HP EliteBook 845 G9回顾。35瓦的AMD胜过联想和戴尔
昔日AMD芯片只安装在不超过中端产品的笔记本电脑上的日子已经一去不复返了。现在,全新的Ryzen 6000代已经赶上并超越了英特尔的处理器。六年前不可想象的事情在今天成为现实。AMD在高端商务类的2.5K笔记本电脑中。
但这并不是相关笔记本电脑的主要优势,也不是它的独特卖点。相反,正是对硬件和软件安全的关注,使845 G9如此特别。除了众所周知的SureView、网络摄像头快门和智能卡等功能外,该笔记本电脑还提供了很多软件,负责硬件和账户安全方面的故障安全。
高端市场的其他竞争者的定位也很广泛。联想的ThinkPad X1和戴尔的Latitudes--都属于高端系列--试图以类似的功能来争取买家的青睐。联想的 ThinkPad X1 Carbon以LTE选项和Thunderbolt领先。
潜在的竞争对手比较
Rating | Date | Model | Weight | Height | Size | Resolution | Price |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
88.6 % v7 (old) | 07 / 2022 | HP EliteBook 845 G9 6F6H6EA R9 PRO 6950HS, Radeon 680M | 1.5 kg | 19.3 mm | 14.00" | 1920x1200 | |
90.2 % v7 (old) | 06 / 2022 | Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon G10 21CC001RGE i5-1250P, Iris Xe G7 80EUs | 1.2 kg | 15.36 mm | 14.00" | 1920x1200 | |
90.1 % v7 (old) | 03 / 2022 | Lenovo ThinkPad T14s G2 20XGS01100 R7 PRO 5850U, Vega 8 | 1.3 kg | 16.14 mm | 14.00" | 1920x1080 | |
90.1 % v7 (old) | 04 / 2022 | Dell Latitude 7420 JW6MH i5-1145G7, Iris Xe G7 80EUs | 1.3 kg | 17.3 mm | 14.00" | 1920x1080 | |
89.4 % v7 (old) | 08 / 2021 | Lenovo ThinkPad T14s G2 20WM003TGE i7-1165G7, Iris Xe G7 96EUs | 1.3 kg | 16.14 mm | 14.00" | 1920x1080 | |
89.8 % v7 (old) | 08 / 2021 | HP EliteBook 840 Aero G8 3E4Q6AA i7-1185G7, Iris Xe G7 96EUs | 1.2 kg | 17.9 mm | 14.00" | 1920x1080 | |
88.5 % v7 (old) | 03 / 2022 | Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Titanium Yoga G1 20QB0016GE i5-1140G7, Iris Xe G7 80EUs | 1.2 kg | 11.5 mm | 13.50" | 2256x1504 |
» Notebookcheck多媒体笔记本电脑Top 10排名
» Notebookcheck游戏笔记本电脑Top 10排名
» Notebookcheck低价办公/商务笔记本电脑Top 10排名
» Notebookcheck高端办公/商务笔记本电脑Top 10排名
» Notebookcheck工作站笔记本电脑Top 10排名
» Notebookcheck亚笔记本电脑Top 10排名
» Notebookcheck超级本产品Top 10排名
» Notebookcheck变形本产品Top 10排名
» Notebookcheck平板电脑Top 10排名
» Notebookcheck智能手机Top 10排名
» Notebookcheck评测过最出色的笔记本电脑屏幕
» Notebookcheck售价500欧元以下笔记本电脑Top 10排名
» Notebookcheck售价300欧元以下笔记本电脑Top 10排名
外壳:惠普公司的实体笔记本
EliteBook装在一个抗扭的铝制箱子里,其结构像一个盒子,底部用底板密封。后者在刚性方面并没有发挥重要作用,因为带有圆角的 "盒子 "本身就很稳定。
这同样适用于显示屏,它只能在有限的范围内被扭曲。背面的压力几乎不会造成任何凹痕,面板上也不会出现条纹。单铰链使机盖保持足够的张力,但不会太僵硬,以至于无法用一只手打开。单指打开是可能的。打开时,屏幕的底部会滑到机箱下面,并将其抬起,但只能在130至180度的打开角度之间。
在夏天的高温下,一个小的缺陷就会暴露出来:显示屏的下边框是用胶水粘起来的,即使在冷却后也会凸起并保持这种状态。
在Elitebook的开发过程中,重量似乎没有得到任何关注;铝制机箱的重量为1.46公斤。竞争对手的设备要轻得多,特别是Elitebook Aero。 X1 Carbon和X1 Titanium Yoga,它们以1.2公斤的重量创造了轻量级记录。
设备。笔记本电脑在安全方面发挥了作用
制造商利用了大范围的连接:有两个Type-A USB端口,以及一个HDMI。快速的Type-C端口已经被一侧的电源占据;它们都接受DisplayPort显示器。我们不明白为什么没有足够的空间放置SD卡读卡器。
沟通
除了高通WiFi 6E芯片外,还安装了一个Fibocom LTE调制解调器(没有5G),以及右侧的SimCard插槽。这两个芯片都可以更换。WiFi模块在发送和接收时都能提供高传输速率。
网络摄像头
惠普真的提高了摄像头的标准。直到现在,标准笔记本电脑中还没有出现500万像素的网络摄像头。一个用于通过人脸识别登录Windows Hello的红外摄像头再次被包括在内,尽管它在网络摄像头旁边不再那么明显。
安全问题
惠普集成了许多安全和管理解决方案。基于软件的解决方案包括惠普Maxim Pro安全版(1年)、连接优化器、热键支持、支持助手、轻松清洁、电源管理器、myHP、隐私设置、QuickDrop、快速触摸 和PC硬件诊断。这样一来,惠普Maxim Pro安全版 就可以防止恶意软件,并面向中小企业。管理软件包并不小,而且远远超出了对制造商更新的集中检索。
指纹识别器和红外摄像头(人脸登录)是这里明显的安全功能,也是多因素认证的必要条件。支持助手捆绑了硬件管理和安全方面的软件设置,是出现问题时的第一个联络点。网络故障排除也是在这里进行的。许多这些功能也可以在Windows的板载工具中找到,但惠普的本地解决方案可以很好地完成它们的工作。
辅料
除了仅重302克的微型65瓦电源适配器外,交货范围内不包括其他附件。
维护
Elitebook很容易维护和升级:制造商没有使用Torx螺丝,也没有将螺丝隐藏在橡胶脚或条下。螺丝松动后不会从底板上掉下来,而且底板可以在没有特殊工具或夹子断裂的情况下被拆除。
另一个积极的观点是。内存没有被焊接,就像联想 ThinkPad T14s.有两个插座,其中一个被32GB SO-DIMM占用。还有一个插座用于WWAN(M.2 2260),一个用于WiFi模块(M.2 2240),以及一个SSD(M.2 2280)。电池是可更换的,没有胶水。
担保
惠普提供为期3年的零件、人工和现场维修保修(3-3-3),零件和人工的服务时间为下一个工作日。
输入设备。有强烈反馈的笔记本电脑键盘
首先:惠普已经取消了TrackPoint和专用键,这不会让传统主义者满意。惠普这样做,是在走戴尔和联想在其商务笔记本上所走的老路。从长远来看,Trackpoint可能会消亡。
键盘
该键盘是最适合经常打字的人的键盘之一。键盘提供了一个坚定的行程,在任何阶段都不会摇晃。整个键盘面板,包括掌托,都有一个坚实的基础。按笔记本电脑的标准,键程适中,并伴有一个清晰的压力点。在我们眼里,清晰的反馈和用力的敲击使键盘很强大。键盘有一个微妙的锥形弧度,间距为3.5毫米。
布局并不构成任何挑战。上一页/下一页键被挤到了狭窄的方向键上方,这并不理想,但总比完全没有好。为了保持底盘的稳定,制造商省略了最右边的一排按键和数字键盘。删除键紧挨着电源开/关的位置并不那么方便。另一方面,后者必须按一整秒,所以如果你误按了它而不是Del
,就不会有错误的条目出现。惠普还利用了通常的功能键,如音量、按键背光和飞行模式。特殊功能是用于保护眼睛的SureView键和F12的自由编程键。与Alt、Ctrl和Fn相结合,可以存储一些网站、程序或文件。
触摸板
大的ClickPad提供了一个坚实但有阻尼的行程,几乎听不到的消音和短的行程。表面很光滑,但并不感觉滑溜,因为摩擦力会随着压力的增加而增加。不幸的是,没有Fn键来快速关闭ClickPad。这对打字没有负面影响,因为垫子只识别出一个休息的手掌,因此不接受任何输入。此外,它位于按键下方的中心位置,这就是为什么手只有在特殊情况下才会放在上面。
显示。SureView,缺点多于优点?
