Quote from: Real NikoB- on August 12, 2024, 20:25:30because in the quote provided by my link, it is directly admitted that there IS an effect on the eyes and nervous system

You better admit you do not know english and haven't read and understood the link in full.

Quote from: Worgarthe on August 11, 2024, 23:51:21"Generally, the viewing distance of smartphones is greater (mean?=?33.95 cm, SD?=?5.90 cm, range 19.0?51.3?cm) than that of the smartphones tested in this research [Citation13,Citation14]. Besides, as the PWM frequency increases with the development of technology, the effects on the human body of the flicker of OLED displays are expected to become more insignificant."

Well, dude, you read the exact opposite in the conclusions. You are clearly inadequate, because in the quote provided by my link, it is directly admitted that there IS an effect on the eyes and nervous system and they are trying to reduce it, i.e. it is written in black and white - all modern AMOLEDs are 100% harmful to vision and especially the nervous system of a person.

Q.E.D.

And this is without references to articles where harm has been clearly proven in numerous tests with animals.

I'm sure the Samsung researcher is clearly smarter and more competent than you, amateur, so he clearly pointed out that there are problems and it's irrefutable.

Quote from: Niko...B on August 12, 2024, 16:31:37And it wasn't me who started this

Lies. Moderator of german part of forum told you to stop posting in english and you've started posting the same message over and over because you are not a mature person. I was there.

Quote from: Niko B on August 12, 2024, 16:11:04The shameful NB team has banned NikoB nickname

Finally.

It's ok Niko, you can't read, that's no crime. You have 50 different names here after all...

Quote from: NikoB.A on August 11, 2024, 22:58:43And here is a quote from there:
"...since the IEEE Standards PAR1789 was established for LEDs. In the said standards, percent flicker (1) has a maximum level of 100%, and the frequency that satisfies the low-risk level is 1,250?Hz or higher... "

PAR1789 is from 2010 and latest paper it cites is from 2005. Half of it is about epilepsy and another half is the fact some people had headaches because of fluorescent lighting. It is very badly proven and it's using exactly one study for "headache and eye strain" from 1989, which is obviously not about PWM, but again, fluorescent lamps flicker at 50(100)Hz (see Appendix). Also PAR1789 states that there's no evidence of adverse effects for flicker <165Hz at all.
Go back to school.

Quote from: NikoB.A on August 11, 2024, 22:58:43A stupid amateur who doesn't understand anything about the topic climbs in with comments.

Change your pants you've shat yourself.

Quote from: NikoB.A on August 11, 2024, 22:58:43Here's work from a researcher at Samsung Display that proves this is a problem: www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15980316.2021.1950854

And here is a quote from there:
"...since the IEEE Standards PAR1789 was established for LEDs. In the said standards, percent flicker (1) has a maximum level of 100%, and the frequency that satisfies the low-risk level is 1,250?Hz or higher... "

"According to Table 1, the OLED display did not meet the criteria when it was at a low luminance level at a distance of 1 cm."

"Generally, the viewing distance of smartphones is greater (mean = 33.95 cm, SD = 5.90 cm, range 19.0−51.3 cm) than that of the smartphones tested in this research [Citation13,Citation14]. Besides, as the PWM frequency increases with the development of technology, the effects on the human body of the flicker of OLED displays are expected to become more insignificant."

So, as the article says, if you watch it from a distance of 1 cm or less, with very low brightness in the dark, yes it is in fact harmful to some degree. Pretty much nothing that anyone with a laptop is ever doing.

Quote from: NikoB (B) on August 11, 2024, 13:51:36I sympathize in advance with the eyes and nervous system of all owners with such an AMOLED screen with a monstrous PWM at 60Hz...

There is no scientific evidence PWM affects anyone.

Little time between the review and my comment, but this is by far the best article I have found regarding the Lenovo P16S Gen 2.
 
I only wish there were images of the interior, however these were easily found on video sites.
 
I am a target user because I am a business user, and a technical/software writer/designer user.   For the price, this seems to be a great machine.    You are critical of the OLED for its power usage, but for those of us spending 12 hours a day in front of the display, a tremendous display is far more desirable than a couple of hours of battery life....especially when we are getting 8 hours to begin with.
 
What is also missing from this article is the fact Intel has an ENORMOUS problem on its hand with its 13th and 14th gen CPU's.   Apparently every one of them is going to need a microcode update to prevent them from burning up. 

I cannot wait to get my new machine, as my current HP is 10+ years old.    I am sure there will be some keyboard pains and many many more Win7 to Win11 pains.

OK so should I buy 7840U or 14th gen. Intel? I dont need dedicated gfx chip at all.

Tldr.

Not really impressed by the 780M performance.
I will only be impressed if when an iGPU can beat an entry level GPU from last generation like the RX6600.

Quote from: NikoB on January 27, 2024, 20:50:11Again the troll makes competent people laugh

Btw, this is completely hilarious thing from you to say, a clownlord who can't even read how long is the warranty of the machine. You are only competent in being brainless, that's pretty obvious from all your spammed s*** across this forum.

Quote from: NikoB on January 27, 2024, 20:50:11Again the troll makes competent people laugh - where did he find that the 7840HS was as slow in PL1 as 1370p? I am waiting..

The 7840HS is not even available in the P16s G2 AMD, only R5 PRO 7540U and R7 PRO 7840U are, but I know that your fish brain is not aware that CPUs are not perma-locked at PL1. Why are you even comparing two totally different classes of CPUs, lol? Why not compare the 7840HS with something from its class, like the i7 13700H? Oh I know why, because the former is equal at worst, but oftentimes better.

But even the weaker 1370P (a CPU comparable with the R7 7840U) is standing pretty good against the class-higher 7840HS; better power efficiency, similar single core performance, fairly close in multi core, overall only 13% slower while being more efficient. Not bad for a smaller chip.

Quote from: Poster on January 26, 2024, 23:29:45Soldered ram!? Even for an 'S' model, this is unacceptable.

Blame AMD for that and for being uncompetitive with slower RAM which is in SO-DIMM modules and not in BGA packages (soldered); yes there are 6000-6400 SO-DIMMs but far more expensive and more unreliable than simply soldering. Intel has no such issues of soldered-only, as this same model with Intel CPU has soldered + one free slot, and they are on par in performance with AMD - with much slower RAM. That says enough.

OTOH if there was slower RAM installed here in widely-available slow(er) SO-DIMMs this CPU wouldn't be able to compete with Intel i3s and the iGPU would be slower than the Iris Xe; then people would obviously find that problematic despite being easy to upgrade their RAM. Seriously, blame AMD for needing the fastest possible RAM to match and barely beat Intel.

Quote from: edram on January 27, 2024, 17:35:11"Its integrated graphics chip achieves similar performance to the Nvidia RTX 2050."

Yeah, right... More like Nvidia 1050.

It's basically identical to the RTX 2050 and even faster in many benchmarks; here, one of the faster 2050s in the review.

• 3DMark Fire Strike Score: 7524 points 780M vs 7230 points RTX 2050
• The Witcher 1080p High: 47 fps 780M vs 46.7 fps RTX 2050

And so on...