Test: HP EliteBook Folio G1 (sammanfattning)
Topp 10...
» Topp 10: Bästa bärbara allround/multimediadatorerna
» Topp 10: Bästa bärbara speldatorerna
» Topp 10: Bärbara budget/kontorsdatorer
» Topp 10: Bästa bärbara kontors/premiumdatorerna
» Topp 10: Bärbara arbetsstationer
» Topp 10: De bästa små/kompakta bärbara datorerna
» Topp 10: Bästa ultrabooks
» Topp 10: Bästa hybriddatorerna
» Topp 10: Bästa surfplattorna
» Topp 10: Marknadens bästa smartphones
Networking | |
iperf Server (receive) TCP 1 m 512KB | |
Dell Latitude 13 7370 | |
HP EliteBook Folio G1 V1C37EA | |
iperf Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 512KB | |
Dell Latitude 13 7370 | |
HP EliteBook Folio G1 V1C37EA | |
iperf Server (receive) TCP 1 m | |
Apple MacBook 12 (Early 2016) 1.1 GHz | |
iperf Client (transmit) TCP 1 m | |
Apple MacBook 12 (Early 2016) 1.1 GHz |
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 8746 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 343500) Hz was measured. |
|
Distribution av ljusstyrkan: 87 %
Mitt på batteriet: 291 cd/m²
Kontrast: 1070:1 (Svärta: 0.27 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 4.82 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.92
ΔE Greyscale 3.84 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
64.8% sRGB (Argyll 1.6.3 3D)
42.03% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 1.6.3 3D)
45.96% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
65.2% sRGB (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
44.45% Display P3 (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
Gamma: 2.41
HP EliteBook Folio G1 V1C37EA 12.5", 1920x1080, IPS | Apple MacBook 12 (Early 2016) 1.1 GHz 12", 2304x1440, IPS | Asus Zenbook UX305CA-FB055T 13.3", 3200x1800, IPS | Dell Latitude 13 7370 13.3", 1920x1080, IPS | Dell XPS 13-9350 13.3", 1920x1080, IPS | Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon 20FB-005XUS 14", 1920x1080, IPS | HP EliteBook Folio 1040 G3 14", 2560x1440, IPS | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Display | 48% | 32% | 18% | 1% | 30% | 51% | |
Display P3 Coverage | 44.45 | 66.8 50% | 59.1 33% | 52.2 17% | 44.53 0% | 58.9 33% | 67.9 53% |
sRGB Coverage | 65.2 | 95.4 46% | 85.5 31% | 78.3 20% | 66.8 2% | 83.1 27% | 96.8 48% |
AdobeRGB 1998 Coverage | 45.96 | 68 48% | 61 33% | 53.9 17% | 45.97 0% | 60.3 31% | 70 52% |
Response Times | -28% | -16% | -49% | -32% | -28% | ||
Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% * | 32 ? | 41.2 ? -29% | 38 ? -19% | 50.4 ? -58% | 47.2 ? -48% | 46.4 ? -45% | |
Response Time Black / White * | 24 ? | 30.4 ? -27% | 27 ? -13% | 33.6 ? -40% | 27.6 ? -15% | 26.4 ? -10% | |
PWM Frequency | 1429 ? | ||||||
Screen | 24% | 0% | -2% | 5% | 14% | 9% | |
Brightness middle | 289 | 387 34% | 390 35% | 261 -10% | 277.5 -4% | 321.7 11% | 327 13% |
Brightness | 298 | 358 20% | 352 18% | 241 -19% | 276 -7% | 301 1% | 316 6% |
Brightness Distribution | 87 | 88 1% | 81 -7% | 85 -2% | 88 1% | 89 2% | 87 0% |
Black Level * | 0.27 | 0.47 -74% | 0.69 -156% | 0.26 4% | 0.191 29% | 0.294 -9% | 0.35 -30% |
Contrast | 1070 | 823 -23% | 565 -47% | 1004 -6% | 1453 36% | 1094 2% | 934 -13% |
Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 4.82 | 1.6 67% | 3.04 37% | 4.3 11% | 4.88 -1% | 3.96 18% | 4.39 9% |
Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 10.73 | 4 63% | 7.01 35% | 8.66 19% | 6.69 38% | 7.27 32% | |
Greyscale dE 2000 * | 3.84 | 1 74% | 2.88 25% | 5.82 -52% | 4.26 -11% | 3.15 18% | 4.69 -22% |
Gamma | 2.41 91% | 2.26 97% | 2.43 91% | 2.44 90% | 2.59 85% | 2.34 94% | 2.15 102% |
CCT | 6492 100% | 6680 97% | 6848 95% | 6771 96% | 6562 99% | 7082 92% | 7101 92% |
Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998) | 42.03 | 61.6 47% | 55 31% | 49.18 17% | 41.6 -1% | 53.8 28% | 62.52 49% |
Color Space (Percent of sRGB) | 64.8 | 82.2 27% | 85 31% | 77.84 20% | 65.79 2% | 82.7 28% | 96.71 49% |
Total Average (Program / Settings) | 15% /
22% | 5% /
4% | -11% /
-4% | 3% /
4% | 4% /
11% | 11% /
13% |
* ... smaller is better
Display Response Times
↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
---|---|---|
24 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 12.4 ms rise | |
↘ 11.6 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. » 50 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (21 ms). | ||
↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey | ||
32 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 14.8 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 0.165 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 39 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is similar to the average of all tested devices (32.9 ms). |
Cinebench R15 | |
CPU Single 64Bit | |
HP EliteBook Folio 1040 G3 | |
Dell XPS 13-9350 | |
HP EliteBook Folio G1 V1C37EA | |
Dell Latitude 13 7370 | |
Asus Zenbook UX305CA-FB055T | |
Apple MacBook 12 (Early 2016) 1.1 GHz | |
Apple MacBook 12 (Early 2016) 1.1 GHz | |
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon 20FB-005XUS | |
CPU Multi 64Bit | |
HP EliteBook Folio 1040 G3 | |
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon 20FB-005XUS | |
Dell XPS 13-9350 | |
HP EliteBook Folio G1 V1C37EA | |
Apple MacBook 12 (Early 2016) 1.1 GHz | |
Asus Zenbook UX305CA-FB055T | |
Dell Latitude 13 7370 |
PCMark 8 | |
Home Score Accelerated v2 | |
HP EliteBook Folio 1040 G3 | |
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon 20FB-005XUS | |
Dell Latitude 13 7370 | |
HP EliteBook Folio G1 V1C37EA | |
Dell XPS 13-9350 | |
Asus Zenbook UX305CA-FB055T | |
Apple MacBook 12 (Early 2016) 1.1 GHz | |
Creative Score Accelerated v2 | |
HP EliteBook Folio 1040 G3 | |
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon 20FB-005XUS | |
Dell XPS 13-9350 | |
Dell Latitude 13 7370 | |
HP EliteBook Folio G1 V1C37EA | |
Asus Zenbook UX305CA-FB055T | |
Work Score Accelerated v2 | |
HP EliteBook Folio 1040 G3 | |
Dell Latitude 13 7370 | |
HP EliteBook Folio G1 V1C37EA | |
Dell XPS 13-9350 | |
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon 20FB-005XUS | |
Apple MacBook 12 (Early 2016) 1.1 GHz | |
Asus Zenbook UX305CA-FB055T |
PCMark 8 Home Score Accelerated v2 | 3037 poäng | |
PCMark 8 Creative Score Accelerated v2 | 3430 poäng | |
PCMark 8 Work Score Accelerated v2 | 4146 poäng | |
Hjälp |
HP EliteBook Folio G1 V1C37EA Samsung SM951 MZVPV256 m.2 | Apple MacBook 12 (Early 2016) 1.1 GHz Apple SSD AP0256 | Asus Zenbook UX305CA-FB055T Micron M600 MTFDDAV512MBF M.2 | Dell Latitude 13 7370 Toshiba NVMe THNSN5256GPU7 | Dell XPS 13-9350 Samsung PM951 NVMe MZ-VLV256D | Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon 20FB-005XUS Samsung SM951 MZVPV256 m.2 | HP EliteBook Folio 1040 G3 Samsung SM951 MZVPV256HDGL m.2 PCI-e | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CrystalDiskMark 3.0 | -62% | -46% | -6% | -27% | 12% | 22% | |
Read Seq | 1482 | 754 -49% | 475.2 -68% | 1354 -9% | 1097 -26% | 1720 16% | 1649 11% |
Write Seq | 1232 | 638 -48% | 423.7 -66% | 1132 -8% | 307.7 -75% | 1263 3% | 1265 3% |
Read 4k | 46.96 | 14.6 -69% | 28.57 -39% | 42.13 -10% | 38.52 -18% | 49.65 6% | 53.3 14% |
Write 4k | 100.7 | 20.5 -80% | 90.7 -10% | 105.8 5% | 113 12% | 123 22% | 159.9 59% |
3DMark 11 | |
1280x720 Performance | |
Dell XPS 13-9350 | |
