Lenovo Yoga 9i 14 G8 2023 Convertible im Test - Intel Raptor Lake enttäuscht

[Redaktion]

Das neue G8-Modell von Lenovos High-End-Convertible Yoga 9i 14 ist das erste Gerät mit Intels neuem Raptor-Lake-Mobilprozessor. Im Test gibt es aber nur geringe Verbesserungen und insgesamt enttäuschen die neuen Intel-CPUs, vor allem bei der integrierten Grafik.

https://www.notebookcheck.com/Lenovo-Yoga-9i-14-G8-2023-Convertible-im-Test-Intel-Raptor-Lake-enttaeuscht.687519.0.html

[Patte]

Geht es nur mir so? Ich würde mir niemals ein Laptop kaufen, dass diese Funktionstasten an der rechten Seite hat... wie seht Ihr das?

[klavierpunk]

Von einer neuen Prozessorgeneration kann man nur enttäuscht sein, wenn man zuvor viel erwartet hat. Angesichts der Tatsache, dass Raptor Lake im Wesentlichen ein optimiertes Alder Lake ist, waren solche Erwartungen ohnehin eher unangebracht, besonders, wenn man die iGPU betrachtet.

[RobertJasiek]

Die Funktionstasten rechts könnte ich einfach ignorieren, aber mein Problem ist, dass die Pfeiltasten klein sind und Bildnavigationstasten da sein könnten, wo die Medientasten rechts sind.

[NikoB]

Another proof that a new generation of terrible AMOLED screens has entered the market.

They no longer have a super contrast of 1000000:1, but only a miserable 12000:1, but at the same time PWM is 360Hz, and not at least 3.6kHz...

We have complete bullshit at the output - neither you have super contrast OLED, nor you have no flicker. Who needs it.

I draw your attention to the fact that it was possible
  calibrate this panel with dE below 2. This is an achievement!

Let's go further...
The speed of RAM loses to the Alder Lake generation in Yoga, and this is shameful.

Performance has increased slightly, but the noise has become monstrous, like gaming models - who needs this?

There is no point in commenting on the rest. The price is too high for such a shameful 16/512 config. If there were 32/2Tb here - and then questions arise - why are they asking for so much?

[Mr. Franz]

Super, dass ihr die Sache mit dem Moiré-Effekt erwähnt. Bei den meisten Reviews von Geräten mit dieser Problematik ist davon nichts zu lesen.

They no longer have a super contrast of 1000000:1, but only a miserable 12000:1

All modern OLEDs have an infinite contrast ratio because that are able to display pure black (0 cd/m²). Notebookcheck here probably simply used a measurement tool that was only capable of detecting 0.03 cd/m² at lowest, so they took that as the measurement for the OLED.
This results in the "low" contrast rating of 12000:1 (~ 379,1 cd/m² / 0,03 cd/m²).

This is quite missleading as for example for the review of the "Asus Zenbook Pro 16X", which also used OLED,   notebookcheck correctly measured 0 cd/m² and calculated a contrast of ∞:1.

[NikoB]

It is you who are mistaken. NB in all reviews previously always wrote about "infinite" black, without indicating the level of contrast at all (like it's pointless). And suddenly in the latest reviews he began to indicate. Obviously, or they were cunning earlier in the reviews, all the authors or the characteristics of the panels have changed. Given the key drawback of AMOLED - monstrous flicker and fast burnout, I would rather believe that new hybrids are entering the market, where they are trying to increase the PWM frequency, and this immediately leads to a drop in super-contrast to such values. In Asus, in cheap laptops, it drops even more to 6000: 1, but there, as NB reviews assure, there is no flicker.

I previously posted here a link to the research work of a Samsung employee, who indirectly confirmed the harm from low-frequency PWM for people and that all sorts of attempts are being made to increase the frequency for monitor panels and laptops - since here it is an order of magnitude more critical than in smartphone screens. People work behind them the whole working day and the harm is maximum. That is why they are not popular, and there are actually no AMOLED monitors and never will be.

And if they lower the contrast by 100 times or more - what's the point of AMOLED if there is no their vaunted super-contrast in complete darkness? In the light, there is no difference between IPS 2000:1 and AMOLED 1000000:1 at all, but visually, in office lighting, IPS / VA win. And everyone can easily verify this by comparing 2 smartphones with IPS and AMOLED. IPS always wins in office lighting visually. And only in complete darkness AMOLED drives.

