Lenovo Thinkpad X1 12 Intel Core M5-6y75 Review
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Tablet Review
Surface Potential… Lenovo's beginning Surface-style ThinkPad device has a lot of great ideas. Can it translate those into a cohesive, practical product for the everyday business concern user?
It seems similar everyone's joined the tabletized laptop craze these days, ever since Microsoft's Surface Pro line of devices took the market by tempest and urged a paradigm shift in terms of design priorities and elegance. But Lenovo—most of all participants, perhaps—is no stranger to the convertible market; equally ane of the progenitors of the original concept, they have plenty of experience working inside the framework of the hybrid philosophy.
Though their dabbling in the convertible segment extends far back to 2005 with their ThinkPad X41 Tablet, it was 2013'southward ThinkPad Helix which represented the beginning of their detachable tablet inventions. The ThinkPad X1 Tablet is the latest of these, and anyone familiar with the Microsoft Surface concept volition immediately recognize it as the unabashed source of its inspiration. Consummate with adjustable kickstand, the X1 Tablet is a passively-cooled, Intel Core m-powered device congenital from premium materials and designed to replace your laptop outright. Simply it doesn't finish at that place; it also incorporates a new modular design which allows users to extend its functionality with various separately-sold modules, including a projector module, a productivity/port replicator module, and more.
Myriad configurations are bachelor; ours arrived with a Core m7-6Y75 SoC, Intel HD Graphics 515, 8 GB LPDDR3 RAM, and a 256 GB SSD. It likewise arrived packed with the ThinkPad Thin Keyboard (and all units ship with the ThinkPad Stylus Pen). Our detail configuration currently commands a list cost of $ane,549—no small number… but is it worth paying for the outset Surface Pro-style convertible built specifically with business in mind?
Retentivity
8192 MB
, LPDDR3 1866 MHz
Display
12.00 inch 3:2, 2160 x 1440 pixel 216 PPI, yes; multi-bear upon, native pen back up, INT3470, IPS, glossy: yes, detachable screen
Mainboard
Intel Sunrise Point-LP
Weight
1.048 kg ( = 36.97 oz / 2.31 pounds), Power Supply: 184 g ( = six.49 oz / 0.41 pounds)
Notation: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or retention sticks with similar specifications.
The X1 Tablet'southward case is constructed of both magnesium and PPS Hybrid Injection (the latter of which is a high-functioning plastic hybrid favored by Lenovo). Its kinship is immediately identifiable, with muted black garb and thin blood-red highlights, absolute by a single lighted dot over the "i" in ThinkPad on the rear. It'southward all business organization in a sea of flashy metallic competitors, and it fits the profile.
Weighing in at but 750 g (tablet only), it's slightly lighter than a similarly-equipped Surface Pro 4. Add the keyboard encompass to information technology and the total carry weight climbs to 1.048 kg, which over again is only always-then-slightly less than the SP4. This is besides much lighter than the rest of the field of recent competitors (such as the Dell XPS 12, the HP Spectre x2 12-a003ng, the ASUS Zenbook UX305CA-FB055T, and the Toshiba Portege Z20t-B), all of which weigh at least 1.2 kg.
But what well-nigh stability? While it does come up off as mostly solid, the X1 Tablet doesn't carry the aforementioned impenetrable feel as that of the Microsoft Surface Pro 4. The tablet tin can be warped slightly under moderate force per unit area in the hand, more often than not if twisted. The keyboard cover, naturally, beingness considerably thinner, is even easier to distort. This is probably due in part to the incorporation of what Lenovo refers to as "enterprise level" repairability, facilitated by a rear admission console, which is secured by five total screws and a series of clips effectually the perimeter of the device (between the screen and the rear panel). Information technology's possible to open the device in around five to ten minutes of careful work, but the user has to be conscientious of the clips around the perimeter so as not to damage the screen in the procedure. This design allows admission to an assortment of user-replaceable FRUs, which include the battery, SSD, WLAN adapter, WWAN adapter, and CMOS bombardment, as well as some more specific items like speakers, daughterboards managing various ports, and the bottom docking associates.
The lesser docking port is secured initially by a modest magnetic strip of metal, and the module connections are behind however some other cover. If yous're concerned that this constitutes an actress pace, don't be; the first strip can be ditched one time a keyboard encompass is acquired, and the second i isn't likely to come into play very often—unless the unit is oft continued to different modules.
There'due south likewise some other notable departure between the ThinkPad X1 Tablet and the Surface Pro 4 (and subsequent devices based on the pattern): the kickstand. While the X1 Tablet still leverages a kickstand, information technology actually protrudes from the back of the devicein the opposite direction—that is to say, it releases from the centre and pivotsdownwardas opposed to upward. The divergence here is that the abrupt border no longer points direct into the surface below, a alter which renders lap-based utilize considerably more comfy. Moreover, the kickstand retains the ability to prop upward the device at just about any bending the user desires. Onenegative of this reversed approach is that picking up the unit of measurement single-handed is now even a bit harder than before: the user must grasp the side of the keyboard and wrap her fingers underneath the kickstand to back up both sides of the device while doing so (picking up the tablet portion only will result in the keyboard inadvertently detaching).