HP EliteBook Folio 1040 G3 | |
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon 20FB-005XUS | |
HP EliteBook Folio G1 V1C37EA | |
Apple MacBook 12 (Early 2016) 1.1 GHz | |
Asus Zenbook UX305CA-FB055T | |
Dell Latitude 13 7370 | |
1280x720 Performance GPU | |
Dell XPS 13-9350 | |
HP EliteBook Folio 1040 G3 | |
HP EliteBook Folio G1 V1C37EA | |
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon 20FB-005XUS | |
Apple MacBook 12 (Early 2016) 1.1 GHz | |
Asus Zenbook UX305CA-FB055T | |
Dell Latitude 13 7370 |
3DMark | |
1280x720 Cloud Gate Standard Score | |
Dell XPS 13-9350 | |
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon 20FB-005XUS | |
HP EliteBook Folio 1040 G3 | |
HP EliteBook Folio G1 V1C37EA | |
Apple MacBook 12 (Early 2016) 1.1 GHz | |
Dell Latitude 13 7370 | |
Asus Zenbook UX305CA-FB055T | |
1280x720 Cloud Gate Standard Graphics | |
Dell XPS 13-9350 | |
HP EliteBook Folio G1 V1C37EA | |
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon 20FB-005XUS | |
HP EliteBook Folio 1040 G3 | |
Apple MacBook 12 (Early 2016) 1.1 GHz | |
Dell Latitude 13 7370 | |
Asus Zenbook UX305CA-FB055T | |
1920x1080 Fire Strike Score | |
Dell XPS 13-9350 | |
HP EliteBook Folio 1040 G3 | |
HP EliteBook Folio G1 V1C37EA | |
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon 20FB-005XUS | |
Apple MacBook 12 (Early 2016) 1.1 GHz | |
Dell Latitude 13 7370 | |
Asus Zenbook UX305CA-FB055T | |
1920x1080 Fire Strike Graphics | |
Dell XPS 13-9350 | |
HP EliteBook Folio 1040 G3 | |
HP EliteBook Folio G1 V1C37EA | |
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon 20FB-005XUS | |
Apple MacBook 12 (Early 2016) 1.1 GHz | |
Dell Latitude 13 7370 | |
Asus Zenbook UX305CA-FB055T |
3DMark 11 Performance | 1360 poäng | |
3DMark Cloud Gate Standard Score | 5257 poäng | |
3DMark Fire Strike Score | 780 poäng | |
Hjälp |
låg | med. | hög | ultra | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Tomb Raider (2013) | 54.4 | 22.8 | 15.9 | |
BioShock Infinite (2013) | 49.9 | 24.8 | 15.3 | |
The Witcher 3 (2015) | 12.8 |
(±) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 42.7 °C / 109 F, compared to the average of 35.9 °C / 97 F, ranging from 21.4 to 59 °C for the class Subnotebook.
(-) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 45.8 °C / 114 F, compared to the average of 39.4 °C / 103 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 29.4 °C / 85 F, compared to the device average of 30.8 °C / 87 F.
(+) The palmrests and touchpad are reaching skin temperature as a maximum (32.8 °C / 91 F) and are therefore not hot.
(-) The average temperature of the palmrest area of similar devices was 28.3 °C / 82.9 F (-4.5 °C / -8.1 F).
HP EliteBook Folio G1 V1C37EA 6Y54, HD Graphics 515 | Apple MacBook 12 (Early 2016) 1.1 GHz 6Y30, HD Graphics 515 | Asus Zenbook UX305CA-FB055T 6Y75, HD Graphics 515 | Dell Latitude 13 7370 6Y57, HD Graphics 515 | Dell XPS 13-9350 6200U, HD Graphics 520 | Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon 20FB-005XUS 6300U, HD Graphics 520 | HP EliteBook Folio 1040 G3 6300U, HD Graphics 520 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Heat | 4% | 16% | -1% | 1% | 11% | 1% | |
Maximum Upper Side * | 42.7 | 39 9% | 39.1 8% | 43.2 -1% | 45.2 -6% | 40 6% | 43.2 -1% |
Maximum Bottom * | 45.8 | 44 4% | 38.7 16% | 50.8 -11% | 45.2 1% | 42.8 7% | 47.1 -3% |
Idle Upper Side * | 32.1 | 32 -0% | 26 19% | 30.5 5% | 30.4 5% | 26.6 17% | 30.5 5% |
Idle Bottom * | 32.3 | 32 1% | 25.7 20% | 31.2 3% | 31.2 3% | 27.4 15% | 31.5 2% |
* ... smaller is better
Av/Standby | 0.4 / 1.5 Watt |
Låg belastning | 4.3 / 6 / 6.4 Watt |
Hög belastning |