14英寸(35.6厘米对角线)防眩光FHD显示屏(1920 x 1080像素)是该领域最亮的面板,平均亮度为744 cd/m²。惠普指定采用400尼特的IPS面板,100% sRGB,我们也可以确认。由于亮度高,分布不均匀,这在屏幕底部的黑暗环境中是很明显的。另一方面,在日光或办公室照明下,这些都看不出来。
我们的评测设备有一个带有集成隐私过滤器的SureView面板。与以前的SureView面板一样,有一些特殊功能。SureView只在较低的亮度范围内工作良好,因此在明亮的环境中很难使用,因为即使是坐在前面的用户,那时的视野也是有限的。在我们的测量中,SureView是不活跃的。
|
Brightness Distribution: 69 %
Center on Battery: 900 cd/m²
Contrast: 2055:1 (Black: 0.33 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 3.56 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.92, calibrated: 1.05
ΔE Greyscale 4.93 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
70% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
99% sRGB (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
69% Display P3 (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
Gamma: 2.63
HP EliteBook 845 G9 6F6H6EA InfoVision X140NV4J, IPS, 1920x1200, 14" | Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon G10 21CC001RGE B140UAN02.1, IPS LED, 1920x1200, 14" | Lenovo ThinkPad T14s G2 20XGS01100 NE140FHM-N61, IPS LED, 1920x1080, 14" | Dell Latitude 7420 JW6MH Chi Mei CMN1416 CHF07 140HCG, IPS, 1920x1080, 14" | Lenovo ThinkPad T14s G2 20WM003TGE NE140FHM-N61, IPS LED, 1920x1080, 14" | HP EliteBook 840 Aero G8 3E4Q6AA AU Optronics AUO068B, IPS, 1920x1080, 14" | Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Titanium Yoga G1 20QB0016GE LPM135M467, IPS LED, 2256x1504, 13.5" | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Display | 6% | -3% | -0% | -4% | -1% | -2% | |
Display P3 Coverage | 69 | 74.6 8% | 69.7 1% | 68 -1% | 68.1 -1% | 68 -1% | 66.8 -3% |
sRGB Coverage | 99 | 98.6 0% | 91.8 -7% | 99 0% | 91.7 -7% | 97.6 -1% | 98 -1% |
AdobeRGB 1998 Coverage | 70 | 76.5 9% | 67.2 -4% | 70 0% | 67.1 -4% | 69.3 -1% | 68.6 -2% |
Response Times | -31% | -169% | -51% | -91% | -46% | -108% | |
Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% * | 31 ? | 45.5 ? -47% | 84 ? -171% | 55 ? -77% | 68 ? -119% | 48 ? -55% | 64 ? -106% |
Response Time Black / White * | 21 ? | 24 ? -14% | 56 ? -167% | 26 ? -24% | 34 ? -62% | 28.8 ? -37% | 44 ? -110% |
PWM Frequency | 53050 ? | 2451 ? | 22730 ? | ||||
Screen | -7% | -40% | 15% | -27% | -13% | 12% | |
Brightness middle | 678 | 372 -45% | 397 -41% | 408 -40% | 422.9 -38% | 466.4 -31% | 465 -31% |
Brightness | 745 | 362 -51% | 386 -48% | 378 -49% | 397 -47% | 426 -43% | 451 -39% |
Brightness Distribution | 69 | 94 36% | 88 28% | 86 25% | 91 32% | 84 22% | 92 33% |
Black Level * | 0.33 | 0.18 45% | 0.28 15% | 0.22 33% | 0.32 3% | 0.32 3% | 0.28 15% |
Contrast | 2055 | 2067 1% | 1418 -31% | 1855 -10% | 1322 -36% | 1458 -29% | 1661 -19% |
Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 3.56 | 3.4 4% | 5.8 -63% | 1.54 57% | 4.8 -35% | 2.84 20% | 2 44% |
Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 7.23 | 6.7 7% | 12.6 -74% | 2.72 62% | 8.7 -20% | 4.73 35% | 4.7 35% |
Colorchecker dE 2000 calibrated * | 1.05 | 1.8 -71% | 1.9 -81% | 1.08 -3% | 1.9 -81% | 2.27 -116% | 0.7 33% |
Greyscale dE 2000 * | 4.93 | 4.3 13% | 8.3 -68% | 1.95 60% | 6.1 -24% | 3.7 25% | 2.9 41% |
Gamma | 2.63 84% | 2.13 103% | 2.07 106% | 2.33 94% | 2.23 99% | 2.13 103% | 2.09 105% |
CCT | 7114 91% | 6158 106% | 6867 95% | 6806 96% | 7635 85% | 6886 94% | 6181 105% |
Total Average (Program / Settings) | -11% /
-8% | -71% /
-51% | -12% /
2% | -41% /
-31% | -20% /
-15% | -33% /
-8% |
* ... smaller is better
面板的主观图像印象并不好,因为即使在停用SureView功能的情况下,视角也是有限的,即使是对中央甜区的微小偏离(包括垂直和水平方向)也会导致明显可感知的亮度或对比度损失。此外,明亮的区域看起来有颗粒感。没有检测到PWM。
在出厂前,我们的显示器有一个明显的蓝色色调(灰度),DeltaE几乎为5。色彩在3.5时显得好一点。用光电分光计进行校准很有帮助;我们把灰度的DeltaE降低到0.9,把色彩的DeltaE降低到1.0。这使得该面板在编辑图像方面几乎完美。较小的sRGB色彩空间被完全重现。
Display Response Times
↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
---|---|---|
21 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 12 ms rise | |
↘ 9 ms fall | ||
The screen shows good response rates in our tests, but may be too slow for competitive gamers. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.1 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 42 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is similar to the average of all tested devices (21 ms). | ||
↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey | ||
31 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 15 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 0.165 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 37 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is similar to the average of all tested devices (32.9 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 8747 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 343500) Hz was measured. |
即使在明亮的环境中,由于高亮度,哑光屏幕也很容易看清,只要屏幕不直接在阳光下。然而,用户越是偏离直接的正面位置,总是会出现阴影,即使没有主动的SureView。
即使没有激活SureView,其视角稳定性一般也比其他IPS显示器差。如果你激活SureView,视角会进一步受到限制,坐在你旁边的人就无法再看到屏幕内容。因此,它能按预期工作,但由于严重的限制,我们建议使用普通的FHD面板。如果有疑问,你可以使用外部隐私过滤器(箔),如果证明太分散注意力,也可以将其放在一边。
性能。惠普的商务笔记本胜过戴尔和联想
以35瓦的功率,AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS实际上是一款适用于大型笔记本电脑的芯片;它包含八个Zen 3+内核(八核CPU),时钟频率高达4.9 GHz(涡轮增压)。由于超线程的存在,这甚至可以变成16个线程。惠普已将该SoC集成到一个只有一个风扇的14英寸小机身中,外加32GB内存和来自西部数据的TB级SSD。冷却系统可以处理吗?
