华硕 Vivobook F556UQ-XO626D 笔记本电脑简短评测
» 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
Size Comparison
SD Card Reader | |
average JPG Copy Test (av. of 3 runs) | |
Acer Aspire E15 E5-553G-109A | |
HP 15-ba077ng | |
Asus Vivobook F556UQ-XO626D | |
Asus VivoBook X556UQ-XO076T | |
Medion Akoya P6670 | |
Lenovo Ideapad 310-15ISK | |
maximum AS SSD Seq Read Test (1GB) | |
Acer Aspire E15 E5-553G-109A | |
HP 15-ba077ng | |
Asus VivoBook X556UQ-XO076T | |
Medion Akoya P6670 | |
Lenovo Ideapad 310-15ISK | |
Asus Vivobook F556UQ-XO626D |
Networking | |
iperf3 transmit AX12 | |
Acer Aspire E15 E5-553G-109A | |
Asus Vivobook F556UQ-XO626D | |
HP 15-ba077ng | |
iperf3 receive AX12 | |
Asus Vivobook F556UQ-XO626D | |
Acer Aspire E15 E5-553G-109A | |
HP 15-ba077ng |
|
Brightness Distribution: 81 %
Center on Battery: 217 cd/m²
Contrast: 365:1 (Black: 0.6 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 11.96 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.91
ΔE Greyscale 13.22 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
62% sRGB (Argyll 1.6.3 3D)
39% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 1.6.3 3D)
42.04% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
61.3% sRGB (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
40.69% Display P3 (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
Gamma: 2.52
Asus Vivobook F556UQ-XO626D TN LED, 1366x768, 15.6" | Asus VivoBook X556UQ-XO076T TN LED, 1366x768, 15.6" | HP 15-ba077ng TN LED, 1920x1080, 15.6" | Acer Aspire E15 E5-553G-109A TN LED, 1920x1080, 15.6" | Lenovo Ideapad 310-15ISK TN LED, 1366x768, 15.6" | Medion Akoya P6670 IPS, 1920x1080, 15.6" | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Display | 1% | -2% | -2% | -9% | -6% | |
Display P3 Coverage | 40.69 | 41.1 1% | 39.98 -2% | 39.72 -2% | 37.06 -9% | 38.14 -6% |
sRGB Coverage | 61.3 | 61.8 1% | 60.2 -2% | 59.2 -3% | 55.8 -9% | 57.2 -7% |
AdobeRGB 1998 Coverage | 42.04 | 42.46 1% | 41.31 -2% | 41.07 -2% | 38.29 -9% | 39.43 -6% |
Response Times | 3% | 8% | 24% | 24% | 8% | |
Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% * | 47 ? | 36 ? 23% | 42 ? 11% | 42.4 ? 10% | 27 ? 43% | 42 ? 11% |
Response Time Black / White * | 23 ? | 27 ? -17% | 22 ? 4% | 14.6 ? 37% | 22 ? 4% | 22 ? 4% |
PWM Frequency | 50 ? | 28740 | 50 ? | 50 | ||
Screen | 27% | -1% | 7% | 16% | 21% | |
Brightness middle | 219 | 241 10% | 209 -5% | 224 2% | 200 -9% | 287 31% |
Brightness | 220 | 240 9% | 200 -9% | 201 -9% | 198 -10% | 269 22% |
Brightness Distribution | 81 | 92 14% | 88 9% | 75 -7% | 83 2% | 74 -9% |
Black Level * | 0.6 | 0.5 17% | 0.56 7% | 0.46 23% | 0.28 53% | 0.65 -8% |
Contrast | 365 | 482 32% | 373 2% | 487 33% | 714 96% | 442 21% |
Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 11.96 | 4.46 63% | 12.21 -2% | 10.5 12% | 10.63 11% | 5.42 55% |
Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 19.31 | 6.84 65% | 20.66 -7% | 16.8 13% | 15.69 19% | 9.54 51% |
Greyscale dE 2000 * | 13.22 | 4.83 63% | 13.48 -2% | 11.23 15% | 11.19 15% | 5.14 61% |
Gamma | 2.52 87% | 2.49 88% | 2.34 94% | 2.12 104% | 1.78 124% | 2.48 89% |
CCT | 14631 44% | 7773 84% | 15364 42% | 11096 59% | 11258 58% | 6952 93% |
Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998) | 39 | 39 0% | 38 -3% | 38 -3% | 35 -10% | 36 -8% |
Color Space (Percent of sRGB) | 62 | 62 0% | 60 -3% | 59 -5% | 56 -10% | 57 -8% |
Total Average (Program / Settings) | 10% /
19% | 2% /
-0% | 10% /
8% | 10% /
12% | 8% /
14% |
* ... smaller is better
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 8706 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 343500) Hz was measured. |
Display Response Times
↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