[Kimono]

since here it is an order of magnitude more critical than in smartphone screens.

Ja, das stimmt. Es liegt an dem Winkel. Die Laptopdisplay sind größer, als von Handys, aber normalerweise haben sie gleichen Abstand zu Augen. Dadurch Laptop-PWM beeinflusst viel mehr die Pupillen, hier müssen sie schon ununterbrochen reagieren. Daraus kommen die Kopfschmerzen.

[Mr. Franz]

It is you who are mistaken. NB in all reviews previously always wrote about "infinite" black, without indicating the level of contrast at all (like it's pointless).

Yes, stating the contrast ratio while having true black is kind of pointless because it is always ∞. That is simply due to the definition of contrast as Luminance_Max / Luminance_Min.

And suddenly in the latest reviews he began to indicate. Obviously, or they were cunning earlier in the reviews, all the authors or the characteristics of the panels have changed.

I mentioned the notebookcheck review of Asus Zenbook Pro 16X, which talked of infinite contrast for OLED. This review is only three months old (published on December 2022). There are older reviews (e.g. Lenovo Yoga Slim 7 Pro 14 OLED in April 2022), which do the same thing as here (that is calculating the contrast based on a measurement of black which falsely is above 0 cd/m²).
So probably some reviewers just know less about the topic than others (and/or have different measurement tools for detecting black level).

I would rather believe that new hybrids are entering the market, where they are trying to increase the PWM frequency, and this immediately leads to a drop in super-contrast to such values.

If contrast decreased and they still feature 0 cd/m² min brightness, the question is what do you mean by contrast (it can´t be the definion given above and what notebookcheck calculates)?
LGs WOLED technology (which is by the way also AMOLED because it uses an active matrix) does not have PWM and still features infinitive contrast. So there shouldn´t be a trade-off.

is why they are not popular, and there are actually no AMOLED monitors and never will be.

As stated above, LG OLEDs are also AMOLEDs. The term is just favored by Samsungs marketing department for their smartphones. 

In the light, there is no difference between IPS 2000:1 and AMOLED 1000000:1 at all, but visually, in office lighting, IPS / VA win. And everyone can easily verify this by comparing 2 smartphones with IPS and AMOLED. IPS always wins in office lighting visually. And only in complete darkness AMOLED drives.

High ambient lighting is a different story.
Under these conditions black level is no longer dominantly determined by light emission of pixels but on how well the display and its coating swallows light. LCDs mostly do this better than OLEDs (you can check that put putting an OLED and LCD display into pure sun light while both are off, usually the LCD is far darker and OLEDs are almost grey). Plus brightness gets really important because your eyes, which are limited in contrast, do not adapt to brightness range of your display any more, as there are now brighter light sources around. So displays with low brightness are perceived as low contrast by the human eye even if their actual contrast ratio is infinite.

In office areas with are large windows during bright daylight, LCDs might give better results but in most electrically illuminated rooms OLEDs already have the edge over LCDs.

[NikoB]

If contrast decreased and they still feature 0 cd/m² min brightness, the question is what do you mean by contrast

You are confused about the terms. If the contrast is set to 12000:1, there can be no infinite black level, i.e. there can be no 0 nits. The maximum that AMOLED can give is about 0.0005 nits, and exactly the same amount is required by the HDR specification. With static metadata. Dynamic HDR (aka HDR10+) is more flexible in this regard.

If this site cannot unify the values in different reviews in the absolute scale of measurements, the value of the data in them is zero.

In office areas with are large windows during bright daylight, LCDs might give better results but in most electrically illuminated rooms OLEDs already have the edge over LCDs.

And this is a false statement, which everyone can easily see in office lighting or on the trading floor - any smartphone with IPS (and even more so VA panel monitors) and a native contrast ratio of 1000: 1 + (VA 3000: 1) when illuminated at 300-500 luxury, easily beats the top AMOLED panels in the latest smartphones. And office lighting and subdued sunlight at home are the most common use cases.

That is why all AMOLED-based panels will never be able to conquer the laptop and monitor panel market.
They always flicker nastily, they are always glossy and glare nasty (which, by the way, is even constantly seen in Hollywood films, where Apple laptops are often shown, and there are always glossy screens - it looks ridiculous from the outside and like an obvious anti-advertising of glossy screens)

The only market where AMOLED makes sense is TV. Because in complete darkness, they are unmatched as almost perfect black technology compared to other technologies, with the exception of microLED.

