Deutsch
English
Español
Français
Italiano
Nederlands
Polski
Русский
Türkçe
Svenska
Chinese
MagyarBreve Análise do Portátil Lenovo ThinkPad A485 (Ryzen 5 Pro)
Connections
| SD Card Reader | |
| average JPG Copy Test (av. of 3 runs) | |
| Dell Latitude 5490-TD70X (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad T480-20L6S01V00 (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad A485-20MU000CGE (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
| Average of class Office (8 - 82.7, n=49, last 2 years) | |
| maximum AS SSD Seq Read Test (1GB) | |
| Dell Latitude 5490-TD70X (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad T480-20L6S01V00 (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad A485-20MU000CGE (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
| Average of class Office (25 - 90.5, n=43, last 2 years) | |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
iluminação: 85 %
iluminação com acumulador: 273 cd/m²
Contraste: 1058:1 (Preto: 0.26 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 5.9 | 0.5-29.43 Ø5, calibrated: 4.9
ΔE Greyscale 3.6 | 0.57-98 Ø5.3
59.6% sRGB (Argyll 1.6.3 3D)
38.1% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 1.6.3 3D)
41.57% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
60% sRGB (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
40.24% Display P3 (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
Gamma: 2.36
| Lenovo ThinkPad A485-20MU000CGE NV140FHM-N46, , 1920x1080, 14.00 | Lenovo ThinkPad T480-20L6S01V00 Lenovo LP140WF6-SPB7, , 1920x1080, 14.00 | Dell Latitude 5490-TD70X AU Optronics AUO263D, , 1920x1080, 14.00 | HP EliteBook 745 G5 3UN74EA AUO383D, , 1920x1080, 14.00 | Lenovo ThinkPad T480s-20L8S02D00 LP140QH2-SPB1, , 2560x1440, 14.00 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Display | -2% | -10% | 49% | 74% | |
| Display P3 Coverage | 40.24 | 39.24 -2% | 36.28 -10% | 61.3 52% | 72.8 81% |
| sRGB Coverage | 60 | 58.8 -2% | 54.6 -9% | 87.6 46% | 97.9 63% |
| AdobeRGB 1998 Coverage | 41.57 | 40.56 -2% | 37.48 -10% | 62.3 50% | 74.1 78% |
| Response Times | 26% | 3% | 26% | 17% | |
| Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% * | 44.8 ? | 35.6 ? 21% | 46.9 ? -5% | 35 ? 22% | 38.4 ? 14% |
| Response Time Black / White * | 35.2 ? | 24.8 ? 30% | 31.2 ? 11% | 25 ? 29% | 28.4 ? 19% |
| PWM Frequency | 1000 ? | ||||
| Screen | 4% | 1% | 35% | 16% | |
| Brightness middle | 275 | 307 12% | 227 -17% | 421 53% | 352 28% |
| Brightness | 272 | 295 8% | 211 -22% | 398 46% | 343 26% |
| Brightness Distribution | 85 | 90 6% | 88 4% | 86 1% | 91 7% |
| Black Level * | 0.26 | 0.25 4% | 0.19 27% | 0.27 -4% | 0.46 -77% |
| Contrast | 1058 | 1228 16% | 1195 13% | 1559 47% | 765 -28% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 5.9 | 5.7 3% | 5.6 5% | 4.08 31% | 3.3 44% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 20 | 21.3 -7% | 22.4 -12% | 7.48 63% | 7.3 63% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 calibrated * | 4.9 | 4.7 4% | |||
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 3.6 | 3.7 -3% | 2.4 33% | 2.92 19% | 5.3 -47% |
| Gamma | 2.36 93% | 2.11 104% | 2.44 90% | 2.32 95% | 2.22 99% |
| CCT | 6798 96% | 7353 88% | 6506 100% | 7043 92% | 6452 101% |
| Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998) | 38.1 | 37.4 -2% | 34.5 -9% | 57 50% | 68.4 80% |
| Color Space (Percent of sRGB) | 59.6 | 58.7 -2% | 54.4 -9% | 87 46% | 98 64% |
| Total Average (Program / Settings) | 9% /
5% | -2% /
-1% | 37% /
37% | 36% /
28% |
* ... smaller is better
Display Response Times
| ↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
|---|---|---|
| 35.2 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 19.6 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 15.6 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. » 92 % 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 | ||
| 44.8 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 22.8 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 22 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. » 73 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (33.8 ms). | ||
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
| Screen flickering / PWM detected | 1000 Hz | ≤ 99 % brightness setting |  |
The display backlight flickers at 1000 Hz (worst case, e.g., utilizing PWM) Flickering detected at a brightness setting of 99 % and below. There should be no flickering or PWM above this brightness setting. The frequency of 1000 Hz is quite high, so most users sensitive to PWM should not notice any flickering. In comparison: 53 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 17933 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 3846000) Hz was measured. | |||