Ryzen 9 Pro是EliteBook的最大配置;较小的配置从Ryzen 5 PRO 6650U、8GB内存和256GB固态硬盘开始,购买价格也便宜很多。
测试条件
我们在性能模式下进行了测试,没有采取节电措施。惠普软件没有提供自己的性能模式配置文件。这就只剩下Radeon软件了,它对显示器和GPU更负责。我们把图形配置文件放在标准模式,并停用了AMD Vari Bright。
处理器
淘宝网 睿狮9 PRO 6950HS在所有核心上,非常短暂地以50瓦和3.85GHz的速度运行。然而,几秒钟后,时钟下降到3.6 GHz,并永久保持在那里。在这里,处理器的处理功率恒定为41瓦。单核无法完全耗尽时钟速度或功率消耗。在8分钟的Prime95 CPU压力测试中出现了非常类似的情况:短暂的50瓦,然后下降到41瓦,以保持92度的温度。我们在8分钟后停止了Prime95的测试,观察到在时钟略微增加的情况下,功耗不变。总而言之,EliteBook的负载能力很强,这一点也被R15 Multi Loop所证实。除了英特尔之外,所有的竞争对手都远远超过了它。
CPU的基准测试也非常好:Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS的 Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS处处领先,第11代酷睿i7的多核性能比其高出50%,单核性能比其高出10%。如果你正在寻找计算能力,你不会在这个APU上出错。
Cinebench R15 Multi Sustained Load
Cinebench R23: Multi Core | Single Core
Cinebench R20: CPU (Multi Core) | CPU (Single Core)
Cinebench R15: CPU Multi 64Bit | CPU Single 64Bit
Blender: v2.79 BMW27 CPU
7-Zip 18.03: 7z b 4 | 7z b 4 -mmt1
Geekbench 5.5: Multi-Core | Single-Core
HWBOT x265 Benchmark v2.2: 4k Preset
LibreOffice : 20 Documents To PDF
R Benchmark 2.5: Overall mean
CPU Performance Rating | |
Average of class Subnotebook | |
HP EliteBook 845 G9 6F6H6EA | |
Average AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS | |
Lenovo ThinkPad T14s G2 20XGS01100 | |
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon G10 21CC001RGE | |
Lenovo ThinkPad T14s G2 20WM003TGE | |
HP EliteBook 840 Aero G8 3E4Q6AA -2! | |
Dell Latitude 7420 JW6MH | |
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Titanium Yoga G1 20QB0016GE |
Cinebench R23 / Multi Core | |
Average of class Subnotebook (1555 - 21812, n=61, last 2 years) | |
HP EliteBook 845 G9 6F6H6EA | |
Average AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS () | |
Lenovo ThinkPad T14s G2 20XGS01100 | |
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon G10 21CC001RGE | |
Lenovo ThinkPad T14s G2 20WM003TGE | |
Dell Latitude 7420 JW6MH | |
HP EliteBook 840 Aero G8 3E4Q6AA | |
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Titanium Yoga G1 20QB0016GE |
Cinebench R23 / Single Core | |
Average of class Subnotebook (358 - 2001, n=61, last 2 years) | |
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon G10 21CC001RGE | |
HP EliteBook 845 G9 6F6H6EA | |
Average AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS () | |
HP EliteBook 840 Aero G8 3E4Q6AA | |
Lenovo ThinkPad T14s G2 20XGS01100 | |
Dell Latitude 7420 JW6MH | |
Lenovo ThinkPad T14s G2 20WM003TGE | |
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Titanium Yoga G1 20QB0016GE |
Cinebench R20 / CPU (Multi Core) | |
HP EliteBook 845 G9 6F6H6EA | |
Average AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS () | |
Average of class Subnotebook (579 - 8541, n=57, last 2 years) | |
Lenovo ThinkPad T14s G2 20XGS01100 | |
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon G10 21CC001RGE | |
Lenovo ThinkPad T14s G2 20WM003TGE | |
HP EliteBook 840 Aero G8 3E4Q6AA | |
Dell Latitude 7420 JW6MH | |
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Titanium Yoga G1 20QB0016GE |
Cinebench R20 / CPU (Single Core) | |
Average of class Subnotebook (128 - 790, n=57, last 2 years) | |
HP EliteBook 845 G9 6F6H6EA | |
Average AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS () | |
Lenovo ThinkPad T14s G2 20XGS01100 | |
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon G10 21CC001RGE | |
Dell Latitude 7420 JW6MH | |
Lenovo ThinkPad T14s G2 20WM003TGE | |
HP EliteBook 840 Aero G8 3E4Q6AA | |
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Titanium Yoga G1 20QB0016GE |
Cinebench R15 / CPU Multi 64Bit | |
Average of class Subnotebook (327 - 3345, n=63, last 2 years) | |
HP EliteBook 845 G9 6F6H6EA | |
Average AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS () | |
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon G10 21CC001RGE | |
Lenovo ThinkPad T14s G2 20XGS01100 | |
Lenovo ThinkPad T14s G2 20WM003TGE | |
Dell Latitude 7420 JW6MH | |
HP EliteBook 840 Aero G8 3E4Q6AA | |
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Titanium Yoga G1 20QB0016GE |
Cinebench R15 / CPU Single 64Bit | |
Average of class Subnotebook (72.4 - 307, n=58, last 2 years) | |
HP EliteBook 845 G9 6F6H6EA | |
Average AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS () | |
Lenovo ThinkPad T14s G2 20XGS01100 | |
Lenovo ThinkPad T14s G2 20WM003TGE | |
HP EliteBook 840 Aero G8 3E4Q6AA | |
Dell Latitude 7420 JW6MH | |
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon G10 21CC001RGE | |
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Titanium Yoga G1 20QB0016GE |
Blender / v2.79 BMW27 CPU | |
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Titanium Yoga G1 20QB0016GE | |
Dell Latitude 7420 JW6MH | |
HP EliteBook 840 Aero G8 3E4Q6AA | |
Lenovo ThinkPad T14s G2 20WM003TGE | |
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon G10 21CC001RGE | |
Average of class Subnotebook (159 - 2271, n=61, last 2 years) | |
Lenovo ThinkPad T14s G2 20XGS01100 | |
HP EliteBook 845 G9 6F6H6EA | |
Average AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS () |
7-Zip 18.03 / 7z b 4 | |
HP EliteBook 845 G9 6F6H6EA | |
Average AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS () | |
Average of class Subnotebook (11775 - 77867, n=54, last 2 years) | |
Lenovo ThinkPad T14s G2 20XGS01100 | |
Lenovo ThinkPad T14s G2 20WM003TGE | |
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon G10 21CC001RGE | |
