Notebookcheck

Recensione breve del Google Pixelbook Chromebook

Il Chromebook ideale. Il più costoso Chromebook a disposizione è ovviamente veloce e molto versatile. Vi dovete solo preparare a portarvi dietro gli adattatori USB Type-C.

Google Pixelbook
Processore
Intel Core i5-7Y57
Scheda grafica
Memoria
8192 MB 
Schermo
12.3 pollici 3:2, 2400x1600 pixel 235 PPI, Capacitive, IPS, lucido: si
Harddisk
,  GB 
, 128 GB SSD
Porte di connessione
2 USB 3.1 Gen 2, Connessioni Audio: 3.5 mm combo, Lettore schede: undefined
Rete
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac (a/b/g/n/ac), Bluetooth 4.2
Dimensioni
altezza x larghezza x profondità (in mm): 10 x 289 x 220
Batteria
41 Wh
Sistema Operativo
Google Chrome OS
Altre caratteristiche
Illuminazione Tastiera: si, 12 Mesi Garanzia
Peso
1.25 kg

 

Front: No connectivity
Front: No connectivity
Left: Charging status light, USB Type-C, 3.5 mm audio jack, Volume rocker, Power button
Left: Charging status light, USB Type-C, 3.5 mm audio jack, Volume rocker, Power button
Rear: No connectivity
Rear: No connectivity
Right: USB Type-C, Charging status light
Right: USB Type-C, Charging status light
Networking
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Samsung Notebook 9 NP900X3N-K01US
Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 8260
668 MBit/s ∼100% +12%
Google Pixelbook
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac
596 MBit/s ∼89%
Microsoft Surface Laptop i5
Marvell AVASTAR Wireless-AC Network Controller
534 MBit/s ∼80% -10%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Microsoft Surface Laptop i5
Marvell AVASTAR Wireless-AC Network Controller
556 MBit/s ∼100% +20%
Samsung Notebook 9 NP900X3N-K01US
Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 8260
517 MBit/s ∼93% +12%
Google Pixelbook
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac
462 MBit/s ∼83%
464.8
cd/m²
494.2
cd/m²
452.9
cd/m²
433.9
cd/m²
473.9
cd/m²
397.3
cd/m²
415.2
cd/m²
446.7
cd/m²
403.6
cd/m²
Distribuzione della luminosità
X-Rite i1Basic Pro 2
Massima: 494.2 cd/m² Media: 442.5 cd/m²
Distribuzione della luminosità: 80 %
Al centro con la batteria: 473.9 cd/m²
Contrasto: 1354:1 (Nero: 0.35 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 3.9 | - Ø
ΔE Greyscale 5.4 | - Ø
Gamma: 2.13
Google Pixelbook
IPS, 12.3, 2400x1600
Microsoft Surface Pro (2017) i7
LG Display LP123WQ112604, IPS, 12.3, 2736x1824
Microsoft Surface Laptop i5
ID: MEI96A2, Name: Panasonic VVX14T092N00, IPS, 13.5, 2256x1504
Apple MacBook Pro 13 2017
APPA033, IPS, 13.3, 2560x1600
Apple MacBook 12 (Early 2016) 1.1 GHz
APPA027, IPS, 12, 2304x1440
Response Times
889%
6%
24%
23%
Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% *
59.2 (29.6, 29.6)
37 (16, 21)
37%
50.8 (25.6, 25.2)
14%
42.8 (22.4, 20.4)
28%
41.2 (15.6, 25.6)
30%
Response Time Black / White *
36 (20, 16)
25 (13, 12)
31%
37.2 (20, 17.2)
-3%
28.8 (14.8, 14)
20%
30.4 (6.8, 23.6)
16%
PWM Frequency
819.7 (100)
22130 (55)
2600%
Screen
-2%
18%
22%
10%
Brightness
443
466
5%
378
-15%
561
27%
358
-19%
Brightness Distribution
80
92
15%
90
13%
92
15%
88
10%
Black Level *
0.35
0.395
-13%
0.36
-3%
0.45
-29%
0.47
-34%
Contrast
1354
1220
-10%
1067
-21%
1307
-3%
823
-39%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
3.9
4
-3%
1.8
54%
1.7
56%
1.6
59%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
5.4
5.7
-6%
1.2
78%
1.9
65%
1
81%
Gamma
2.13 113%
2.28 105%
2.21 109%
2.33 103%
2.26 106%
CCT
7643 85%
7950 82%
6708 97%
6738 96%
6680 97%
Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998)
62
63.7
77.92
61.6
Color Space (Percent of sRGB)
96
94.2
99.94
82.2
Media totale (Programma / Settaggio)
444% / 295%
12% / 15%
23% / 22%
17% / 13%