---|---|---|
23 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 7 ms rise | |
↘ 16 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. » 48 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (20.9 ms). | ||
↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey | ||
47 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 25 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 0.165 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 79 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (32.8 ms). |
Cinebench R15 | |
CPU Single 64Bit | |
Lenovo Ideapad 310-15ISK | |
Asus VivoBook X556UQ-XO076T | |
Medion Akoya P6670 | |
Asus Vivobook F556UQ-XO626D | |
HP 15-ba077ng | |
Acer Aspire E15 E5-553G-109A | |
CPU Multi 64Bit | |
Lenovo Ideapad 310-15ISK | |
Asus VivoBook X556UQ-XO076T | |
Medion Akoya P6670 | |
Asus Vivobook F556UQ-XO626D | |
Acer Aspire E15 E5-553G-109A | |
HP 15-ba077ng |
Cinebench R10 | |
Rendering Multiple CPUs 32Bit | |
Lenovo Ideapad 310-15ISK | |
Asus Vivobook F556UQ-XO626D | |
Medion Akoya P6670 | |
Asus VivoBook X556UQ-XO076T | |
HP 15-ba077ng | |
Acer Aspire E15 E5-553G-109A | |
Rendering Single 32Bit | |
Lenovo Ideapad 310-15ISK | |
Asus Vivobook F556UQ-XO626D | |
Asus VivoBook X556UQ-XO076T | |
Medion Akoya P6670 | |
HP 15-ba077ng | |
Acer Aspire E15 E5-553G-109A |
Geekbench 3 | |
32 Bit Single-Core Score | |
Asus VivoBook X556UQ-XO076T | |
Asus Vivobook F556UQ-XO626D | |
Medion Akoya P6670 | |
Acer Aspire E15 E5-553G-109A | |
HP 15-ba077ng | |
32 Bit Multi-Core Score | |
Asus Vivobook F556UQ-XO626D | |
Asus VivoBook X556UQ-XO076T | |
Medion Akoya P6670 | |
Acer Aspire E15 E5-553G-109A | |
HP 15-ba077ng |
Geekbench 4.0 | |
64 Bit Single-Core Score | |
Asus Vivobook F556UQ-XO626D | |
Medion Akoya P6670 | |
HP 15-ba077ng | |
64 Bit Multi-Core Score | |
Asus Vivobook F556UQ-XO626D | |
Medion Akoya P6670 | |
HP 15-ba077ng |
JetStream 1.1 - Total Score | |
Lenovo Ideapad 310-15ISK | |
Asus Vivobook F556UQ-XO626D | |
Asus VivoBook X556UQ-XO076T | |
Medion Akoya P6670 | |
HP 15-ba077ng |
PCMark 7 Score | 2864 points | |
PCMark 8 Home Score Accelerated v2 | 3178 points | |
PCMark 8 Creative Score Accelerated v2 | 3343 points | |
PCMark 8 Work Score Accelerated v2 | 4231 points | |
Help |
PCMark 8 - Home Score Accelerated v2 | |
Lenovo Ideapad 310-15ISK | |
Asus VivoBook X556UQ-XO076T | |
Medion Akoya P6670 | |
Asus Vivobook F556UQ-XO626D | |
Acer Aspire E15 E5-553G-109A | |
HP 15-ba077ng |
Asus Vivobook F556UQ-XO626D Toshiba MQ01ABF050 | Asus VivoBook X556UQ-XO076T SK hynix SSD Canvas SC300 HFS256G32MND | HP 15-ba077ng SanDisk Z400s SD8SNAT-256G | Acer Aspire E15 E5-553G-109A Liteonit CV3-8D128 | Lenovo Ideapad 310-15ISK WDC Scorpio Blue WD10JPCX-24UE4T0 | Medion Akoya P6670 Phison S11-128G | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CrystalDiskMark 3.0 | 9189% | 5186% | 5407% | 38% | 6163% | |
Read Seq | 102.2 | 434.9 326% | 447.4 338% | 348.6 241% | 115.9 13% | 441.8 332% |
Write Seq | 90.7 | 318.3 251% | 243.3 168% | 311.8 244% | 113.3 25% | 398 339% |
Read 512 | 23.31 | 311.8 1238% | 333.4 1330% | 295.9 1169% | 39.02 67% | 295.5 1168% |
Write 512 | 21.7 | 319.2 1371% | 283.1 1205% | 185.8 756% | 55.6 156% | 75.5 248% |
Read 4k | 0.486 | 18.23 3651% | 20.99 4219% | 23.76 4789% | 0.44 -9% | 31.19 6318% |
Write 4k | 1.06 | 85.4 7957% | 62.7 5815% | 44.94 4140% | 1.188 12% | 60 5560% |
Read 4k QD32 | 0.952 | 323.8 33913% | 143.1 14932% | 171.6 17925% | 1.125 18% | 258 27001% |
Write 4k QD32 | 1.016 | 253 24802% | 138 13483% | 143.2 13994% | 1.245 23% | 85.7 8335% |
3DMark 11 Performance | 2551 points | |
Help |
3DMark 11 - 1280x720 Performance GPU | |
Acer Aspire E15 E5-553G-109A | |