HP EliteBook 840 Aero G8 3E4Q6AA | |
Dell Latitude 7420 JW6MH | |
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Titanium Yoga G1 20QB0016GE |
7-Zip 18.03 / 7z b 4 -mmt1 | |
HP EliteBook 845 G9 6F6H6EA | |
Average AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS () | |
Average of class Subnotebook (2669 - 6403, n=56, last 2 years) | |
HP EliteBook 840 Aero G8 3E4Q6AA | |
Lenovo ThinkPad T14s G2 20XGS01100 | |
Lenovo ThinkPad T14s G2 20WM003TGE | |
Dell Latitude 7420 JW6MH | |
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Titanium Yoga G1 20QB0016GE | |
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon G10 21CC001RGE |
Geekbench 5.5 / Multi-Core | |
Average of class Subnotebook (2557 - 14728, n=57, last 2 years) | |
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon G10 21CC001RGE | |
HP EliteBook 845 G9 6F6H6EA | |
Average AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS () | |
Lenovo ThinkPad T14s G2 20XGS01100 | |
Lenovo ThinkPad T14s G2 20WM003TGE | |
Dell Latitude 7420 JW6MH | |
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Titanium Yoga G1 20QB0016GE |
Geekbench 5.5 / Single-Core | |
Average of class Subnotebook (621 - 2350, n=57, last 2 years) | |
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon G10 21CC001RGE | |
HP EliteBook 845 G9 6F6H6EA | |
Average AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS () | |
Lenovo ThinkPad T14s G2 20WM003TGE | |
Lenovo ThinkPad T14s G2 20XGS01100 | |
Dell Latitude 7420 JW6MH | |
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Titanium Yoga G1 20QB0016GE |
HWBOT x265 Benchmark v2.2 / 4k Preset | |
Average of class Subnotebook (0.97 - 25.1, n=56, last 2 years) | |
HP EliteBook 845 G9 6F6H6EA | |
Average AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS () | |
Lenovo ThinkPad T14s G2 20XGS01100 | |
Lenovo ThinkPad T14s G2 20WM003TGE | |
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon G10 21CC001RGE | |
HP EliteBook 840 Aero G8 3E4Q6AA | |
Dell Latitude 7420 JW6MH | |
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Titanium Yoga G1 20QB0016GE |
LibreOffice / 20 Documents To PDF | |
HP EliteBook 845 G9 6F6H6EA | |
Average AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS () | |
Average of class Subnotebook (38.5 - 220, n=56, last 2 years) | |
HP EliteBook 840 Aero G8 3E4Q6AA | |
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon G10 21CC001RGE | |
Dell Latitude 7420 JW6MH | |
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Titanium Yoga G1 20QB0016GE | |
Lenovo ThinkPad T14s G2 20XGS01100 | |
Lenovo ThinkPad T14s G2 20WM003TGE |
R Benchmark 2.5 / Overall mean | |
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Titanium Yoga G1 20QB0016GE | |
Dell Latitude 7420 JW6MH | |
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon G10 21CC001RGE | |
Lenovo ThinkPad T14s G2 20WM003TGE | |
HP EliteBook 840 Aero G8 3E4Q6AA | |
Lenovo ThinkPad T14s G2 20XGS01100 | |
Average of class Subnotebook (0.413 - 1.456, n=56, last 2 years) | |
HP EliteBook 845 G9 6F6H6EA | |
Average AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS () |
* ... smaller is better
AIDA64: FP32 Ray-Trace | FPU Julia | CPU SHA3 | CPU Queen | FPU SinJulia | FPU Mandel | CPU AES | CPU ZLib | FP64 Ray-Trace | CPU PhotoWorxx
Performance Rating | |
HP EliteBook 845 G9 6F6H6EA | |
Average AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS | |
Average of class Subnotebook | |
Lenovo ThinkPad T14s G2 20XGS01100 | |
Lenovo ThinkPad T14s G2 20WM003TGE | |
Dell Latitude 7420 JW6MH | |
HP EliteBook 840 Aero G8 3E4Q6AA | |
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon G10 21CC001RGE | |
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Titanium Yoga G1 20QB0016GE |
AIDA64 / FP32 Ray-Trace | |
HP EliteBook 845 G9 6F6H6EA | |
Average AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS () | |
Average of class Subnotebook (1141 - 32888, n=56, last 2 years) | |
Lenovo ThinkPad T14s G2 20XGS01100 | |
Lenovo ThinkPad T14s G2 20WM003TGE | |
Dell Latitude 7420 JW6MH | |
HP EliteBook 840 Aero G8 3E4Q6AA | |
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Titanium Yoga G1 20QB0016GE | |
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon G10 21CC001RGE |
AIDA64 / FPU Julia | |
HP EliteBook 845 G9 6F6H6EA | |
Average AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS () | |
Lenovo ThinkPad T14s G2 20XGS01100 | |
Average of class Subnotebook (6838 - 123315, n=56, last 2 years) | |
Lenovo ThinkPad T14s G2 20WM003TGE | |
Dell Latitude 7420 JW6MH | |
HP EliteBook 840 Aero G8 3E4Q6AA | |
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Titanium Yoga G1 20QB0016GE | |
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon G10 21CC001RGE |
AIDA64 / CPU SHA3 | |
HP EliteBook 845 G9 6F6H6EA | |
Average AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS () | |
Average of class Subnotebook (444 - 5287, n=56, last 2 years) | |
Lenovo ThinkPad T14s G2 20XGS01100 | |
Lenovo ThinkPad T14s G2 20WM003TGE | |
Dell Latitude 7420 JW6MH | |
HP EliteBook 840 Aero G8 3E4Q6AA | |
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Titanium Yoga G1 20QB0016GE | |
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon G10 21CC001RGE |
AIDA64 / CPU Queen | |
HP EliteBook 845 G9 6F6H6EA | |
Average AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS () | |
Lenovo ThinkPad T14s G2 20XGS01100 | |
Average of class Subnotebook (11579 - 115682, n=56, last 2 years) | |
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon G10 21CC001RGE | |
HP EliteBook 840 Aero G8 3E4Q6AA | |
Lenovo ThinkPad T14s G2 20WM003TGE | |
Dell Latitude 7420 JW6MH | |
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Titanium Yoga G1 20QB0016GE |
AIDA64 / FPU SinJulia | |
HP EliteBook 845 G9 6F6H6EA | |
Average AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS () | |
Lenovo ThinkPad T14s G2 20XGS01100 | |
Average of class Subnotebook (744 - 18418, n=56, last 2 years) | |
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon G10 21CC001RGE | |
Lenovo ThinkPad T14s G2 20WM003TGE | |
Dell Latitude 7420 JW6MH | |
HP EliteBook 840 Aero G8 3E4Q6AA | |
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Titanium Yoga G1 20QB0016GE |
AIDA64 / FPU Mandel | |
HP EliteBook 845 G9 6F6H6EA | |
Average AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS () | |
Lenovo ThinkPad T14s G2 20XGS01100 | |
Average of class Subnotebook (3366 - 65433, n=56, last 2 years) | |
Lenovo ThinkPad T14s G2 20WM003TGE | |
Dell Latitude 7420 JW6MH | |
HP EliteBook 840 Aero G8 3E4Q6AA | |
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Titanium Yoga G1 20QB0016GE | |
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon G10 21CC001RGE |
AIDA64 / CPU AES | |
Lenovo ThinkPad T14s G2 20XGS01100 | |
Lenovo ThinkPad T14s G2 20WM003TGE | |
Dell Latitude 7420 JW6MH | |
HP EliteBook 840 Aero G8 3E4Q6AA | |
Average of class Subnotebook (638 - 161430, n=56, last 2 years) | |
HP EliteBook 845 G9 6F6H6EA | |
Average AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS () | |
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Titanium Yoga G1 20QB0016GE | |
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon G10 21CC001RGE |
AIDA64 / CPU ZLib | |
HP EliteBook 845 G9 6F6H6EA | |
Average AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS () | |
Average of class Subnotebook (166.9 - 1379, n=56, last 2 years) | |
Lenovo ThinkPad T14s G2 20XGS01100 | |
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon G10 21CC001RGE | |
Lenovo ThinkPad T14s G2 20WM003TGE | |
Dell Latitude 7420 JW6MH | |
HP EliteBook 840 Aero G8 3E4Q6AA | |
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Titanium Yoga G1 20QB0016GE |
AIDA64 / FP64 Ray-Trace | |
HP EliteBook 845 G9 6F6H6EA | |
Average AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS () | |
Average of class Subnotebook (610 - 17495, n=56, last 2 years) | |
Lenovo ThinkPad T14s G2 20XGS01100 | |
Lenovo ThinkPad T14s G2 20WM003TGE | |
Dell Latitude 7420 JW6MH | |
HP EliteBook 840 Aero G8 3E4Q6AA | |
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon G10 21CC001RGE | |
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Titanium Yoga G1 20QB0016GE |
AIDA64 / CPU PhotoWorxx | |
Average of class Subnotebook (6569 - 53954, n=56, last 2 years) | |
Dell Latitude 7420 JW6MH | |
Lenovo ThinkPad T14s G2 20WM003TGE | |
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Titanium Yoga G1 20QB0016GE | |
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon G10 21CC001RGE | |
HP EliteBook 840 Aero G8 3E4Q6AA | |
Lenovo ThinkPad T14s G2 20XGS01100 | |
HP EliteBook 845 G9 6F6H6EA | |
Average AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS () |
系统性能
然而,EliteBook并不能称得上是终极系统性能的冠军,因为联想ThinkPad T14s G2仍然处于领先地位,也是AMD版本。但由于分数相近,所以几乎是平局。在分项评分中,我们的惠普在数字内容创作方面是最好的,而且是远远超过。在Crossmark基准测试中,联想 ThinkPad X1 Carbon G10是领先的,而 ThinkPad T14s G2处于同一水平。
CrossMark: Overall | Productivity | Creativity | Responsiveness
PCMark 10 / Score | |
Average of class Subnotebook (4993 - 7788, n=49, last 2 years) | |
Lenovo ThinkPad T14s G2 20XGS01100 | |
HP EliteBook 845 G9 6F6H6EA | |
Average AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS, AMD Radeon 680M () | |
Lenovo ThinkPad T14s G2 20WM003TGE | |
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon G10 21CC001RGE | |
Dell Latitude 7420 JW6MH | |
HP EliteBook 840 Aero G8 3E4Q6AA | |
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Titanium Yoga G1 20QB0016GE |
PCMark 10 / Essentials | |
Average of class Subnotebook (9476 - 11331, n=49, last 2 years) | |
Lenovo ThinkPad T14s G2 20XGS01100 | |
Lenovo ThinkPad T14s G2 20WM003TGE | |
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon G10 21CC001RGE | |
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Titanium Yoga G1 20QB0016GE | |
Dell Latitude 7420 JW6MH | |
HP EliteBook 840 Aero G8 3E4Q6AA | |
HP EliteBook 845 G9 6F6H6EA | |
Average AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS, AMD Radeon 680M () |
PCMark 10 / Productivity | |
Lenovo ThinkPad T14s G2 20XGS01100 | |
Average of class Subnotebook (6440 - 10623, n=49, last 2 years) | |
HP EliteBook 845 G9 6F6H6EA | |
Average AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS, AMD Radeon 680M () | |
Lenovo ThinkPad T14s G2 20WM003TGE | |
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon G10 21CC001RGE | |
HP EliteBook 840 Aero G8 3E4Q6AA | |
Dell Latitude 7420 JW6MH | |
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Titanium Yoga G1 20QB0016GE |
PCMark 10 / Digital Content Creation | |
Average of class Subnotebook (5305 - 10983, n=49, last 2 years) | |
HP EliteBook 845 G9 6F6H6EA | |
Average AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS, AMD Radeon 680M () | |