* ... Meglio usare valori piccoli

Tempi di risposta del Display

I tempi di risposta del display mostrano quanto sia veloce lo schermo a cambaire da un colore all'altro. Tempi di risposta lenti poccono creare sovrapposizioni negloi oggetti in movimento. Specialmente i giocatori patiti del 3D dovrebbero usare uno schermo con rempi di risposta bassi.
       Tempi di risposta dal Nero al Bianco
36 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 20 ms Incremento
↘ 16 ms Calo
Lo schermo mostra tempi di risposta lenti nei nostri tests e sarà insoddisfacente per i gamers.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.8 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 89 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (26.6 ms).
       Tempo di risposta dal 50% Grigio all'80% Grigio
59.2 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 29.6 ms Incremento
↘ 29.6 ms Calo
Lo schermo mostra tempi di risposta lenti nei nostri tests e sarà insoddisfacente per i gamers.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.9 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 94 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (42.5 ms).

Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)

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 819.7 Hz100 % brightness setting

The display backlight flickers at 819.7 Hz (Likely utilizing PWM) Flickering detected at a brightness setting of 100 % and below. There should be no flickering or PWM above this brightness setting.

The frequency of 819.7 Hz is quite high, so most users sensitive to PWM should not notice any flickering.

In comparison: 55 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 8536 (minimum: 43 - maximum: 142900) Hz was measured.

JetStream 1.1 - 1.1 Total Score
Apple iPhone 8 Plus
223.5 Points ∼100% +54%
Microsoft Surface Pro (2017) i5
219 Points ∼98% +51%
Microsoft Surface Laptop i5
176.95 Points ∼79% +22%
Lenovo ThinkPad 13 Chromebook
173.25 Points ∼78% +20%
Microsoft Surface Pro (2017)
172.36 Points ∼77% +19%
HP Chromebook 13 G1 Core m5
164.01 Points ∼73% +13%
Google Pixelbook
144.78 Points ∼65%
Acer Chromebook 14 CP5-471-53QV
142.28 Points ∼64% -2%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
69.57 Points ∼31% -52%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
56.63 Points ∼25% -61%
Google Pixel XL 2016
55.4 Points ∼25% -62%
Sunspider
1.0 Total Score
Acer Chromebook 14 CP5-471-53QV
298.2 ms * ∼100% -11%
Google Pixelbook
268.1 ms * ∼90%
HP Chromebook 13 G1 Core m5
228.8 ms * ∼77% +15%
Lenovo ThinkPad 13 Chromebook
213 ms * ∼71% +21%
Microsoft Surface Laptop i5
121.6 ms * ∼41% +55%
0.9.1 Total Score
Google Chromebook Pixel
225.2 ms * ∼100%
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
3590.6 ms * ∼100% -209%
Google Pixel XL 2016
2653.6 ms * ∼74% -128%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
1876.8 ms * ∼52% -61%
Microsoft Surface Pro (2017)
1428 ms * ∼40% -23%
Acer Chromebook 14 CP5-471-53QV
1240 ms * ∼35% -7%
Google Pixelbook
1163.3 ms * ∼32%
HP Chromebook 13 G1 Core m5
1055.9 ms * ∼29% +9%
Lenovo ThinkPad 13 Chromebook
1007 ms * ∼28% +13%
Apple iPhone 8 Plus
719.7 ms * ∼20% +38%
Octane V2 - Total Score
Apple iPhone 8 Plus
35209 Points ∼100% +9%
Microsoft Surface Pro (2017) i5
33186 Points ∼94% +3%
Google Pixelbook
32334 Points ∼92%
Lenovo ThinkPad 13 Chromebook
29435 Points ∼84% -9%
HP Chromebook 13 G1 Core m5
28478 Points ∼81% -12%
Acer Chromebook 14 CP5-471-53QV
27414 Points ∼78% -15%
Microsoft Surface Pro (2017)
23605 Points ∼67% -27%
Microsoft Surface Laptop i5
23138 Points ∼66% -28%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
13265 Points ∼38% -59%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
10406 Points ∼30% -68%
Google Pixel XL 2016
8690 Points ∼25% -73%
WebXPRT 2015 - Overall Score
Google Pixelbook
441 Points ∼100%
Acer Chromebook 14 CP5-471-53QV
373 Points ∼85% -15%
Apple iPhone 8 Plus
362 Points ∼82% -18%
Lenovo ThinkPad 13 Chromebook
359 Points ∼81% -19%
HP Chromebook 13 G1 Core m5
347 Points ∼79% -21%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
159 Points ∼36% -64%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
158 Points ∼36% -64%
Google Pixel XL 2016
126 Points ∼29% -71%

