 17-w110ng | |
| 1920x1080 High Graphics & Postprocessing (Nvidia HairWorks Off) | |
| Asus G752VS-BA338T | |
| HP Omen 17-an014ng | |
| HP Omen 17-w110ng | |
| 1920x1080 Ultra Graphics & Postprocessing (HBAO+) | |
| Asus G752VS-BA338T | |
| HP Omen 17-an014ng | |
| HP Omen 17-w110ng | |
| Rise of the Tomb Raider | |
| 1024x768 Lowest Preset | |
| HP Omen 17-an014ng | |
| Asus G752VS-BA338T | |
| Nexoc G734IV | |
| HP Omen 17-w110ng | |
| 1366x768 Medium Preset AF:2x | |
| Asus G752VS-BA338T | |
| HP Omen 17-an014ng | |
| Nexoc G734IV | |
| HP Omen 17-w110ng | |
| 1920x1080 High Preset AA:FX AF:4x | |
| Asus G752VS-BA338T | |
| HP Omen 17-an014ng | |
| HP Omen 17-w110ng | |
| Nexoc G734IV | |
| 1920x1080 Very High Preset AA:FX AF:16x | |
| Asus G752VS-BA338T | |
| HP Omen 17-an014ng | |
| Nexoc G734IV | |
| HP Omen 17-w110ng | |
| baixo | média | alto | ultra | |
| The Witcher 3 (2015) | 209.6 | 168.7 | 108.8 | 58 |
| Rise of the Tomb Raider (2016) | 225.3 | 170.2 | 107.9 | 90.9 |
| Doom (2016) | 165.4 | 156.3 | 140.2 | 135.8 |
Barulho
| Ocioso |
| 30 / 37 / 39 dB |
| HDD |
| 34 dB |
| DVD |
| 40 / dB |
| Carga |
| 44 / 55 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 dB(A) | ||
| HP Omen 17-an014ng GeForce GTX 1070 Mobile, i7-7700HQ | HP Omen 17-w110ng GeForce GTX 1070 Mobile, 6700HQ | Nexoc G734IV GeForce GTX 1070 Mobile, i7-7700HQ | MSI GT72VR 7RE-433 GeForce GTX 1070 Mobile, i7-7700HQ | Gigabyte P57X v7 GeForce GTX 1070 Mobile, i7-7700HQ | Asus G752VS-BA338T GeForce GTX 1070 Mobile, i7-7700HQ | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Noise | 2% | -7% | 5% | 6% | 6% | |
| off / environment * | 30 | 30 -0% | 30 -0% | 31 -3% | 29 3% | 30 -0% |
| Idle Minimum * | 30 | 33 -10% | 34 -13% | 34 -13% | 30.4 -1% | 30 -0% |
| Idle Average * | 37 | 34 8% | 35 5% | 35 5% | 32.1 13% | 32 14% |
| Idle Maximum * | 39 | 35 10% | 46 -18% | 37 5% | 32.1 18% | 36 8% |
| Load Average * | 44 | 45 -2% | 49 -11% | 37 16% | 45.6 -4% | 43 2% |
| Witcher 3 ultra * | 47 | 43 9% | ||||
| Load Maximum * | 55 | 52 5% | 56 -2% | 44 20% | 51.5 6% | 49 11% |
* ... smaller is better
| HP Omen 17-an014ng GeForce GTX 1070 Mobile, i7-7700HQ | HP Omen 17-w110ng GeForce GTX 1070 Mobile, 6700HQ | Nexoc G734IV GeForce GTX 1070 Mobile, i7-7700HQ | MSI GT72VR 7RE-433 GeForce GTX 1070 Mobile, i7-7700HQ | Gigabyte P57X v7 GeForce GTX 1070 Mobile, i7-7700HQ | Asus G752VS-BA338T GeForce GTX 1070 Mobile, i7-7700HQ | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Heat | 11% | 10% | 19% | 7% | 22% | |
| Maximum Upper Side * | 48 | 45 6% | 48.1 -0% | 41.5 14% | 51.2 -7% | 41 15% |
| Maximum Bottom * | 54 | 54.3 -1% | 59.3 -10% | 50.6 6% | 56.8 -5% | 39.3 27% |
| Idle Upper Side * | 35 | 29.6 15% | 28.2 19% | 26.4 25% | 29.2 17% | 28.8 18% |
| Idle Bottom * | 37 | 28.6 23% | 26 30% | 25.4 31% | 29.2 21% | 27.3 26% |
* ... smaller is better
(-) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 48 °C / 118 F, compared to the average of 40.4 °C / 105 F, ranging from 21.2 to 68.8 °C for the class Gaming.
(-) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 54 °C / 129 F, compared to the average of 43.2 °C / 110 F
(±) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 33 °C / 91 F, compared to the device average of 33.8 °C / 93 F.
(-) Playing The Witcher 3, the average temperature for the upper side is 40.3 °C / 105 F, compared to the device average of 33.8 °C / 93 F.
(±) The palmrests and touchpad can get very hot to the touch with a maximum of 36 °C / 96.8 F.
(-) The average temperature of the palmrest area of similar devices was 28.9 °C / 84 F (-7.1 °C / -12.8 F).
