Notebookcheck

Test: MageDok 15 Portable Monitor (Sammanfattning)

Allen Ngo, 👁 Allen Ngo (översatt av Daniel Eriksson), 09/19/2019

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

368 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
Höger: 3.5 mm hörlursanslutning, USB Typ C, mini-HDMI, USB Typ C med Power Delivery, 2x USB Typ-C OTG
Höger: 3.5 mm hörlursanslutning, USB Typ C, mini-HDMI, USB Typ C med Power Delivery, 2x USB Typ-C OTG
Framsidan: Inga portar
Framsidan: Inga portar
Vänster: Menyknappar
Vänster: Menyknappar
Baksidan: Inga portar
Baksidan: Inga portar
151.4
cd/m²
152.3
cd/m²
144.8
cd/m²
139
cd/m²
144.9
cd/m²
147.7
cd/m²
138.3
cd/m²
143.4
cd/m²
151
cd/m²
Distribution av ljusstyrkan
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Max: 152.3 cd/m² Medel: 145.9 cd/m² Minimum: 3.21 cd/m²
Distribution av ljusstyrkan: 91 %
Kontrast: 186:1 (Svärta: 0.78 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 5.79 | 0.6-29.43 Ø6, calibrated: 2.12
ΔE Greyscale 6.7 | 0.64-98 Ø6.2
90.7% sRGB (Argyll 3D) 58.2% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 3D)
Gamma: 1.96
MageDok Atlas Gaming Monitor
15.6, 1920x1080
C-Force CF015C
15.6, 3840x2160
Lepow Type-C Portable Monitor X0025I0D4P
15.6, 1920x1080
Asus MB16AC
IPS, 15.6, 1920x1080
Asus VivoBook S15 S532F
LG Philips LP156WFC-SPD1, IPS, 15.6, 1920x1080
Apple iPad Air 2019
IPS, 10.5, 2224x1668
Response Times
-180%
-130%
56%
-128%
-307%
Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% *
10.4 (6.4, 4)
32.4 (19.2, 13.2)
-212%
30.8 (16.8, 14)
-196%
19 (9, 10)
-83%
24.8 (12.8, 12)
-138%
58 (27.6, 30.4)
-458%
Response Time Black / White *
11 (7.6, 3.4)
27.2 (17.2, 10)
-147%
23.6 (12.4, 11.2)
-115%
28 (15, 13)
-155%
24 (14, 10)
-118%
28 (10.4, 17.6)
-155%
PWM Frequency
4950 (99)
1000 (23)
-80%
25000 (25)
405%
Screen
52%
-17%
449%
16%
161%
Brightness middle
144.9
205.7
42%
193.9
34%
166
15%
262.3
81%
515
255%
Brightness
146
201
38%
192
32%
154
5%
250
71%
483
231%
Brightness Distribution
91
81
-11%
88
-3%
82
-10%
89
-2%
90
-1%
Black Level *
0.78
0.27
65%
0.75
4%
0.02
97%
0.43
45%
0.41
47%
Contrast
186
762
310%
259
39%
8300
4362%
610
228%
1256
575%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
5.79
5.61
3%
6.66
-15%
3.51
39%
5.81
-0%
1.6
72%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *
8.43
10.87
-29%
18.75
-122%
10.49
-24%
14.7
-74%
4.4
48%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 calibrated *
2.12
3.83
-81%
5.36
-153%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
6.7
4.1
39%
7.6
-13%
2.49
63%
2.8
58%
2.8
58%
Gamma
1.96 112%
2.22 99%
2.04 108%
2.38 92%
2.15 102%
2.21 100%
CCT
6295 103%
5904 110%
8567 76%
6346 102%
7016 93%
6944 94%
Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998)
58.2
88
51%
39.3
-32%
41
-30%
35.2
-40%
Color Space (Percent of sRGB)
90.7
100
10%
61.8
-32%
64
-29%
55.6
-39%
Total Average (Program / Settings)
-64% / 13%
-74% / -41%
253% / 358%
-56% / -6%
-73% / 67%

* ... 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
11 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 7.6 ms rise
↘ 3.4 ms fall
The screen shows good response rates in our tests, but may be too slow for competitive gamers.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.8 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 11 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (24.8 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
10.4 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 6.4 ms rise
↘ 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. » 8 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (39.4 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 4950 Hz ≤ 99 % brightness setting

The display backlight flickers at 4950 Hz (Likely utilizing PWM) Flickering detected at a brightness setting of 99 % and below. There should be no flickering or PWM above this brightness setting.

