Deutsch
English
Français
Italiano
Nederlands
Polski
Português
Русский
Türkçe
Svenska
Chinese
MagyarBreve análisis del subportátil HP EliteBook 725 G3
| SD Card Reader | |
| average JPG Copy Test (av. of 3 runs) | |
| HP EliteBook 820 G3 | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad X260-20F60041GE | |
| HP EliteBook 725 G3-P4T48EA | |
| maximum AS SSD Seq Read Test (1GB) | |
| Dell Latitude 12 E5270 | |
| HP EliteBook 820 G3 | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad X260-20F60041GE | |
| HP EliteBook 725 G3-P4T48EA | |
| Networking | |
| 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 | |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
iluminación: 83 %
Brillo con batería: 239 cd/m²
Contraste: 446:1 (Negro: 0.54 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 8.04 | 0.5-29.43 Ø5
ΔE Greyscale 9.52 | 0.57-98 Ø5.3
71.12% sRGB (Argyll 1.6.3 3D)
45.03% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 1.6.3 3D)
48.71% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
71% sRGB (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
47.15% Display P3 (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
Gamma: 2.42
| HP EliteBook 725 G3-P4T48EA TN LED, 1366x768 | HP EliteBook 725 G2 TN-Panel, 1366x768 | Dell Latitude 12 E5270 TN, 1366x768 | Lenovo ThinkPad X260-20F60041GE IPS, 1366x768 | Toshiba Portege Z30-C-125 IPS, 1920x1080 | HP EliteBook 820 G3 TN LED, 1366x768 | Apple MacBook 12 (Early 2016) 1.1 GHz IPS, 2304x1440 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Display | -14% | -17% | 2% | 46% | -17% | 39% | |
| Display P3 Coverage | 47.15 | 40.56 -14% | 39.06 -17% | 48.19 2% | 72.3 53% | 38.9 -17% | 66.8 42% |
| sRGB Coverage | 71 | 61 -14% | 58.7 -17% | 72.6 2% | 93.8 32% | 58.5 -18% | 95.4 34% |
| AdobeRGB 1998 Coverage | 48.71 | 41.92 -14% | 40.36 -17% | 49.79 2% | 73.8 52% | 40.2 -17% | 68 40% |
| Response Times | 5% | 1% | -19% | -5% | |||
| Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% * | 50 ? | 45.2 ? 10% | 42.8 ? 14% | 58 ? -16% | 41.2 ? 18% | ||
| Response Time Black / White * | 24 ? | 24 ? -0% | 27.2 ? -13% | 29.2 ? -22% | 30.4 ? -27% | ||
| PWM Frequency | 1000 ? | 220 ? | |||||
| Screen | -30% | -11% | 42% | 63% | -8% | 51% | |
| Brightness middle | 241 | 188 -22% | 161 -33% | 262 9% | 367.1 52% | 244 1% | 387 61% |
| Brightness | 240 | 186 -22% | 152 -37% | 251 5% | 341 42% | 240 0% | 358 49% |
| Brightness Distribution | 83 | 91 10% | 90 8% | 88 6% | 85 2% | 84 1% | 88 6% |
| Black Level * | 0.54 | 0.86 -59% | 0.29 46% | 0.26 52% | 0.3 44% | 0.6 -11% | 0.47 13% |
| Contrast | 446 | 219 -51% | 555 24% | 1008 126% | 1224 174% | 407 -9% | 823 85% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 8.04 | 12.31 -53% | 10.31 -28% | 3.55 56% | 9 -12% | 1.6 80% | |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 13.9 | 18.58 -34% | 5.85 58% | 15.73 -13% | 4 71% | ||
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 9.52 | 12.56 -32% | 11.3 -19% | 3.36 65% | 9.48 -0% | 1 89% | |
