Notebookcheck

C-Force CF016xT USB-C 144 Hz Portabel Monitor - Praktisk när den fungerar (Sammanfattning)

Allen Ngo, 👁 Allen Ngo (översatt av Daniel Eriksson), 01/06/2020

Strömkabel behövs inte... alltid. Den är utmärkt när den fungerar, men problem med strömförsörjningen och ett tveksamt flimrande beteende gör den opålitlig i vissa situationer. Att en AC-adapter inte ingår i förpackningen är extra märkligt.

Storleksjämförelse

373 mm 219 mm 9.5 mm 990 g368 mm 225 mm 8.8 mm 770 g360 mm 226 mm 8 mm 780 g357 mm 226 mm 8.7 mm 1 kg356 mm 226 mm 6 mm 700 g350 mm 224 mm 10 mm 853 g

Anslutbarhet

Ovansidan: Inga portar
Ovansidan: Inga portar
Höger: 2x USB Typ C med Power Delivery och DisplayPort, mini-HDMI
Höger: 2x USB Typ C med Power Delivery och DisplayPort, mini-HDMI
Undersidan: Högtalargaller, gummifötter
Undersidan: Högtalargaller, gummifötter
Vänster: OSD-knapp, volymknapp och OSD-kontroll, 3.5 mm ljudutgång
Vänster: OSD-knapp, volymknapp och OSD-kontroll, 3.5 mm ljudutgång
211.2
cd/m²
209.3
cd/m²
202.5
cd/m²
206.8
cd/m²
214.3
cd/m²
203.7
cd/m²
210.2
cd/m²
203.7
cd/m²
193.3
cd/m²
Distribution av ljusstyrkan
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Max: 214.3 cd/m² Medel: 206.1 cd/m² Minimum: 4.47 cd/m²
Distribution av ljusstyrkan: 90 %
Kontrast: 932:1 (Svärta: 0.23 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 4.34 | 0.6-29.43 Ø5.9, calibrated: 1.12
ΔE Greyscale 5.5 | 0.64-98 Ø6.1
96.2% sRGB (Argyll 3D) 60.6% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 3D)
Gamma: 2.51
C-Force CF016xT
1920x1080, 16.1
C-Force CF015C
3840x2160, 15.6
MageDok Atlas Gaming Monitor
1920x1080, 15.6
Lepow Type-C Portable Monitor X0025I0D4P
1920x1080, 15.6
Odake BladeX 4K UHD
3840x2160, 15.6
Asus MB16AC
1920x1080, 15.6
Response Times
-63%
0%
-64%
-73%
-22%
Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% *
20.4 (12, 8.4)
32.4 (19.2, 13.2)
-59%
10.4 (6.4, 4)
49%
30.8 (16.8, 14)
-51%
40 (20.4, 19.6)
-96%
19 (9, 10)
7%
Response Time Black / White *
16.4 (10.8, 5.6)
27.2 (17.2, 10)
-66%
11 (7.6, 3.4)
33%
23.6 (12.4, 11.2)
-44%
24.4 (12.8, 11.6)
-49%
28 (15, 13)
-71%
PWM Frequency
25770 (42)
4950 (99)
-81%
1000 (23)
-96%
25000 (25)
-3%
Screen
-8%
-51%
-83%
-27%
77%
Brightness middle
214.3
205.7
-4%
144.9
-32%
193.9
-10%
371.9
74%
166
-23%
Brightness
206
201
-2%
146
-29%
192
-7%
366
78%
154
-25%
Brightness Distribution
90
81
-10%
91
1%
88
-2%
88
-2%
82
-9%
Black Level *
0.23
0.27
-17%
0.78
-239%
0.75
-226%
0.31
-35%
0.02
91%
Contrast
932
762
-18%
186
-80%
259
-72%
1200
29%
8300
791%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
4.34
5.61
-29%
5.79
-33%
6.66
-53%
6.36
-47%
3.51
19%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *
6.45
10.87
-69%
8.43
-31%
18.75
-191%
10.34
-60%
10.49
-63%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 calibrated *
1.12
2.12
-89%
3.83
-242%
5.89
-426%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
5.5
4.1
25%
6.7
-22%
7.6
-38%
3.7
33%
2.49
55%
Gamma
2.51 88%
2.22 99%
1.96 112%
2.04 108%
2.19 100%
2.38 92%
CCT
7115 91%
5904 110%
6295 103%
8567 76%
6474 100%
6346 102%
Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998)
60.6
88
45%
58.2
-4%
39.3
-35%
91.7
51%
41
-32%
Color Space (Percent of sRGB)
96.2
100
4%
90.7
-6%
61.8
-36%
100
4%
64
-33%
Total Average (Program / Settings)
-36% / -17%
-26% / -40%
-74% / -79%
-50% / -34%
28% / 54%

* ... smaller is better

Display Response Times

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
16.4 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 10.8 ms rise
↘ 5.6 ms fall
The screen shows good response rates in our tests, but may be too slow for competitive gamers.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.8 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 20 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (24.7 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
20.4 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 12 ms rise
↘ 8.4 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 0.9 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 14 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (39.3 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 25770 Hz ≤ 42 % brightness setting

The display backlight flickers at 25770 Hz (Likely utilizing PWM) Flickering detected at a brightness setting of 42 % and below. There should be no flickering or PWM above this brightness setting.

