判决--提高标准
与市场上许多传统的蛤壳机不同，联想 Pro 9 16 G11 Aura 配备了酷睿 Ultra 9 CPU、GeForce RTX GPU 和 OLED 触摸屏，无论配置高低，都能带来一流的用户体验。它提供了同尺寸级别中最明亮的触摸屏之一，而且似乎满足了你对多媒体强机的所有要求，包括集成读卡器、丰富的端口选择、出色的音频以及对多个内部固态硬盘的支持。新款 戴尔 XPS 16在最新的重新设计中省略了其中一些功能。
2026 型号比 2025 型号更薄、更轻，我们对此表示赞赏。 2025 型号但在其他方面，新的酷睿 9 386H 与去年的酷睿 9 285H 性能几乎相同，因此在性能方面并没有太多改进。GPU 和显示屏选项保持不变，用户体验也没有改善。放弃数字键盘，改用更大的扬声器格栅，也可能会影响某些依赖数字键盘的使用场景。
该机型最显著的缺点是在性能模式下风扇噪音较大，而且尽管电池容量升级了，但相对于竞争对手，重量更重，电池续航时间更短。在便携性方面，塞入如此多的功能和端口显然会造成影响。如果用户不需要独立显卡或花哨的 OLED 屏幕，那么 Panther Lake XPS 16 或 微星威望 16是更安静、更时尚、更适合旅行的选择。另一方面，如果你真的需要独立显卡，那么这款无所不能的联想产品仍然是我们连续两年最喜欢的 16 英寸多媒体设备之一。
Pros
+ 更小、更薄、更轻的设计
+ 标配 Nvidia GPU 和 OLED
+ 配备联想 Active Pen 触控笔
+ 电池容量稍大
+ 最多支持两个 M.2 固态硬盘
Cons
- 高级 Optimus，但没有 G-Sync
- CPU 性能提升极小
- 性能模式下声音较大
- 电池寿命相对较短
- 没有数字键盘
联想 Pro 9 16IPH11（市场名称为联想 Pro 9i 灵光版 16 G11）直接接替了去年的 Yoga Pro 9i 16IAH G10 灵光版。制造商既去掉了 Yoga 的名称，又刷新了外观设计。
我们的测试机是顶级配置，配备 100 WGeForce RTX 5060 GPU 和 3200 x 2000 Tandem OLED 触摸屏，售价约 3100 美元。较低端的 SKU 则配备了 RTX 5050 或 2880 x 1800 OLED，但所有选项都配备了相同的酷睿 Ultra 9 386H Panther Lake CPU。
联想的这款旗舰机型直接与其他高端 16 英寸多媒体机型竞争，包括 微星 Prestige 16 AI Evo, 华硕 ZenBook 16 系列和新的 戴尔 XPS 16.
更多联想评测：
规格
Lenovo Pro 9 16IPH11
Processor
Intel Core Ultra 9 386H 16c/16t, 4 x 4.9 GHz Intel Cougar Cove P-Core, 8 x 3.9 GHz Intel Darkmont E-Core, 4 x 3.5 GHz Intel Darkmont LP E-Core, 86 W PL2 / Short Burst, 62 W PL1 / Sustained, Panther Lake
Graphics adapter
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Laptop - 8 GB VRAM, Core: 1687 MHz, RAM: 1500 MHz, 100 W TDP, GDDR7, 591.49, Advanced Optimus
Memory
32 GB
, LPDDR5x-7467
Display
16.00 inch 16:10, 3200 x 2000 pixel 236 PPI, 10-point capacitive, native pen support, Samsung ATNA60KA04-0, Tandem OLED, HDR, 120 Hz
Mainboard
Intel Panther Lake-H PCH
Storage
SK hynix PVC10 HFS001TEM4X182N, 1024 GB
Weight
1.93 kg, Power Supply: 753 g
Price
3100 USD
Amazon
Links
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.
案例
与去年的设计相比，联想在外观上做了几处改动。最显著的变化是取消了数字键盘，而沿键盘两侧采用了更大的上扬式扬声器格栅。此外，底部的 D 盖不再是完全平整的，因为通风栅现在略微凸起。去年机型上非常显眼的激光蚀刻 "Yoga "标签也被移除，因为联想希望强调 "Pro "的命名。
与上一代产品相比，新款产品更薄、更小、更轻，但采用了相同的阳极氧化铝材料，质量水平相当。
连接性
尽管发生了上述所有物理变化，但端口仍与以前一样。
SD 读卡器
| SD Card Reader | |
| average JPG Copy Test (av. of 3 runs) | |
| Lenovo Pro 9 16IPH11 (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
| Asus ProArt P16 H7606WP (Angelbird AV Pro V60) | |
| MSI Prestige 16 AI Evo B2HMG (Angelbird AV Pro V60) | |
| Lenovo Yoga Pro 9 16IAH10 RTX 5050 (Angelbird AV Pro V60) | |
| maximum AS SSD Seq Read Test (1GB) | |
| Asus ProArt P16 H7606WP (Angelbird AV Pro V60) | |
| Lenovo Pro 9 16IPH11 (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
| Lenovo Yoga Pro 9 16IAH10 RTX 5050 (Angelbird AV Pro V60) | |
| MSI Prestige 16 AI Evo B2HMG (Angelbird AV Pro V60) | |
交流
Lenovo Pro 9 16IPH11; iperf3 transmit AXE11000 6GHz; iperf 3.1.3: Ø1660 (1592-1780)
Lenovo Pro 9 16IPH11; iperf3 receive AXE11000 6GHz; iperf 3.1.3: Ø1743 (1715-1766)
网络摄像头
7.8 ∆E
4.1 ∆E
11.5 ∆E
10.5 ∆E
13.2 ∆E
8.4 ∆E
4 ∆E
6.9 ∆E
9.6 ∆E
7.1 ∆E
4.8 ∆E
7.8 ∆E
5 ∆E
6.4 ∆E
12.7 ∆E
4.3 ∆E
10 ∆E
11.3 ∆E
5.6 ∆E
1.5 ∆E
4.9 ∆E
7 ∆E
8 ∆E
7.2 ∆E
维护
内部结构发生了细微变化。最显著的变化是电池容量略有增大（从 84 瓦时增至 93 瓦时），但固态硬盘升级选项与以前相同。
可持续性
联想没有提供制造过程中使用的回收材料的任何详细信息。除此之外，包装不含塑料，完全可回收。
输入设备
按键字体和印刷与去年的机型相比有所变化，更大、更居中，而且总体上更容易看清。按键的手感与去年相同，包括 1.5 毫米的键程和相对清晰的反馈，尽管没有数字键盘，但仍能带来类似的输入体验。
显示屏
两个触摸屏选项与以前一样：
- 2880 x 1800，OLED，500 尼特 SDR（1100 尼特 HDR），100% DCI-P3，120 赫兹，大猩猩玻璃 3
- 3200 x 2000，串联式 OLED，1000 尼特 SDR（1600 尼特 HDR），100% DCI-P3，120 赫兹，大猩猩玻璃 3
我们设备上的串联式 OLED 显示屏采用的是三星 ATNA60KA04-0 面板，与 2025 Yoga Pro 9i 16相同的观看体验。我们的测量结果显示，在 SDR 模式下，最大中心亮度为 931 尼特，在 HDR 模式下为 1480 尼特，是所有 16 英寸笔记本电脑中亮度最高的显示屏之一。
请记住，虽然支持高级 Optimus，但由于 Pro 9 系列的主要用途不是游戏，因此仍未采用 G-Sync。
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Samsung ATNA60KA04-0 tested with X-Rite i1Pro 3
Maximum: 974.9 cd/m² (Nits) Average: 947.2 cd/m² Minimum: 9.17 cd/m²Brightness Distribution: 94 %
Center on Battery: 930.9 cd/m²
Contrast: ∞:1 (Black: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE ColorChecker Calman: 3.51 | ∀{0.5-29.43 Ø4.74}
calibrated: 1.55
ΔE Greyscale Calman: 1.6 | ∀{0.09-98 Ø4.98}
95.7% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 3D)
100% sRGB (Argyll 3D)
98.8% Display P3 (Argyll 3D)
Gamma: 2.34
CCT: 6398 K
| Lenovo Pro 9 16IPH11 Samsung ATNA60KA04-0, Tandem OLED, 3200x2000, 16", 120 Hz | Lenovo Yoga Pro 9 16IAH10 RTX 5050 ATNA60HR04-0, OLED, 2880x1800, 16", 120 Hz | Dell XPS 16 Core Ultra X7 358H LG Philips 160WV1, OLED, 3200x2000, 16", 120 Hz | MSI Prestige 16 AI Evo B2HMG B160QAN03_R, IPS, 2560x1600, 16", 60 Hz | HP Omen Transcend 16-u1095ng ATNA60DL02-0 (SDC41A4), OLED, 2560x1600, 16", 240 Hz | Asus ProArt P16 H7606WP ATNA60CL10-0, OLED, 2880x1800, 16", 120 Hz | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Display | 1% | -5% | 1% | -2% | ||
| Display P3 Coverage (%) | 98.8 | 99.5 1% | 96.4 -2% | 99.8 1% | 99.5 1% | |
| sRGB Coverage (%) | 100 | 100 0% | 99.7 0% | 100 0% | 100 0% | |
| AdobeRGB 1998 Coverage (%) | 95.7 | 96.5 1% | 84.3 -12% | 97 1% | 89.5 -6% | |
| Response Times | -131% | -39% | -5878% | 71% | -17% | |
| Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% * (ms) | 0.58 ? | 0.65 ? -12% | 51.5 ? -8779% | 0.2 ? 66% | 0.63 ? -9% | |
| Response Time Black / White * (ms) | 0.79 ? | 0.87 ? -10% | 24.3 ? -2976% | 0.2 ? 75% | 0.63 ? 20% | |
| PWM Frequency (Hz) | 1173.2 | 1200 | 240.2 ? | 120 ? | 480 ? | |
| PWM Amplitude * (%) | 16 | 37 -131% | 31 -94% | 26 -63% | ||
| Screen | -26% | -15% | -92% | -29% | 8% | |
| Brightness middle (cd/m²) | 930.9 | 471.7 -49% | 395.4 -58% | 471 -49% | 390 -58% | 362 -61% |
| Brightness (cd/m²) | 947 | 474 -50% | 392 -59% | 455 -52% | 392 -59% | 363 -62% |
| Brightness Distribution (%) | 94 | 98 4% | 95 1% | 92 -2% | 98 4% | 99 5% |
| Black Level * (cd/m²) | 0.2 | 0.02 | ||||
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 3.51 | 3.53 -1% | 3.69 -5% | 5.8 -65% | 1.94 45% | 0.8 77% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 6.48 | 6.31 3% | 7.94 -23% | 10.8 -67% | 4.26 34% | 1.8 72% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 calibrated * | 1.55 | 0.68 56% | 1.9 -23% | 4.21 -172% | ||
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 1.6 | 2.6 -63% | 1.9 -19% | 7.8 -388% | 1.5 6% | 1.3 19% |
| Gamma | 2.34 94% | 2.24 98% | 2.28 96% | 2.07 106% | 2.221 99% | 2.2 100% |
| CCT | 6398 102% | 6292 103% | 6274 104% | 7262 90% | 6395 102% | 6741 96% |
| Contrast (:1) | 2355 | 19500 | ||||
| Total Average (Program / Settings) | -79% /
-41% | -18% /
-17% | -1992% /
-1035% | 14% /
-5% | -4% /
-1% |
* ... smaller is better
Display Response Times
ℹ
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 0.79 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 0.37 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 0.42 ms fall | ||
| The screen shows very fast response rates in our tests and should be very well suited for fast-paced gaming. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.1 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 2 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (20 ms). | ||
| ↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey | ||
| 0.58 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 0.3 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 0.28 ms fall | ||
| The screen shows very fast response rates in our tests and should be very well suited for fast-paced gaming. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.165 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 1 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (31.2 ms). | ||
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
ℹ
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 | 1173.2 Hz Amplitude: 16 % |  | |
The display backlight flickers at 1173.2 Hz (worst case, e.g., utilizing PWM) . The frequency of 1173.2 Hz is quite high, so most users sensitive to PWM should not notice any flickering. In comparison: 52 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 7885 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 343500) Hz was measured. | |||
性能
测试条件
在运行以下基准测试之前，我们将 Windows 设置为 "性能模式 "和 "独立显卡模式"。
处理器
新型 Core Ultra 9 386H遗憾的是，与上一代产品相比，其性能几乎没有任何优势。 酷睿至尊 9 285H的性能优势。事实上，新 CPU 的二级和三级缓存数量甚至少于上一代产品。不过，它通过提高制造效率（1.8 纳米对 5 纳米）和更快的集成 NPU 性能（50 对 13 TOPS）弥补了这一不足。
Cinebench R15 多回路运行
Lenovo Pro 9 16IPH11 Intel Core Ultra 9 386H: Ø3230 (3189.03-3276.54)
Lenovo Yoga Pro 9 16IAH10 RTX 5050 Intel Core Ultra 9 285H: Ø3115 (2732.05-3203.59)
Dell XPS 16 Core Ultra X7 358H Intel Core Ultra X7 358H: Ø2543 (2491.75-2985.52)
MSI Prestige 16 AI Evo B2HMG Intel Core Ultra 9 285H: Ø2441 (2233.89-3281.92)
HP Omen Transcend 16-u1095ng Intel Core i9-14900HX: Ø2840 (2582.31-3904.72)
Asus ProArt P16 H7606WP AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370: Ø3420 (3174.1-3461.7)
CPU Performance rating: Percent
Cinebench R23: Multi Core | Single Core
Cinebench R20: CPU (Multi Core) | CPU (Single Core)
Cinebench R15: CPU Multi 64Bit | CPU Single 64Bit
Blender: v2.79 BMW27 CPU
7-Zip 18.03: 7z b 4 | 7z b 4 -mmt1
Geekbench 6.6: Multi-Core | Single-Core
Geekbench 5.5: Multi-Core | Single-Core
HWBOT x265 Benchmark v2.2: 4k Preset
LibreOffice : 20 Documents To PDF
R Benchmark 2.5: Overall mean
Cinebench R23: Multi Core | Single Core
Cinebench R20: CPU (Multi Core) | CPU (Single Core)
Cinebench R15: CPU Multi 64Bit | CPU Single 64Bit
Blender: v2.79 BMW27 CPU
7-Zip 18.03: 7z b 4 | 7z b 4 -mmt1
Geekbench 6.6: Multi-Core | Single-Core
Geekbench 5.5: Multi-Core | Single-Core
HWBOT x265 Benchmark v2.2: 4k Preset
LibreOffice : 20 Documents To PDF
R Benchmark 2.5: Overall mean
* ... smaller is better
Performance rating: Percent
AIDA64: FP32 Ray-Trace | FPU Julia | CPU SHA3 | CPU Queen | FPU SinJulia | FPU Mandel | CPU AES | CPU ZLib | FP64 Ray-Trace | CPU PhotoWorxx | CPU CheckMate
AIDA64: FP32 Ray-Trace | FPU Julia | CPU SHA3 | CPU Queen | FPU SinJulia | FPU Mandel | CPU AES | CPU ZLib | FP64 Ray-Trace | CPU PhotoWorxx | CPU CheckMate
| Performance rating | |
| Asus ProArt P16 H7606WP -1! | |
| Lenovo Pro 9 16IPH11 -1! | |
| Average Intel Core Ultra 9 386H -1! | |
| Lenovo Yoga Pro 9 16IAH10 RTX 5050 -1! | |
| HP Omen Transcend 16-u1095ng -1! | |
| Dell XPS 16 Core Ultra X7 358H -1! | |