❌
Although no tablet can compete with a conventional laptop in the realm of native connectivity, the ThinkPad X1 Tablet at to the lowest degree offers the basics with a little more flexibility than some others. We get 2 USB 3.0—ane of which is full-sized, and the other, a USB Blazon-C port, which doubles as the charging port. Some of the connections are subconscious initially likewise: the bottom edge comprehend obscures the module docking port, and the kickstand hides the microSD slot. Neither of these are inherently problematic as they aren't likely to regularly accessed.
The optional Productivity Module, which nosotros did not receive for review, adds a full-sized HDMI port, a Lenovo OneLink+ port, and a USB 3.0 Type-A port (as well every bit a secondary 2-cell bombardment).
Advice and Security
Powering the ThinkPad X1 Tablet's wireless is the usually-establish Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 8260, which is a 2x2 WLAN adapter featuring speeds up to 867 Mbps. This adapter also includes Bluetooth four.2 connectivity. Naturally, there is no Ethernet adapter present on the ultra-thin body of the ThinkPad X1 Tablet, so keep this in heed if you normally depend on one at the office.
Equally for the two cameras, the front end-facing (fixed focus) 2.0 MP webcam provides a middle-of-the-road picture quality for occasional videoconferencing, while the rear 8.0 MP auto-focus camera does a pretty respectable task of reproducing natural colors, just does lack some of the definition and item of a defended camera—or, say, a superior smartphone camera (such as that on the Samsung Milky way S7). Still, in a pinch, both cams do a decent enough job.
TPM is included, as well as a i-touch fingerprint reader at the lesser of the screen.
Accessories and Warranty
The power adapter which ships with the X1 Tablet is a very compact (184 one thousand) 45 West USB Type-C adapter with a user-friendly design. The unit includes a 1-year depot warranty standard, though upgraded plans are available. In addition to the two items nosotros cover in detail beneath, as previously mentioned, a few other modules likewise exist to expand the X1 tablet's capabilities. These include a Presenter Module, a Productivity Module, and a 3D Imaging Module, all of which are sold separately.
ThinkPad Stylus Pen (included)
Not to be confused with the rechargeable Yoga pen, the X1'southward ThinkPad Stylus Pen now leverages a single AAAA bombardment (no longer rechargeable), and features a thicker diameter than its Yoga counterpart. The tip is too a fleck shorter, though this isn't likely to bother most people (it'southward nonetheless visible while cartoon). The pen secures to the side of the keyboard cover via an attachable loop, or it can be held in a special caddy which—oddly enough—inserts into the tablet'due south USB port. A third option besides exists (possibly past accident) if the keyboard cover isn't in use: it can be magnetically attached to the bottom of the tablet, where it remains deeply in place, similarly to the Surface Pro 4'southward Surface Pen.
The pen worked well during our time with information technology, though it isn't quite as fully-featured equally the Surface Pen. For starters, the writing tips aren't swappable, though nearly users aren't likely to miss this. The Surface Pen's eraser tip on the rear is also absent-minded. The tip does glide across the screen more than freely, too, thanks to the fact that the material is plastic equally opposed to the rubbery composite used in the Surface Pen. Regardless, the functioning is still quite good with 2048 levels of pressure sensitivity, and when paired with the preloaded WRITEit app, it makes text entry into just nigh any field with the pen pretty painless.
ThinkPad Sparse Keyboard (MSRP $150)
The only separately-sold accessory nosotros received for testing with our unit was the mainstay keyboard cover, which Lenovo calls the ThinkPad Thin Keyboard. Although the screen is covered with a layer of Corning Gorilla Glass, the keyboard cover besides folds over to protect it completely while travelling. Attaching and detaching the Sparse Keyboard is quick and easy thank you to the series of magnets responsible for managing the process. The keyboard base appears to be synthetic of the aforementioned PPS Hybrid Injection plastic composite which comprises much of the ThinkPad line today; that gives information technology a relatively rigid feel in spite of its light weight. It can be twisted, which produces uncomfortable noises and accidental clicks by the integrated touchpad buttons—only when closed against the tablet this is not likely to occur.
Keyboard
Clearly, the X1 Tablet's ultra-thin keyboard case cannot perfectly replicate the typing feel of a larger ThinkPad—but it does a fairly practiced job of approximating it regardless. We merely required a brief adjustment menstruum before zooming through the paragraphs of this review and in our typing tests. This is cheers to a sufficiently-sized layout (with fully-sized keys in most cases) and expertly-tuned feedback and actuation force, which helps to offset the otherwise somewhat short travel altitude. The arrow keys and a few other items correct of the spacebar are a piddling scrap horizontally cramped, merely for the most part users will likely notice themselves speedily acclimated.
Like the Surface keyboard, at that place are 2 possible positions: flat on the surface and propped up magnetically at a slight incline. And once more like the Surface, the keyboard is quite noisy while inclined, emitting a sort of hollow thunk with every tap unless the typist is incredibly low-cal on his fingertips.
The keyboard is as well backlit, with 2 levels of brightness in addition to off.