Legenda

 
Google Pixelbook Intel Core i5-7Y57, Intel HD Graphics 615,
 
Acer Chromebook 14 CP5-471-53QV Intel Core i5-6200U, Intel HD Graphics 520, 32 GB eMMC Flash
 
Lenovo ThinkPad 13 Chromebook Intel Core i5-6300U, Intel HD Graphics 520, 32 GB eMMC Flash
 
HP Chromebook 13 G1 Core m5 Intel Core m5-6Y57, Intel HD Graphics 515,
 
Google Chromebook Pixel Intel Core i5-3427U, Intel HD Graphics 4000, 32 GB SSD
 
Samsung Galaxy Note 8 Samsung Exynos 8895 Octa, ARM Mali-G71 MP20, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
 
Huawei Mate 10 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 970, ARM Mali-G72 MP12, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
 
Apple iPhone 8 Plus Apple A11 Bionic, Apple A11 Bionic GPU, Apple 256 GB (iPhone 8 / Plus)
 
Microsoft Surface Pro (2017) Intel Core m3-7Y30, Intel HD Graphics 615, Samsung PM971 KUS020203M
 
Microsoft Surface Pro (2017) i5 Intel Core i5-7300U, Intel HD Graphics 620, Samsung PM971 KUS030202M
 
Microsoft Surface Laptop i5 Intel Core i5-7200U, Intel HD Graphics 620, Toshiba THNSN0128GTYA
 
Google Pixel XL 2016 Qualcomm Snapdragon 821 MSM8996 Pro, Qualcomm Adreno 530, 32 GB eMMC Flash

