Deutsch
English
Español
Français
Italiano
Nederlands
Polski
Русский
Türkçe
Svenska
Chinese
MagyarBreve Análise do Portátil Lenovo ThinkPad T480 (Core i7-8650U, FHD)
| SD Card Reader | |
| average JPG Copy Test (av. of 3 runs) | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon 2018-20KGS03900 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501) | |
| Dell Latitude 7490 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501 UHS-II) | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad T480s-20L7002AUS (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad T480-20L50010US (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) | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon 2018-20KGS03900 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501) | |
| Dell Latitude 7490 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501 UHS-II) | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad T480s-20L7002AUS (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad T480-20L50010US (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
| Average of class Office (25 - 90.5, n=43, last 2 years) | |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
iluminação: 90 %
iluminação com acumulador: 276.7 cd/m²
Contraste: 1318:1 (Preto: 0.21 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 7.22 | 0.5-29.43 Ø5, calibrated: 5.01
ΔE Greyscale 6.7 | 0.57-98 Ø5.3
54% sRGB (Argyll 1.6.3 3D)
34% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 1.6.3 3D)
37.51% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
54.5% sRGB (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
36.31% Display P3 (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
Gamma: 2.321
| Lenovo ThinkPad T480-20L50010US B140HAK01.0, TFT-LCD, 14.00, 1920x1080 | Lenovo ThinkPad T480s-20L7002AUS NV140FHM-N46, TFT-LCD, 14.00, 1920x1080 | Dell Latitude 7490 AU Optronics AU0223D, IPS, 14.00, 1920x1080 | HP EliteBook 840 G5-3JX61EA IVO M140NVF7 R0, IPS, 14.00, 1920x1080 | Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon 2018-20KGS03900 B140QAN02.0, IPS, 14.00, 2560x1440 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Display | 9% | 70% | 65% | 130% | |
| Display P3 Coverage | 36.31 | 39.69 9% | 63.6 75% | 61 68% | 87.7 142% |
| sRGB Coverage | 54.5 | 59.2 9% | 88.8 63% | 87.7 61% | 100 83% |
| AdobeRGB 1998 Coverage | 37.51 | 41 9% | 64.8 73% | 62.1 66% | 99.9 166% |
| Response Times | -11% | -14% | 16% | -32% | |
| Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% * | 39.2 ? | 44 ? -12% | 48.4 ? -23% | 33 ? 16% | 59.2 ? -51% |
| Response Time Black / White * | 30.8 ? | 34 ? -10% | 32.4 ? -5% | 26 ? 16% | 34.4 ? -12% |
| PWM Frequency | 990 | 3125 ? | |||
| Screen | 8% | 24% | 41% | 61% | |
| Brightness middle | 276.7 | 288.3 4% | 328.2 19% | 655 137% | 578 109% |
| Brightness | 272 | 281 3% | 305 12% | 630 132% | 533 96% |
| Brightness Distribution | 90 | 86 -4% | 87 -3% | 93 3% | 84 -7% |
| Black Level * | 0.21 | 0.21 -0% | 0.37 -76% | 0.56 -167% | 0.38 -81% |
| Contrast | 1318 | 1373 4% | 887 -33% | 1170 -11% | 1521 15% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 7.22 | 6.16 15% | 3.82 47% | 3.27 55% | 1.9 74% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 25.87 | 18.99 27% | 5.58 78% | 5.92 77% | 3.8 85% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 calibrated * | 5.01 | 4.51 10% | 3.5 30% | 3.22 36% | 0.8 84% |
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 6.7 | 6.3 6% | 3 55% | 2.85 57% | 3 55% |
| Gamma | 2.321 95% | 2.517 87% | 2.36 93% | 2.45 90% | 2.14 103% |
| CCT | 6656 98% | 6886 94% | 6962 93% | 6065 107% | 6377 102% |
| Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998) | 34 | 37.67 11% | 58 71% | 57 68% | 88.8 161% |