| MSI Prestige 16 AI Evo B2HMG -1! | |
| AIDA64 / FP32 Ray-Trace | |
| Asus ProArt P16 H7606WP (v6.92.6600) | |
| Lenovo Yoga Pro 9 16IAH10 RTX 5050 (v6.92.6600) | |
| Lenovo Pro 9 16IPH11 (v8.20.8100) | |
| Average Intel Core Ultra 9 386H (n=1) | |
| MSI Prestige 16 AI Evo B2HMG (v6.92.6600) | |
| HP Omen Transcend 16-u1095ng (v6.92.6600) | |
| Dell XPS 16 Core Ultra X7 358H (v8.20.8100) | |
| AIDA64 / FPU Julia | |
| Asus ProArt P16 H7606WP (v6.92.6600) | |
| Lenovo Yoga Pro 9 16IAH10 RTX 5050 (v6.92.6600) | |
| Lenovo Pro 9 16IPH11 (v8.20.8100) | |
| Average Intel Core Ultra 9 386H (n=1) | |
| MSI Prestige 16 AI Evo B2HMG (v6.92.6600) | |
| HP Omen Transcend 16-u1095ng (v6.92.6600) | |
| Dell XPS 16 Core Ultra X7 358H (v8.20.8100) | |
| AIDA64 / CPU SHA3 | |
| Asus ProArt P16 H7606WP (v6.92.6600) | |
| Lenovo Pro 9 16IPH11 (v8.20.8100) | |
| Average Intel Core Ultra 9 386H (n=1) | |
| Lenovo Yoga Pro 9 16IAH10 RTX 5050 (v6.92.6600) | |
| MSI Prestige 16 AI Evo B2HMG (v6.92.6600) | |
| HP Omen Transcend 16-u1095ng (v6.92.6600) | |
| Dell XPS 16 Core Ultra X7 358H (v8.20.8100) | |
| AIDA64 / CPU Queen | |
| HP Omen Transcend 16-u1095ng (v6.92.6600) | |
| Asus ProArt P16 H7606WP (v6.92.6600) | |
| MSI Prestige 16 AI Evo B2HMG (v6.92.6600) | |
| Lenovo Yoga Pro 9 16IAH10 RTX 5050 (v6.92.6600) | |
| AIDA64 / FPU SinJulia | |
| Asus ProArt P16 H7606WP (v6.92.6600) | |
| HP Omen Transcend 16-u1095ng (v6.92.6600) | |
| Lenovo Yoga Pro 9 16IAH10 RTX 5050 (v6.92.6600) | |
| MSI Prestige 16 AI Evo B2HMG (v6.92.6600) | |
| Lenovo Pro 9 16IPH11 (v8.20.8100) | |
| Average Intel Core Ultra 9 386H (n=1) | |
| Dell XPS 16 Core Ultra X7 358H (v8.20.8100) | |
| AIDA64 / FPU Mandel | |
| Asus ProArt P16 H7606WP (v6.92.6600) | |
| Lenovo Yoga Pro 9 16IAH10 RTX 5050 (v6.92.6600) | |
| Lenovo Pro 9 16IPH11 (v8.20.8100) | |
| Average Intel Core Ultra 9 386H (n=1) | |
| MSI Prestige 16 AI Evo B2HMG (v6.92.6600) | |
| Dell XPS 16 Core Ultra X7 358H (v8.20.8100) | |
| HP Omen Transcend 16-u1095ng (v6.92.6600) | |
| AIDA64 / CPU AES | |
| Asus ProArt P16 H7606WP (v6.92.6600) | |
| HP Omen Transcend 16-u1095ng (v6.92.6600) | |
| Lenovo Yoga Pro 9 16IAH10 RTX 5050 (v6.92.6600) | |
| Lenovo Pro 9 16IPH11 (v8.20.8100) | |
| Average Intel Core Ultra 9 386H (n=1) | |
| MSI Prestige 16 AI Evo B2HMG (v6.92.6600) | |
| Dell XPS 16 Core Ultra X7 358H (v8.20.8100) | |
| AIDA64 / CPU ZLib | |
| Asus ProArt P16 H7606WP (v6.92.6600) | |
| HP Omen Transcend 16-u1095ng (v6.92.6600) | |
| Lenovo Yoga Pro 9 16IAH10 RTX 5050 (v6.92.6600) | |
| Lenovo Pro 9 16IPH11 (v8.20.8100) | |
| Average Intel Core Ultra 9 386H (n=1) | |
| MSI Prestige 16 AI Evo B2HMG (v6.92.6600) | |
| Dell XPS 16 Core Ultra X7 358H (v8.20.8100) | |
| AIDA64 / FP64 Ray-Trace | |
| Asus ProArt P16 H7606WP (v6.92.6600) | |
| Lenovo Yoga Pro 9 16IAH10 RTX 5050 (v6.92.6600) | |
| Lenovo Pro 9 16IPH11 (v8.20.8100) | |
| Average Intel Core Ultra 9 386H (n=1) | |
| MSI Prestige 16 AI Evo B2HMG (v6.92.6600) | |
| HP Omen Transcend 16-u1095ng (v6.92.6600) | |
| Dell XPS 16 Core Ultra X7 358H (v8.20.8100) | |
| AIDA64 / CPU PhotoWorxx | |
| Dell XPS 16 Core Ultra X7 358H (v8.20.8100) | |
| Lenovo Pro 9 16IPH11 (v8.20.8100) | |
| Average Intel Core Ultra 9 386H (n=1) | |
| Lenovo Yoga Pro 9 16IAH10 RTX 5050 (v6.92.6600) | |
| MSI Prestige 16 AI Evo B2HMG (v6.92.6600) | |
| HP Omen Transcend 16-u1095ng (v6.92.6600) | |
| Asus ProArt P16 H7606WP (v6.92.6600) | |
| AIDA64 / CPU CheckMate | |
| Lenovo Pro 9 16IPH11 (v8.20.8100) | |
| Average Intel Core Ultra 9 386H (n=1) | |
| Dell XPS 16 Core Ultra X7 358H (v8.20.8100) | |
系统性能
Performance rating: Percent
PCMark 10: Score | Essentials | Productivity | Digital Content Creation
CrossMark: Overall | Productivity | Creativity | Responsiveness
WebXPRT 3: Overall
WebXPRT 4: Overall
Mozilla Kraken 1.1: Total
Geekbench AI: Half Precision GPU 1.7 | Single Precision GPU 1.7 | Quantized GPU 1.7
PCMark 10: Score | Essentials | Productivity | Digital Content Creation
CrossMark: Overall | Productivity | Creativity | Responsiveness
WebXPRT 3: Overall
WebXPRT 4: Overall
Mozilla Kraken 1.1: Total
Geekbench AI: Half Precision GPU 1.7 | Single Precision GPU 1.7 | Quantized GPU 1.7
| Performance rating | |
| Lenovo Pro 9 16IPH11 | |
| Average Intel Core Ultra 9 386H, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Laptop | |
| Lenovo Yoga Pro 9 16IAH10 RTX 5050 | |
| MSI Prestige 16 AI Evo B2HMG -3! | |
| Dell XPS 16 Core Ultra X7 358H | |
| Asus ProArt P16 H7606WP -3! | |
| HP Omen Transcend 16-u1095ng -8! | |
| PCMark 10 / Score | |
| Dell XPS 16 Core Ultra X7 358H | |
| Lenovo Yoga Pro 9 16IAH10 RTX 5050 | |
| Lenovo Pro 9 16IPH11 | |
| Average Intel Core Ultra 9 386H, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Laptop (n=1) | |
| Asus ProArt P16 H7606WP | |
| HP Omen Transcend 16-u1095ng | |
| MSI Prestige 16 AI Evo B2HMG | |
| PCMark 10 / Essentials | |
| MSI Prestige 16 AI Evo B2HMG | |
| Dell XPS 16 Core Ultra X7 358H | |
| Lenovo Yoga Pro 9 16IAH10 RTX 5050 | |
| Lenovo Pro 9 16IPH11 | |
| Average Intel Core Ultra 9 386H, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Laptop (n=1) | |