| PCMark 8 Home Score Accelerated v2 | 2937 pontos | |
| PCMark 8 Work Score Accelerated v2 | 4123 pontos | |
| PCMark 10 Score | 2673 pontos | |
Ajuda | ||
| Lenovo ThinkPad A485-20MU000CGE Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB256HAHQ | HP EliteBook 745 G5 3UN74EA Toshiba XG5 KXG50ZNV256G | Lenovo ThinkPad T480s-20L8S02D00 Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB512HAJQ | Dell Latitude 5490-TD70X Toshiba KSG60ZMV512G | Lenovo ThinkPad T480-20L6S01V00 Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB512HAJQ | Average Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB256HAHQ | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CrystalDiskMark 3.0 | -19% | 43% | -30% | -2% | 20% | |
| Read Seq | 1193 | 1549 30% | 1540 29% | 465.1 -61% | 922 -23% | 1837 ? 54% |
| Write Seq | 1280 | 269.7 -79% | 1613 26% | 425 -67% | 928 -27% | 1402 ? 10% |
| Read 512 | 765 | 823 8% | 835 9% | 410.1 -46% | 561 -27% | 860 ? 12% |
| Write 512 | 1169 | 298.1 -74% | 1716 47% | 360.7 -69% | 567 -51% | 1038 ? -11% |
| Read 4k | 52.2 | 24.9 -52% | 66.9 28% | 27.34 -48% | 64.4 23% | 47.3 ? -9% |
| Write 4k | 89.7 | 97.1 8% | 160.6 79% | 89 -1% | 108 20% | 103 ? 15% |
| Read 4k QD32 | 286.5 | 310.6 8% | 444.9 55% | 295.6 3% | 383.4 34% | 348 ? 21% |
| Write 4k QD32 | 205.6 | 208.4 1% | 343 67% | 300.2 46% | 271.4 32% | 341 ? 66% |
| 3DMark 06 Standard Score | 10336 pontos | |
| 3DMark 11 Performance | 2875 pontos | |
| 3DMark Cloud Gate Standard Score | 8192 pontos | |
| 3DMark Fire Strike Score | 1585 pontos | |
Ajuda | ||
| Rise of the Tomb Raider - 1024x768 Lowest Preset | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad T480-20L6S01V00 | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad T480s-20L8S02E00 | |
| HP ProBook 645 G4 3UP62EA | |
| Average AMD Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) (27.7 - 49.3, n=10) | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad A485-20MU000CGE | |
| HP EliteBook 840 G5-3JX66EA | |
| baixo | média | alto | ultra | |
| The Witcher 3 (2015) | 29.5 | 9.8 | ||
| Rise of the Tomb Raider (2016) | 34.2 | 10.9 | ||
| Civilization VI (2016) | 43.6 | 11.1 |
Barulho
| Ocioso |
| 29.3 / 29.3 / 29.6 dB |
| Carga |
| 31.6 / 31.6 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: 29.3 dB(A) | ||
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 39.1 °C / 102 F, compared to the average of 34.2 °C / 94 F, ranging from 21.2 to 62.5 °C for the class Office.
(-) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 49.9 °C / 122 F, compared to the average of 36.7 °C / 98 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 26.7 °C / 80 F, compared to the device average of 29.5 °C / 85 F.
(+) The palmrests and touchpad are reaching skin temperature as a maximum (32.3 °C / 90.1 F) and are therefore not hot.
(-) The average temperature of the palmrest area of similar devices was 27.7 °C / 81.9 F (-4.6 °C / -8.2 F).
Lenovo ThinkPad A485-20MU000CGE audio analysis
(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (74.1 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 24.7% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (11.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 2.9% away from median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (7.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 2.2% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (6.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (23.8% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 65% of all tested devices in this class were better, 10% similar, 26% worse
» The best had a delta of 7%, average was 22%, worst was 53%
Compared to all devices tested
» 67% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 26% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
HP EliteBook 745 G5 3UN74EA audio analysis
(-) | not very loud speakers (71.2 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 27.1% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 2.4% away from median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (8.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 2.7% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (5.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (20.2% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 37% of all tested devices in this class were better, 11% similar, 51% worse
» The best had a delta of 7%, average was 22%, worst was 53%
Compared to all devices tested
» 47% of all tested devices were better, 9% similar, 45% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