* ... Meglio usare valori piccoli

AnTuTu Benchmark v6 - Total Score
Google Pixelbook
180866 Points ∼100%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
177341 Points ∼98% -2%
OnePlus 5
177156 Points ∼98% -2%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
173997 Points ∼96% -4%
Sony Xperia XZ Premium
173403 Points ∼96% -4%
Samsung Galaxy S8
171884 Points ∼95% -5%
Honor 8 Pro
146044 Points ∼81% -19%
HTC U Ultra
139017 Points ∼77% -23%
PCMark for Android
Work 2.0 battery life
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
596 min ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy S8
527 min ∼88%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
495 min ∼83%
Computer Vision score
Google Pixelbook
6046 Points ∼100%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
4617 Points ∼76% -24%
Samsung Galaxy S8
2730 Points ∼45% -55%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
2683 Points ∼44% -56%
Storage score
Google Pixelbook
15296 Points ∼100%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
14687 Points ∼96% -4%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
4520 Points ∼30% -70%
Samsung Galaxy S8
4420 Points ∼29% -71%
Work 2.0 performance score
Google Pixelbook
10309 Points ∼100%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
6932 Points ∼67% -33%
OnePlus 5
6579 Points ∼64% -36%
Sony Xperia XZ Premium
6433 Points ∼62% -38%
Honor 8 Pro
6134 Points ∼60% -40%
Samsung Galaxy S8
5370 Points ∼52% -48%
HTC U Ultra
5217 Points ∼51% -49%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
5096 Points ∼49% -51%
Work performance score
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
8439 Points ∼100%
OnePlus 5
7826 Points ∼93%
Sony Xperia XZ Premium
7695 Points ∼91%
Honor 8 Pro
7356 Points ∼87%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
6084 Points ∼72%
Samsung Galaxy S8
6035 Points ∼72%
HTC U Ultra
5217 Points ∼62%
BaseMark OS II
Web
Google Pixelbook
1696 Points ∼100%
OnePlus 5
1287 Points ∼76% -24%
Sony Xperia XZ Premium
1239 Points ∼73% -27%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
1235 Points ∼73% -27%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
1234 Points ∼73% -27%
Samsung Galaxy S8
1156 Points ∼68% -32%
Honor 8 Pro
1131 Points ∼67% -33%
HTC U Ultra
907 Points ∼53% -47%
Graphics
OnePlus 5
6144 Points ∼100% +9%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
6121 Points ∼100% +9%
Samsung Galaxy S8
6096 Points ∼99% +8%
Sony Xperia XZ Premium
6045 Points ∼98% +7%
Google Pixelbook
5636 Points ∼92%
HTC U Ultra
4591 Points ∼75% -19%
Honor 8 Pro
4070 Points ∼66% -28%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
3657 Points ∼60% -35%
Memory
OnePlus 5
4423 Points ∼100% +153%
Honor 8 Pro
4277 Points ∼97% +144%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
4142 Points ∼94% +137%
Sony Xperia XZ Premium
3444 Points ∼78% +97%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
3095 Points ∼70% +77%
Samsung Galaxy S8
3039 Points ∼69% +74%
Google Pixelbook
1750 Points ∼40%
HTC U Ultra
1581 Points ∼36% -10%
System
OnePlus 5
5902 Points ∼100% +26%
Sony Xperia XZ Premium
5857 Points ∼99% +25%
Samsung Galaxy S8
5386 Points ∼91% +15%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
5308 Points ∼90% +14%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
5244 Points ∼89% +12%
Google Pixelbook
4667 Points ∼79%
Honor 8 Pro
4029 Points ∼68% -14%
HTC U Ultra
2834 Points ∼48% -39%
Overall
OnePlus 5
3790 Points ∼100% +28%
Sony Xperia XZ Premium
3506 Points ∼93% +18%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
3338 Points ∼88% +12%
Samsung Galaxy S8
3277 Points ∼86% +10%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
3147 Points ∼83% +6%
Honor 8 Pro
2985 Points ∼79% 0%
Google Pixelbook
2972 Points ∼78%
HTC U Ultra
2078 Points ∼55% -30%
Geekbench 4.1
Compute RenderScript Score
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
8572 Points ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy S8
8490 Points ∼99%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
8310 Points ∼97%
OnePlus 5
8005 Points ∼93%
Sony Xperia XZ Premium
7881 Points ∼92%
64 Bit Multi-Core Score
Google Pixelbook
7480 Points ∼100%
OnePlus 5
6799 Points ∼91% -9%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
6792 Points ∼91% -9%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
6744 Points ∼90% -10%
Samsung Galaxy S8
6711 Points ∼90% -10%
Sony Xperia XZ Premium
6491 Points ∼87% -13%
Honor 8 Pro
6245 Points ∼83% -17%
64 Bit Single-Core Score
Google Pixelbook
4073 Points ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
2028 Points ∼50% -50%
Samsung Galaxy S8
1997 Points ∼49% -51%
OnePlus 5
1973 Points ∼48% -52%
Sony Xperia XZ Premium
1904 Points ∼47% -53%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
1898 Points ∼47% -53%
Honor 8 Pro
1853 Points ∼45% -55%
3DMark
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Physics
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
3002 Points ∼100%
OnePlus 5
2963 Points ∼99%
Samsung Galaxy S8
2479 Points ∼83%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
2417 Points ∼81%
Honor 8 Pro
2018 Points ∼67%
HTC U Ultra
1837 Points ∼61%
Sony Xperia XZ Premium
1520 Points ∼51%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Graphics
OnePlus 5
4151 Points ∼100%
Sony Xperia XZ Premium
3837 Points ∼92%
Samsung Galaxy S8
3584 Points ∼86%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
3034 Points ∼73%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
2723 Points ∼66%
HTC U Ultra
2678 Points ∼65%
Honor 8 Pro
1511 Points ∼36%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited
OnePlus 5
3811 Points ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy S8
3261 Points ∼86%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
3027 Points ∼79%
Sony Xperia XZ Premium
2866 Points ∼75%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
2648 Points ∼69%
HTC U Ultra
2431 Points ∼64%
Honor 8 Pro
1600 Points ∼42%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Physics
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