The frequency of 4950 Hz is quite high, so most users sensitive to PWM should not notice any flickering.

In comparison: 51 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 9364 (minimum: 43 - maximum: 142900) Hz was measured.

Hög belastning
 28.4 °C28.2 °C29.4 °C 
 28.6 °C32 °C31 °C 
 34.6 °C37 °C39.6 °C 
Max: 39.6 °C
Medel: 32.1 °C
33.4 °C31.6 °C32 °C
35.6 °C33.8 °C32.6 °C
38 °C35.2 °C33.8 °C
Max: 38 °C
Medel: 34 °C
Rumstemperatur 22.6 °C | Fluke 62 Mini IR Thermometer
(±) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 32.1 °C / 90 F, compared to the average of 28 °C / 82 F for the devices in the class Desktop.
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 39.6 °C / 103 F, compared to the average of 33.8 °C / 93 F, ranging from 25.2 to 47 °C for the class Desktop.
(+) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 38 °C / 100 F, compared to the average of 34 °C / 93 F
dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2046.747.42541.542.33140.240.84038.939.35037.937.96336.937.88036.33710035.734.712535.134.816034.335.220033.137.225032.141.631531.84540031.249.250030.851.563029.958.480029.159.2100028.858.2125028.957.4160028.554.6200028.553.1250028.247.231502847.7400027.946.150002846.7630027.746.2800027.742.11000027.440.21250027.336.91600027.337.8SPL40.865.5N4.118.2median 28.8median 46.2Delta2.17.135.335.132.931.831.83236.535.132.428.93328.936.328.848.32761.52752.924.860.92462.822.763.32269.521.267.82174.82075.919.472.718.97117.770.117.86917.671.817.668.117.671.417.673.717.670.417.571.617.671.617.669.617.459.717.583.630.662.51.5median 69.6median 17.84.62.4hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseMageDok Atlas Gaming MonitorApple MacBook 12 (Early 2016) 1.1 GHz
Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)
MageDok Atlas Gaming Monitor audio analysis

(-) | not very loud speakers (65.48 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(±) | reduced bass - on average 8.1% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (12.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 9% higher than median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (14.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 1.9% away from median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (12.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(-) | overall sound is not linear (37.8% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 67% of all tested devices in this class were better, 33% similar, 0% worse
» The best had a delta of 9%, average was 22%, worst was 38%
Compared to all devices tested
» 97% of all tested devices were better, 1% similar, 2% 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 8%, average was 20%, worst was 50%
Compared to all devices tested
» 1% of all tested devices were better, 1% similar, 98% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

För

+ många anslutningar och USB Typ C-portar
+ täcker över 90 procent av sRGB
+ relativt snabba responstider
+ robust chassidesign

Emot

- vissa USB Typ A- och Typ C-portar klarar inte av att driva skärmen
- PWM på nästan alla ljusstyrkenivåer
- AC-adapter ingår ej
- lågt kontrastförhållande
- svaga högtalare
- svag ljusstyrka
- kraftiga reflektioner
- tung
Recension av den portabla skärmen MageDok 15. Recensionsex från MageDok
Recension av den portabla skärmen MageDok 15. Recensionsex från MageDok

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

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

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

Pricecompare

Please share our article, every link counts!
> Bärbara datorer, laptops - tester och nyheter > Tester > Test: MageDok 15 Portable Monitor (Sammanfattning)
Allen Ngo, 2019-09-19 (Update: 2019-09-20)