| Asus ProArt P16 H7606WP | |
| HP Omen Transcend 16-u1095ng | |
| PCMark 10 / Productivity | |
| Lenovo Yoga Pro 9 16IAH10 RTX 5050 | |
| Dell XPS 16 Core Ultra X7 358H | |
| Lenovo Pro 9 16IPH11 | |
| Average Intel Core Ultra 9 386H, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Laptop (n=1) | |
| HP Omen Transcend 16-u1095ng | |
| MSI Prestige 16 AI Evo B2HMG | |
| Asus ProArt P16 H7606WP | |
| PCMark 10 / Digital Content Creation | |
| Asus ProArt P16 H7606WP | |
| Lenovo Pro 9 16IPH11 | |
| Average Intel Core Ultra 9 386H, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Laptop (n=1) | |
| Dell XPS 16 Core Ultra X7 358H | |
| Lenovo Yoga Pro 9 16IAH10 RTX 5050 | |
| MSI Prestige 16 AI Evo B2HMG | |
| HP Omen Transcend 16-u1095ng | |
| CrossMark / Overall | |
| MSI Prestige 16 AI Evo B2HMG | |
| Dell XPS 16 Core Ultra X7 358H | |
| Lenovo Pro 9 16IPH11 | |
| Average Intel Core Ultra 9 386H, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Laptop (n=1) | |
| Lenovo Yoga Pro 9 16IAH10 RTX 5050 | |
| Asus ProArt P16 H7606WP | |
| CrossMark / Productivity | |
| MSI Prestige 16 AI Evo B2HMG | |
| Lenovo Pro 9 16IPH11 | |
| Average Intel Core Ultra 9 386H, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Laptop (n=1) | |
| Dell XPS 16 Core Ultra X7 358H | |
| Lenovo Yoga Pro 9 16IAH10 RTX 5050 | |
| Asus ProArt P16 H7606WP | |
| CrossMark / Creativity | |
| Dell XPS 16 Core Ultra X7 358H | |
| Lenovo Pro 9 16IPH11 | |
| Average Intel Core Ultra 9 386H, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Laptop (n=1) | |
| MSI Prestige 16 AI Evo B2HMG | |
| Lenovo Yoga Pro 9 16IAH10 RTX 5050 | |
| Asus ProArt P16 H7606WP | |
| CrossMark / Responsiveness | |
| MSI Prestige 16 AI Evo B2HMG | |
| Dell XPS 16 Core Ultra X7 358H | |
| Lenovo Pro 9 16IPH11 | |
| Average Intel Core Ultra 9 386H, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Laptop (n=1) | |
| Lenovo Yoga Pro 9 16IAH10 RTX 5050 | |
| Asus ProArt P16 H7606WP | |
| WebXPRT 3 / Overall | |
| MSI Prestige 16 AI Evo B2HMG | |
| HP Omen Transcend 16-u1095ng | |
| Asus ProArt P16 H7606WP | |
| Lenovo Pro 9 16IPH11 | |
| Average Intel Core Ultra 9 386H, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Laptop (n=1) | |
| Lenovo Yoga Pro 9 16IAH10 RTX 5050 | |
| Dell XPS 16 Core Ultra X7 358H | |
| WebXPRT 4 / Overall | |
| MSI Prestige 16 AI Evo B2HMG | |
| Lenovo Yoga Pro 9 16IAH10 RTX 5050 | |
| Lenovo Pro 9 16IPH11 | |
| Average Intel Core Ultra 9 386H, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Laptop (n=1) | |
| Dell XPS 16 Core Ultra X7 358H | |
| Asus ProArt P16 H7606WP | |
| Mozilla Kraken 1.1 / Total | |
| Dell XPS 16 Core Ultra X7 358H | |
| Asus ProArt P16 H7606WP | |
| Lenovo Pro 9 16IPH11 | |
| Average Intel Core Ultra 9 386H, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Laptop (n=1) | |
| HP Omen Transcend 16-u1095ng | |
| Lenovo Yoga Pro 9 16IAH10 RTX 5050 | |
| MSI Prestige 16 AI Evo B2HMG | |
| Geekbench AI / Half Precision GPU 1.7 | |
| Lenovo Yoga Pro 9 16IAH10 RTX 5050 | |
| Lenovo Pro 9 16IPH11 | |
| Average Intel Core Ultra 9 386H, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Laptop (n=1) | |
| Dell XPS 16 Core Ultra X7 358H | |
| Geekbench AI / Single Precision GPU 1.7 | |
| Lenovo Pro 9 16IPH11 | |
| Average Intel Core Ultra 9 386H, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Laptop (n=1) | |
| Lenovo Yoga Pro 9 16IAH10 RTX 5050 | |
| Dell XPS 16 Core Ultra X7 358H | |
| Geekbench AI / Quantized GPU 1.7 | |
| Lenovo Pro 9 16IPH11 | |
| Average Intel Core Ultra 9 386H, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Laptop (n=1) | |
| Lenovo Yoga Pro 9 16IAH10 RTX 5050 | |
| Dell XPS 16 Core Ultra X7 358H | |
* ... smaller is better
| PCMark 10 Score | 9484 points | |
Help | ||
| AIDA64 / Memory Copy | |
| Dell XPS 16 Core Ultra X7 358H | |
| Lenovo Pro 9 16IPH11 | |
| Average Intel Core Ultra 9 386H (n=1) | |
| Lenovo Yoga Pro 9 16IAH10 RTX 5050 | |
| MSI Prestige 16 AI Evo B2HMG | |
| Asus ProArt P16 H7606WP | |
| HP Omen Transcend 16-u1095ng | |
| AIDA64 / Memory Read | |
| Dell XPS 16 Core Ultra X7 358H | |
| Lenovo Pro 9 16IPH11 | |
| Average Intel Core Ultra 9 386H (n=1) | |
| Asus ProArt P16 H7606WP | |
| Lenovo Yoga Pro 9 16IAH10 RTX 5050 | |
| HP Omen Transcend 16-u1095ng | |
| MSI Prestige 16 AI Evo B2HMG | |
| AIDA64 / Memory Write | |
| Dell XPS 16 Core Ultra X7 358H | |
| Lenovo Yoga Pro 9 16IAH10 RTX 5050 | |
| Lenovo Pro 9 16IPH11 | |
| Average Intel Core Ultra 9 386H (n=1) | |
| Asus ProArt P16 H7606WP | |
| HP Omen Transcend 16-u1095ng | |
| MSI Prestige 16 AI Evo B2HMG | |
| AIDA64 / Memory Latency | |
| MSI Prestige 16 AI Evo B2HMG | |
| Lenovo Yoga Pro 9 16IAH10 RTX 5050 | |
| Asus ProArt P16 H7606WP | |
| Lenovo Pro 9 16IPH11 | |
| Average Intel Core Ultra 9 386H (n=1) | |
| HP Omen Transcend 16-u1095ng | |
| Dell XPS 16 Core Ultra X7 358H | |
* ... smaller is better
DPC 延迟
| DPC Latencies / LatencyMon - interrupt to process latency (max), Web, Youtube, Prime95 | |
| Lenovo Yoga Pro 9 16IAH10 RTX 5050 | |