| Color Space (Percent of sRGB) | 54 | 58.9 9% | 88 63% | 88 63% | 100 85% |
| Total Average (Program / Settings) | 2% /
6% | 27% /
28% | 41% /
42% | 53% /
63% |
* ... smaller is better
Display Response Times
| ↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
|---|---|---|
| 30.8 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 18 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 12.8 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. » 81 % 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 | ||
| 39.2 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 22 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 17.2 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. » 54 % 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 | 3846 pontos | |
| PCMark 10 Score | 4027 pontos | |
Ajuda | ||
| Lenovo ThinkPad T480-20L50010US Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB512HAJQ | Lenovo ThinkPad T480s-20L7002AUS Samsung PM961 MZVLW256HEHP | Dell Latitude 7490 Samsung PM961 MZVLW256HEHP | HP EliteBook 840 G5-3JX61EA Toshiba KXG50ZNV1T02 | Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon 2018-20KGS03900 Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB512HAJQ | Average Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB512HAJQ | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AS SSD | -18% | -18% | -31% | 5% | -13% | |
| Copy Game MB/s | 382.3 | 905 | 1107 | 1057 ? | ||
| Copy Program MB/s | 227.1 | 326.2 | 460.2 | 454 ? | ||
| Copy ISO MB/s | 872 | 1688 | 1247 | 1755 ? | ||
| Score Total | 4425 | 3048 -31% | 2350 -47% | 2630 -41% | 3529 -20% | 3966 ? -10% |
| Score Write | 1945 | 921 -53% | 536 -72% | 1084 -44% | 1801 -7% | 1780 ? -8% |
| Score Read | 1639 | 1435 -12% | 1242 -24% | 1070 -35% | 1168 -29% | 1451 ? -11% |
| Access Time Write * | 0.035 | 0.038 -9% | 0.03 14% | 0.055 -57% | 0.027 23% | 0.08337 ? -138% |
| Access Time Read * | 0.045 | 0.055 -22% | 0.04 11% | 0.059 -31% | 0.029 36% | 0.05092 ? -13% |
| 4K-64 Write | 1704 | 706 -59% | 329.6 -81% | 908 -47% | 1529 -10% | 1504 ? -12% |
| 4K-64 Read | 1447 | 1183 -18% | 955 -34% | 813 -44% | 876 -39% | 1203 ? -17% |
| 4K Write | 107.4 | 97.8 -9% | 114.9 7% | 90 -16% | 134.3 25% | 112 ? 4% |
| 4K Read | 50.5 | 42.09 -17% | 48.13 -5% | 26.75 -47% | 52.4 4% | 50.5 ? 0% |
| Seq Write | 1341 | 1172 -13% | 919 -31% | 856 -36% | 1376 3% | 1637 ? 22% |
| Seq Read | 1420 | 2094 47% | 2385 68% | 2300 62% | 2396 69% | 1976 ? 39% |
* ... smaller is better
| 3DMark 11 Performance | 1978 pontos | |
Ajuda | ||
| baixo | média | alto | ultra | |
| BioShock Infinite (2013) | 63 | 31 | 27 | 9 |
Barulho
| Ocioso |
| 28.3 / 28.3 / 28.3 dB |
| Carga |
| 35.7 / 38.8 dB |
 | ||
30 dB silencioso 40 dB(A) audível 50 dB(A) ruidosamente alto |
||
min:  , med:  , max:  BK Precision 732A (15 cm de distância) environment noise: 28.3 dB(A) | ||
| Lenovo ThinkPad T480-20L50010US UHD Graphics 620, i7-8650U, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB512HAJQ | Lenovo ThinkPad T480s-20L7002AUS UHD Graphics 620, i5-8250U, Samsung PM961 MZVLW256HEHP | Lenovo ThinkPad T480-20L6S01V00 GeForce MX150, i5-8550U, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB512HAJQ | Dell Latitude 7490 UHD Graphics 620, i7-8650U, Samsung PM961 MZVLW256HEHP | HP EliteBook 840 G5-3JX61EA UHD Graphics 620, i5-8550U, Toshiba KXG50ZNV1T02 | Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon 2018-20KGS03900 UHD Graphics 620, i5-8550U, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB512HAJQ | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Noise | -0% | 0% | -1% | -2% | -2% | |
| off / environment * | 28.3 | 28.1 1% | 29 -2% | 28.2 -0% | 30.3 -7% | 28.9 -2% |
| Idle Minimum * | 28.3 | 28.1 1% | 29 -2% | 28.2 -0% | 30.3 -7% | 28.9 -2% |
