Lenovo ThinkPad E590 (i7, RX 550X, SSD, FHD) Laptop Review

The ThinkPad E range from Lenovo contains business notebooks in the entry-level class, which are primarily aimed at small companies and the self-employed, but, due to how they are priced, private users may also be interested. With the ThinkPad E590 we're presented with an up-to-date 15.6" model equipped with a Whiskey Lake Core i7 8565U CPU and a Radeon RX 550X GPU. A few weeks ago we reviewed its sibling device which is equipped with the same CPU, but without a dedicated GPU. Competition for the E590 include the HP ProBook 450 G6, Dell Latitude 15 3590, Acer TravelMate P2510-G2-MG and Toshiba Tecra A50-E.
As the ThinkPad E580 and E590 models are identical in build, we will not go in-depth into this model's construction, specification, input devices or speakers. You can find more detailed information if required in our ThinkPad E580 Review.
SD Card Reader | |
average JPG Copy Test (av. of 3 runs) | |
Lenovo ThinkPad E590-20NC0003GE (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501 64 GB UHS-II) | |
HP ProBook 450 G6-5TJ93EA (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
Lenovo ThinkPad E580-20KS001RGE (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
Lenovo ThinkPad E590-20NB0012GE (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501) | |
Average of class Office (22.7 - 198.5, n=34, last 2 years) | |
Acer TravelMate P2510-G2-MG-50WE (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
Dell Latitude 15 3590-K8JP (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
Toshiba Tecra A50-E-110 (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
maximum AS SSD Seq Read Test (1GB) | |
Lenovo ThinkPad E590-20NB0012GE (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501) | |
Lenovo ThinkPad E590-20NC0003GE (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501 64 GB UHS-II) | |
Lenovo ThinkPad E580-20KS001RGE (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
HP ProBook 450 G6-5TJ93EA (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
Average of class Office (25 - 249, n=30, last 2 years) | |
Dell Latitude 15 3590-K8JP (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
Toshiba Tecra A50-E-110 (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
Acer TravelMate P2510-G2-MG-50WE (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) |
Display - IPS on Board
The Lenovo device brings a 15.6" display to the table which has a native resolution of 1,920x1,080. Whilst the measured contrast of 1,352:1 can be described as 'good', its brightness (271.7 cd/m²) is too low. To be considered good, we find brightness levels above 300 cd/m² are required.
The display is however able to score points with its very good backlight uniformity. With a black background there are a few lighter areas, but these will not be noticeable during normal use. Another positive - the display shows no signs of PWM flickering.
The E590 is built with a different panel to that included in its sibling device tested by us (which was also Full HD). The values measured in this review device however are only marginally better.
|
Brightness Distribution: 92 %
Center on Battery: 286 cd/m²
Contrast: 1352:1 (Black: 0.21 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 5.3 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.89, calibrated: 4.4
ΔE Greyscale 3.2 | 0.5-98 Ø5.1
59.7% sRGB (Argyll 1.6.3 3D)
37.9% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 1.6.3 3D)
41.21% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
59.9% sRGB (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
39.88% Display P3 (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
Gamma: 2.41
Lenovo ThinkPad E590-20NB0012GE IPS, 1920x1080, 15.6" | Lenovo ThinkPad E590-20NC0003GE IPS LED, 1920x1080, 15.6" | Lenovo ThinkPad E580-20KS001RGE IPS LED, 1920x1080, 15.6" | HP ProBook 450 G6-5TJ93EA IPS, 1920x1080, 15.6" | Dell Latitude 15 3590-K8JP TN LED, 1920x1080, 15.6" | Toshiba Tecra A50-E-110 IPS, 1920x1080, 15.6" | Acer TravelMate P2510-G2-MG-50WE IPS, 1920x1080, 15.6" | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Display | -4% | -1% | 7% | -6% | 53% | 6% | |
Display P3 Coverage | 39.88 | 38.21 -4% | 40 0% | 42.83 7% | 37.44 -6% | 65 63% | 42.27 6% |
sRGB Coverage | 59.9 | 57.5 -4% | 58.2 -3% | 64.2 7% | 56.4 -6% | 85.9 43% | 63.5 6% |
AdobeRGB 1998 Coverage | 41.21 | 39.47 -4% | 41.32 0% | 44.29 7% | 38.68 -6% | 62.8 52% | 43.69 6% |
Response Times | 16% | 0% | 27% | 49% | 8% | 9% | |
Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% * | 47.2 ? | 40 ? 15% | 48 ? -2% | 34.4 ? 27% | 29.6 ? 37% | 44 ? 7% | 40 ? 15% |
Response Time Black / White * | 32.8 ? | 27.6 ? 16% | 32 ? 2% | 24.4 ? 26% | 12.8 ? 61% | 30 ? 9% | 32 ? 2% |
PWM Frequency | 25000 ? | 26040 ? | 20000 ? | 25000 ? | |||
Screen | -2% | 7% | 0% | -64% | 1% | 16% | |
Brightness middle | 284 | 254 -11% | 290 2% | 242 -15% | 229.9 -19% | 290 2% | 259 -9% |
Brightness | 272 | 251 -8% | 267 -2% | 226 -17% | 219 -19% | 249 -8% | 230 -15% |