| MSI Prestige 16 AI Evo B2HMG | |
| HP Omen Transcend 16-u1095ng | |
| Lenovo Pro 9 16IPH11 | |
| Asus ProArt P16 H7606WP | |
| Dell XPS 16 Core Ultra X7 358H | |
* ... smaller is better
存储设备
该系统最多可支持两个 PCIe4 x4 NVMe 固态硬盘，不会出现节流问题。需要注意的是，不支持 PCIe5 固态硬盘的速度，而且两个 M.2 固态硬盘中必须有一个是较短的 2242 固态硬盘。
SK hynix PVC10 HFS001TEM4X182N
CDM 5/6 Read Seq Q32T1:
6599 MB/s
CDM 5/6 Write Seq Q32T1:
5776 MB/s
CDM 5/6 Read 4K Q32T1:
594.6 MB/s
CDM 5/6 Write 4K Q32T1:
426.7 MB/s
CDM 5 Read Seq:
3695 MB/s
CDM 5 Write Seq:
2247 MB/s
CDM 5/6 Read 4K:
74.84 MB/s
CDM 5/6 Write 4K:
136.3 MB/s
| Drive Performance rating - Percent | |
| MSI Prestige 16 AI Evo B2HMG | |
| HP Omen Transcend 16-u1095ng | |
| Lenovo Yoga Pro 9 16IAH10 RTX 5050 | |
| Asus ProArt P16 H7606WP | |
| Lenovo Pro 9 16IPH11 | |
| Dell XPS 16 Core Ultra X7 358H | |
* ... smaller is better
磁盘节流DiskSpd 读取循环，队列深度 8
Lenovo Pro 9 16IPH11 SK hynix PVC10 HFS001TEM4X182N; diskspd 2.0.17 f: Ø6580 (5924.98-6607.49)
Lenovo Yoga Pro 9 16IAH10 RTX 5050 WD PC SN7100S SDFPMSL-1T00-1101; diskspd 2.0.17 f: Ø6747 (5859.89-6777.44)
图形处理器性能
手机 移动版GeForce RTX 5060与配备相同 GPU 的其他笔记本电脑相比，其性能达到了我们的预期水平。原始图形性能略低于经过游戏优化的 Legion 7 16 AGP11在平衡模式下运行系统，其图形性能仅比配备相同 RTX 5060 的游戏优化版 7 16 AGP11 略低几个百分点。
在平衡模式而非性能模式下运行系统，图形性能最多会受到 10% 的影响，如下表Time Spy 所示。
从 RTX 5060 降级到 RTX 5050 配置，图形性能预计会降低 20% 至 25%。
| 电源配置文件 | 图形得分 | 物理得分 | 综合得分 |
| 性能模式 | 11755 | 14935 | 12142 |
| 平衡模式 | 10676 (-9%) | 15025 (-0%) | 11160 (-8%) |
| 电池电量 | 9886 (-16%) | 12811 (-14%) | 10236 (-16%) |
| 3DMark 11 Performance | 33248 points | |
| 3DMark Cloud Gate Standard Score | 61799 points | |
| 3DMark Fire Strike Score | 28118 points | |
| 3DMark Time Spy Score | 12142 points | |
| 3DMark Steel Nomad Score | 2646 points | |
Help | ||
* ... smaller is better
Performance rating | Cyberpunk 2077 | Baldur's Gate 3 | GTA V | Final Fantasy XV Benchmark | Strange Brigade | Dota 2 Reborn | X-Plane 11.11
| Cyberpunk 2077 - 1920x1080 Ultra Preset (FSR off) | |
| Asus ProArt P16 H7606WP | |
| Lenovo Pro 9 16IPH11 | |
| Lenovo Yoga Pro 9 16IAH10 RTX 5050 | |
| Dell XPS 16 Core Ultra X7 358H | |
| MSI Prestige 16 AI Evo B2HMG | |
| Baldur's Gate 3 - 1920x1080 Ultra Preset AA:T | |
| Asus ProArt P16 H7606WP | |
| Lenovo Pro 9 16IPH11 | |
| Lenovo Yoga Pro 9 16IAH10 RTX 5050 | |
| Dell XPS 16 Core Ultra X7 358H | |
| MSI Prestige 16 AI Evo B2HMG | |
| GTA V - 1920x1080 Highest AA:4xMSAA + FX AF:16x | |
| Lenovo Pro 9 16IPH11 | |
| Lenovo Yoga Pro 9 16IAH10 RTX 5050 | |
| Asus ProArt P16 H7606WP | |
| HP Omen Transcend 16-u1095ng | |
| Dell XPS 16 Core Ultra X7 358H | |
| MSI Prestige 16 AI Evo B2HMG | |
| Final Fantasy XV Benchmark - 1920x1080 High Quality | |
| Asus ProArt P16 H7606WP | |
| Lenovo Pro 9 16IPH11 | |
| Lenovo Yoga Pro 9 16IAH10 RTX 5050 | |
| HP Omen Transcend 16-u1095ng | |
| Dell XPS 16 Core Ultra X7 358H | |
| MSI Prestige 16 AI Evo B2HMG | |
| Strange Brigade - 1920x1080 ultra AA:ultra AF:16 | |
| Asus ProArt P16 H7606WP | |
| Lenovo Pro 9 16IPH11 | |
| HP Omen Transcend 16-u1095ng | |
| Lenovo Yoga Pro 9 16IAH10 RTX 5050 | |
| Dell XPS 16 Core Ultra X7 358H | |
| MSI Prestige 16 AI Evo B2HMG | |
| Dota 2 Reborn - 1920x1080 ultra (3/3) best looking | |
| HP Omen Transcend 16-u1095ng | |
| Lenovo Yoga Pro 9 16IAH10 RTX 5050 | |
| Lenovo Pro 9 16IPH11 | |
| Asus ProArt P16 H7606WP | |
| Dell XPS 16 Core Ultra X7 358H | |
| MSI Prestige 16 AI Evo B2HMG | |
| X-Plane 11.11 - 1920x1080 high (fps_test=3) | |
| HP Omen Transcend 16-u1095ng | |
| Lenovo Yoga Pro 9 16IAH10 RTX 5050 | |
| Asus ProArt P16 H7606WP | |
| Dell XPS 16 Core Ultra X7 358H | |
| MSI Prestige 16 AI Evo B2HMG | |
Black Myth: Wukong | GTA V | Dota 2 Reborn | Final Fantasy XV Benchmark | X-Plane 11.11 | Strange Brigade | Baldur's Gate 3 | Cyberpunk 2077 | F1 24 | Monster Hunter Wilds
| Black Myth: Wukong | |
| 1920x1080 high TSR 100 | |
| Average NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Laptop (48 - 58, n=3) | |
| Lenovo Pro 9 16IPH11 | |
| Dell XPS 16 Core Ultra X7 358H | |
| 1920x1080 cinematic TSR 100 | |
| Average NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Laptop (26 - 32, n=4) | |
| Lenovo Pro 9 16IPH11 | |
| Dell XPS 16 Core Ultra X7 358H | |
| 2560x1440 cinematic TSR 100 | |
| Average NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Laptop (19 - 23, n=4) | |
| Lenovo Pro 9 16IPH11 | |
| 2560x1440 cinematic DLSS 68 | |
| Average NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Laptop (30 - 36, n=3) | |
| Lenovo Pro 9 16IPH11 | |
| 2560x1440 cinematic RT: Very High DLSS 68 FG | |
| Lenovo Pro 9 16IPH11 | |
| Average NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Laptop (29 - 37, n=3) | |
| F1 24 | |
| 1920x1080 Ultra High Preset AA:T AF:16x | |
| Asus ProArt P16 H7606WP | |
| Lenovo Legion 7 16 AGP11 | |
| Lenovo Pro 9 16IPH11 | |
| Average NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Laptop (46.1 - 77.5, n=8) | |
| Lenovo Yoga Pro 9 16IAH10 RTX 5050 | |
| Dell XPS 16 Core Ultra X7 358H | |
| MSI Venture 16 AI A2HMTG | |
| 2560x1440 Ultra High Preset AA:T AF:16x | |
| Asus ProArt P16 H7606WP | |