| Idle Average * | 28.3 | 28.1 1% | 29 -2% | 28.2 -0% | 30.3 -7% | 28.9 -2% |
| Idle Maximum * | 28.3 | 28.1 1% | 29 -2% | 31.4 -11% | 30.3 -7% | 32.5 -15% |
| Load Average * | 35.7 | 35.5 1% | 35.6 -0% | 31.7 11% | 33.8 5% | 35.1 2% |
| Load Maximum * | 38.8 | 41.5 -7% | 35.6 8% | 41.2 -6% | 33.8 13% | 35.1 10% |
| Witcher 3 ultra * | 32.5 |
* ... smaller is better
(±) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 40.2 °C / 104 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 54.6 °C / 130 F, compared to the average of 36.7 °C / 98 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 26.2 °C / 79 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 30.4 °C / 86.7 F and are therefore cool to the touch.
(-) The average temperature of the palmrest area of similar devices was 27.7 °C / 81.9 F (-2.7 °C / -4.8 F).
Lenovo ThinkPad T480-20L50010US audio analysis
(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (75 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 19.8% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (12.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 2.3% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (6.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 2.8% away from median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (7.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (22.6% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 57% of all tested devices in this class were better, 9% similar, 34% worse
» The best had a delta of 7%, average was 22%, worst was 53%
Compared to all devices tested
» 62% of all tested devices were better, 6% similar, 32% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Dell Latitude 7490 audio analysis
(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (73.8 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(±) | reduced bass - on average 14.8% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (9.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.4% away from median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (8% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 4.4% away from median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (8.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (19.9% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 36% of all tested devices in this class were better, 9% similar, 55% worse
» The best had a delta of 7%, average was 22%, worst was 53%
Compared to all devices tested
» 46% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 47% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
| desligado | 0.32 / 0.57 Watt |
| Ocioso | 3.8 / 7.7 / 9.3 Watt |
| Carga |
45.7 / 46.1 Watt |
   
| |
| Lenovo ThinkPad T480-20L50010US i7-8650U, UHD Graphics 620, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB512HAJQ, TFT-LCD, 1920x1080, 14.00 | Lenovo ThinkPad T480s-20L7002AUS i5-8250U, UHD Graphics 620, Samsung PM961 MZVLW256HEHP, TFT-LCD, 1920x1080, 14.00 | Lenovo ThinkPad T480-20L6S01V00 i5-8550U, GeForce MX150, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB512HAJQ, IPS, 1920x1080, 14.00 | Dell Latitude 7490 i7-8650U, UHD Graphics 620, Samsung PM961 MZVLW256HEHP, IPS, 1920x1080, 14.00 | HP EliteBook 840 G5-3JX61EA i5-8550U, UHD Graphics 620, Toshiba KXG50ZNV1T02, IPS, 1920x1080, 14.00 | Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon 2018-20KGS03900 i5-8550U, UHD Graphics 620, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB512HAJQ, IPS, 2560x1440, 14.00 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power Consumption | 20% | -15% | 13% | 4% | -12% | |
| Idle Minimum * | 3.8 | 3.1 18% | 3.6 5% | 3.1 18% | 3.8 -0% | 3.8 -0% |
| Idle Average * | 7.7 | 6.4 17% | 7.1 8% | 6.5 16% | 8.3 -8% | 8.9 -16% |