2983 Points ∼100%
OnePlus 5
2960 Points ∼99%
Samsung Galaxy S8
2454 Points ∼82%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
2410 Points ∼81%
Honor 8 Pro
2110 Points ∼71%
HTC U Ultra
1666 Points ∼56%
Sony Xperia XZ Premium
1631 Points ∼55%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Graphics
Sony Xperia XZ Premium
5454 Points ∼100%
OnePlus 5
5077 Points ∼93%
Samsung Galaxy S8
4908 Points ∼90%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
3896 Points ∼71%
HTC U Ultra
3795 Points ∼70%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
3306 Points ∼61%
Honor 8 Pro
1848 Points ∼34%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited
OnePlus 5
4381 Points ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy S8
4016 Points ∼92%
Sony Xperia XZ Premium
3586 Points ∼82%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
3426 Points ∼78%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
3228 Points ∼74%
HTC U Ultra
3001 Points ∼69%
Honor 8 Pro
1900 Points ∼43%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Physics
OnePlus 5
3026 Points ∼100%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
2871 Points ∼95%
Samsung Galaxy S8
2494 Points ∼82%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
2346 Points ∼78%
Honor 8 Pro
2216 Points ∼73%
HTC U Ultra
1763 Points ∼58%
Sony Xperia XZ Premium
1628 Points ∼54%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Graphics
OnePlus 5
3757 Points ∼100%
Sony Xperia XZ Premium
3723 Points ∼99%
Samsung Galaxy S8
3472 Points ∼92%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
2844 Points ∼76%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
2661 Points ∼71%
HTC U Ultra
2405 Points ∼64%
Honor 8 Pro
1746 Points ∼46%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1)
OnePlus 5
3566 Points ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy S8
3194 Points ∼90%
Sony Xperia XZ Premium
2895 Points ∼81%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
2850 Points ∼80%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
2584 Points ∼72%
HTC U Ultra
2225 Points ∼62%
Honor 8 Pro
1832 Points ∼51%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics
OnePlus 5
3012 Points ∼100% +22%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
2896 Points ∼96% +18%
Google Pixelbook
2464 Points ∼82%
Samsung Galaxy S8
2440 Points ∼81% -1%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
2342 Points ∼78% -5%
Honor 8 Pro
1896 Points ∼63% -23%
HTC U Ultra
1646 Points ∼55% -33%
Sony Xperia XZ Premium
1574 Points ∼52% -36%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics
Sony Xperia XZ Premium
5107 Points ∼100% +17%
Samsung Galaxy S8
4923 Points ∼96% +12%
OnePlus 5
4765 Points ∼93% +9%
Google Pixelbook
4380 Points ∼86%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
3928 Points ∼77% -10%
HTC U Ultra
3807 Points ∼75% -13%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
3353 Points ∼66% -23%
Honor 8 Pro
1856 Points ∼36% -58%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0
OnePlus 5
4219 Points ∼100% +13%
Samsung Galaxy S8
4015 Points ∼95% +7%
Google Pixelbook
3735 Points ∼89%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
3414 Points ∼81% -9%
Sony Xperia XZ Premium
3407 Points ∼81% -9%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
3239 Points ∼77% -13%
HTC U Ultra
2947 Points ∼70% -21%
Honor 8 Pro
1865 Points ∼44% -50%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Physics
Google Pixelbook
39302 Points ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
22829 Points ∼58% -42%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
22629 Points ∼58% -42%
Samsung Galaxy S8
21543 Points ∼55% -45%
HTC U Ultra
21263 Points ∼54% -46%
OnePlus 5
19411 Points ∼49% -51%
Honor 8 Pro
15129 Points ∼38% -62%
Sony Xperia XZ Premium
13800 Points ∼35% -65%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Graphics Score
Google Pixelbook
62585 Points ∼100%
OnePlus 5
58001 Points ∼93% -7%
Sony Xperia XZ Premium
52358 Points ∼84% -16%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
36807 Points ∼59% -41%
Samsung Galaxy S8
36347 Points ∼58% -42%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
34008 Points ∼54% -46%
HTC U Ultra
33446 Points ∼53% -47%
Honor 8 Pro
32243 Points ∼52% -48%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Score
Google Pixelbook
55304 Points ∼100%
OnePlus 5
40229 Points ∼73% -27%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
32399 Points ∼59% -41%
Sony Xperia XZ Premium
32302 Points ∼58% -42%
Samsung Galaxy S8
31532 Points ∼57% -43%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
30590 Points ∼55% -45%
HTC U Ultra
29668 Points ∼54% -46%
Honor 8 Pro
25766 Points ∼47% -53%
Lightmark - 1920x1080 1080p
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
30.86 fps ∼100% +58%
Samsung Galaxy S8
30.64 fps ∼99% +57%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
21.49 fps ∼70% +10%
Google Pixelbook
19.56 fps ∼63%
Basemark X 1.1
High Quality
Samsung Galaxy S8
42183 Points ∼100% +25%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
41022 Points ∼97% +22%
Google Pixelbook
33662 Points ∼80%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
25922 Points ∼61% -23%
Medium Quality
Samsung Galaxy S8
43852 Points ∼100% +2%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
43464 Points ∼99% +1%
Google Pixelbook
42892 Points ∼98%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
39033 Points ∼89% -9%
Google Pixelbook
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
Google Pixel XL 2016
32 GB eMMC Flash
OnePlus 5
64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
AndroBench 3-5
247%
540%
77%
261%
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard
59.27
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard
67.87
Random Write 4KB
12.6
14.55
15%
164.45
1205%
14.56
16%
19.3
53%
Random Read 4KB
28.87
122.48
324%
132.27
358%
87.67
204%
141
388%
Sequential Write 256KB
112.07
205.85
84%
208.72
86%
83.38
-26%
201.5
80%
Sequential Read 256KB
120.26
796.96
563%
732.46
509%
258.23
115%
748
522%