| Lenovo Legion 7 16 AGP11 | |
| Lenovo Pro 9 16IPH11 | |
| Average NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Laptop (29.8 - 49.1, n=8) | |
| Lenovo Yoga Pro 9 16IAH10 RTX 5050 | |
| 2560x1440 Ultra High Preset + Quality DLSS AF:16x | |
| Lenovo Legion 7 16 AGP11 | |
| Lenovo Pro 9 16IPH11 | |
| Average NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Laptop (46 - 74.5, n=7) | |
| Lenovo Yoga Pro 9 16IAH10 RTX 5050 | |
| Monster Hunter Wilds | |
| 1920x1080 high, no upscaling | |
| Lenovo Pro 9 16IPH11 | |
| Average NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Laptop (49.7 - 58.8, n=2) | |
| 1920x1080 ultra, RT: high, no upscaling | |
| Lenovo Pro 9 16IPH11 | |
| Average NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Laptop (16.6 - 36.5, n=4) | |
| 2560x1440 ultra, RT: high, no upscaling | |
| Lenovo Pro 9 16IPH11 | |
| Average NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Laptop (13.9 - 20.9, n=3) | |
赛博朋克 2077》超 FPS 图表
Lenovo Pro 9 16IPH11 Ultra 9 386H, GeForce RTX 5060 Laptop: Ø73.9 (67-75)
| low | med. | high | ultra | QHD DLSS | QHD | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GTA V (2015) | 185.8 | 183.5 | 179.4 | 133.6 | 110.7 | |
| Dota 2 Reborn (2015) | 172.5 | 156.7 | 151.6 | 142.4 | ||
| Final Fantasy XV Benchmark (2018) | 187.9 | 170.4 | 124.1 | 92.3 | ||
| X-Plane 11.11 (2018) | 113 | 102.9 | ||||
| Strange Brigade (2018) | 482 | 314 | 214 | 217 | 125.5 | |
| Baldur's Gate 3 (2023) | 164.6 | 137.8 | 119.9 | 117.8 | 117.5 | 79.4 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 (2023) | 132.3 | 108.2 | 92.3 | 83.3 | 63.2 | 53.4 |
| F1 24 (2024) | 249 | 249 | 207 | 69.5 | 69.3 | 42.8 |
| Black Myth: Wukong (2024) | 85 | 64 | 50 | 28 | 32 | 21 |
| Monster Hunter Wilds (2025) | 74.2 | 63 | 58.8 | 34.8 | 20.9 |
排放量
系统噪音
风扇噪音上限和表现与去年的 Yoga Pro 9 16IAH10 非常接近，因为主板没有重大变化。也许最重要的是，在运行《赛博朋克 2077》时，如果使用平衡模式，风扇噪音将徘徊在 41 dB(A)左右，如果使用性能模式，则为 50 dB(A)。前面提到的在平衡模式下运行游戏时图形性能下降 10%，这可能是对更安静风扇的合理妥协。
Noise level
| Idle |
| 23.5 / 24 / 24 dB(A) |
| Load |
| 32.3 / 50.1 dB(A) |
 | ||
30 dB silent 40 dB(A) audible 50 dB(A) loud |
||
min:  , med:  , max:  Earthworks M23R, Arta (15 cm distance) environment noise: 23 dB(A) | ||
| Lenovo Pro 9 16IPH11 Ultra 9 386H, GeForce RTX 5060 Laptop | Lenovo Yoga Pro 9 16IAH10 RTX 5050 Ultra 9 285H, GeForce RTX 5050 Laptop | Dell XPS 16 Core Ultra X7 358H Ultra X7 358H, Arc B390 Panther Lake iGPU | MSI Prestige 16 AI Evo B2HMG Ultra 9 285H, Arc 140T | HP Omen Transcend 16-u1095ng i9-14900HX, GeForce RTX 4070 Laptop GPU | Asus ProArt P16 H7606WP Ryzen AI 9 HX 370, GeForce RTX 5070 Laptop | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Noise | -5% | 0% | 1% | -19% | -16% | |
| off / environment * (dB) | 23 | 24.6 -7% | 23.3 -1% | 23.6 -3% | 24 -4% | 23.5 -2% |
| Idle Minimum * (dB) | 23.5 | 24.6 -5% | 23.4 -0% | 23.6 -0% | 29 -23% | 26.7 -14% |
| Idle Average * (dB) | 24 | 24.6 -3% | 23.4 2% | 23.6 2% | 30 -25% | 26.7 -11% |
| Idle Maximum * (dB) | 24 | 26.8 -12% | 25.8 -8% | 26.2 -9% | 31 -29% | 31.1 -30% |
| Load Average * (dB) | 32.3 | 32.8 -2% | 38 -18% | 37.1 -15% | 45 -39% | 44.8 -39% |
| Cyberpunk 2077 ultra * (dB) | 50.1 | 51.8 -3% | 38.1 24% | 42.1 16% | 53.7 -7% | |
| Load Maximum * (dB) | 50.1 | 51.8 -3% | 48.6 3% | 42.1 16% | 47 6% | 53.7 -7% |
| Witcher 3 ultra * (dB) | 44 |
* ... smaller is better
温度
尽管尺寸比前代产品小，但表面温度却明显降低。例如，在运行《赛博朋克 2077》时，我们设备上的热点最高温度仅为 38 摄氏度和 41 摄氏度，而采用相同 Nvidia GPU 的 Yoga Pro 9i 16IAH G10 Aura 的温度则分别为 42 摄氏度和 49 摄氏度。
(±) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 33 °C / 91 F, compared to the average of 31.3 °C / 88 F for the devices in the class Multimedia.
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 37.8 °C / 100 F, compared to the average of 36.8 °C / 98 F, ranging from 21 to 71 °C for the class Multimedia.
(+) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 38.2 °C / 101 F, compared to the average of 39.1 °C / 102 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 27.1 °C / 81 F, compared to the device average of 31.3 °C / 88 F.
(+) 3: The average temperature for the upper side is 31.7 °C / 89 F, compared to the average of 31.3 °C / 88 F for the class Multimedia.
(+) The palmrests and touchpad are cooler than skin temperature with a maximum of 29.4 °C / 84.9 F and are therefore cool to the touch.
(±) The average temperature of the palmrest area of similar devices was 28.7 °C / 83.7 F (-0.7 °C / -1.2 F).
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 37.8 °C / 100 F, compared to the average of 36.8 °C / 98 F, ranging from 21 to 71 °C for the class Multimedia.
(+) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 38.2 °C / 101 F, compared to the average of 39.1 °C / 102 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 27.1 °C / 81 F, compared to the device average of 31.3 °C / 88 F.
(+) 3: The average temperature for the upper side is 31.7 °C / 89 F, compared to the average of 31.3 °C / 88 F for the class Multimedia.
(+) The palmrests and touchpad are cooler than skin temperature with a maximum of 29.4 °C / 84.9 F and are therefore cool to the touch.
