I am surprised to see this Battery numbers again. I think it is misleading and should be tested with different screen options.
I have the 22 Model, although with 4k Oled Display, i7-1260p. If i get 4hs out of it, I'm lucky. And im just using it for Browser/ Office work.

How many wonderful discoveries this forum is still preparing for us. Now it turns out that you don't know elementary school arithmetic either.

93GBytes/s is over the theoretical limit of 83GBytes/s.

Other questions remained unanswered by the editors. How is all this possible without an obvious 100% data manipulation. I am 100% sure of this.

Quote from: LL on June 21, 2023, 11:15:08I really don't understand why a notebook with so many downsides can get a 90% grade, which is the same of the Lenovo Yoga Pro 7 14 G8 that got a very positive review?

1. Pricing does not factor into the rating. This is a far more expensive device than the Yoga Pro 7, so the 90 % for the Yoga Pro 7 is a better result than the 90 % for this ThinkPad X1 Yoga

2. This device doesn't have that many (serious, deal breaking) downsides, it is still a very good laptop overall, just could have been even better in some regards

NBC tests are mostly reasonable but NBC rating percentages are random numbers "justified" by calculation according to declaration. Ignore them!

I really don't understand why a notebook with so many downsides can get a 90% grade, which is the same of the Lenovo Yoga Pro 7 14 G8 that got a very positive review?

Quote from: NikoB on June 20, 2023, 21:54:39Again, Allen has fake data on RAM - lpddr5 5200 physically cannot record at a speed of 93Gb / s - it has a theoretical limit - 5200 x 128 / 8 = 83Gb / s.

Let me try to understand: We have 5200 MT/s, per stick two channels each with 32b so both with 64b so two sticks have 128b, division by 8 to convert b to B but, if so, you make a typo and should write GB/s. When Allen writes 93342 MB/s, dividing by 1024 gives ~91.15 GB/s. Here, I think you make two mistakes: a) typo b instead B; b) you have divided by 1000 instead of 1024. Have I understood it correctly? So, after avoiding, what I think are, your mistakes, Allen has measured ~91.15 GB/s for AIDA64 / Memory Write, which is larger than the theoretical maximum ~83 GB/s and therefore proved to be Allen's measurement mistake. Is this what you are trying to say?

QuoteL1 / L2 / L3 caches and their latency. Which is also extremely critical.

Please explain!

Again, Allen has fake data on RAM - lpddr5 5200 physically cannot record at a speed of 93Gb / s - it has a theoretical limit - 5200 x 128 / 8 = 83Gb / s.

How many times have I asked the site editors to force the authors to post a real screenshot of the cache and memory test from AIDA64. Where you can see the speed of not only memory, but also L1 / L2 / L3 caches and their latency. Which is also extremely critical.

Again, I look at the results of measuring the contrast on a semi-matte IPS panel, which does not belong to the "Black IPS" class, which means that a contrast of 1800: 1+ is unrealistic. Again questions to the measurements of the author. As well as the same questions for the G7 version.

Looking at the results of the i7 1355U at supposedly PL1=13W (which is below the nominal 15W) and its performance in the CBR15 also raises questions, compared to other models at a larger PL1:

www.notebookcheck.net/Double-trouble-Lenovo-Yoga-Book-9i-2-in-1-Dual-Screen-OLED-convertible-review.720469.0.html

1130-1155 points in CBR15 at PL1 = 16W.

www.notebookcheck.net/Asus-Zenbook-S-13-OLED-2023-review-The-slimmest-OLED-ultrabook-worldwide-struggles-with-annoying-fans.711985.0.html

995-1035 points in CBR15 at PL1 = 17W.

And the main thing here:
notebookcheck.net/Core-i7-1355U-debut-Lenovo-Yoga-7-16IRL8-convertible-review.710233.0.html

1250-1275 points in CBR15 at PL1 = 25W! Which is almost 2 times more than in the subject of discussion!

I again make the assumption of completely fake data when testing the processor.

Against the background of low noise, despite the fact that supposedly the processor performance exceeds by as much as 15%, the exact same processor running almost twice as large PL1 = 25 Lenovo Yoga 7 16IRL8 and at the same time this yoga has dimensions of 16 "and at the same time the noise is much higher, there is a direct impression of deliberate juggling of the data.

Either the performance of this yoga is actually much lower in PL1 mode than that of Lenovo Yoga 7 16IRL8 or the PL1 data is incorrect, but then the noise data is also incorrect. Such low noise in a 14" case is excluded.

Like it or not, the juggling of data in the review is obvious from a variety of points.

I have more and more questions about the conscientiousness of the author and the reality of his reviews ...

in short, nothing to see here, move along, nothing to see.
p.s. there's an upside to this ridiculous fashion to make a 'new' model each year, when it's nothing more than just a (poorly) updated specs: previous years' models will be significantly discounted. Not that there's anything particularly attractive about last year's model. Or the one from 2 years ago. Or the one from 3 years ago. Or the one...