| desligado | 0.31 / 0.69 Watt |
| Ocioso | 5.3 / 8.3 / 11.4 Watt |
| Carga |
42 / 48.8 Watt |
   
| |
| Lenovo ThinkPad A485-20MU000CGE R5 PRO 2500U, Vega 8, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB256HAHQ, IPS LED, 1920x1080, 14.00 | HP EliteBook 745 G5 3UN74EA R7 2700U, Vega 10, Toshiba XG5 KXG50ZNV256G, IPS LED, 1920x1080, 14.00 | Lenovo ThinkPad T480s-20L8S02D00 i5-8250U, UHD Graphics 620, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB512HAJQ, IPS, 2560x1440, 14.00 | Dell Latitude 5490-TD70X i5-8350U, UHD Graphics 620, Toshiba KSG60ZMV512G, IPS, 1920x1080, 14.00 | Lenovo ThinkPad T480-20L6S01V00 i5-8550U, GeForce MX150, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB512HAJQ, IPS, 1920x1080, 14.00 | Average AMD Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) | Average of class Office | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power Consumption | 11% | 4% | 15% | -5% | 3% | 7% | |
| Idle Minimum * | 5.3 | 4.9 8% | 3.1 42% | 3.3 38% | 3.6 32% | 5.68 ? -7% | 4.3 ? 19% |
| Idle Average * | 8.3 | 8.1 2% | 6.8 18% | 5.54 33% | 7.1 14% | 8.75 ? -5% | 7.35 ? 11% |
| Idle Maximum * | 11.4 | 10.6 7% | 10.1 11% | 6.59 42% | 9.5 17% | 10.1 ? 11% | 9.15 ? 20% |
| Load Average * | 42 | 32.2 23% | 48.4 -15% | 42.4 -1% | 63.9 -52% | 37.8 ? 10% | 41.1 ? 2% |
| Load Maximum * | 48.8 | 42.3 13% | 67.1 -38% | 67.6 -39% | 67.3 -38% | 46.2 ? 5% | 58.1 ? -19% |
| Witcher 3 ultra * | 53.9 |
* ... smaller is better
| Lenovo ThinkPad A485-20MU000CGE R5 PRO 2500U, Vega 8, 48 Wh | HP EliteBook 745 G5 3UN74EA R7 2700U, Vega 10, 50 Wh | Dell Latitude 5490-TD70X i5-8350U, UHD Graphics 620, 68 Wh | Lenovo ThinkPad T480-20L6S01V00 i5-8550U, GeForce MX150, 72 Wh | Lenovo ThinkPad T480s-20L8S02D00 i5-8250U, UHD Graphics 620, 57 Wh | Average of class Office | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Battery Runtime | 18% | 116% | 124% | 80% | 90% | |
| Reader / Idle | 671 | 639 -5% | 1556 132% | 1671 149% | 1436 ? 114% | |
| H.264 | 368 | 426 16% | 791 115% | 638 73% | 721 96% | 705 ? 92% |
| WiFi v1.3 | 330 | 394 19% | 897 172% | 794 141% | 537 63% | 594 ? 80% |
| Load | 68 | 95 40% | 97 43% | 159 134% | 124 82% | 117.7 ? 73% |
Pro
Contra
O Lenovo ThinkPad A485 realmente tinha um alto potencial: A série ThinkPad T, na qual o ThinkPad A se baseia, é extremamente popular, e há uma grande demanda por bons portáteis Ryzen. No entanto, este ThinkPad Ryzen nos decepciona no teste.
Por um lado, isso é porque a Lenovo desnecessariamente omite a tela QHD do ThinkPad A485, e o A485 também não tem Thunderbolt 3. Além disso, o desempenho da CPU permanece muito atrás do modelo irmão ThinkPad T480 da Intel. Pior ainda é o fato de que o consumo é muito alto, resultando em uma bateria extremamente ruim em comparação. Isso é apenas parcialmente culpa da Lenovo, já que os portáteis com a Ryzen geralmente enfrentam um consumo maior em comparação com os modelos baseados na Intel.
Claro que o Lenovo ThinkPad A485 também tem muitos lados positivos, levando à boa pontuação de avaliação. Estes incluem, por exemplo, a carcaça robusta, os excelentes dispositivos de entrada e o extenso equipamento de conexão. Mas você também pode conseguir tudo isso no ThinkPad T480. Apenas no desempenho gráfico o A485 está na frente, mas só comparado com o T480 com a iGPU. O modelo com a GeForce MX150 também é melhor neste aspecto.
Não recomendado: Tudo o que torna o ThinkPad A485 um bom portátil, o ThinkPad T480 também pode fazer, enquanto também proporciona um melhor desempenho da CPU e melhor duração da bateria do que o A485.
Então, finalmente, não podemos realmente dar uma recomendação para o ThinkPad A485. Na prática, o Lenovo ThinkPad T480 é realmente a melhor opção em todos os aspectos. Por outro lado, se você quiser evitar os processadores da Intel em geral, você deveria escolher o HP EliteBook 745 G5, que tem uma duração de bateria que não é tão ruim e o painel LCD também é melhor até certo ponto neste modelo.
Atualização UEFI versão 1.02: Conseguimos testar novamente o ThinkPad A485 com uma versão mais recente do BIOS UEFI. A duração da bateria agora melhorou um pouco, e o desempenho da CPU sob uso intenso também é maior com o firmware mais novo. Portanto, ajustamos a pontuação da avaliação e também queremos modificar um pouco nosso veredicto: Embora o ThinkPad T480 continue a superar o A485, o ThinkPad A485 pode ser uma opção interessante devido ao seu preço relativamente acessível, especialmente se você precisar de um pouco mais de desempenho da GPU.
Lenovo ThinkPad A485-20MU000CGE
-
10/22/2019 v7
Benjamin Herzig