Touchpad
Meanwhile, the Synaptics touchpad is about as expert as a clickpad gets. The surface is comfortable and adequately large, and the integrated buttons virtually always part equally intended, with very few instances of accidental clicks probable. Gestures are like shooting fish in a barrel and accurately interpreted; arrow filibuster is possibly somewhat noticeable, merely minimal.
Touchscreen
The tablet's touchscreen is piece of cake to operate and offers accurate 10-point multitouch input. The screen bezel isn't big, but information technology is sufficient to arrange gripping of the device by any side while in use without accidentally invoking the touchscreen.
The X1 Tablet features a 2160x1440 resolution, 12-inch 3:ii aspect IPS display, which computes to 216 PPI—more than enough for any applied use. The screen appears vivid and bright, hampered only by the severe reflectivity and fingerprint retention potential of the sleeky surface.
| 322.7 cd/1000² | 315.ix cd/yard² | 289.9 cd/k² | ||
| 314 cd/one thousand² | 342.4 cd/m² | 295.3 cd/one thousand² | ||
| 314.2 cd/thou² | 341.3 cd/m² | 302.5 cd/m² | ||
Distribution of brightness
INT3470
Ten-Rite i1Pro Bones 2
Maximum: 342.4 cd/grand² (Nits) Average: 315.4 cd/m² Minimum: 4.167 cd/grand²
Brightness Distribution: 85 %
Center on Bombardment: 342.iv cd/yard²
Dissimilarity: 460:ane (Blackness: 0.744 cd/thou²)
ΔE Color 5.33 | 0.59-29.43 Ø5.iv
ΔE Greyscale 5.36 | 0.64-98 Ø5.6
93% sRGB (Argyll 1.6.3 3D)
57% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll one.6.3 3D)
63.9% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 2.ii.0 3D)
93% sRGB (Argyll 2.ii.0 3D)
62.4% Display P3 (Argyll two.2.0 3D)
Gamma: ii.12
| Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Tablet 12.00, 2160x1440 | Dell XPS 12 9250 4K 12.50, 3840x2160 | HP Spectre x2 12-a003ng K3D42EA 12.00, 1920x1080 | Asus Zenbook UX305CA-FB055T 13.30, 3200x1800 | Toshiba Portege Z20t-B-10C 12.50, 1920x1080 | Microsoft Surface Pro 4, Core m3 12.30, 2736x1824 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Display | 32% | -19% | -6% | -32% | 7% | |
| Display P3 Coverage | 62.iv | 83.nine 34% | 52.nine -xv% | 59.ane -5% | 42.63 -32% | 67.5 8% |
| sRGB Coverage | 93 | 99.8 7% | 71.8 -23% | 85.five -eight% | 63.half dozen -32% | 96.6 4% |
| AdobeRGB 1998 Coverage | 63.ix | 98.1 54% | 52.vi -18% | 61 -v% | 44.1 -31% | 69 viii% |
| Response Times | 75% | -57% | 152% | -72% | ||
| Response Fourth dimension Grey l% / Grey 80% * | 28.4 ? | 36 ? -27% | 47 ? -65% | 38 ? -34% | 46 ? -62% | |
| Response Fourth dimension Black / White * | 17.6 ? | 35 ? -99% | 26 ? -48% | 27 ? -53% | 31 ? -76% | |
| PWM Frequency | 222.2 ? | 1000 ? 350% | 1429 ? 543% | 50 ? -77% | ||
| Screen | 42% | 7% | 15% | -8% | 44% | |
| Brightness middle | 342.4 | 437 28% | 353 iii% | 390 14% | 342 0% | 389.2 xiv% |
| Brightness | 315 | 399 27% | 347 10% | 352 12% | 301 -4% | 392 24% |
| Brightness Distribution | 85 | 81 -5% | 91 7% | 81 -five% | 76 -11% | 92 8% |
| Black Level * | 0.744 | 0.35 53% | 0.44 41% | 0.69 7% | 0.393 47% | 0.27 64% |
| Contrast | 460 | 1249 172% | 802 74% | 565 23% | 870 89% | 1441 213% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 5.33 | iii.56 33% | six.09 -14% | 3.04 43% | 9.69 -82% | 3.61 32% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 9.25 | 9.three -1% | 7.01 24% | |||
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 5.36 | two.67 l% | six.24 -16% | two.88 46% | 9.27 -73% | 3.viii 29% |
| Gamma | 2.12 104% | 2.17 101% | 2.41 91% | ii.43 91% | 2.95 75% | 2.16 102% |
| CCT | 7671 85% | 6681 97% | 7238 90% | 6848 95% | 6010 108% | 5969 109% |
| Color Space (Per centum of AdobeRGB 1998) | 57 | 86 51% | 46 -19% | 55 -4% | 40.4 -29% | 63 eleven% |
| Colour Space (Per centum of sRGB) | 93 | 100 viii% | 71 -24% | 85 -9% | 97 4% | |
| Full Boilerplate (Plan / Settings) | 50% / 46% | -23% / -eight% | 54% / 37% | -20% / -xiv% | -7% / 14% |
* ... smaller is better
Nosotros measured an boilerplate brightness of 315 cd/m², which is quite skillful, though not as bright as nigh competitors (which range betwixt 301 and 399 cd/m²). The effulgence distribution of 85% means that the screen appears relatively uniform across all quadrants to the naked eye. Meanwhile, the contrast ratio of 460:1 is the weakest link here, with some competitors (such every bit the Surface Pro four and the Dell XPS 12) topping 1000:one. Still, the picture quality is overwhelmingly positive.