Brightness Distribution | 92 | 90 -2% | 81 -12% | 88 -4% | 85 -8% | 78 -15% | 82 -11% |
Black Level * | 0.21 | 0.2 5% | 0.19 10% | 0.21 -0% | 0.51 -143% | 0.38 -81% | 0.19 10% |
Contrast | 1352 | 1270 -6% | 1526 13% | 1152 -15% | 451 -67% | 763 -44% | 1363 1% |
Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 5.3 | 5.6 -6% | 4.9 8% | 4.7 11% | 12.49 -136% | 4.35 18% | 3.13 41% |
Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 18.9 | 15.4 19% | 9.52 50% | 18.5 2% | 22.29 -18% | 11.06 41% | 7.81 59% |
Colorchecker dE 2000 calibrated * | 4.4 | 4.9 -11% | 4 9% | 4.01 9% | 3.09 30% | ||
Greyscale dE 2000 * | 3.2 | 3.1 3% | 2.92 9% | 2.7 16% | 12.6 -294% | 3.01 6% | 1.42 56% |
Gamma | 2.41 91% | 2.22 99% | 2.31 95% | 2.26 97% | 1.84 120% | 2.44 90% | 2.36 93% |
CCT | 6736 96% | 6450 101% | 6091 107% | 6442 101% | 13565 48% | 7198 90% | 6391 102% |
Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998) | 37.9 | 36.3 -4% | 37 -2% | 40.8 8% | 35.7 -6% | 56 48% | 40 6% |
Color Space (Percent of sRGB) | 59.7 | 57.1 -4% | 58 -3% | 64 7% | 56.2 -6% | 86 44% | 63 6% |
Total Average (Program / Settings) | 3% /
-0% | 2% /
5% | 11% /
5% | -7% /
-39% | 21% /
12% | 10% /
13% |
* ... smaller is better
The colour accuracy of the display from the factory is perfectly satisfactory. With a DeltaE-2000 colour difference of 5.3 however it does not achieve the required less then 3 target. The display does not suffer from a blue tint. Through calibration, it is possible to achieve an improvement in colour presentation which dropped the DeltaE-2000 to 4.4 and greatly improved presentation of grey tones that were more balanced afterwards. AdobeRGB and sRGB colour spaces cannot be displayed - coverage for these sat at 37.9 and 59.7 percent respectively.
With our provided colour profile you can adjust the display properties to match our calibration - however, it is important to first check if your device has the same display (manufacturer and model number) included, otherwise it may make matters worse rather than better. It is very common for multiple laptops of the exact same model range or number to feature displays from multiple manufacturers.
Display Response Times
↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
---|---|---|
32.8 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 19.6 ms rise | |
↘ 13.2 ms fall | ||
The screen shows slow response rates in our tests and will be unsatisfactory for gamers. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.1 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 87 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (20.9 ms). | ||
↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey | ||
47.2 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 23.6 ms rise | |
↘ 23.6 ms fall | ||
The screen shows slow response rates in our tests and will be unsatisfactory for gamers. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.165 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 80 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (32.7 ms). |
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
Screen flickering / PWM not detected | |||
In comparison: 53 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 8619 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 343500) Hz was measured. |
Lenovo has equipped this ThinkPad with an IPS panel featuring good viewing angles, which results in a display readable from any angle. Outdoors, however, presents some difficulties - particularly in direct sunlight. In the shade or on an overcast day things should be fine.
Performance - Unrealised Potential
With the ThinkPad E590 Lenovo has produced a work laptop in 15.6" size with enough performance for general usage scenarios. Our review device is available for approximately 900 Euros (~$1003), but there are innumerable configurations available. At the time of testing, the cheapest model we could find in the store was 549 Euros (~$612/Core i3 8145U, 128 GB NVMe SSD) - this model though comes with an HD display with much worse viewing angles.
Processor
The ThinkPad E590 is powered by a Core i7-8565U (Coffee Lake) quad-core processor which packs enough performance for applications above and beyond normal office and internet usage. This ULV variant has a TDP of 15 watts, and Lenovo has allowed for short periods (up to 28 seconds) of up to 25 watts. This is a relatively low TDP envelope necessitated by the included dedicated GPU - the cooling system would not be able to cope with a higher TDP CPU variant. By comparison, the Core i5-8265U CPU included in the ThinkPad T490s has allowed Lenovo to support a TDP of up to 51 watts as it does not have a dedicated GPU.
The Core i7-8565U has a base clock of 1.8 GHz, with turbo boost on all four cores to 4.1 GHz, 4.5 GHz on two cores, and 4.6 GHz on a single core. During our CineBench testing the CPU reached 3 to 3.2 GHz for a brief period, and then levelled out at 2.3 to 2.5 GHz. The single threaded tests began at 4.1 to 4.5 GHz and then settled at 4.1 to 4.2 GHz. These results were achieved either on battery or plug into mains.