In laptop and monitor panels, high-frequency PWM, a long panel life up to 50% dimming (usually at least 15k hours for laptops and 40k hours for monitors), full color resolution and a matte screen are important. With an acceptable contrast ratio of 1500:1. Plus, the response is no more than 5-6ms on G2G / B2W. And of course good viewing angles.

AMOLED can only provide super contrast (or low black levels otherwise), good viewing angles (where there are no problems with glare) and high response speed. All this is good in games.

But in the office load, AMOLED loses outright to IPS / VA. And this is a fact. All attempts to implement it as in smartphones are initially doomed to failure. Until it becomes matte, it does not get a minimum resource of 15k and 30k hours up to a 50% drop in brightness, it will always have full color resolution and, most importantly, will not flicker. And for people who work professionally with color, dE after calibration should be below 1. Which almost no AMOLED panel can provide - even 2 is rarely given to it.

If it were otherwise, there would not have been a clear attempt to counteract the fact of AMOLED flickering on large public (popular resources) and obvious harm to the nervous system (especially children). And works like the Samsung researcher only prove that development companies are well aware of how dangerous AMOLED panels are in smartphones, and especially in laptops and monitors. And that is why, I am sure now of this, new panels are appearing, where by increasing the black level (ie, dropping the "super" contrast that marketers are so fond of advertising), they increase the frequency of the PWM. Because either a high PWM frequency or a low black level and a low PWM frequency are extremely harmful to the eyes and the nervous system as a whole.

[klarname]

Kann man die Tasten rechts umkonfigurieren?

[Mr. Franz]

If the contrast is set to 12000:1, there can be no infinite black level, i.e. there can be no 0 nits. The maximum that AMOLED can give is about 0.0005 nits, and exactly the same amount is required by the HDR specification.

You have only reversed my argument: As OLEDs feature infinite black (0 nits), there is no way they only have a contrast of  12000:1 (that calculates by a obvious false measurement of 0.03 nits, which by the way would be bad even for LCDs).

0.0005 nits is the black level reported for Pioneer Kuros G9.5 from 2010 and these still feature glow visible to the human eye.
Modern OLEDs are way below that. If you watch an OLED displaying black in a complete dark room, the human eye is not able to detect any glow or other form of light emission (even after several minutes once your eyes have adapted to low light).
Estimation for the dynamic range of human eyes are between 10^9 and 10^-6 nits. So OLEDs have to be at least (!) below 0.000001 nits. And as this is practically 0 nits for the human eye anyway, contrast is ∞.
Renowned display experts such as Vincent Teoh (HDTVTest) or RTINGs also attest OLEDs a black value of exactly zero and infinitive contrast.

any smartphone with IPS (and even more so VA panel monitors) and a native contrast ratio of 1000: 1 + (VA 3000: 1) when illuminated at 300-500 luxury, easily beats the top AMOLED panels in the latest smartphones.

WTF?!

Samsungs Galaxy S23 Ultra (OLED smartphone): 1133.2 cd/m² full-screen brightness, ∞:1 contrast (source: notebookcheck review)
Motorola Moto G53 5G (IPS smartphone): 559.4 cd/m² full-screen brightness, 1468:1 contrast (source: notebookcheck review)
Dell S3221QS (VA monitor): 300 cd/m² full-screen brightness, 3,194:1 contrast (source: RTINGS review)

The S23 Ultra OLED will crush any of the other screens during daytime due to much more full-screen brightness. There is not even a debate about that.

They [AMOLED] always flicker nastily

Wrong. LG monitors use AMOLED displays and they are flicker-free.

they are always glossy and glare nasty

Again wrong. The LG 27GR95QE has a matte finish.
The fact that most (AM)OLEDs displays are glossy is the decision of the manufacturers. There is no technological necessity.

In laptop and monitor panels, high-frequency PWM, a long panel life up to 50% dimming (usually at least 15k hours for laptops and 40k hours for monitors), full color resolution and a matte screen are important. With an acceptable contrast ratio of 1500:1. Plus, the response is no more than 5-6ms on G2G / B2W. And of course good viewing angles.

- Mate screens reduce overall picture quality (colors and black level during daylight). Not acceptable for me.
- There are almost no LCD monitors with good viewing angles due to the lack of ATW polarizes. Even in notebooks these panels are sadly rare.

most importantly, will not flicker.