The frequency of 25770 Hz is quite high, so most users sensitive to PWM should not notice any flickering.

In comparison: 50 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 18300 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 2500000) Hz was measured.

dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2042.846.342.82543.647.343.63142.446.642.44041.84341.85043.942.743.96337.437.837.48036.138.536.110036.53836.512538.641.338.616034.539.434.52003444.23425033.348.133.331532.653.932.640032.158.132.150029.658.229.663029.464.829.480028.968.728.9100028.76928.7125028.567.228.5160028.466.828.4200028.366.428.3250028.165.828.1315027.964.927.9400027.869.227.8500027.866.927.8630027.860.327.8800027.758.927.71000027.761.527.71250027.657.827.61600027.451.727.4SPL40.878.140.8N4.141.64.1median 28.5median 60.3median 28.5Delta2.28.42.235.335.132.931.831.83236.535.132.428.93328.936.328.848.32761.52752.924.860.92462.822.763.32269.521.267.82174.82075.919.472.718.97117.770.117.86917.671.817.668.117.671.417.673.717.670.417.571.617.671.617.669.617.459.717.583.630.662.51.5median 69.6median 17.84.62.4hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseC-Force CF016xTApple MacBook 12 (Early 2016) 1.1 GHz
Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)
C-Force CF016xT audio analysis

(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (78.1 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 16.2% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 5.7% higher than median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (7% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 4% away from median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (8.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (24.8% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 72% of all tested devices in this class were better, 6% similar, 22% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 72% of all tested devices were better, 6% similar, 22% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 65%

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
» 2% of all tested devices in this class were better, 1% similar, 97% worse
» The best had a delta of 8%, average was 20%, worst was 50%
Compared to all devices tested
» 1% of all tested devices were better, 0% similar, 98% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 65%

För

+ Hyfsade svart-vita och grå-grå responstider
+ Full funktionalitet med bara en USB Typ C-kabel
+ Fullständig sRGB-täckning; god färgprecision
+ Design med tunn infattning; portabel
+ Inbyggda stereohögtalare
+ Bra kontrastförhållande

Emot

- 144 Hz-läget är bara garanterat för USB Typ C, ej för HDMI
- Instabilt och svagt gångjärn; svårt att justera vinkeln
- Skärmen är dåligt kalibrerad vid leverans
- Kunde varit mer ljusstark; förvänta dig reflektioner
- PWM förekommer på de lägsta ljusstyrkenivåerna
- AC-adapter ingår inte i förpackningen
- Energiförbrukningen beter sig buggigt
- Inget internt batteri
- Svagt ljud
Recension av C-Force CF016xT. Recensionsex från C-Force
Recension av C-Force CF016xT. Recensionsex från C-Force

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

Går det verkligen att driva en tryckkänslig skärm på 16.1 tum med 1080p-upplösning, 300 nits och 144 Hz bilduppdatering med bara en USB Typ C-kabel? Det bästa vi lyckades uppnå var 200 nits och 144 Hz när den var ansluten till vår Surface Laptop 3, eller endast 60 Hz när det var ansluten via HDMI. Oavsett vilken strömförsörjning vi använde gick ljusstyrkan aldrig över 214 nits. I värsta fall flimrade skärmen okontrollerat även när vi använde två USB Typ C-kablar, en för data och en för att ge tillräcklig energiförsörjning.

De goda nyheterna är att skärmen fungerar utmärkt när allt klaffar. Färgerna är förvånansvärt exakta efter en ordentlig kalibrering och den smidiga bilduppdateringen på 144 Hz samt de tryckkänsliga kontrollerna resulterade i en smärtfri upplevelse i det här specifika scenariot. Men det går inte att neka att skärmen kunde fått lite mer kärlek i fråga om hur den hanterar sin energiförbrukning och hur den borde bete sig när två USB Typ C-kablar är anslutna samtidigt. Ett bättre utfällbart ställ hade också hjälpt till med att göra detta till en mer användbar extern skärm.

Please share our article, every link counts!
> Bärbara datorer, laptops - tester och nyheter > Tester > C-Force CF016xT USB-C 144 Hz Portabel Monitor - Praktisk när den fungerar (Sammanfattning)
Allen Ngo, 2020-01- 6 (Update: 2020-01- 6)
Allen Ngo
Editor of the original article: Allen Ngo - US Editor in Chief