Test: MageDok 15 Portable Monitor (Sammanfattning)

För mörk.

Den folkfinansierade portabla skärmen MageDok känns rejäl att ta i och har ett robust chassi. Men nästan allt förutom den faktiska skärmen är vid det här tidiga utvecklingsstadiet en besvikelse.

Allen Ngo, 👁 Allen Ngo (översatt av Daniel Eriksson), Published 09/19/2019 🇺🇸 🇩🇪 ...

Monitor Touchscreen

Lepow Type-C Portable Monitor X0025I0D4P Asus MB16AC MageDok Atlas Gaming Monitor C-Force CF015C Odake BladeX 4K UHD DIN A4 ❌

Höger: 3.5 mm hörlursanslutning, USB Typ C, mini-HDMI, USB Typ C med Power Delivery, 2x USB Typ-C OTG


151.4 cd/m²	152.3 cd/m²	144.8 cd/m²
139 cd/m²	144.9 cd/m²	147.7 cd/m²
138.3 cd/m²	143.4 cd/m²	151 cd/m²

Distribution av ljusstyrkan

tested with X-Rite i1Pro 2

Max: 152.3 cd/m² (Nits) Medel: 145.9 cd/m² Minimum: 3.21 cd/m²
Distribution av ljusstyrkan: 91 %
Kontrast: 186:1 (Svärta: 0.78 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 5.79 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.92, calibrated: 2.12
ΔE Greyscale 6.7 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
90.7% sRGB (Argyll 1.6.3 3D)
58.2% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 1.6.3 3D)
64.1% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
90.7% sRGB (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
62.1% Display P3 (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
Gamma: 1.96

Download ICC-fil (X-Rite i1Pro 2)

	MageDok Atlas Gaming Monitor 15.6", 1920x1080	C-Force CF015C 15.6", 3840x2160	Lepow Type-C Portable Monitor X0025I0D4P 15.6", 1920x1080	Asus MB16AC IPS, 15.6", 1920x1080	Asus VivoBook S15 S532F LG Philips LP156WFC-SPD1, IPS, 15.6", 1920x1080	Apple iPad Air 3 2019 IPS, 10.5", 2224x1668
Display		34%	-33%	-30%	-39%
Display P3 Coverage	62.1	86.1 39%	41.31 -33%	43.35 -30%	37.12 -40%
sRGB Coverage	90.7	99.9 10%	62.1 -32%	64.7 -29%	55.9 -38%
AdobeRGB 1998 Coverage	64.1	99 54%	42.71 -33%	44.84 -30%	38.35 -40%
Response Times		-180%	-130%	56%	-128%	-307%
Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% *	10.4 ?(6.4, 4)	32.4 ?(19.2, 13.2) -212%	30.8 ?(16.8, 14) -196%	19 ?(9, 10) -83%	24.8 ?(12.8, 12) -138%	58 ?(27.6, 30.4) -458%
Response Time Black / White *	11 ?(7.6, 3.4)	27.2 ?(17.2, 10) -147%	23.6 ?(12.4, 11.2) -115%	28 ?(15, 13) -155%	24 ?(14, 10) -118%	28 ?(10.4, 17.6) -155%
PWM Frequency	4950 ?(99)		1000 ?(23) -80%	25000 ?(25) 405%
Screen		52%	-17%	449%	16%	161%
Brightness middle	144.9	205.7 42%	193.9 34%	166 15%	262.3 81%	515 255%
Brightness	146	201 38%	192 32%	154 5%	250 71%	483 231%
Brightness Distribution	91	81 -11%	88 -3%	82 -10%	89 -2%	90 -1%
Black Level *	0.78	0.27 65%	0.75 4%	0.02 97%	0.43 45%	0.41 47%
Contrast	186	762 310%	259 39%	8300 4362%	610 228%	1256 575%
Colorchecker dE 2000 *	5.79	5.61 3%	6.66 -15%	3.51 39%	5.81 -0%	1.6 72%
Colorchecker dE 2000 max. *	8.43	10.87 -29%	18.75 -122%	10.49 -24%	14.7 -74%	4.4 48%
Colorchecker dE 2000 calibrated *	2.12		3.83 -81%		5.36 -153%
Greyscale dE 2000 *	6.7	4.1 39%	7.6 -13%	2.49 63%	2.8 58%	2.8 58%
Gamma	1.96 ^112%	2.22 ^99%	2.04 ^108%	2.38 ^92%	2.15 ^102%	2.21 ^100%
CCT	6295 ^103%	5904 ^110%	8567 ^76%	6346 ^102%	7016 ^93%	6944 ^94%
Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998)	58.2	88 51%	39.3 -32%	41 -30%	35.2 -40%
Color Space (Percent of sRGB)	90.7	100 10%	61.8 -32%	64 -29%	55.6 -39%
Total Average (Program / Settings)		-31% / 17%	-60% / -40%	158% / 285%	-50% / -12%	-73% / 67%

* ... smaller is better

Display Response Times

ℹ

Display response times show how fast the screen is able to change from one color to the next. Slow response times can lead to afterimages and can cause moving objects to appear blurry (ghosting). Gamers of fast-paced 3D titles should pay special attention to fast response times.