HP Omen 17-an014ng audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (88 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 24.3% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (9.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 3.7% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (3.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 2.9% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (3.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (16.6% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 40% of all tested devices in this class were better, 7% similar, 53% worse
» The best had a delta of 6%, average was 18%, worst was 132%
Compared to all devices tested
» 24% of all tested devices were better, 5% similar, 71% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
HP Omen 17-w110ng audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (85 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 22.3% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (13.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 2.7% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (4.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 5.9% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (5.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (18.5% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 57% of all tested devices in this class were better, 9% similar, 35% worse
» The best had a delta of 6%, average was 18%, worst was 132%
Compared to all devices tested
» 36% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 56% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Nexoc G734IV audio analysis
(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (77 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(±) | reduced bass - on average 14.7% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (13.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 3.5% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (4% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 3.3% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (6.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (17.3% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 44% of all tested devices in this class were better, 12% similar, 44% worse
» The best had a delta of 6%, average was 18%, worst was 132%
Compared to all devices tested
» 27% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 65% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
| desligado | 0.3 / 0.7 Watt |
| Ocioso | 22 / 28 / 35 Watt |
| Carga |
93 / 208 Watt |
   
| |
| HP Omen 17-an014ng GeForce GTX 1070 Mobile, i7-7700HQ | HP Omen 17-w110ng GeForce GTX 1070 Mobile, 6700HQ | Nexoc G734IV GeForce GTX 1070 Mobile, i7-7700HQ | MSI GT72VR 7RE-433 GeForce GTX 1070 Mobile, i7-7700HQ | Gigabyte P57X v7 GeForce GTX 1070 Mobile, i7-7700HQ | Asus G752VS-BA338T GeForce GTX 1070 Mobile, i7-7700HQ | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power Consumption | 9% | 24% | 9% | -6% | 4% | |
| Idle Minimum * | 22 | 19 14% | 12 45% | 20 9% | 15.7 29% | 21 5% |
| Idle Average * | 28 | 25 11% | 17 39% | 27 4% | 23.4 16% | 27 4% |
| Idle Maximum * | 35 | 31 11% | 22 37% | 31 11% | 23.5 33% | 32 9% |
| Load Average * | 93 | 90 3% | 86 8% | 86 8% | 184.6 -98% | 86 8% |
| Witcher 3 ultra * | 157 | 165 -5% | ||||
| Load Maximum * | 208 | 193 7% | 224 -8% | 184 12% | 233.1 -12% | 206 1% |
* ... smaller is better
| HP Omen 17-an014ng i7-7700HQ, GeForce GTX 1070 Mobile, 86 Wh | HP Omen 17-w110ng 6700HQ, GeForce GTX 1070 Mobile, 95 Wh | Nexoc G734IV i7-7700HQ, GeForce GTX 1070 Mobile, 60 Wh | MSI GT72VR 7RE-433 i7-7700HQ, GeForce GTX 1070 Mobile, 83 Wh | Gigabyte P57X v7 i7-7700HQ, GeForce GTX 1070 Mobile, 75.81 Wh | Asus G752VS-BA338T i7-7700HQ, GeForce GTX 1070 Mobile, 90 Wh | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Battery Runtime | 11% | -7% | -7% | -17% | 13% | |
| Reader / Idle | 349 | 432 24% | 463 33% | 316 -9% | 256 -27% | 445 28% |
| H.264 | 255 | 233 -9% | 195 -24% | 228 -11% | 257 1% | |
| WiFi v1.3 | 267 | 247 -7% | 205 -23% | 230 -14% | 155 -42% | 293 10% |
| Load | 84 | 115 37% | 71 -15% | 91 8% | 98 17% | 96 14% |
Pro
Contra
O novo Omen é capaz de se separar de seu próprio antecessor Skylake em mais categorias do que apenas o visual. A HP conseguiu melhorar o modelo do ano passado e eliminou a maioria das queixas, como conectividade, manutenção e touchpad. Além disso, o novo modelo possui um painel compatível com G-Sync de 120 Hz, um SSD rápido, Thunderbolt 3 e teclas macro programáveis para inicializar. E por último, mas não menos importante, o seu desempenho geral foi aumentado em cerca de 10%.
Infelizmente, a virtude do portátil do suporte para G-Sync também é sua maior fraqueza porque significa incompatibilidade inerente com o Nvidia Optimus. Consequentemente, o GTX 1070 está sempre ativo, exigindo muita mais energia, resultando em temperaturas muito mais altas e um nível de ruído maior. De um modo geral, o Omen 7 ficou comparativamente barulhento e quente sob uso intenso. Além disso, encontramos latências dpc e também não gostamos do alto peso do dispositivo. Em troca, o afogamento da CPU / GPU com a bateria não é incomum para portáteis de jogos poderosos, como este.
O Omen 17 é uma substituição de gamer desktop decente. O foco está claramente sobre os entusiastas de jogos, com ênfase em usuários que procuram alto desempenho sem se importar com o peso elevado e a falta de suporte para Optimus.
O novo Omen pode ser adquirido por menos de $2.000, o que o torna um dos portáteis de jogos mais acessíveis em sua classe, disponível hoje em dia.
Alternativas
Entre seus concorrentes, o Asus ROG G752VS-BA338T foi o mais notável. Marcou 86% em nossa extensa análise e superou o novo Omen 17 na maioria das comparações.
Particularmente intrigantes são as baixas temperaturas do Asus e sua emissão de ruído bastante tranquila, apesar do fato de que não tem suporte para Optimus. Foi um pouco mais rápido do que o novo Omen 17 e teve uma duração de bateria superior, para começar.
Em troca, foi o aparelho maior e mais pesado do nosso grupo de teste e, portanto, ainda menos portátil do que o Omen 17. Também sofreu com o bleeding da tela (embora isso dependa muito da tela) e também é mais caro.
HP Omen 17-an014ng
-
08/04/2017 v6(old)
Christian Hintze
Pricecompare