Lenovo ThinkPad T14s G2 20XGS01100 | |
Lenovo ThinkPad T14s G2 20WM003TGE | |
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon G10 21CC001RGE | |
Dell Latitude 7420 JW6MH | |
HP EliteBook 840 Aero G8 3E4Q6AA | |
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Titanium Yoga G1 20QB0016GE |
CrossMark / Overall | |
Average of class Subnotebook (365 - 1971, n=54, last 2 years) | |
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon G10 21CC001RGE | |
Lenovo ThinkPad T14s G2 20XGS01100 | |
HP EliteBook 845 G9 6F6H6EA | |
Average AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS, AMD Radeon 680M () | |
Dell Latitude 7420 JW6MH |
CrossMark / Productivity | |
Average of class Subnotebook (364 - 1875, n=54, last 2 years) | |
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon G10 21CC001RGE | |
HP EliteBook 845 G9 6F6H6EA | |
Average AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS, AMD Radeon 680M () | |
Lenovo ThinkPad T14s G2 20XGS01100 | |
Dell Latitude 7420 JW6MH |
CrossMark / Creativity | |
Average of class Subnotebook (385 - 2210, n=54, last 2 years) | |
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon G10 21CC001RGE | |
Lenovo ThinkPad T14s G2 20XGS01100 | |
HP EliteBook 845 G9 6F6H6EA | |
Average AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS, AMD Radeon 680M () | |
Dell Latitude 7420 JW6MH |
CrossMark / Responsiveness | |
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon G10 21CC001RGE | |
Average of class Subnotebook (312 - 1899, n=54, last 2 years) | |
Dell Latitude 7420 JW6MH | |
HP EliteBook 845 G9 6F6H6EA | |
Average AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS, AMD Radeon 680M () | |
Lenovo ThinkPad T14s G2 20XGS01100 |
PCMark 10 Score | 5896 points | |
Help |
AIDA64 / Memory Copy | |
Average of class Subnotebook (14916 - 108756, n=56, last 2 years) | |
HP EliteBook 845 G9 6F6H6EA | |
Average AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS () |
AIDA64 / Memory Read | |
Average of class Subnotebook (15948 - 122210, n=56, last 2 years) | |
HP EliteBook 845 G9 6F6H6EA | |
Average AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS () |
AIDA64 / Memory Write | |
Average of class Subnotebook (16513 - 112837, n=56, last 2 years) | |
HP EliteBook 845 G9 6F6H6EA | |
Average AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS () |
AIDA64 / Memory Latency | |
Average of class Subnotebook (7.4 - 187.8, n=56, last 2 years) | |
HP EliteBook 845 G9 6F6H6EA | |
Average AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS () |
* ... smaller is better
DPC延时
在我们的标准化延迟测试中(互联网浏览、YouTube 4K播放、CPU负载),该评测设备显示出延迟增加的问题。因此,在目前的BIOS版本下,它不适合实时音频应用,但这可能通过未来的更新而改变。在视频播放过程中,我们观察到66个丢帧的数量很多。
DPC Latencies / LatencyMon - interrupt to process latency (max), Web, Youtube, Prime95 | |
HP EliteBook 840 Aero G8 3E4Q6AA | |
Lenovo ThinkPad T14s G2 20XGS01100 | |
Lenovo ThinkPad T14s G2 20WM003TGE | |
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon G10 21CC001RGE | |
HP EliteBook 845 G9 6F6H6EA | |
Dell Latitude 7420 JW6MH | |
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Titanium Yoga G1 20QB0016GE |
* ... smaller is better
存储设备
EliteBook使用了西部数据的PC SN810 1TB,这是一款M.2插座的2280 SSD。它提供了一个良好的结果,但不是一个伟大的结果。三星的PM9A1在个别测试和整体上似乎仍然工作得更快。西部数据在连续性能方面有所下降,但一些三星型号也显示出这种行为,如三星PM9A1在 X1 Carbon.
1TB的存储容量(启动后约780GB的空闲)对于大多数用户来说应该是足够了。这里有更多的SSD基准测试。
* ... smaller is better
Sustained Performance Read: DiskSpd Read Loop, Queue Depth 8
图形卡
芯片 AMD Radeon 680M是一款用于笔记本电脑的iGPU。它提供所有12个单元(768个着色器),并使用当前的RDNA 2架构(如RX 6000M系列)。时钟速度取决于CPU型号;在这里我们观察到2.4 GHz。iGPU使用共享主内存。680M是第一款在硬件上支持光线追踪的iGPU,这对于目前的游戏来说用处不大,因为它太慢了。该 Radeon 680M在合成基准测试中表现相当好,但也不得不向英特尔的Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs认输,甚至在次级评分中输了10-30%。真正的游戏对此有什么看法?
3DMark 11 Performance | 7042 points | |
3DMark Cloud Gate Standard Score | 22529 points | |
3DMark Fire Strike Score | 3531 points | |
3DMark Time Spy Score | 1546 points | |
Help |
游戏性能
在 Witcher 3,Radeon再次落后于英特尔的Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs,以及在Strange Brigade 和Final Fantasy。目前的《鬼线东京》由于帧率太差,根本无法播放。
Far Cry 5 | |
1920x1080 Low Preset AA:T | |
Average AMD Radeon 680M (24 - 51, n=15) | |
Average of class Subnotebook (35 - 37, n=2, last 2 years) | |
HP EliteBook 845 G9 6F6H6EA | |
1920x1080 Medium Preset AA:T | |
Average of class Subnotebook (20 - 76, n=44, last 2 years) | |
Average AMD Radeon 680M (21 - 45, n=26) | |
Lenovo ThinkPad T14s G2 20XGS01100 | |
HP EliteBook 845 G9 6F6H6EA | |
Dell Latitude 7420 JW6MH |
Ghostwire Tokyo | |
1920x1080 Medium Settings | |
Average AMD Radeon 680M (18.8 - 41, n=2) | |
HP EliteBook 845 G9 6F6H6EA | |
1920x1080 High Settings | |
Average AMD Radeon 680M (20 - 40.6, n=2) | |
HP EliteBook 845 G9 6F6H6EA |
然而,我们并没有跳过这个机会来进行 Witcher 3稳定性测试。这是在全高清的超级设置下循环进行的。FPS没有下降,这是一个稳定、抗压的iGPU的好迹象。
Witcher 3 FPS Chart
low | med. | high | ultra | 4K | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
GTA V (2015) | 53 | 20 | |||
The Witcher 3 (2015) | 44.5 | 22.3 | 14.6 | ||
Dota 2 Reborn (2015) | 110.2 | 82.5 | 54.9 | 47.4 | 9.8 |
Final Fantasy XV Benchmark (2018) | 34.4 | 18.3 | 12.9 | ||
X-Plane 11.11 (2018) | 40.1 | 32.4 | 28.9 | ||
Far Cry 5 (2018) | 37 | 21 | 18 | ||
Strange Brigade (2018) | 78.2 | 31.1 | 26.4 | 22.6 | |
Ghostwire Tokyo (2022) | 18.8 | 20 | 18.6 |
排放物。Windows电脑有时会出现噪音
系统噪音