Most users do not care about the low amount of flickering introduced by PWM.
In fact flickering is needed (PWM does NOT do this) to reduce sample-&-hold blur for low framerates (low meaning anything < 1000). This is why blur reduction techniques (BFI, strobed backlight, ...) create much stronger flickering as PWM on purpose.

[NikoB]

at calculates by a obvious false measurement of 0.03 nits, which by the way would be bad even for LCDs)

Are you directly accusing the reviews on this site of deliberately false data?

Renowned display experts such as Vincent Teoh (HDTVTest) or RTINGs also attest OLEDs a black value of exactly zero and infinitive contrast.

In fact, this is not so, in fact, most manufacturers declare a native contrast ratio of 1000000: 1.

Samsungs Galaxy S23 Ultra (OLED smartphone): 1133.2 cd/m² full-screen brightness, ∞:1 contrast (source: notebookcheck review)

You just above deny the accuracy of the measurements in the reviews on this site. Why are you sure these numbers are correct?
I see with my own eyes that even the old IPS that has worked for more than 5 years outperforms the top S22 of the previous series in real brightness when lighting the trading floor. Moreover, all top Samsung smartphones, including clamshells, have a green screen at a large viewing angle (which, for example, is not on the A series).
So I see what I see - all AMOLEDs lose to IPS panels in office lighting in terms of real picture quality. And this is the main thing.

Wrong. LG monitors use AMOLED displays and they are flicker-free.

I have not seen these tests and have not seen them with my own eyes. Moreover, if they really do not flicker on a standard pencil test and a video camera, then this means only one thing - they have a lot of other problems that immediately arise on AMOLED in such cases - fast burnout (a resource of up to 50% loss of brightness is several times lower than on IPS backlight and fast destabilization of color rendering, and, as dozens of reviews of laptop panels have shown - and so disgusting - testers almost never manage to calibrate AMOLED with dE below 2, i.e. all these screens are not suitable for semi-professional work with color, not speaking about professional work.
Plus, even on LG's top-end AMOLED TVs, owners note unremovable banding, which is absent, for example, on projectors with D-ILA/LCOS reflective panels. And again, talk about less detail in color depth.

The fact that most (AM)OLEDs displays are glossy is the decision of the manufacturers. There is no technological necessity.

There is a technical reason for this - the AMOLED substrate is much more sensitive to deflection and damage, so the protective layer on laptop matrices is intentionally reinforced with a glass hard coating. Otherwise, there is no point in doing what most buyers do not like, if you can do it differently.In monitors, I did not see matte AMOLED, they were all glossy.

Mate screens reduce overall picture quality (colors and black level during daylight). Not acceptable for me.

The main thing is that they significantly reduce glare. 4k IPS@120-144Hz with a semi-matte screen - the best that has been done today for laptops. These are the safest screens for the eyes, and especially for the eyes of children, for which the use of flickering and especially AMOLED screens should have been banned by law 13 years ago. But money is more important to the authorities, as is corruption from big business. The same thing happened and even now exists with the tobacco industry in a lot of countries, although today you can't find an idiot who will argue about the dangers of smoking ...

Most users do not care about the low amount of flickering introduced by PWM

The majority of the world's population are illiterate inhabitants, especially in technology (the general decline in the level of education against the backdrop of technological progress and science is already obvious to any educated person who has a wide circle of communication with different segments of the population), who need competent followers. Guides. Otherwise, they easily jump off a cliff without noticing the problem...

[NikoB]

n fact flickering is needed (PWM does NOT do this) to reduce sample-&-hold blur for low framerates (low meaning anything < 1000). This is why blur reduction techniques (BFI, strobed backlight, ...) create much stronger flickering as PWM on purpose.

Your last paragraph is a complete technical and ergonomic nonsense.

[Mr. Franz]

Are you directly accusing the reviews on this site of deliberately false data?

No. I accuse some of their reviewers to measure unintentionally inaccurately probably due to using cheap equipment and giving wrong interpretations of the measured values (e.g. if a lightmeter is only capable of detecting 0.03 cd/m² at lowest, the value of 0.03 cd/m² will also be given for anything below).

This is a well know problem.
E.g. RTINGs note in some of their OLED reviews next to the measured contrast ratio when they did not have their best equipment available: "Like all OLEDs, it can turn off individual pixels to display true black, making it fantastic for dark room viewing. It effectively has an infinite contrast ratio; the posted number is too low due to our light meter's limitations."

By the way, I had a very similiar model to the one reviewed here at home (Yoga 7 14 G7), for which Notebookcheck measured 0.05 cd/m² black level (review in 02.09.2022). Yet the sample had zero glow (!) in absolute darkness.