Our panel analysis further reveals an sRGB gamut coverage of 93%, which is plenty for most users, and which is the reason for the aforementioned vividness of the moving picture. AdobeRGB coverage is less impressive, of course, at just 57%. While most users will be satisfied with these values (which best those of the Asus Zenbook UX305CA, HP Spectre x2 12, and especially the Toshiba Portege Z20t-B-10C), both the Surface Pro 4 (63% AdobeRGB) and Dell XPS 12 9250 (86% AdobeRGB) manage ameliorate results overall.
CalMAN 5 measurements indicate a CCT average of 7671, which is a bit on the libation side (ideal: 6500). Full Gamma was measured at 2.12, which is shut to the ideal value of 2.ii. Meanwhile, the boilerplate Colorchecker and Greyscale DeltaE values of five.33 and 5.36 respectively are tolerable, but non competitive with those of the Surface Pro iv or the Dell XPS 12, both of which yield values in the range of 2.5 to four (in this case, the ASUS Zenbook UX305CA really does well also).
Display Response Times
ℹ
Display response times bear witness how fast the screen is able to modify from one color to the next. Boring 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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 17.6 ms ... rising ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 3.half-dozen ms ascension |  |
| ↘ 14 ms fall | ||
| The screen shows good response rates in our tests, but may be as well slow for competitive gamers. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.eight (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 26 % of all devices are ameliorate. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (23.5 ms). | ||
| ↔ Response Time fifty% Gray to 80% Grey | ||
| 28.iv ms ... rise ↗ and autumn ↘ combined | ↗ 11.2 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 17.ii ms fall | ||
| The screen shows relatively deadening response rates in our tests and may be also slow for gamers. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.692 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 24 % of all devices are improve. This ways that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (37.1 ms). | ||
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
ℹ
To dim the screen, some notebooks will simply bike the backlight on and off in rapid succession - a method chosen Pulse Width Modulation (PWM) . This cycling frequency should ideally be undetectable to the homo eye. If said frequency is too low, users with sensitive eyes may experience strain or headaches or even observe the flickering altogether.
| Screen flickering / PWM detected | 222.2 Hz | ≤ 49 % brightness setting |  |
| The display backlight flickers at 222.2 Hz (Likely utilizing PWM) Flickering detected at a brightness setting of 49 % and below. There should be no flickering or PWM above this brightness setting. The frequency of 222.two Hz is relatively low, and then sensitive users will likely find flickering and experience eyestrain at the stated brightness setting and below. In comparison: 52 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 22039 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 3846000) Hz was measured. | |||
Outdoors, the device fares well in the shade, but is difficult to manage in direct sunlight thanks to its highly reflective display. Viewing angles, on the other mitt, are comfortably wide cheers to the versatility of the IPS panel.
Configuration options for the X1 Tablet include SoCs ranging from the depression-end Intel Cadre m3-6Y30 (the aforementioned chip found in the Surface Pro four we reviewed) to the Core m7-6Y75 we received in our review unit. All of these chips carry a TDP of but four.5 Due west, though it is possible and supported for a manufacturer to raise the TDP to 7 watts ("cTDP upward"). The latter appears to be the case with the X1 Tablet, as during our stress tests (which we will encompass in more than particular in a bit), the CPU Package Power appears to hover around the seven W mark on average during heavy CPU load.
Memory options range from 4 GB (on the Core M3 model) to xvi GB. The memory is non upgradeable post-purchase, then choose wisely preemptively.
The tablet's performance does non seem to exist constrained while running on battery power; nosotros recorded a 3DMark xi score of 1252 while unplugged, which is only marginally below the 1283 we received during our benchmark run. LatencyMon also suggests no problems streaming existent-fourth dimension audio or video.
Owing to the lack of a cooling fan and this ultra-ability-efficient chipset, it'southward reasonable to expect lower functioning than, say, that of a Core i5-powered Surface Pro 4. Nevertheless, an m7 with a 7 Due west TDP at its disposal ought to exist able to put upwardly respectable numbers (equally mentioned to a higher place, the Cadre m7-6Y75 is normally iv.5 Due west TDP, but it appears that via cTDP Up Lenovo has increased the TDP to vii Due west).
Of class, the question is whether or not the device can sustain adequate operation under load (under the constraints of passive cooling) to justify the TDP heave and the m7 chip. Every bit ever seems to be the case with passively-cooled devices, sustained functioning on the X1 Tablet is hampered by thermal constraints over moderate to longer length stress periods, especially in multicore applications. This is exemplified in our x264 results, wherein the first run we recorded 104 fps during Pass 1, simply in each subsequent run, the functioning slowed to simply 84 fps. We observed the same behavior in our stress testing subsequently on.