| Idle Maximum * | 9.3 | 9.4 -1% | 9.5 -2% | 7.6 18% | 10.7 -15% | 11.9 -28% |
| Load Average * | 45.7 | 29.8 35% | 63.9 -40% | 43 6% | 35.5 22% | 47.5 -4% |
| Load Maximum * | 46.1 | 31.2 32% | 67.3 -46% | 43.8 5% | 37 20% | 52.5 -14% |
| Witcher 3 ultra * | 53.9 |
* ... smaller is better
| Lenovo ThinkPad T480-20L50010US i7-8650U, UHD Graphics 620, 24 Wh | Lenovo ThinkPad T480s-20L7002AUS i5-8250U, UHD Graphics 620, 57 Wh | Lenovo ThinkPad T480-20L6S01V00 i5-8550U, GeForce MX150, 72 Wh | Dell Latitude 7490 i7-8650U, UHD Graphics 620, 60 Wh | HP EliteBook 840 G5-3JX61EA i5-8550U, UHD Graphics 620, 50 Wh | Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon 2018-20KGS03900 i5-8550U, UHD Graphics 620, 57 Wh | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Battery Runtime | 24% | 82% | 28% | 2% | 19% | |
| WiFi v1.3 | 437 | 541 24% | 794 82% | 561 28% | 444 2% | 519 19% |
| Reader / Idle | 1671 | 1116 | 1328 | |||
| Load | 159 | 91 | 106 |
Pro
Contra
Como antes, o venerável ThinkPad T480 da Lenovo continua sendo um dos principais concorrentes no mercado corporativo. É um produto de anos de refinamento e revisão cuidadosa, rivalizado apenas por um punhado de máquinas verdadeiramente de alto nível. Como dissemos durante a nossa última análise, a sua construção é na maior parte muito sólida, o design é sempre prático (e imediatamente familiarizar), e há uma boa seleção de portas abordo. Os dispositivos de entrada também são muito bons, a máquina é silenciosa durante a operação e também é rápida - pelo menos, para o desempenho de aplicativos em geral, e no contexto das médias da categoria para o desempenho da CPU.
O que melhorou com o modelo atual em comparação com o anterior, começa com o preço, que atualmente está em torno de $1.712,00 (na Amazon). Além disso, dado que esta configuração não apresenta gráficos dedicados, as temperaturas e o consumo de energia também estão bem abaixo dos valores que medimos do modelo anterior - embora ainda haja alguns pontos quentes no lado inferior, sob carga. A tela permanece brilhante e apresenta um bom contraste, mas, como antes, a cobertura de cores é totalmente inadequada, o que resulta em cores desbotadas e a uma qualidade de imagem absurda.
Apesar de falhar no domínio da qualidade das cores da tela e de algumas outras categorias esparsas, o venerável ThinkPad T480 da Lenovo continua sendo um dos principais concorrentes no mercado corporativo. É um produto de anos de refinamento e revisão cuidadosa, rivalizado apenas por um punhado de máquinas verdadeiramente de alto nível.
Ao contrário da configuração MX150, esta máquina (é claro) não consegue lidar com nenhum tipo de operação pesada de GPU, como jogos leves. Isso é esperado - mas o que foi inesperado é o menor desempenho da CPU que recebemos do Core i7 2670QM em nossa unidade de teste, contra o modelo Core i7 2670QM mais barato, em março. Talvez o mais enigmático de tudo seja a brecha de desempenho da CPU que separa o T480s e o T480 atual; mesmo com o BIOS mais recente e todas as configurações de energia configuradas corretamente, não conseguimos provocar pontuações próximas do que vimos nos nossos T480 equipados com Core i5 na semana passada.
Ainda assim, apesar de falhar no campo da qualidade das cores da tela e de algumas outras categorias esparsas, o T480 continua sendo mencionado entre as respeitadas categorias de concorrentes como a Dell.Dell Latitude 7490, HP Elitebook 840 G5, e o X1 Carbon da própria Lenovo. A escolha real é se o T480 ou o T480s faz mais sentido para a sua aplicação em particular, mas, além dos problemas mencionados, é difícil encontrar uma falha grave em qualquer uma dessas opções.
Lenovo ThinkPad T480-20L50010US
-
07/16/2018 v6(old)
Steve Schardein
Pricecompare