| Gamma | 2.42 91% | 1.86 118% | 2.57 86% | 2.39 92% | 2.44 90% | 2.26 97% | |
| CCT | 11362 57% | 12047 54% | 13574 48% | 5985 109% | 11116 58% | 6680 97% | |
| Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998) | 45.03 | 38.6 -14% | 37.32 -17% | 45.9 2% | 37.18 -17% | 61.6 37% | |
| Color Space (Percent of sRGB) | 71.12 | 58.82 -17% | 58.63 -18% | 82.2 16% | |||
| Media total (Programa/Opciones) | -22% /
-26% | -8% /
-10% | 15% /
28% | 55% /
56% | -15% /
-11% | 28% /
41% |
* ... más pequeño es mejor
Parpadeo de Pantalla / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
| Parpadeo de Pantalla / PWM no detectado | ||
Comparación: 53 % de todos los dispositivos testados no usaron PWM para atenuar el display. Si se usó, medimos una media de 17933 (mínimo: 5 - máxmo: 3846000) Hz. | ||
Tiempos de respuesta del display
| ↔ Tiempo de respuesta de Negro a Blanco | ||
|---|---|---|
| 24 ms ... subida ↗ y bajada ↘ combinada | ↗ 20 ms subida |  |
| ↘ 4 ms bajada | ||
| La pantalla mostró buenos tiempos de respuesta en nuestros tests pero podría ser demasiado lenta para los jugones competitivos. En comparación, todos los dispositivos de prueba van de ##min### (mínimo) a 240 (máximo) ms. » 48 % de todos los dispositivos son mejores. Eso quiere decir que el tiempo de respuesta es peor que la media (21.5 ms) de todos los dispositivos testados. | ||
| ↔ Tiempo de respuesta 50% Gris a 80% Gris | ||
| 50 ms ... subida ↗ y bajada ↘ combinada | ↗ 27 ms subida |  |
| ↘ 23 ms bajada | ||
| La pantalla mostró tiempos de respuesta lentos en nuestros tests y podría ser demasiado lenta para los jugones. En comparación, todos los dispositivos de prueba van de ##min### (mínimo) a 636 (máximo) ms. » 84 % de todos los dispositivos son mejores. Eso quiere decir que el tiempo de respuesta es peor que la media (33.8 ms) de todos los dispositivos testados. | ||
* ... más pequeño es mejor
| PCMark 7 Score | 2331 puntos | |
| PCMark 8 Home Score Accelerated v2 | 2706 puntos | |
| PCMark 8 Creative Score Accelerated v2 | 2710 puntos | |
| PCMark 8 Work Score Accelerated v2 | 3691 puntos | |
ayuda | ||
| PCMark 7 - Score | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad X260-20F60041GE | |
| Dell Latitude 12 E5270 | |
| HP EliteBook 725 G3-P4T48EA | |
| HP EliteBook 725 G2 | |
| HP EliteBook 725 G3-P4T48EA Hitachi Travelstar Z7K500 HTS725050A7E630 | HP EliteBook 725 G2 Hitachi Travelstar Z7K500 HTS725050A7E630 | Dell Latitude 12 E5270 Seagate ST500LM021-1KJ15 | Lenovo ThinkPad X260-20F60041GE Seagate ST500LM000 Solid State Hybrid Drive | HP EliteBook 820 G3 Samsung SM951 MZVPV256HDGL m.2 PCI-e | Apple MacBook 12 (Early 2016) 1.1 GHz Apple SSD AP0256 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CrystalDiskMark 3.0 | -11% | -26% | 18% | 13315% | 9582% | |
| Read Seq | 125.3 | 116.8 -7% | 113.8 -9% | 107.9 -14% | 1255 902% | 754 502% |
| Write Seq | 124.3 | 115.6 -7% | 108.5 -13% | 110.2 -11% | 1240 898% | 638 413% |