You just above deny the accuracy of the measurements in the reviews on this site. Why are you sure these numbers are correct?

Because measurement tolerances of cheap equipment influences black level measurement much more than the measurement of high brightness (given measurement deviations of 5 cd/m²: 1000 or 1005 cd/m² for max brightness is still about the same, while 0 cd/m² or 5 cd/m² is the difference between pure black and light grey).

In fact, this is not so, in fact, most manufacturers declare a native contrast ratio of 1000000: 1.

LG used "infitive contrast" in their marketing quite extensively. But this is practically only up to what the marketing department considers to be most attractive for the customer.

I see with my own eyes that even the old IPS that has worked for more than 5 years outperforms the top S22 of the previous series in real brightness when lighting the trading floor.

I can´t confirm that at all (next to me is my Samsung smartphone from 2020 and two, basic IPS monitors from different manufacturers. In the darkness my Samsung is brighter than both, however not by a large degree).
 
Your perception is also not in line with the given measurements.
Note that high-end Samsung phones will only activate full brightness (> 1000 cd/m²) in automatic brightness control mode when the light sensor detects maximum light. In manual brightness mode they are at first limited to 429 cd/m² (which could be a bit lower than good IPS monitors). If you activate additional brightness you will get 733 cd/m² in manual brightness mode, which should also destroy most monitors (cd/m² numbers refer to the Galaxy 23 Ultra).

Moreover, all top Samsung smartphones, including clamshells, have a green screen at a large viewing angle (which, for example, is not on the A series).

That varies. According to notebookcheck the newest top model from Samsung (Galaxy S23 Ultra) does (just like the A series) not show any color stiches off angle.
On the other side, almost all IPS monitors have IPS glow, so off angle picture quality (black level, gamma curve) will decrease fast.

I have not seen these tests and have not seen them with my own eyes.

Check up the reviews from RTINGS. "Flicker" is a separated category in each of their reviews. LG OLEDs have a small hick-up in brightness after the change of each frame but are considered completely PWM free.

fast burnout (a resource of up to 50% loss of brightness is several times lower than on IPS backlight and fast destabilization of color rendering, [...]

Without burn-in (that only shows up with static content) there is no change in brightness or color gamut over 10 000 hours of usage. There has been a long-term test on that from RTINGS using now outdated LG OLEDs from 2017 (just google "Real-Life OLED Burn-In Test On 6 TVs" by RTINGS).
If there is burn-in, there will of course be (depending on the level of burn-in) massive shifts in color and brightness. However, this can often mean that the burn-in image is actually brighter than other pixels. This is the case when the correction algorithm overcompensates brightness.   

is a technical reason for this - the AMOLED substrate is much more sensitive to deflection and damage, so the protective layer on laptop matrices is intentionally reinforced with a glass hard coating. Otherwise, there is no point in doing what most buyers do not like, if you can do it differently.In monitors, I did not see matte AMOLED, they were all glossy.

Manufacturers can at any time put a matte finish on any display glass. Your explanation makes absolutely no sense.
Only today, Lenvovo announced another notebook with matte AMOLED configuration (Lenovo Yoga Slim 6 Gen 8), where this is obviously also no issue at all.
Regarding monitors: There are barely any OLED monitors on the mass market yet. The first high-end products available target customers with preferences for high picture quality and not those with a preference for a matte coating.

The main thing is that they significantly reduce glare.

With matte coating you will get less high specular glare, but diffuse reflections (although they are not as strongly emphasized as specular ones) will cover up a much larger area of the screen.
This is a matter of taste, but I was never really happy with the behaviour of my matte screens outside, and inside the loss of picture quality was too much noticeable.

These are the safest screens for the eyes, and especially for the eyes of children, for which the use of flickering and especially AMOLED screens should have been banned by law 13 years ago.

Can you provide any independent, peer-reviewed research on that?

Your last paragraph is a complete technical and ergonomic nonsense.

You could not be more wrong. In fact, this is backed up by extensive peer-reviewed research.
I would recommend you to read some articles about how hold-type-displays (LCD, OLEDs) create sample-hold-blur during eye-tracking scenarios and how impulsed-type displays (CRTs, Plasmas) prevent this negative effect.

A good place to start is the video series on motion from RTINGs.
Just search for "Motion on TVs: Black Frame Insertion and PWM dimming (2/5) - Rtings.com" on Youtube