↔ Response Time Black to White
11 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined	↗ 7.6 ms rise
11 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined	↘ 3.4 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. » 26 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (21 ms).
↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
10.4 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined	↗ 6.4 ms rise
10.4 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined	↘ 4 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 0.165 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 21 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (32.9 ms).

Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)

ℹ

To dim the screen, some notebooks will simply cycle the backlight on and off in rapid succession - a method called Pulse Width Modulation (PWM) . This cycling frequency should ideally be undetectable to the human eye. If said frequency is too low, users with sensitive eyes may experience strain or headaches or even notice the flickering altogether.

Screen flickering / PWM detected

4950 Hz

≤ 99 % brightness setting

The display backlight flickers at 4950 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 4950 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 8746 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 343500) Hz was measured.

Hög belastning


28.4 °C	28.2 °C	29.4 °C
28.6 °C	32 °C	31 °C
34.6 °C	37 °C	39.6 °C

Max: 39.6 °C
Medel: 32.1 °C


33.4 °C	31.6 °C	32 °C
35.6 °C	33.8 °C	32.6 °C
38 °C	35.2 °C	33.8 °C

Max: 38 °C
Medel: 34 °C

Rumstemperatur 22.6 °C | Fluke 62 Mini IR Thermometer

(±) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 32.1 °C / 90 F, compared to the average of 29.7 °C / 85 F for the devices in the class Desktop.
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 39.6 °C / 103 F, compared to the average of 34.4 °C / 94 F, ranging from 25 to 47 °C for the class Desktop.
(+) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 38 °C / 100 F, compared to the average of 34 °C / 93 F

Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)

MageDok Atlas Gaming Monitor audio analysis

(-) | not very loud speakers (65.5 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(±) | reduced bass - on average 8.1% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (12.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 9% higher than median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (14.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 1.9% away from median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (12.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(-) | overall sound is not linear (45.6% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 88% of all tested devices in this class were better, 13% similar, 0% worse
» The best had a delta of 6%, average was 17%, worst was 46%
Compared to all devices tested
» 95% of all tested devices were better, 0% similar, 5% 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%

För

+ många anslutningar och USB Typ C-portar

+ täcker över 90 procent av sRGB

+ relativt snabba responstider

+ robust chassidesign

Emot

- vissa USB Typ A- och Typ C-portar klarar inte av att driva skärmen

- PWM på nästan alla ljusstyrkenivåer

- AC-adapter ingår ej

- lågt kontrastförhållande

- svaga högtalare

- svag ljusstyrka

- kraftiga reflektioner

- tung

Recension av den portabla skärmen MageDok 15. Recensionsex från MageDok

Läs den fullständiga versionen av den här recensionen på engelska här.

Från ett designperspektiv lämnar MageDok 15 ett strålande intryck. Aluminiumramen, det tjocka glaset på framsidan och den texturerade baksidan gör att skärmen känns dyrare än den faktiskt är. Den tunga enheten känns robust och är mindre benägen att böja sig än andra billiga portabla skärmar.

Men allt faller samman när man väl slår på skärmen. Bilden är en aning grynig på grund av det tjocka glaset, gråskalorna stämmer inte, ljusstyrkan är för svag, de inbyggda högtalarna är väldigt svaga och den har dålig kontrast. Snabba responstider och skapligt färgomfång är inte tillräckligt för att kompensera för de stora bristerna. För enkla uppgifter som surfande och ordbehandling fungerar MageDok okej. För mer intensiva uppgifter som spel eller redigering är det dock inte rätt skärm för jobbet.

Price comparison

Editor of the original article: Allen Ngo - Lead Editor U.S. - 5243 articles published on Notebookcheck since 2011

contact me via: @AllenNgoNBC

Please share our article, every link counts!

> Bärbara datorer, laptops - tester och nyheter > Tester > Test: MageDok 15 Portable Monitor (Sammanfattning)

Allen Ngo, 2019-09-19 (Update: 2019-09-20)