Behoof logo

Behoof

Mejores precios en tiendas online
Catálogo de productos
search

previous
next

ACER SWIFT GO 14 SFG14-71-785V 14" INTEL CORE I7-13700H 2.4GHZ / 16GB RAM / 512GB SSD

Rendimiento

Pantalla

Tarjeta grafica

Autonomía

Almacenamiento

Conectores

crown El más barato

Desconocido

Características ACER SWIFT GO 14 SFG14-71-785V 14" INTEL CORE I7-13700H 2.4GHZ / 16GB RAM / 512GB SSD

Tamaño14 "

RAM16 GB

Capacidad512 GB

Descripción

Sin datos

Historial de precios

mín

máx

fijo

Productos con características similares

ASUS ROG ZEPHYRUS G14 GA401IU 14" AMD RYZEN 7 4800HS 2.9GHZ / 16GB RAM / 512GB SSD

Portátiles

ASUS ROG ZEPHYRUS G14 GA401IU

Precio 0

ASUS VIVOBOOK 16 M1603QA 16" WUXGA AMD RYZEN 5 5600H 3.3GHZ / 8GB RAM / 512GB SSD

Portátiles

ASUS VIVOBOOK 16 M1603QA 16"

Precio 0

13695.02
ACER ASPIRE 3 A314-23P-R9B1 14" AMD RYZEN 5 7520U 2.8GHZ / 16GB RAM / 512GB SSD

Portátiles

ACER ASPIRE 3 A314-23P-R9B1

Precio 0

6001.64
DELL LATITUDE 7320 13.3" INTEL CORE I7-1185G7 3GHZ / 16GB RAM / 512GB SSD

Portátiles

DELL LATITUDE 7320 13.3"

Precio 0

ACER NITRO 5 17.3" INTEL CORE I7-11800H 2.3GHZ / NVIDIA GEFORCE RTX 3050 TI LAPTOP / 16GB RAM / 1TB SSD

Portátiles

ACER NITRO 5 17.3" INTEL CORE

Precio 0

29500.00

Comentarios

notebookcheck.net

Jonathan Smith

08.12.2024

The battery life/power consumption data in this review make absolutely no sense: The power consumption when idle using an external monitor is 9-10 W (no internal display) The power consumption when idle using the internal display is LOWER at 5-9 W ! So the internal display takes negative power! Furthermore, with a 75Wh battery, for it to last 24 hours as claimed, it needs to draw an average of 3W (75Wh/24h), which is much lower than both the above power consumption figures. Clearly the power consumption data (or battery life) is completely wrong, and it's a pity that wasn't spotted by notebookcheck.  Could notebookcheck recheck and reissue their data rather than spreading this false data?

notebookcheck.net

Konstantinos

07.12.2024

This laptop would have been great if it had touchscreen with pen support. Then you just install Linux and it transforms to a great tool, long battery, native fast linux apps, design tool, organising tool with handwriting recongition and so much more... But no touchscreen... I have something similar, Acer Spin 513 with arm64 Kompanio 1380, touchscreen with pen, 3:2 ratio perfect for photographs review, and it runs natively ChromeOS, Android apps, Linux desktop apps. Fanless with great battery.

notebookcheck.net

your_vati

06.12.2024

No HDMI port, seriously?

notebookcheck.net

LL

06.12.2024

Yeah, that and office.

notebookcheck.net

indy

06.12.2024

Several benchmarks didn't run. Of those that did it was near bottom of class save for a few. Can't play any modern game performance wise and even many others incompatible-wise. It excels in playing a video for one whole day! So, basically, a portable media player?

notebookcheck.net

eyelay

21.04.2024

I bought a freedos laptop and installed Windows 11 myself. Quick access did not come installed, I could not find this application on the support site. There is care center and acersense, but there are no OLED-related settings in these applications, where can I download them?

notebookcheck.net

Alx24

03.02.2024

What is HDMI port maximum resolution ?

notebookcheck.net

BarryAa

29.12.2023

Quote Well, I suppose it's pretty difficult task to set the brightness above 100%. ;-)

notebookcheck.net

Ilnahro

28.12.2023

=343027&specs[]=342689]based on notebookcheck data Shouldn't the proper comparison for performance be against the 7840HS in a machine that maxes out its official sustained power at 54W? Comparing Meteor Lake against a competitor that gets to use less than half the sustained amount of power is hard to justify, though I would be curious to hear the authors reasoning. When you do use the 7840HS instead of the 7840U ( ), that convincing W of the Meteor Lake chip turns in to a tie at best and a convincing loss in most cases. Anyone can look this up on here and a comparison should have been drawn in all the benchmarks to illustrate that Intel (once again) is brute-forcing performance-parity through massively higher power consumption. Something that can be forgiven in a Desktop-PC but is absolutely critical in battery-constrained applications like laptops and gaming handhelds. The usual technical details are there, but I am pretty disappointed by the skew given to the performance analysis of this chip. It does not seem fair or representative of what users will experience in practice.