LG Gram 2021 announced: 14, 16 and 17

Discussion in 'LG' started by RS4, Dec 16, 2020.

  1. hfm

    hfm Notebook Prophet

    Reputations:
    2,264
    Messages:
    5,296
    Likes Received:
    3,045
    Trophy Points:
    431
    Yeah, I want something with more than 4 cores and TB4, just hanging around to see what H45 laptops come out this year as my next upgrade. I'll probably keep the Gram around but it probably won't get much use once replaced.
     
  2. skipper63

    skipper63 Notebook Consultant

    Reputations:
    4
    Messages:
    111
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    41
    Techadvisor gives a score of Geekbench of 4668 for the 16 vs 5187 for the 17. Expertreview it is 5516 vs 5079, everything is higher for the 16 except the GFXBench. Again I don't trust these reviews. Any conclusion on performance between the 16-17 cannot based on these mediocre reviews and I believe, since the internals are the same, that they cannot be significant. The different screen can be a valid issue, affecting the battery in favor of the 17.
    Now I provided also the R20 score that you were asking and I got better scores than Notebookcheck that you said was impossible. So please when you get the new laptop, try again the benchmarks because I am afraid you were drawing conclusions on a defective one.
     
  3. skipper63

    skipper63 Notebook Consultant

    Reputations:
    4
    Messages:
    111
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    41
    Actually I was thinking the same, I really need TB4 so AMD was out of the picture. In terms of performance I was at the limits in my workflow with my old Gram but it was still ok. But I was convinced here in the forum to give a try for the 16 and I don't regret it, the upgrade in speed is impressive. For my daily work plugged in the eGPU I don't need to use performance mode, already optimal is sufficient and I notice the differences, absolutely no lags any more. So I guess I can stick with the 16 for the next couple of years, since I don't expect my computing needs to increase that much in the near future.
     
    hfm likes this.
  4. extremecarver

    extremecarver Notebook Consultant

    Reputations:
    3
    Messages:
    141
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    31
    Yeah I would like the 16 one again, but those screen differences have shown in every review. And according to the review 50-100 nits higher, better colors (though the 16 isn't bad and I don't need perfect accuracy, but wider color spectrum is always nice), coupled with less power draw plus right now in Germany virtually identical pricing for the 16" and the 17" have me a bit leaning towards the 17" now. Especially the brighter panel which will make it much more usable outdoors. Indoors the 16" is bright enough. I mainly use 80% during the day and 30-40% at night. If on battery and no charger for longer time I could instead do 10% and 50% (but anyhow as I tested the main difference in power draw comes from 80-100% - the lower values don't make a huge difference).

    The 17" is about 10% more screen surface, if they managed to put a 25% more efficient panel inside (and in every review the 17" clearly is brighter, plus in general better contrast/accuracy) make me leaning towards the 17" now - even though I really prefer 16" form factor for portability. I would hope maybe the 17" keyboard is spaced a bit wider? Or is it identical because they crammed in the additional row on the side... Really could do so much more without that stupid numpad on the 16" and instead a proper enter, backspace and delete button. Those being so tiny often slows me down typing on the 16".

    I still feel your way of testing from cold boot is a bit unfair. My CPU idles at 40-43 degrees (14-17 degrees above my room temperature). So from cold boot clearly you score higher. I will try now monitor fully open vs partly closed and look at the difference. Let's assess what this cooler actually does...
     
  5. extremecarver

    extremecarver Notebook Consultant

    Reputations:
    3
    Messages:
    141
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    31
    Starting from idle - screen closed close to it switching off:
    1822 points. At the end of Cinebench R20 - 22 watts.

    Screen vertical. At the end 21.5 watts.
    1790 points

    Screen fully open - Performance Mode.
    1680 points. About 20.5 watts towards the end

    Screen closed close to it switching off - silent mode
    1660 points. About 18.5 watts towards the end of the test.
    Screen vertical - silent mode
    1620 points. About 18 watts towards the end of the test.
    Screen fully open - silent mode
    1550 points. About 17.2 watts towards the end of the test.
    Edit: add while charging.
    1460 points. About 16.3 watts towards the end of the test. Silent Mode fully open. So that's 190 points difference just based on whether we are charging or not - and how the screen position is set. While silent vs performance only gives 140 points difference with screen in best position.