22.7 / 31.2 Watt |
Förklaring:
min: ,
med: ,
max: Metrahit Energy |
HP EliteBook Folio G1 V1C37EA 6Y54, HD Graphics 515, 1920x1080 | Apple MacBook 12 (Early 2016) 1.1 GHz 6Y30, HD Graphics 515, 2304x1440 | Asus Zenbook UX305CA-FB055T 6Y75, HD Graphics 515, 3200x1800 | Dell Latitude 13 7370 6Y57, HD Graphics 515, 1920x1080 | Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon 20FB-005XUS 6300U, HD Graphics 520, 1920x1080 | HP EliteBook Folio 1040 G3 6300U, HD Graphics 520, 2560x1440 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Power Consumption | 23% | -4% | -4% | -36% | -54% | |
Idle Minimum * | 4.3 | 2.7 37% | 4.2 2% | 5 -16% | 7.6 -77% | 6.3 -47% |
Idle Average * | 6 | 2.7 55% | 8.4 -40% | 7.5 -25% | 9 -50% | 9.4 -57% |
Idle Maximum * | 6.4 | 7.2 -13% | 8.9 -39% | 8 -25% | 9.6 -50% | 10.1 -58% |
Load Average * | 22.7 | 22 3% | 15.9 30% | 15.3 33% | 24.5 -8% | 33.3 -47% |
Load Maximum * | 31.2 | 20.5 34% | 22.5 28% | 26.8 14% | 30.3 3% | 49.5 -59% |
* ... smaller is better
HP EliteBook Folio G1 V1C37EA 38 Wh | Apple MacBook 12 (Early 2016) 1.1 GHz 41.4 Wh | Asus Zenbook UX305CA-FB055T 45 Wh | Dell Latitude 13 7370 34 Wh | Dell XPS 13-9350 56 Wh | Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon 20FB-005XUS 52 Wh | HP EliteBook Folio 1040 G3 45.6 Wh | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Battery Runtime | 39% | 32% | 7% | 25% | 15% | -11% | |
Reader / Idle | 526 | 1013 93% | 588 12% | 782 49% | 776 48% | 530 1% | |
H.264 | 413 | 512 24% | 418 1% | 391 -5% | 339 -18% | ||
WiFi v1.3 | 355 | 501 41% | 402 13% | 367 3% | 451 27% | 411 16% | 309 -13% |
Load | 152 | 231 52% | 182 20% | 176 16% | 150 -1% | 123 -19% | 131 -14% |
För
Emot
Vi började med att ställa oss frågan om det går använda HP Elitebook Folio G1 produktivt. Efter att ha jobbat med den i nästan två veckor kan vi svara "ja". Anledningarna är främst den allmänna prestandan, en bra skärm och och ett stort tangentbord som duger även åt högproduktiva skribenter.
En så här kompakt och passivt kyld enhet är förstås inte den perfekta lösningen för alla användare. Jämfört med större kontorsmaskiner har den begränsningar i form av få portar och säkerhetsfunktioner, samt lägre prestanda under kontinuerlig belastning. Den lilla datorn når snabbt sina gränser på grund av den passiva kylningen, även om den är fullt tillräcklig för vanliga kontorsprogram.
Allt som allt är vi mycket nöjda med helheten, men EliteBook Folio G1 är inte perfekt. Det i övrigt utmärkta chassit påverkas något av de svaga gångjärnen. Du får bara tre portar och den viktiga adaptern till USB-A ingår inte. Det finns också utrymme för förbättringar vad gäller strömförbrukningen. Att det saknas säkerhetslås kan vara en ”deal breaker” för vissa företagsköpare.
Jämförelsen med konkurrenterna är inte lätt, eftersom alla har fått bra poäng i våra tester och har liknande prislappar. Här måste man veta vad man är ute efter. Vi börjar med en jämförelse mellan de två minsta enheterna här: EliteBook Folio G1 och MacBook 12.
Om du i första hand ska använda datorn för privat bruk har MacBook 12 en bättre skärm, bättre pekplatta och längre batteritid. EliteBook Folio G1 är ett bättre produktivt verktyg med sin matta display, dockningsstation som tillval – och framför allt ett mycket bättre tangentbord. HP erbjuder också tre års garanti och har därför ett bättre pris/prestanda-förhållande.
Aktivt kylda alternativ är vanligtvis tjockare men har fler portar och bättre prestanda. Om du vill ha en enhet som är så mobil och tyst som möjligt är Folio G1 ett bra val.
HP EliteBook Folio G1 V1C37EA
- 06/09/2016 v5.1 (old)
Andreas Osthoff