| Read 512 | 40.95 | 39.14 -4% | 24.9 -39% | 36.26 -11% | 1131 2662% | 616 1404% |
| Write 512 | 57.6 | 49.61 -14% | 51.9 -10% | 77.1 34% | 811 1308% | 678 1077% |
| Read 4k | 0.495 | 0.453 -8% | 0.398 -20% | 0.497 0% | 51 10203% | 14.6 2849% |
| Write 4k | 1.13 | 0.947 -16% | 0.654 -42% | 3.136 178% | 134.1 11767% | 20.5 1714% |
| Read 4k QD32 | 1.129 | 1.019 -10% | 0.798 -29% | 1.155 2% | 549 48527% | 464 40998% |
| Write 4k QD32 | 1.133 | 0.931 -18% | 0.636 -44% | 0.766 -32% | 343.9 30253% | 315 27702% |
| 3DMark 06 Standard Score | 5207 puntos | |
| 3DMark 11 Performance | 1424 puntos | |
| 3DMark Ice Storm Standard Score | 34816 puntos | |
| 3DMark Cloud Gate Standard Score | 3524 puntos | |
| 3DMark Fire Strike Score | 690 puntos | |
| 3DMark Time Spy Score | 300 puntos | |
ayuda | ||
| 3DMark 11 - 1280x720 Performance GPU | |
| HP EliteBook 725 G3-P4T48EA | |
| HP EliteBook 725 G3-P4T48EA | |
| Dell Latitude 12 E5270 | |
| HP EliteBook 820 G3 | |
| Toshiba Portege Z30-C-125 | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad X260-20F60041GE | |
| Apple MacBook 12 (Early 2016) 1.1 GHz | |
| HP EliteBook 725 G2 | |
| 3DMark | |
| 1280x720 Cloud Gate Standard Graphics | |
| Dell Latitude 12 E5270 | |
| Toshiba Portege Z30-C-125 | |
| HP EliteBook 820 G3 | |
| Apple MacBook 12 (Early 2016) 1.1 GHz | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad X260-20F60041GE | |
| HP EliteBook 725 G3-P4T48EA | |
| HP EliteBook 725 G2 | |
| 1920x1080 Fire Strike Graphics | |
| HP EliteBook 725 G3-P4T48EA | |
| HP EliteBook 725 G3-P4T48EA | |
| Dell Latitude 12 E5270 | |
| HP EliteBook 820 G3 | |
| Apple MacBook 12 (Early 2016) 1.1 GHz | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad X260-20F60041GE | |
| Toshiba Portege Z30-C-125 | |
| HP EliteBook 725 G2 | |
| bajo | medio | alto | ultra | |
| Tomb Raider (2013) | 49.5 | 25.2 | 18.5 | |
| BioShock Infinite (2013) | 42.7 | 24.1 | 19.4 | |
| Battlefield 4 (2013) | 21.7 | 14.4 | 8.4 | |
| Far Cry Primal (2016) | 10 | 7 | ||
| The Division (2016) | 12.3 | 7.5 | ||
| Hitman 2016 (2016) | 6.1 | 3.9 | ||
| Need for Speed 2016 (2016) | 11.1 | 10.4 | ||
| Mirror's Edge Catalyst (2016) | 6 | 2.3 |
Ruido
| Ocioso |
| 30.5 / 30.5 / 30.5 dB(A) |
| HDD |
| 30.9 dB(A) |
| Carga |
| 38.2 / 38.4 dB(A) |
 | ||
30 dB silencioso 40 dB(A) audible 50 dB(A) ruidosamente alto |
||
min:  , med:  , max:  ECM8000 + Voltcraft SL-451 (15 cm de distancia) environment noise: 28.9 dB(A) | ||
(±) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 42.8 °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 54.3 °C / 130 F, compared to the average of 39.4 °C / 103 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 31.7 °C / 89 F, compared to the device average of 30.7 °C / 87 F.
(±) The palmrests and touchpad can get very hot to the touch with a maximum of 37.4 °C / 99.3 F.
(-) The average temperature of the palmrest area of similar devices was 28.3 °C / 82.9 F (-9.1 °C / -16.4 F).