EliteBook在噪音排放方面是一个典范。闲置时,无论选择哪种Windows能源模式,风扇都会持续关闭。在负载情况下,它的转速很高,达到38或44 dB(A)。对于这样一台小型笔记本来说,这是很响亮的,但这只发生在持续负载的阶段。在简短的复制任务、流媒体或下载过程中,风扇根本不动,如果动了,它又迅速而巧妙地关闭。除此之外,没有发现任何电子噪音或线圈啸叫。
Noise Level
Idle |
| 25.5 / 25.5 / 25.5 dB(A) |
Load |
| 38.1 / 44 dB(A) |
| ||
30 dB silent 40 dB(A) audible 50 dB(A) loud |
||
min: , med: , max: Earthworks M23R, Arta (15 cm distance) environment noise: 25.5 dB(A) |
HP EliteBook 845 G9 6F6H6EA Radeon 680M, R9 PRO 6950HS, WDC PC SN810 1TB | Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon G10 21CC001RGE Iris Xe G7 80EUs, i5-1250P, Samsung PM9A1 MZVL2512HCJQ | Lenovo ThinkPad T14s G2 20XGS01100 Vega 8, R7 PRO 5850U, Lenovo UMIS AM630 RPETJ1T24MGE2QDQ | Dell Latitude 7420 JW6MH Iris Xe G7 80EUs, i5-1145G7, SK Hynix BC711 HFM512GD3HX015N | Lenovo ThinkPad T14s G2 20WM003TGE Iris Xe G7 96EUs, i7-1165G7, Samsung PM981a MZVLB1T0HBLR | HP EliteBook 840 Aero G8 3E4Q6AA Iris Xe G7 96EUs, i7-1185G7, SK Hynix PC711 512GB HFS512GDE9X073N | Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Titanium Yoga G1 20QB0016GE Iris Xe G7 80EUs, i5-1140G7, Lenovo UMIS RPJTJ256MEE1OWX | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Noise | 13% | 4% | -3% | 7% | 14% | 1% | |
off / environment * | 25.5 | 22.81 11% | 26.81 -5% | 25.3 1% | 24.81 3% | 24.1 5% | 25.61 -0% |
Idle Minimum * | 25.5 | 22.81 11% | 26.81 -5% | 25.3 1% | 24.81 3% | 24.2 5% | 25.61 -0% |
Idle Average * | 25.5 | 22.81 11% | 26.81 -5% | 25.3 1% | 24.81 3% | 24.2 5% | 25.61 -0% |
Idle Maximum * | 25.5 | 22.81 11% | 26.81 -5% | 25.3 1% | 24.81 3% | 24.2 5% | 25.61 -0% |
Load Average * | 38.1 | 31.59 17% | 30.16 21% | 44.9 -18% | 35.14 8% | 26.9 29% | 40.14 -5% |
Load Maximum * | 44 | 35.47 19% | 33.98 23% | 44.9 -2% | 35.14 20% | 29.9 32% | 40.14 9% |
Witcher 3 ultra * | 35.59 | 27.9 |
* ... smaller is better
温度
那么废热呢?单风扇--尤其是它经常静止不动--能保持机箱的温度吗?它在空转时可以,因为APU产生的废热很少,所以顶部和底部的平均温度保持在30度以下。在轻度负载和压力测试过程中,EliteBook变得不那么温热了。正如之前在 "性能 "部分所显示的,APU只能将功率从50瓦调节到41瓦,然后单个风扇必须将这41瓦推到机箱外。它只是艰难地做到了这一点;我们在某些地方测量了49和57度(顶部/底部)。键盘上方的条状区域几乎感觉很热。我们还在小型电源适配器上登记了56度。
关于Elitebook的好处是。你可以同时拥有一个表面凉爽的低声安静的设备和一个计算怪物。只有在后者的情况下,你必须接受短期的噪音和热表面。因此,将Elitebook长期放在腿上进行高性能的使用是不可能的。
(-) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 49.4 °C / 121 F, compared to the average of 36.1 °C / 97 F, ranging from 21.4 to 281 °C for the class Subnotebook.
(-) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 48 °C / 118 F, compared to the average of 39.4 °C / 103 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 27.7 °C / 82 F, compared to the device average of 30.8 °C / 87 F.
(-) Playing The Witcher 3, the average temperature for the upper side is 39 °C / 102 F, compared to the device average of 30.8 °C / 87 F.
(+) The palmrests and touchpad are reaching skin temperature as a maximum (35.2 °C / 95.4 F) and are therefore not hot.
(-) The average temperature of the palmrest area of similar devices was 28.3 °C / 82.9 F (-6.9 °C / -12.5 F).
HP EliteBook 845 G9 6F6H6EA AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS, AMD Radeon 680M | Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon G10 21CC001RGE Intel Core i5-1250P, Intel Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs | Lenovo ThinkPad T14s G2 20XGS01100 AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5850U, AMD Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) | Dell Latitude 7420 JW6MH Intel Core i5-1145G7, Intel Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs | Lenovo ThinkPad T14s G2 20WM003TGE Intel Core i7-1165G7, Intel Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs | HP EliteBook 840 Aero G8 3E4Q6AA Intel Core i7-1185G7, Intel Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs | Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Titanium Yoga G1 20QB0016GE Intel Core i5-1140G7, Intel Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Heat | 3% | 13% | 17% | 8% | -0% | 10% | |
Maximum Upper Side * | 49.4 | 45 9% | 44.2 11% | 37.1 25% | 47.5 4% | 39.2 21% | 46.3 6% |
Maximum Bottom * | 48 | 44 8% | 38.9 19% | 38.7 19% | 43.4 10% | 51.2 -7% | 43.3 10% |
Idle Upper Side * | 30.8 | 31.2 -1% | 27.7 10% | 27.3 11% | 28.4 8% | 33 -7% | 26.8 13% |
Idle Bottom * | 31.4 | 33.2 -6% | 28.3 10% | 28.1 11% | 28.3 10% | 34 -8% | 28.3 10% |
* ... smaller is better
压力测试
在压力测试中,功耗定格在68瓦,由处理器和显卡共同承担。在这种负载下,APU显示出与Cinebench测试中CPU负载下完全相同的行为:短暂达到50瓦,然后下降到41瓦的永久状态。
然而,有一个区别。如果EliteBook使用电池供电,由于压力测试(Furmark)中同时存在GPU负载,CPU时钟会降至2.5GHz(CPU功耗为30而不是40瓦)。在Cinebench测试中,在电池供电情况下,时钟速率没有下降。在压力测试后,没有直接出现性能下降的情况。
发言人
现在,两个立体声扬声器的声音充满了桌面,不再像前代产品那样明显。对我们的耳朵来说,声音已经有些恶化了。中音和高音仍然很干净,但它们的音量更薄,没有充满整个房间。相机旁边的双阵列麦克风提供了几乎无噪音的语音记录,即使是在离笔记本电脑1-2米的距离。因此,没有什么能阻挡可理解的视频会议的方式。
HP EliteBook 845 G9 6F6H6EA audio analysis
(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (78.9 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 23.4% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (12.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 2.4% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (5.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 3.4% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (5.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (18% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 48% of all tested devices in this class were better, 8% similar, 44% worse
» The best had a delta of 5%, average was 19%, worst was 53%
Compared to all devices tested