Even so, information technology is worth mentioning that despite these (anticipated) limitations, the m7 all the same manages appreciably faster performance in many single-threaded applications, such as wPrime 2.0x (698 seconds vs. the Surface Pro iv'south 788 seconds), Super Pi (640 seconds vs. SP4's 898), and Cinebench R15 (119 points versus SP4's 88 points). With a couple of exceptions, the X1 sweeps the residuum of the field also in nearly every criterion, whether single- or multi-threaded—though the results in multi-threaded applications are mostly less pronounced. Ultimately, general performance volition exist absolutely sufficient for fifty-fifty the virtually discerning everyday business concern user, provided regular CPU-heavy tasks (video editing, hi-res photo manipulation) are not part of the equation. Whether the added cost for the m7 specifically is justified, on the other paw, is another question entirely, and 1 which will need to be decided on a per-user basis.
| Cinebench R11.v | |
| CPU Single 64Bit (sort by value) | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Tablet | |
| Dell XPS 12 9250 4K | |
| HP Spectre x2 12-a003ng K3D42EA | |
| Asus Zenbook UX305CA-FB055T | |
| Toshiba Portege Z20t-B-10C | |
| Microsoft Surface Pro iv, Core m3 | |
| CPU Multi 64Bit (sort past value) | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Tablet | |
| Dell XPS 12 9250 4K | |
| HP Spectre x2 12-a003ng K3D42EA | |
| Asus Zenbook UX305CA-FB055T | |
| Toshiba Portege Z20t-B-10C | |
| Microsoft Surface Pro iv, Cadre m3 | |
| Cinebench R15 | |
| CPU Single 64Bit (sort by value) | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Tablet | |
| Dell XPS 12 9250 4K | |
| HP Spectre x2 12-a003ng K3D42EA | |
| Asus Zenbook UX305CA-FB055T | |
| Toshiba Portege Z20t-B-10C | |
| Microsoft Surface Pro 4, Core m3 | |
| CPU Multi 64Bit (sort past value) | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Tablet | |
| Dell XPS 12 9250 4K | |
| HP Spectre x2 12-a003ng K3D42EA | |
| Asus Zenbook UX305CA-FB055T | |
| Toshiba Portege Z20t-B-10C | |
| Microsoft Surface Pro 4, Core m3 | |
* ... smaller is better
Cinebench R11.v CPU Single 64Bit
i.08 Points
Cinebench R11.5 CPU Multi 64Bit
2.62 Points
Cinebench R11.5 OpenGL 64Bit
25.87 fps
Cinebench R15 CPU Single 64Bit
119 Points
Cinebench R15 CPU Multi 64Bit
234 Points
Cinebench R15 OpenGL 64Bit
34.37 fps
Cinebench R15 Ref. Match 64Bit
97.8 %
Help
As alluded to to a higher place, general system functioning is snappy and without frustration. The X1 Tablet positively demolishes its passively-cooled competitors in every PCMark 8 test nosotros threw at it, winning by margins ranging from iii% upward to 24%. See our graphs below for much more detail on these results.
| PCMark 8 | |
| Habitation Score Accelerated v2 (sort by value) | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Tablet | |
| Dell XPS 12 9250 4K | |
| HP Spectre x2 12-a003ng K3D42EA | |
| Asus Zenbook UX305CA-FB055T | |
| Toshiba Portege Z20t-B-10C | |
| Microsoft Surface Pro 4, Cadre m3 | |
| Work Score Accelerated v2 (sort past value) | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Tablet | |
| Dell XPS 12 9250 4K | |
| HP Spectre x2 12-a003ng K3D42EA | |
| Asus Zenbook UX305CA-FB055T | |
| Toshiba Portege Z20t-B-10C | |
| Microsoft Surface Pro 4, Core m3 | |
| Creative Score Accelerated v2 (sort by value) | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Tablet | |
| Dell XPS 12 9250 4K | |
| HP Spectre x2 12-a003ng K3D42EA | |
| Asus Zenbook UX305CA-FB055T | |
| Toshiba Portege Z20t-B-10C | |
| Microsoft Surface Pro 4, Core m3 | |
| PCMark 8 Dwelling house Score Accelerated v2 | 2976 points | |
| PCMark 8 Artistic Score Accelerated v2 | 3583 points | |
| PCMark eight Piece of work Score Accelerated v2 | 4058 points | |
| Assistance | ||
Of course, a large role of the nimble overall system performance can be attributed to the Samsung PM871 SSD, which—while not NVMe—still yields respectable numbers with expert 4K read performance. The Equally SSD total score of 997 is nothing to sneeze at.