Medion Akoya P6670 | |
Asus Vivobook F556UQ-XO626D | |
Asus VivoBook X556UQ-XO076T | |
HP 15-ba077ng | |
Lenovo Ideapad 310-15ISK |
low | med. | high | ultra | |
---|---|---|---|---|
BioShock Infinite (2013) | 86.3 | 49.1 | 39.5 |
BioShock Infinite - 1366x768 Medium Preset | |
Medion Akoya P6670 | |
Asus Vivobook F556UQ-XO626D | |
Asus VivoBook X556UQ-XO076T | |
Lenovo Ideapad 310-15ISK | |
HP 15-ba077ng |
Noise Level
Idle |
| 32 / 32 / 32.2 dB(A) |
HDD |
| 32.6 dB(A) |
DVD |
| 37.6 / dB(A) |
Load |
| 37.3 / 42.6 dB(A) |
| ||
30 dB silent 40 dB(A) audible 50 dB(A) loud |
||
min: , med: , max: Audix TM1, Arta (15 cm distance) environment noise: 30.7 dB(A) |
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 35.5 °C / 96 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 39.9 °C / 104 F, compared to the average of 39.2 °C / 103 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 23.3 °C / 74 F, compared to the device average of 31.3 °C / 88 F.
(+) The palmrests and touchpad are cooler than skin temperature with a maximum of 27.5 °C / 81.5 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 (+1.3 °C / 2.3 F).
Asus Vivobook F556UQ-XO626D audio analysis
(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (74 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 16.8% lower than median
(+) | bass is linear (5% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 3.1% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (5.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 7.7% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (6.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (20.4% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 67% of all tested devices in this class were better, 8% similar, 25% worse
» The best had a delta of 5%, average was 18%, worst was 45%
Compared to all devices tested
» 50% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 42% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Apple MacBook 12 (Early 2016) 1.1 GHz audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (83.6 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(±) | reduced bass - on average 11.3% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (14.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 2.4% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (5.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 2% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (4.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(+) | overall sound is linear (10.2% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 6% of all tested devices in this class were better, 2% similar, 92% worse
» The best had a delta of 5%, average was 19%, worst was 53%
Compared to all devices tested
» 4% of all tested devices were better, 1% similar, 95% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Off / Standby | 0.55 / 0.7 Watt |
Idle | 4.4 / 7.1 / 9.7 Watt |
Load |
38 / 50.4 Watt |
Key:
min: ,
med: ,
max: Metrahit Energy |
Battery Runtime - WiFi Websurfing | |
Asus VivoBook X556UQ-XO076T | |
Asus Vivobook F556UQ-XO626D | |
Lenovo Ideapad 310-15ISK | |
HP 15-ba077ng | |
Medion Akoya P6670 | |
Acer Aspire E15 E5-553G-109A |
Pros
Cons
华硕Vivobook F556UQ是一款15.6英寸的全能笔记本电脑。 它不是很贵,价格约460欧元(约485美元)。使用的Core酷睿i5处理器适用于所有常用是应用程序。配备GeForce显卡,它可以顺利运行许多市面上的游戏。计算机几乎不会发烫,不管负载如何,至少在日常使用时,它运行安静。500 GB硬盘驱动器,使你不会太快消耗完存储空间。你也可以使用更高容量型号的硬盘或固态硬盘代替它。然而,这需要打开笔记本电脑。现有的维护舱口只允许访问内存插槽。
Vivobook F556UQ,华硕所提供的一个平衡的全能设备。你将以相对较低的价格换取高性能。
键盘优秀,并且满足家庭使用。此外,电池续航时间良好。一般情况下,显示屏都是预算级笔记本的一大弱点。Vivobook也是如此。华硕采用了一个相当暗,而且低对比度,视角不稳定的屏幕。然而,鉴于价格,显示质量是可接受的。其他制造商应该以这为范本。
注:本文是基于完整评测的缩减版本,阅读完整的英文评测,请点击这里。
Asus Vivobook F556UQ-XO626D
- 02/21/2017 v6 (old)
Sascha Mölck