» 34% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 58% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon G10 21CC001RGE audio analysis
(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (75.09 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(±) | reduced bass - on average 13.2% lower than median
(-) | bass is not linear (16% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 2.8% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (3.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 2.7% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (4.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(+) | overall sound is linear (13.7% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 5% of all tested devices in this class were better, 3% similar, 91% worse
» The best had a delta of 7%, average was 22%, worst was 53%
Compared to all devices tested
» 13% of all tested devices were better, 3% similar, 84% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
能源管理。在SureView下运行时间更短
消耗功率
明亮的面板对电源插座产生了影响。在全亮度下,空闲时的消耗量是所有竞争对手的两倍多。在高负荷情况下,消耗量很快就达到了60多瓦,在压力测试中为68瓦。相应的65瓦的电源适配器可能被过度消耗了,这反映在近60度的强烈温度上。
Off / Standby | 0.22 / 0.4 Watt |
Idle | 6.4 / 12.4 / 18 Watt |
Load |
63 / 68 Watt |
Key:
min: ,
med: ,
max: Metrahit Energy |
HP EliteBook 845 G9 6F6H6EA R9 PRO 6950HS, Radeon 680M, WDC PC SN810 1TB, IPS, 1920x1200, 14" | Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon G10 21CC001RGE i5-1250P, Iris Xe G7 80EUs, Samsung PM9A1 MZVL2512HCJQ, IPS LED, 1920x1200, 14" | Lenovo ThinkPad T14s G2 20XGS01100 R7 PRO 5850U, Vega 8, Lenovo UMIS AM630 RPETJ1T24MGE2QDQ, IPS LED, 1920x1080, 14" | Dell Latitude 7420 JW6MH i5-1145G7, Iris Xe G7 80EUs, SK Hynix BC711 HFM512GD3HX015N, IPS, 1920x1080, 14" | Lenovo ThinkPad T14s G2 20WM003TGE i7-1165G7, Iris Xe G7 96EUs, Samsung PM981a MZVLB1T0HBLR, IPS LED, 1920x1080, 14" | HP EliteBook 840 Aero G8 3E4Q6AA i7-1185G7, Iris Xe G7 96EUs, SK Hynix PC711 512GB HFS512GDE9X073N, IPS, 1920x1080, 14" | Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Titanium Yoga G1 20QB0016GE i5-1140G7, Iris Xe G7 80EUs, Lenovo UMIS RPJTJ256MEE1OWX, IPS LED, 2256x1504, 13.5" | Average AMD Radeon 680M | Average of class Subnotebook | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Power Consumption | 47% | 49% | 44% | 45% | 42% | 47% | 16% | 28% | |
Idle Minimum * | 6.4 | 2.9 55% | 3.16 51% | 2.7 58% | 2.2 66% | 3.2 50% | 3.75 41% | 6.7 ? -5% | 4.49 ? 30% |
Idle Average * | 12.4 | 4.9 60% | 5.6 55% | 6 52% | 5.5 56% | 5.4 56% | 7.75 37% | 8.73 ? 30% | 7.66 ? 38% |
Idle Maximum * | 18 | 6 67% | 7.13 60% | 7.6 58% | 6.1 66% | 6.9 62% | 8.69 52% | 10.3 ? 43% | 9.56 ? 47% |
Load Average * | 63 | 29.3 53% | 30.86 51% | 37 41% | 41.3 34% | 38.9 38% | 33.12 47% | 53.1 ? 16% | 46.6 ? 26% |
Witcher 3 ultra * | 63.6 | 36.6 42% | 37 42% | 33.2 48% | 34.5 46% | 37 42% | 28.7 55% | ||
Load Maximum * | 68 | 63.3 7% | 46.55 32% | 65 4% | 67.3 1% | 66.5 2% | 35.19 48% | 70.3 ? -3% | 68.6 ? -1% |
* ... smaller is better
Power Consumption Witcher 3 / Stress test
Power consumption with an external monitor
电池寿命
高耗电量反映在电池寿命上。相比之下,51瓦特并不完全充足,但在WiFi测试中足够使用9:20小时。一个体面的结果,但不是一流的。在测试中,亮度被调整为150cd/m²,减少了八个级别。在设备打开的情况下,电池正好需要两个小时的时间来充电。
负载下的短暂运行时间,即全亮度下的Battery Eater Classic,只有79分钟,再次证明了Elitebook对性能的关注。正如之前在 "性能 "部分所显示的,CPU在使用电池电源时并不降速,只消耗40瓦特。这与其他型号没有如此高的启动功耗水平是不同的。例如,Ryzen 7 Pro 5850U最初只消耗30瓦,然后稳定在22瓦的水平。
那些需要更长的电池运行时间的人肯定应该选择低功率1080p显示屏,EliteBook 845 G9就有这种功能。
HP EliteBook 845 G9 6F6H6EA R9 PRO 6950HS, Radeon 680M, 51 Wh | Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon G10 21CC001RGE i5-1250P, Iris Xe G7 80EUs, 57 Wh | Lenovo ThinkPad T14s G2 20XGS01100 R7 PRO 5850U, Vega 8, 57 Wh | Dell Latitude 7420 JW6MH i5-1145G7, Iris Xe G7 80EUs, 63 Wh | Lenovo ThinkPad T14s G2 20WM003TGE i7-1165G7, Iris Xe G7 96EUs, 57 Wh | HP EliteBook 840 Aero G8 3E4Q6AA i7-1185G7, Iris Xe G7 96EUs, 53 Wh | Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Titanium Yoga G1 20QB0016GE i5-1140G7, Iris Xe G7 80EUs, 44.5 Wh | Average of class Subnotebook | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Battery Runtime | 45% | 43% | 74% | 6% | 57% | 38% | ||
WiFi v1.3 | 560 | 610 9% | 877 57% | 848 51% | 580 4% | 685 22% | 719 ? 28% | |
Load | 79 | 142 80% | 101 28% | 155 96% | 85 8% | 151 91% | 116.6 ? 48% | |
H.264 | 654 | 891 | 874 | 896 ? | ||||
Reader / Idle | 1411 | 1487 | 1750 ? |
Pros
Cons
评语。惠普商务笔记本电脑的性能非常好
配备Ryzen 9 PRO 6950HS、32GB内存和1TB固态硬盘的高端版惠普EliteBook 845 G9的功率很大,但仍然足够安静和冷却,可以在对噪音敏感的环境中运行。然而,安静、凉爽并同时从APU中吸取大量的40瓦,这是不可能的。这台14英寸的机器只有一个单风扇解决方案,而且它只是设法让一个几乎没有节流的Ryzen 9保持正常。由于其短期和长期的性能,6950HS(35瓦)超过了来自Ryzen 5000U世界的同事,而且他们已经比目前的英特尔移动处理器更快。
但性能在EliteBook中只是次要的,制造商已经把安全性放在了首位。为此,安装了很多软件,旨在为中小型企业提供最大的数据和硬件保护,而不费吹灰之力。简而言之,我们不能说惠普在这方面是否最终成功。另一方面,我们看到在硬件和管理工具方面有很多选择,可以将Elitebook整合到不同的安全概念中,如智能卡或Windows Hello Face-Log In。
做工是一流的。在我们看来,惠普已经比上一代产品做了改进。组件的维护和更换既可能又容易,鉴于现在有许多板载芯片,这不再是一个必然的结果。由于有了500万像素的网络摄像头,制造商终于把我们从无休止的糟糕的720p网络摄像头的悲痛中解放出来。与良好的麦克风相结合,这为视频会议提供了一个强大的解决方案。
惠普EliteBook 845 G9拥有强大的功能,500万像素的网络摄像头和许多安全功能,在商务联盟中发挥着顶级的作用。
虽然惠普EliteBook 845 G9不是14英寸竞争对手中最轻的型号,但它仍然可以跟上戴尔和联想的商务巨无霸,尽管耗电量增加,但仍有9小时的良好运行时间。特别是由于带有LTE调制解调器的移动性是重中之重。
必须严格看待具有高亮度的SureView面板。内置的隐私保护基本上是有效的,但它的缺点是可视角度较差,电池寿命较短。400尼特的低功耗FHD面板可能是这里更好的选择。
联想ThinkPad X1 Carbon G10 ,重量更轻,运行时间更长,还有Thunderbolt端口,是我想到的第一个选择,尽管它的计算能力明显不足。联想的ThinkPad T14s G2 在这里处于更好的位置,但在AMD基础上没有Thunderbolt。低功耗的FHD显示屏和14小时的电池寿命(在WiFi测试中)弥补了这一点。
价格和可用性。
HP EliteBook 845 G9 6F6H6EA
- 07/19/2022 v7 (old)
Sebastian Jentsch