Rumorosità

Idle
/ / dB(A)
Sotto carico
/ dB(A)
 
 
 
30 dB
silenzioso
40 dB(A)
udibile
50 dB(A)
rumoroso
 
min: dark, med: mid, max: light   Audix TM1, Arta (15 cm di distanza)
Google Pixelbook
HD Graphics 615, 7Y57
Microsoft Surface Pro (2017) i7
Iris Plus Graphics 640, 7660U, Samsung PM971 KUS040202M
Microsoft Surface Laptop i5
HD Graphics 620, 7200U, Toshiba THNSN0128GTYA
Apple MacBook Pro 13 2017
Iris Plus Graphics 640, 7360U, Apple SSD AP0128
Huawei MateBook X
HD Graphics 620, 7200U, LITEON CB1-SD256
Samsung Notebook 9 NP900X3N-K01US
HD Graphics 620, 7200U, Samsung CM871a MZNTY256HDHP
Noise
off / environment *
29.6
28.2
30.2
28.4
Idle Minimum *
29.6
28.2
30.2
28.4
Idle Average *
29.6
28.2
30.2
28.4
Idle Maximum *
29.6
29
30.2
28.4
Load Average *
33.4
30.3
32.9
33.2
Load Maximum *
34.1
39.3
39.3
35.2
Witcher 3 ultra *
33.4