Transfer Rate Minimum: 314.7 MB/s
Transfer Rate Maximum: 408.5 MB/s
Transfer Rate Average: 401.9 MB/s
Sequential Read: 420.3 MB/s
Sequential Write: 305.6 MB/s
4K QD32 Write: 215.five MB/s
Sequential Read: 450.5MB/s
Sequential Write: 274.9MB/s
Access Time Read: 0.085ms
Admission Time Write: 0.048ms
Conspicuously, the X1 Tablet isn't meant for any sort of gaming or heavy GPU operation; withal, its performance is serviceable for basic operations and even perhaps some older games. With 3DMark Fire Strike and 3DMark 11 scores of 762 and 1154, respectively, these 4.5 W TDP chips are capable of more than many xv Westward TDP solutions from a few years agone. Interestingly, the SP4, with its Core m3, manages college scores across the lath—further emphasizing the criticality of the balance between power and thermal management as it pertains to sustained performance on these passively-cooled devices.
| 3DMark xi | |
| 1280x720 Operation GPU (sort by value) | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Tablet | |
| Dell XPS 12 9250 4K | |
| HP Spectre x2 12-a003ng K3D42EA | |
| Asus Zenbook UX305CA-FB055T | |
| Toshiba Portege Z20t-B-10C | |
| Microsoft Surface Pro 4, Core m3 | |
| 1280x720 Performance Combined (sort by value) | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Tablet | |
| Dell XPS 12 9250 4K | |
| HP Spectre x2 12-a003ng K3D42EA | |
| Asus Zenbook UX305CA-FB055T | |
| Toshiba Portege Z20t-B-10C | |
| Microsoft Surface Pro 4, Core m3 | |
| 3DMark | |
| 1280x720 Cloud Gate Standard Graphics (sort by value) | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Tablet | |
| Dell XPS 12 9250 4K | |
| HP Spectre x2 12-a003ng K3D42EA | |
| Asus Zenbook UX305CA-FB055T | |
| Toshiba Portege Z20t-B-10C | |
| Microsoft Surface Pro four, Cadre m3 | |
| 1920x1080 Fire Strike Graphics (sort past value) | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Tablet | |
| Dell XPS 12 9250 4K | |
| HP Spectre x2 12-a003ng K3D42EA | |
| Asus Zenbook UX305CA-FB055T | |
| Toshiba Portege Z20t-B-10C | |
| Microsoft Surface Pro 4, Core m3 | |
| 1920x1080 Water ice Storm Extreme Graphics (sort by value) | |
| Dell XPS 12 9250 4K | |
| 3DMark 06 Standard Score | 7515 points | |
| 3DMark 11 Performance | 1283 points | |
| 3DMark Ice Storm Standard Score | 46344 points | |
| 3DMark Cloud Gate Standard Score | 4474 points | |
| 3DMark Fire Strike Score | 697 points | |
| Help | ||
| BioShock Space | |
| 1280x720 Very Depression Preset (sort by value) | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Tablet | |
| Dell XPS 12 9250 4K | |
| Asus Zenbook UX305CA-FB055T | |
| Microsoft Surface Pro 4, Core m3 | |
| 1366x768 Medium Preset (sort by value) | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Tablet | |
| Dell XPS 12 9250 4K | |
| Asus Zenbook UX305CA-FB055T | |
| Microsoft Surface Pro 4, Core m3 | |
| 1366x768 High Preset (sort by value) | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Tablet | |
| Dell XPS 12 9250 4K | |
| Asus Zenbook UX305CA-FB055T | |
| Microsoft Surface Pro 4, Core m3 | |
| 1920x1080 Ultra Preset, DX11 (DDOF) (sort by value) | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Tablet | |
| Dell XPS 12 9250 4K | |
Devices lacking a cooling fan always succumb in one fashion or another to extreme stress testing, again, due to their aversion to handling sustained loads. Just what will exist particularly interesting hither is to see but how much the m7 upgrade really buys yous over competitors' m5 and m3 chips, which are considerably less expensive.
During our CPU stress test, the CPU frequency (max: ii.nine GHz with two cores) initially begins above 2.0 GHz, but soon thereafter bottoms out at a stable 1.9 GHz. Bear in mind that the Surface Pro four in our testing (with its Cadre m3 SoC) managed a stable two.0 GHz—so this suggests that nether very heavy loads, the m3 SP4 can actually outperform the m7 ThinkPad X1 Tablet in longer-term benchmarks. Nonetheless, these scenarios are non realistic, and every bit corroborated by our previous benchmarks, the X1 still has a practical edge over the SP4 when equipped with the m7 chip.
The same state of affairs applies to the GPU. When stressed, information technology initially manages clock rates in the 900 MHz range, but it isn't long before it stabilizes instead between 548 MHz and 598 MHz. The SP4, again, manages stable rates of between 648 MHz and 698 MHz, which suggests better graphical operation. However, unlike with regard to CPU performance, the GPU thermal constraints actually do carry out in real-world performance; this is the reason the SP4 is able to post higher GPU benchmark scores than the X1 Tablet, fifty-fifty in spite of the X1 Tablet featuring a much more powerful SoC with ~18% higher potential peak-end GPU clock rates.
Considering the data thus far, it's no surprise that combined CPU and GPU stress produces an equivalently crude state of affairs for the X1 Tablet as compared to its m3-powered competitor. The X1 CPU manages a beggarly 798 MHz while the GPU clocks in at 449 MHz—this compared to the SP4'due south 1 GHz / 599 MHz in that same situation.
The X1 Tablet is fanless and thus is completely silent.