(±) The average temperature of the palmrest area of similar devices was 28.7 °C / 83.7 F (-0.7 °C / -1.2 F).
| Lenovo Pro 9 16IPH11 Ultra 9 386H, GeForce RTX 5060 Laptop | Lenovo Yoga Pro 9 16IAH10 RTX 5050 Ultra 9 285H, GeForce RTX 5050 Laptop | Dell XPS 16 Core Ultra X7 358H Ultra X7 358H, Arc B390 Panther Lake iGPU | MSI Prestige 16 AI Evo B2HMG Ultra 9 285H, Arc 140T | HP Omen Transcend 16-u1095ng i9-14900HX, GeForce RTX 4070 Laptop GPU | Asus ProArt P16 H7606WP Ryzen AI 9 HX 370, GeForce RTX 5070 Laptop | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Heat | 1% | 9% | -7% | -22% | -5% | |
| Maximum Upper Side * (°C) | 37.8 | 34.4 9% | 40.6 -7% | 48.1 -27% | 49 -30% | 47 -24% |
| Maximum Bottom * (°C) | 38.2 | 41.4 -8% | 39.8 -4% | 51.6 -35% | 63 -65% | 47.4 -24% |
| Idle Upper Side * (°C) | 30.4 | 28.6 6% | 23.2 24% | 25.9 15% | 30 1% | 26.1 14% |
| Idle Bottom * (°C) | 31 | 31.8 -3% | 23.8 23% | 25.2 19% | 29 6% | 26.4 15% |
* ... smaller is better
压力测试
在启动 Prime95 压力模式时，CPU 会升至 3.3 GHz、98 C 和 86 W，然后在大约 30 秒后下降并稳定在 3.0 GHz、90 C 和 62 W。
如下截图所示，在平衡模式和性能模式之间，核心温度和时钟频率会发生巨大变化。例如，在运行《赛博朋克 2077》时，如果设置为 "性能 "模式，GPU 的平均频率为 2647 MHz，平均温度为 75 摄氏度，平均功耗为 91 瓦；如果设置为 "平衡 "模式，GPU 的平均频率为 2340 MHz，平均温度为 68 摄氏度，平均功耗为 67 瓦。平衡模式下的整体性能较慢，这与上文 GPU 部分的 Time SPy 观察结果一致。
| 平均 CPU 时钟 (GHz) | GPU 时钟 (MHz) | 平均 CPU 温度 (°C) | 平均 GPU 温度 (°C) | |
| 系统闲置 | -- | 232 | 41 | 36 |
| Prime95 压力 | 3.0 | -- | 90 | 49 |
| Prime95 + FurMark Stress | 2.4 | 2115 | 77 | 72 |
| 赛博朋克 2077》压力（平衡模式） | 1.4 | 2340 | 67 | 68 |
| 赛博朋克 2077》压力（性能模式） | 1.7 | 2647 | 82 | 75 |
发言人
Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)
Lenovo Pro 9 16IPH11 audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (83.1 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(±) | reduced bass - on average 5.7% lower than median
(+) | bass is linear (5.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.2% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (5.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 1.8% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (4.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(+) | overall sound is linear (7.7% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 7% of all tested devices in this class were better, 2% similar, 91% worse
» The best had a delta of 5%, average was 17%, worst was 45%
Compared to all devices tested
» 1% of all tested devices were better, 0% similar, 98% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 24%, worst was 134%
Apple MacBook Pro 16 2021 M1 Pro audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (84.7 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(+) | good bass - only 3.8% away from median
(+) | bass is linear (5.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 1.3% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (2.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 1.9% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (2.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(+) | overall sound is linear (4.6% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 0% of all tested devices in this class were better, 0% similar, 100% worse
» The best had a delta of 5%, average was 17%, worst was 45%
Compared to all devices tested
» 0% of all tested devices were better, 0% similar, 100% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 24%, worst was 134%
能源管理
耗电量
联想系统的功耗要求很高，即使在 Optimus 激活的最暗亮度设置下，最低功耗也高达 15 W，而在 dGPU 激活的最亮设置下，功耗则高达 46 W。在运行游戏等更高负载时，我们的设备与配备更快的 Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 CPU 和 RTX 5070 GPU 的华硕 ProArt P16 一样耗电。
Power Consumption
| Off / Standby | 0.97 / 2.2 Watt |
| Idle | 15.1 / 30.4 / 46.2 Watt |
| Load |
79.5 / 231.4 Watt |
   
| |
Key:
min: ,
med: ,
max: Metrahit Energy | |
| Lenovo Pro 9 16IPH11 Ultra 9 386H, GeForce RTX 5060 Laptop, SK hynix PVC10 HFS001TEM4X182N, Tandem OLED, 3200x2000, 16" | Lenovo Yoga Pro 9 16IAH10 RTX 5050 Ultra 9 285H, GeForce RTX 5050 Laptop, WD PC SN7100S SDFPMSL-1T00-1101, OLED, 2880x1800, 16" | Dell XPS 16 Core Ultra X7 358H Ultra X7 358H, Arc B390 Panther Lake iGPU, , OLED, 3200x2000, 16" | MSI Prestige 16 AI Evo B2HMG Ultra 9 285H, Arc 140T, Micron 2500 1TB MTFDKBA1T0QGN, IPS, 2560x1600, 16" | HP Omen Transcend 16-u1095ng i9-14900HX, GeForce RTX 4070 Laptop GPU, Kioxia XG8 KXG80ZNV1T02, OLED, 2560x1600, 16" | Asus ProArt P16 H7606WP Ryzen AI 9 HX 370, GeForce RTX 5070 Laptop, WD PC SN740 SDDPNQE-2T00, OLED, 2880x1800, 16" | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power Consumption | 25% | 66% | 58% | 8% | 20% | |
| Idle Minimum * (Watt) | 15.1 | 6.8 55% | 4 74% | 4.4 71% | 10 34% | 9.9 34% |
| Idle Average * (Watt) | 30.4 | 20.1 34% | 4.4 86% | 9.2 70% | 18 41% | 13.6 55% |
| Idle Maximum * (Watt) | 46.2 | 21.6 53% | 10.2 78% | 9.5 79% | 32 31% | 14 70% |
| Load Average * (Watt) | 79.5 | 87.6 -10% | 44.2 44% | 66.9 16% | 128 -61% | 93.8 -18% |
| Cyberpunk 2077 ultra * (Watt) | 161.2 | 148.2 8% | 62.6 61% | 68.8 57% | 162.1 -1% | |
| Cyberpunk 2077 ultra external monitor * (Watt) | 160.7 | 147.9 8% | 62.4 61% | 67.4 58% | 158.3 1% | |
| Load Maximum * (Watt) | 231.4 | 173.5 25% | 94.6 59% | 102.9 56% | 242 -5% | 229 1% |
| Witcher 3 ultra * (Watt) | 148.4 |
* ... smaller is better
功耗 赛博朋克/压力测试
Lenovo Pro 9 16IPH11 Ultra 9 386H, GeForce RTX 5060 Laptop; 1280x720 Prime95 28.10 and Furmark 1.25: Ø186.7 (163.6-231)
Dell XPS 16 Core Ultra X7 358H Ultra X7 358H, Arc B390 Panther Lake iGPU; 1280x720 Prime95 28.10 and Furmark 1.25: Ø66.8 (52.7-96.3)
Lenovo Pro 9 16IPH11 Ultra 9 386H, GeForce RTX 5060 Laptop; Idle 150cd/m2: Ø15.4 (14.7-17.6)
Dell XPS 16 Core Ultra X7 358H Ultra X7 358H, Arc B390 Panther Lake iGPU; Idle 150cd/m2: Ø4.29 (3.46-6.81)