* ... Meglio usare valori piccoli

Carico massimo
 33.2 °C38.8 °C35 °C 
 29.4 °C31.2 °C29.8 °C 
 28 °C27.2 °C28.8 °C 
Massima: 38.8 °C
Media: 31.3 °C
34.2 °C38 °C33.2 °C
32 °C32.8 °C31.4 °C
30.2 °C29.8 °C29.6 °C
Massima: 38 °C
Media: 32.4 °C
Alimentazione (max)  31.8 °C | Temperatura della stanza 20.2 °C | Fluke 62 Mini IR Thermometer
dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2034.639.52535.134.7313433.54031.932.1503233.56330.334.38029.130.810029.133.612528.238.416027.942.120027.244.625026.649.531525.453.940024.952.950024.455.263023.960.180023.863.8100023.560.7125023.168.7160022.970.2200022.769.1250022.570.2315022.568.3400022.268.7500022.166.6630022.267.6800022.361.31000022.258.91250022.3621600022.350.4SPL35.179.3N2.442.6median 23.1Google Pixelbookmedian 60.7Delta1.78.635.335.132.931.831.83236.535.132.428.93328.936.328.848.32761.52752.924.860.92462.822.763.32269.521.267.82174.82075.919.472.718.97117.770.117.86917.671.817.668.117.671.417.673.717.670.417.571.617.671.617.669.617.459.717.583.630.662.51.5median 69.6Apple MacBook 12 (Early 2016) 1.1 GHzmedian 17.84.62.4hearing rangehide median Pink Noise
Google Pixelbook audio analysis

(-) | not very loud speakers (70.71 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 17.1% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 5.4% higher than median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (8.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 5.7% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (5.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (22.7% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 55% of all tested devices in this class were better, 7% similar, 38% worse
» The best had a delta of 11%, average was 23%, worst was 53%
Compared to all devices tested
» 56% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 37% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

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 (9.3% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 1% of all tested devices in this class were better, 1% similar, 97% worse
» The best had a delta of 9%, average was 19%, worst was 41%
Compared to all devices tested
» 2% of all tested devices were better, 0% similar, 98% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Consumo di corrente
Off / Standbydarklight 0 / 0 Watt
Idledarkmidlight 0 / 0 / 0 Watt
Sotto carico midlight 0 / 0 Watt
 color bar
Leggenda: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        Metrahit Energy
Google Pixelbook
7Y57, HD Graphics 615, , IPS, 2400x1600, 12.3
Microsoft Surface Pro (2017) i7
7660U, Iris Plus Graphics 640, Samsung PM971 KUS040202M, IPS, 2736x1824, 12.3
Microsoft Surface Laptop i5
7200U, HD Graphics 620, Toshiba THNSN0128GTYA, IPS, 2256x1504, 13.5
Apple MacBook Pro 13 2017
7360U, Iris Plus Graphics 640, Apple SSD AP0128, IPS, 2560x1600, 13.3
Apple MacBook 12 2017
7Y32, HD Graphics 615, Apple SSD AP0256, LED IPS, 2304x1440, 12
Samsung Notebook 9 NP900X3N-K01US
7200U, HD Graphics 620, Samsung CM871a MZNTY256HDHP, IPS, 1920x1080, 13.3
Power Consumption
Idle Minimum *
4.2
3.2
3.7
2
3.8
Idle Average *
10.1
6.5
5.2
5.4
11
Idle Maximum *
14
6.8
7.6
6.6
11.3
Load Average *
37.4
28.2
41.6
22
35.6
Load Maximum *
34
36
50.5
20
37.2
Witcher 3 ultra *
38.1

* ... Meglio usare valori piccoli

Autonomia della batteria
Idle (senza WLAN, min luminosità)
23ore 45minuti
Navigazione WiFi v1.3
13ore 55minuti
Sotto carico (max luminosità)
3ore 02minuti
Google Pixelbook
7Y57, HD Graphics 615, 41 Wh
Microsoft Surface Pro (2017) i7
7660U, Iris Plus Graphics 640, 45 Wh
Microsoft Surface Laptop i5
7200U, HD Graphics 620, 45 Wh
Apple MacBook Pro 13 2017
7360U, Iris Plus Graphics 640, 54.5 Wh
Samsung Notebook 9 NP900X3N-K01US
7200U, HD Graphics 620, 30 Wh
Apple MacBook 12 2017
7Y32, HD Graphics 615, 41.4 Wh
Autonomia della batteria
-40%
-22%
-38%
-62%
-35%
Reader / Idle
1425
1351
-5%
695
-51%
WiFi v1.3
835
489
-41%
602
-28%
681
-18%
279
-67%
540
-35%
Load
182
112
-38%
124
-32%
78
-57%
60
-67%
Witcher 3 ultra
115

Pro

+ costruzione eccellente; design unicp
+ cover e chassis rigidi, nessuno scricchiolio
+ processore fan-less ULV Core ix
+ molto leggero e compatto
+ cerniere salde senza oscillazioni
+ supporto per apps Play Store
+ vigoroso feedback tattile dei tasti
+ formato full frame 3:2
+ porte dual USB Type-C
+ ampia autonomia