HP EliteBook 725 G3-P4T48EA audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (82 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 22.4% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (13.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 5.3% higher than median
(+) | mids are linear (4.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 3.3% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (4.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (22.3% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 72% of all tested devices in this class were better, 5% similar, 23% worse
» The best had a delta of 5%, average was 19%, worst was 53%
Compared to all devices tested
» 60% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 34% 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
» 5% of all tested devices in this class were better, 2% similar, 93% worse
» The best had a delta of 5%, average was 19%, worst was 53%
Compared to all devices tested
» 3% of all tested devices were better, 1% similar, 96% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
| Off / Standby | 0.65 / 0.71 Watt |
| Ocioso | 5.4 / 7.5 / 13 Watt |
| Carga |
41.2 / 44.7 Watt |
   
| |
| HP EliteBook 725 G3-P4T48EA Pro A10-8700B, Radeon R6 (Carrizo) | HP EliteBook 725 G2 A10 Pro-7350B, Radeon R6 (Kaveri) | Dell Latitude 12 E5270 6300U, HD Graphics 520 | Lenovo ThinkPad X260-20F60041GE 6200U, HD Graphics 520 | Toshiba Portege Z30-C-125 6500U, HD Graphics 520 | HP EliteBook 820 G3 6300U, HD Graphics 520 | Apple MacBook 12 (Early 2016) 1.1 GHz 6Y30, HD Graphics 515 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power Consumption | 9% | 27% | 30% | 19% | 32% | 52% | |
| Idle Minimum * | 5.4 | 7 -30% | 3.9 28% | 3.6 33% | 2.7 50% | 3.5 35% | 2.7 50% |
| Idle Average * | 7.5 | 8.6 -15% | 6 20% | 5.9 21% | 7.7 -3% | 5.4 28% | 2.7 64% |
| Idle Maximum * | 13 | 9.9 24% | 6.6 49% | 6.6 49% | 11 15% | 6.2 52% | 7.2 45% |
| Load Average * | 41.2 | 24.4 41% | 28.9 30% | 28.5 31% | 34.8 16% | 27.3 34% | 22 47% |
| Load Maximum * | 44.7 | 32.5 27% | 41.7 7% | 36.8 18% | 36.6 18% | 39.5 12% | 20.5 54% |
* ... más pequeño es mejor
| HP EliteBook 725 G3-P4T48EA 44 Wh | HP EliteBook 725 G2 46 Wh | Dell Latitude 12 E5270 47 Wh | Lenovo ThinkPad X260-20F60041GE 46 Wh | Toshiba Portege Z30-C-125 52 Wh | HP EliteBook 820 G3 44 Wh | Apple MacBook 12 (Early 2016) 1.1 GHz 41.4 Wh | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Duración de Batería | -2% | 43% | 57% | 105% | 62% | 118% | |
| Reader / Idle | 553 | 456 -18% | 772 40% | 795 44% | 1134 105% | 826 49% | |
| H.264 | 258 | 205 -21% | 353 37% | 386 50% | 495 92% | 512 98% | |
| WiFi v1.3 | 281 | 398 42% | 396 41% | 373 33% | 501 78% | ||
| Load | 83 | 110 33% | 128 54% | 160 93% | 144 73% | 231 178% | |
| WiFi | 258 | 402 |
Pro
Contra
El Hewlett Packard EliteBook 725 G3 es un subportátil de 12.5". La APU AMD de este modelo ofrece suficiente rendimiento para las tareas diarias. El portátil tiene una buena carcasa y ofrece una conectividad completa. El teclado también es bastante bueno. El portátil tiene la opción de incluir un módemLTE y las antenas y ranura SIM necesarias ya están disponibles. HP ofrece 3 años de garantía.
Hay muchos aspectos de este modelo de pruebas que pueden ser criticados. El portátil sólo funciona en silencioso cuando está en inactivo. Si el ventilador empieza a girar, se volverá ruidoso debido al molesto silbido que emite. Combinado con el precio del dispositivo, esto basta para descalificar al dispositivo como portátil business viable. El EliteBook 725 G2 tenía una escotilla de mantenimiento que se podía abrir sin herramientas. Su sucesor, el EliteBook 725 G3, tiene una bandeja inferior atornillada. Para ser justos, aseguramos que el dispositivo se puede desmantelar fácilmente con un destornillador, pero aún así, es un paso atrás.
El aguante de la bateria no es genial. El dispositivo de 12.5" debería ofrecer mayor aguante y lo dejan atrás el EliteBook 820 G3 y el Lenovo ThinkPad X260. El display es malo para el precio que paga el comprador. Tiene poco brillo, poco contraste y ángulo de visión, y su resolución es HD.
Al EliteBook 725 G3 le costará sobrevivir en el catálogo business de HP. Ni el hardware ni el precio hacen del portátil algo especial.
Para resumir, no podemos encontrar una razón válida para recomendar el EliteBook 725 G3. Aún si el precio bajara, el aguante de la batería no alcanza los estándares modernos para esta categoría. Lo que es más, los compradores siempre tienen la opción de un EliteBook 820 G3 (T9X40ET), que es más barato que nuestro modelo de pruebas y tiene un procesador Core i5-6200U. Las características que quedan de este modelo son parecidas a las de nuestro modelo de pruebas, el 725 G3. A un precio de 920 Euros, el modelo hermano es unos 80 Euros más barato que nuestro modelo de pruebas, el 725 G3.
Ésta es una versión acortada del análisis original. Puedes leer el análisis completo en inglés aquí.
HP EliteBook 725 G3-P4T48EA
-
08/11/2016 v5.1(old)
Sascha Mölck