Information technology's non difficult to guess what happens when a passively-cooled device is stuffed with 1 of the more powerful processors available—especially when a suspected 7 W increased TDP is at the machine's disposal. The result, of course, is notable heat, and the X1 Tablet packs no surprises here. Nether load, we measured boilerplate surface temperatures of 42.2 °C and 42.nine °C on top and bottom (with hot spots in the 50 °C – 53 °C range), respectively, which is far above the Surface Pro 4'southward 37.8 °C / 36.9 °C and well higher up both the Toshiba and Asus devices, which hover instead in the low- to mid-30s (room temperature variations of effectually a degree do apply). The second closest automobile to these temperatures is the Dell XPS 12, which averaged 37.5 °C / 38.3 °C in those same regions. The tablet is uncomfortable to hold nether these circumstances.
Even while idling, nosotros measured temperatures in the upper 30s on boilerplate on both top and lesser.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Maximum: 51.ii °C = 124 F Boilerplate: 42.2 °C = 108 F | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Maximum: 53.2 °C = 128 F Average: 42.ix °C = 109 F | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Power Supply (max.) 45 °C = 113 F | Room Temperature 22 °C = 72 F | Fluke 62 Mini IR Thermometer
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Maximum: 41.4 °C = 107 F Boilerplate: 37.6 °C = 100 F | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Maximum: 42.half-dozen °C = 109 F Average: 39.6 °C = 103 F | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ability Supply (max.) 45 °C = 113 F | Room Temperature 22 °C = 72 F | Fluke 62 Mini IR Thermometer
(-) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 42.2 °C / 108 F, compared to the average of 30.ii °C / 86 F for the devices in the class Convertible.
(-) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 51.2 °C / 124 F, compared to the boilerplate of 35.3 °C / 96 F, ranging from 21 to 55.seven °C for the course Convertible.
(-) The bottom heats upwards to a maximum of 53.2 °C / 128 F, compared to the boilerplate of 36.6 °C / 98 F
(±) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 37.six °C / 100 F, compared to the device average of 30.ii °C / 86 F.
(-) The palmrests and touchpad can get very hot to the touch with a maximum of 51.2 °C / 124.2 F.
(-) The boilerplate temperature of the palmrest expanse of similar devices was 28.four °C / 83.one F (-22.viii °C / -41.1 F).
The ThinkPad X1'due south volume is just moderate, and the congenital-in speakers, no matter what aligning, produce a hollow and bass-less sound. The Surface Pro 4 has a significant advantage here.
Although the X1 Tablet is among the lightest of the devices in our field of comparison, it pays for this privilege—and for the aforementioned heave in TDP to seven Due west (up from 4.5 W standard for this SoC)—with reduced battery runtimes. Still, it is worth putting this into perspective; the truth is, modern devices in the passively-cooled convertible category almost consistently mail service ultra-long runtimes, and across a certain point, this is only practically useful for most users in rare scenarios where ability isn't available for an extended period of fourth dimension.
| Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Tablet Hard disk Graphics 515, 6Y75, Samsung PM871 MZYLN256HCHP | Dell XPS 12 9250 4K Hard disk Graphics 515, 6Y75, Samsung PM951 NVMe 512 GB | HP Spectre x2 12-a003ng K3D42EA HD Graphics 515, 6Y75, Sandisk X300 SD7SN6S-256G-1006 | Asus Zenbook UX305CA-FB055T Hd Graphics 515, 6Y75, Micron M600 MTFDDAV512MBF Thousand.ii | Toshiba Portege Z20t-B-10C HD Graphics 5300, 5Y71, Toshiba HG6 THNSNJ256GVNU | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power Consumption | -34% | -4% | -half-dozen% | 17% | |
| Idle Minimum * | 5.87 | v.4 8% | iv.5 23% | iv.ii 28% | two.4 59% |
| Idle Average * | 6.05 | 10.2 -69% | 7.7 -27% | eight.4 -39% | 4.6 24% |
| Idle Maximum * | 6.thirteen | 12.5 -104% | eight.3 -35% | 8.ix -45% | 5.6 nine% |
| Load Average * | 21.27 | 21.4 -1% | 19.viii 7% | xv.9 25% | 15.six 27% |
| Load Maximum * | 23.03 | 24.4 -6% | twenty.vi xi% | 22.v ii% | thirty.7 -33% |
* ... smaller is amend
With that out of the fashion, the X1 Tablet did record fairly mediocre runtimes in our bombardment tests. At the extremes, nosotros measured 10 hours and 28 minutes of battery life under minimal load (Reader's Examination) and i hour and 58 minutes under heavy load (Classic Examination). More than applicably, the Wi-Fi Surfing v1.iii test resulted in 5 hours of total runtime, which—while still alee of the 4K Dell XPS 12'southward poor result of 4:03—is well below the Surface Pro 4's 8:08 in that same test. Differences are less pronounced when compared with the HP Spectre x2 12 (half dozen:01) and ASUS Zenbook UX305CA (6:42)—and the Toshiba Portege Z20t (12:40) cannot exist direct compared due to the inclusion of the secondary keyboard dock battery in the tests.
| Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Tablet Hard disk Graphics 515, 6Y75, Samsung PM871 MZYLN256HCHP | Dell XPS 12 9250 4K Hard disk drive Graphics 515, 6Y75, Samsung PM951 NVMe 512 GB | HP Spectre x2 12-a003ng K3D42EA Hard disk Graphics 515, 6Y75, Sandisk X300 SD7SN6S-256G-1006 | Asus Zenbook UX305CA-FB055T HD Graphics 515, 6Y75, Micron M600 MTFDDAV512MBF M.2 | Toshiba Portege Z20t-B-10C Hard disk Graphics 5300, 5Y71, Toshiba HG6 THNSNJ256GVNU | Microsoft Surface Pro 4, Core m3 HD Graphics 515, 6Y30, Samsung MZFLV128 NVMe | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Battery Runtime | -27% | 38% | 50% | 168% | 35% | |
| Reader / Idle | 628 | 370 -41% | 954 52% | 1013 61% | 1616 157% | 791 26% |
| WiFi v1.3 | 300 | 243 -19% | 361 20% | 402 34% | 760 153% | 488 63% |
| Load | 118 | 93 -21% | 166 41% | 182 54% | 348 195% | 138 17% |
Battery Runtime
| Idle (without WLAN, min effulgence) | 10h 28min | |
| WiFi Websurfing | 5h 00min | |
| Load (maximum brightness) | 1h 58min |
Pros
+ novel kickstand pattern which improves lap comfort
+ skilful WLAN performance
+ comfy, well-tuned keyboard
+ spacious and accurate touchpad with good integrated buttons
+ vivid brandish console with reasonably proficient color gamut
+ speedy full general system functioning
+ separately-sold modules are a neat concept
+ maintenance is made possible by removable rear console
Cons
- case, while rigid, is more susceptible to torsion than the Surface Pro and other competitors
- difficult to comport i-handed while open
- middling brightness and contrast pales in comparing to most rivals
- PWM is present at all brightness levels up to 49 percent
- sustained CPU/GPU functioning is subject to thermal constraints; throttling is nearly instantaneous
- GPU performance is really below that of the Surface Pro m3 model
- runs warm while idle and chop-chop becomes hot under stress
- speakers are mediocre at best
- battery runtimes are well below average
- pricey
Lenovo was ane of the pioneers of the convertible market place long ago, merely the X1 Tablet ($1,549 equally reviewed) marks the company's start foray into the Microsoft Surface-fashion designs with their flagship ThinkPad line of products. The goal of the device was to provide a business-friendly alternative to the Surface Pro—and in a number of means, it succeeds. The X1 Tablet not only emphasizes usability with the comfortable, well-tuned input devices we've come to await from a ThinkPad, but it also features potent performance for a passively-cooled device, maintenance and in-house service opportunities (sure to exist celebrated by IT corporate departments), and a range of separately-sold modules to expand functionality and port choice. We also were impressed by the revised kickstand design, which renders lap-based use considerably more than comfortable than it is with the Surface Pro.
Despite its shortcomings, the X1 Tablet is nevertheless a strong showtime effort by Lenovo to provide a business concern-friendly alternative to theSurface Pro 4, and users (or organizations) intrigued by the concept may discover it to be just what the doctor ordered.
Consumers should weigh a number of drawbacks and considerations before committing to this device, nonetheless. For starters, though it is a ThinkPad, the inclusion of a removable back and the use of PPS Injection Hybrid plastic for some of the construction materials renders the torsion resistance inferior to that of fully-magnesium, unibody devices (such as the Microsoft Surface Pro). The machine also runs hot (at least, the configuration nosotros evaluated), which makes information technology uncomfortable to use for extended periods of fourth dimension in the mitt. While we evaluated the summit-end Cadre m7 configuration, nosotros question the value of this upgrade, equally it is quite pricey (around $350 more than than the m3), and numerous thermal functioning constraints dampen its practicality when compared side-by-side with lower-powered m5 and m3 options. And finally, battery life is inferior to well-nigh all directly competitors, and is a bit on the curt side for fifty-fifty larger Ultrabooks with active cooling.
Perhaps springing for a Core m3 or m5 model instead could alleviate some of these birdbrained snags without any appreciable sacrifice in the realm of functioning—and with the added bonus of a handy toll savings, to boot.
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Tablet - 2016-06-02 06/02/2016 v5.1(old)
Steve Schardein
Convertible - Weighted Average
Pricecompare
In course schoolhouse, my outset reckoner—an Apple IIGS—started it all for me. Afterwards, in the nineties, if I wasn't repairing computers for family and friends, I was busy cooking up nifty Visual Bones projects and playing PC games like Command & Conquer and Heroes of Might and Magic. Soon, much of my gratuitous time was spent moderating popular gaming forums and covering the manufacture for various websites. All the while, I never stopped repairing computers, and in 2006, I started a technology consulting visitor in Louisville. Today, I am truly living my dream: still a kid at heart, ever-curious, constantly learning, and thankful to you, our readers.
Steve Schardein, 2016-06- two (Update: 2020-06- 8)
Source: https://www.notebookcheck.net/Lenovo-ThinkPad-X1-Tablet-Review.166563.0.html
0 Response to "Lenovo Thinkpad X1 12 Intel Core M5-6y75 Review"
Post a Comment