Contro

- colori e scala di grigi inferiori rispetto a MacBook Pro, Surface Laptop
- strano comportamento dei consumi; problemi con WLAN intermittente
- Play Store in modalità fullscreen non perfetto
- tastiera e clickpad rumorosi
- manca una USB Type-A ed un SD card reader
- nessun adattatore incluso
- nessun processore 15 W ULV Core ix
- tempi di risposta del display medi
- PWM con tutti i livelli di luminosità
- WWAN o NFC non integrati
- leggero rumore elettronico
- interni inaccessibili
- qualità fotocamera granulosa
- base spessa
- SSD lento
- costoso
Recensione: Google Pixelbook
Recensione: Google Pixelbook

Non possiamo negare che il Pixelbook si eccellente da usare e tenere tra le mani. Lo chassis si colloca tra quanto di meglio Lenovo, HP, e Dell possano offrire in un subnotebook convertibile leggero ma restando solido e robusto. Potrebbe quasi competere con i principali Ultrabook nel caso in cui dovessimo vedere un  PixelbookWindows-based.

Oossiamo definire il Pixelbook il miglior Chromebook a disposizione? Sebbene sia veloce e molto costoso, il Pixelbook acrifica punti chiave rispetto ai Chromebooks da $300 USD per mantenere le sue dimensioni ridotte. Partiamo con l'assenza di USB Type-A e lettore SD card che sicuramente daranno fastidio specialmente su una macchina portatile dove la connettività dovrebbe essere sempre disponibile. L'HP Chromebook 13 G1 include entrambe queste funzioni oltre ad avere un processore più veloce e le stesse porte dual USB Type-C per circa $300 USD in meno. In aggiunta, l'HP ed il Chromebooks entry-level hanno una più semplice possibilità di manutenzione rispetto alla natura del Pixelbook, che i fanatici e quelli del settore IT apprezzeranno.

Altri piccoli dettagli intaccano ciò che per il resto è eccellente. Il display non è calibrato come sul Surface Pro o sul MacBook Pro e i tempi di risposta più alti nero-bianco e grigio-grigio a volte si notano molto durante la navigazione web in modalità tablet. L'SSD da 128 GB è superato dagli SSDs standard SATA III e la rumorosità della tastiera si nota parecchio se siete in classe o in biblioteca.

Il Pixelbook è ideale per coloro che vogliono un Chromebook duraturo, autosufficiente e comodo da portare in giro, anche come tablet per applicazioni dell'Android Play Store. Se questi aspetti non vi tentano, allora un Chromebook più economico come il Lenovo ThinkPad 13 o un Asus Chromebook Flip con supporto Play Store possono essere più adatti ed offrono una gamma di porte più ampia.

Il Pixelbook è sottile e robusto, al costo di avere meno features integrate. Il suo peso contenuto, l'aspetto deciso, e la versatile modalità 2-in-1 sono limitati dalle opzioni di connessione e dal display che non è molto preciso rispetto ai migliori Microsoft o Apple con maggiore effetto ghosting e flickering.

Nota: si tratta di una recensione breve, con alcune sezioni non tradotte, per la versione integrale in inglese guardate qui.

 

 

Google Pixelbook - 11/10/2017 v6
Allen Ngo

Chassis
90 / 98 → 91%
Tastiera
87%
Dispositivo di puntamento
92%
Connettività
31 / 80 → 39%
Peso
72 / 78 → 86%
Batteria
97%
Display
85%
Prestazioni di gioco
68 / 68 → 100%
Prestazioni Applicazioni
69 / 87 → 79%
Temperatura
93%
Rumorosità
95%
Audio
30 / 91 → 33%
Fotocamera
38 / 85 → 44%
Media
73%
86%
Convertible - Media ponderata

Pricecompare

Please share our article, every link counts!
> Recensioni e prove de portatili e telefoni cellulari > Recensioni e prove > Recensioni e prove > Recensione breve del Google Pixelbook Chromebook
Allen Ngo, 2017-11-13 (Update: 2017-11-13)