Lenovo Pro 9 16IPH11 Ultra 9 386H, GeForce RTX 5060 Laptop; Cyberpunk 2077 FHD ultra no FSR 150cd: Ø161.2 (155-171.2)
Dell XPS 16 Core Ultra X7 358H Ultra X7 358H, Arc B390 Panther Lake iGPU; Cyberpunk 2077 FHD ultra no FSR 150cd: Ø62.6 (61.7-67.8)
外部显示器功耗
Lenovo Pro 9 16IPH11 Ultra 9 386H, GeForce RTX 5060 Laptop; Prime95 V2810 Stress (external Monitor): Ø105.6 (101-124.8)
Dell XPS 16 Core Ultra X7 358H Ultra X7 358H, Arc B390 Panther Lake iGPU; Prime95 V2810 Stress (external Monitor): Ø64.9 (57.4-96.5)
Lenovo Pro 9 16IPH11 Ultra 9 386H, GeForce RTX 5060 Laptop; Cinebench R15 Multi (external Monitor): Ø109.5 (104-112.6)
Dell XPS 16 Core Ultra X7 358H Ultra X7 358H, Arc B390 Panther Lake iGPU; Cinebench R15 Multi (external Monitor): Ø91 (90.2-91.9)
Lenovo Pro 9 16IPH11 Ultra 9 386H, GeForce RTX 5060 Laptop; Cinebench R23 Multi (external Monitor): Ø102.3 (98.4-106.9)
Dell XPS 16 Core Ultra X7 358H Ultra X7 358H, Arc B390 Panther Lake iGPU; Cinebench R23 Multi (external Monitor): Ø74.6 (56.5-91.1)
Lenovo Pro 9 16IPH11 Ultra 9 386H, GeForce RTX 5060 Laptop; 1280x720 FurMark 1.19 GPU Stress Test (external Monitor): Ø139.8 (132.6-148.5)
Dell XPS 16 Core Ultra X7 358H Ultra X7 358H, Arc B390 Panther Lake iGPU; 1280x720 FurMark 1.19 GPU Stress Test (external Monitor): Ø63.5 (52.2-72.8)
Lenovo Pro 9 16IPH11 Ultra 9 386H, GeForce RTX 5060 Laptop; Idle 1min (external Monitor): Ø15 (13-16.9)
Dell XPS 16 Core Ultra X7 358H Ultra X7 358H, Arc B390 Panther Lake iGPU; Idle 1min (external Monitor): Ø3.96 (3.51-5.34)
Lenovo Pro 9 16IPH11 Ultra 9 386H, GeForce RTX 5060 Laptop; Cyberpunk 2077 FHD ultra no FSR (external Monitor): Ø160.7 (154.7-167.8)
Dell XPS 16 Core Ultra X7 358H Ultra X7 358H, Arc B390 Panther Lake iGPU; Cyberpunk 2077 FHD ultra no FSR (external Monitor): Ø62.4 (61.5-63.1)
电池寿命
即使设置为平衡模式并激活 iGPU，运行时间也相对较短。相对较大的 93 Wh 电池组在自动关机前只能维持 5.5 小时的 WLAN 浏览，比许多其他多媒体机型（包括联想自己的 Yoga Pro 9i 16IAH G10 Aura）短了几个小时。
| Lenovo Pro 9 16IPH11 Ultra 9 386H, GeForce RTX 5060 Laptop, 92.5 Wh | Lenovo Yoga Pro 9 16IAH10 RTX 5050 Ultra 9 285H, GeForce RTX 5050 Laptop, 84 Wh | Dell XPS 16 Core Ultra X7 358H Ultra X7 358H, Arc B390 Panther Lake iGPU, 70 Wh | MSI Prestige 16 AI Evo B2HMG Ultra 9 285H, Arc 140T, 99.9 Wh | HP Omen Transcend 16-u1095ng i9-14900HX, GeForce RTX 4070 Laptop GPU, 97 Wh | Asus ProArt P16 H7606WP Ryzen AI 9 HX 370, GeForce RTX 5070 Laptop, 90 Wh | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Battery runtime | 98% | 91% | 206% | -9% | 70% | |
| WiFi v1.3 (h) | 5.4 | 10.7 98% | 10.3 91% | 16.5 206% | 4.9 -9% | 9.2 70% |
| H.264 (h) | 20.8 | |||||
| Load (h) | 2.4 |
笔记本检查评级
这是一款高端多媒体机，性能卓越，配备超亮 OLED 触摸屏，但电池续航时间不足。
Lenovo Pro 9 16IPH11
- 04/29/2026 v8
Allen Ngo
Multimedia - Weighted Average
Total Sustainability Score: 潜在竞争对手比较
Image | Model / Review | Price | Weight | Height | Display |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. 89.2%  | Lenovo Pro 9 16IPH11 Intel Core Ultra 9 386H ⎘ NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Laptop ⎘ 32 GB Memory, 1024 GB SSD | Amazon: List Price: 3100 USD | 1.9 kg | 17.3 mm | 16.00" 3200x2000 236 PPI Tandem OLED |
2. 88.8%  | Lenovo Yoga Pro 9 16IAH10 RTX 5050 Intel Core Ultra 9 285H ⎘ NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 Laptop ⎘ 32 GB Memory, 1024 GB SSD | Amazon: List Price: 1800 USD | 2 kg | 17.9 mm | 16.00" 2880x1800 212 PPI OLED |
3. 87.2%  | Dell XPS 16 Core Ultra X7 358H Intel Core Ultra X7 358H ⎘ Intel Arc B390 12 Xe3 Panther Lake iGPU ⎘ 32 GB Memory | Amazon: 1. $2,229.99 Dell XPS 16 9640 Laptop | In... 2. $2,699.00 Dell XPS 16 9640 16.3" Touch... 3. $2,999.99 Dell XPS 16 9640 Laptop | In... List Price: 2350 USD | 1.7 kg | 14.62 mm | 16.00" 3200x2000 236 PPI OLED |
4. 82.8%  | MSI Prestige 16 AI Evo B2HMG Intel Core Ultra 9 285H ⎘ Intel Arc Graphics 140T ⎘ 32 GB Memory, 1024 GB SSD | Amazon: 1. $1,486.99 MSI Prestige 16 AI+ Evo 16" ... 2. $1,595.00 MSI Prestige 16 AI Evo Lapto... 3. $1,392.69 MSI Prestige 16 AI Evo 16" N... | 1.6 kg | 18.95 mm | 16.00" 2560x1600 189 PPI IPS |
5. 88.4% v7 (old)  | HP Omen Transcend 16-u1095ng Intel Core i9-14900HX ⎘ NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Laptop GPU ⎘ 32 GB Memory, 1024 GB SSD | Amazon: List Price: 3000 EUR | 2.3 kg | 20 mm | 16.00" 2560x1600 189 PPI OLED |
6. 89.1%  | Asus ProArt P16 H7606WP AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 ⎘ NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Laptop ⎘ 64 GB Memory, 2048 GB SSD | List Price: 3399€ | 1.8 kg | 17.3 mm | 16.00" 2880x1800 212 PPI OLED |
Transparency
The selection of devices to be reviewed is made by our editorial team. The test sample was provided to the author as a loan by the manufacturer or retailer for the purpose of this review. The lender had no influence on this review, nor did the manufacturer receive a copy of this review before publication. There was no obligation to publish this review. As an independent media company, Notebookcheck is not subjected to the authority of manufacturers, retailers or publishers.
This is how Notebookcheck is testing
Every year, Notebookcheck independently reviews hundreds of laptops and smartphones using standardized procedures to ensure that all results are comparable. We have continuously developed our test methods for around 20 years and set industry standards in the process. In our test labs, high-quality measuring equipment is utilized by experienced technicians and editors. These tests involve a multi-stage validation process. Our complex rating system is based on hundreds of well-founded measurements and benchmarks, which maintains objectivity. Further information on our test methods can be found here.