    The good thing is - the intel i7 is not the most efficient at higher wattage - so the losses are smaller. So while screen position and charging reduces the cooling by about 26%, the performance is only dropping by 20%.


    In general the screen position is more important than the cooling mode! If you have it open quite wide - it will be close to fully open. So that makes those benchmarks even less reliable. But the cooling mode isn't a big deal! Normal is somewhere in the middle. I guess to save battery just use silent cooling mode (though silent is not fan off). I would be interested to have a fan off mode - I guess it would still get 13-14 watts at the end. And the 17" may just have that bit more volume to take up heat to give it some more headroom.

    I guess from cold boot I can also score 1900. Then flight mode and antivirus off could be the missing points. I did not enter flight mode, nor switch windows defender off and I would too reach 1953 points...
     
    Last edited: Apr 25, 2021
  6. extremecarver

    extremecarver Notebook Consultant

    Reputations:
    3
    Messages:
    141
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    31
    No only the geekbench score is higher for the 16". The 4k media score is lower for the 16 - 118 vs 122.
    the gfx bench 112 vs 188 a huge difference. I could also only score 112 or so.
    And the disk transfer benchmark also higher for the 17" - slightly.
    It would not make sense for the 17" to perform worse than the 16".

    However there is one more thing to really botch up your score - and that is charge it at the same time. The charging really increases the heat - so If you run any benchmark while the gram is charging - take a 10-20% hit! That and the screen fully open and you will approach real bad results. And I don't have a 80 or 100 watt charger. That would maybe get it to 30% decrease. Of my 3 - 65 watt chargers, the LG one is the heaviest, the biggest and the slowest. The Lenovo 65 watt travel charger is only slightly better. The compact, 120g heavy, noname china charger that I bought 3 years ago for it's light weight, small size charges the fastest according to batteryviewinfo. But the difference is around 39 vs 41 watts - so not big.

    On my thinkpad there is no way to mess around that much with scores - the cooling simply has no problems with 28 watts. On a laptop that can only cool 21-23 watts long term - such things make a huge difference.
     
  7. skipper63

    skipper63 Notebook Consultant

    Reputations:
    4
    Messages:
    111
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    41
    Just let us know when you get the new laptop how it performs
     
  8. RS4

    RS4 Notebook Consultant

    Reputations:
    32
    Messages:
    188
    Likes Received:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    41
    I am just disappointed that LG did not give a good screen to the Gram 16, mediocre brightness and pathetic contrast. Yes, the 17 inch is ok and people should go for it if they find the size manageable.

    Notebookcheck says brightness of average 310 nits and contrast ratio of 929:1. This brightness and contrast is a regression from even the last year's Gram 15 which had average 341 nits and contrast ratio of 1307:1

    https://www.notebookcheck.net/LG-Gr...t-15-6-inch-Laptops.530592.0.html#toc-display
    https://www.notebookcheck.net/The-L...ith-a-great-display.481034.0.html#toc-display

    Other premium laptops give 550-675 nits brightness, their South Korean competitor Samsung gives 675 nits which i have posted on the second page of this thread. LG Gram is a premium laptop and it is not as if we are talking about 500-700 dollar laptop.

    I will still have to get the Gram 16 as it meets my needs and Xiaomi is not interested in selling premium laptops outside China with their wonderful HDR OLED Samsung display.
     
    hfm likes this.
  9. extremecarver

    extremecarver Notebook Consultant

    Reputations:
    3
    Messages:
    141
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    31
    I'm pretty sure the contrast is way better on recent revisions of the 16 inch. But brightness definitely is lacking for a glossy screen. Maybe they just reduced it because they thought this way people are happier with battery life.

    Haha they could add a brightness boost mode in their control panel that resets every day or reboot, like the performance mode...

    But yes that's why I'm thinking back and forth about getting the 17"...

    It seems my 16 from Amazon Spain that I ordered for a steal price isn't getting delivered anytime soon anyhow. And other Spanish retailers with cheap prices don't deliver outside Spain...
     
  10. RS4

    RS4 Notebook Consultant

    Reputations:
    32
    Messages:
    188
    Likes Received:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    41
    How are you sure that contrast is better on recent revisions of the Gram 16? What is this revision? Gram 16 was just launched. Give me some facts, figures and sources/links.
     
    hfm likes this.
Loading...

Share This Page