We test whether the CPU is able to maintain longer periods of turbo boost via a continuous 30 minute loop of Cinebench R15. The results show that clock rates dropped after the first and second runs somewhat and then remained stable. Turbo boost was only able to slightly raise average clock rates.
A quick look at the graph shows that both of the E590 models we tested (both of which have the same Core i7-8565U CPU) produced identical results. This surprised us somewhat as we had expected an improvement in the model with no dedicated GPU. This means that purchasers of the E590 model with dedicated GPU do not have to worry about lower CPU performance.
Cinebench R10 | |
Rendering Single 32Bit | |
Average of class Office (3562 - 10126, n=10, last 2 years) | |
Lenovo ThinkPad E590-20NB0012GE | |
Average Intel Core i7-8565U (2682 - 8906, n=16) | |
Rendering Multiple CPUs 32Bit | |
Average of class Office (13854 - 44438, n=10, last 2 years) | |
Average Intel Core i7-8565U (13806 - 23118, n=16) | |
Lenovo ThinkPad E590-20NB0012GE |
Geekbench 3 | |
32 Bit Multi-Core Score | |
Lenovo ThinkPad E590-20NB0012GE | |
Average Intel Core i7-8565U (10521 - 13703, n=12) | |
32 Bit Single-Core Score | |
Lenovo ThinkPad E590-20NB0012GE | |
Average Intel Core i7-8565U (3340 - 4820, n=12) |
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total | |
Lenovo ThinkPad E590-20NC0003GE (Edge) | |
Acer TravelMate P2510-G2-MG-50WE | |
Dell Latitude 15 3590-K8JP (Edge 42.17134.1.0) | |
Average Intel Core i7-8565U (730 - 2622, n=43) | |
Lenovo ThinkPad E590-20NB0012GE (Edge 44) | |
Lenovo ThinkPad E580-20KS001RGE (Edge) | |
Average of class Office (399 - 1966, n=88, last 2 years) |
Octane V2 - Total Score | |
Average of class Office (22414 - 93596, n=32, last 2 years) | |
Lenovo ThinkPad E590-20NB0012GE (Edge 44) | |
Lenovo ThinkPad E580-20KS001RGE (Edge) | |
Average Intel Core i7-8565U (13935 - 49795, n=42) | |
Dell Latitude 15 3590-K8JP (Edge 42.17134.1.0) | |
Lenovo ThinkPad E590-20NC0003GE (Edge) |
Speedometer 2.0 - Result | |
Average of class Office (26.1 - 408, n=30, last 2 years) | |
Lenovo ThinkPad E590-20NB0012GE (Edge 44) | |
Average Intel Core i7-8565U (55.5 - 62.5, n=5) |
WebXPRT 3 - Overall | |
Average of class Office (121 - 455, n=79, last 2 years) | |
Lenovo ThinkPad E590-20NB0012GE (Edge 44) | |
Average Intel Core i7-8565U (176 - 239, n=5) |
JetStream 1.1 - Total Score | |
Average of class Office (395 - 544, n=8, last 2 years) | |
Lenovo ThinkPad E590-20NB0012GE (Edge 44) | |
Lenovo ThinkPad E580-20KS001RGE (Edge) | |
Average Intel Core i7-8565U (107.6 - 277, n=37) | |
Dell Latitude 15 3590-K8JP (Edge 42.17134.1.0) | |
Acer TravelMate P2510-G2-MG-50WE | |
Toshiba Tecra A50-E-110 | |
Lenovo ThinkPad E590-20NC0003GE (Edge) |
* ... smaller is better
System Performance
The combination of an NVMe SSD and Core i7 CPU provides for a snappy and fluid experience and we encountered no issues. The laptop has more than enough performance for common tasks and good results were achieved in PCMark. A small improvement in performance would be possible by installing a second RAM module which would enable dual channel mode.
PCMark 7 Score | 5984 points | |
PCMark 8 Home Score Accelerated v2 | 4770 points | |
PCMark 8 Creative Score Accelerated v2 | 5918 points | |
PCMark 8 Work Score Accelerated v2 | 5389 points | |
PCMark 10 Score | 4597 points | |
Help |
Storage
Lenovo has equipped the E590 with an NVMe SSD from Toshiba - an M.2 2242 model with a total capacity of 256 GB. From the factory, approximately 212 GB is left available for usage with the rest being used by the Windows installation as well as recovery partition. Transfer rates are good, but this model is not at the same level as the top-of-the-range SSDs. NVMe SSDs achieve very high transfer rates compared to SATA III (which is limited to 600 MB/s) due to their direct PCI Express connection.
Inside the laptop there is also a free SATA III connector as well as a slot for a 2.5" drive.
Lenovo ThinkPad E590-20NB0012GE Toshiba KBG30ZMT256G | Lenovo ThinkPad E590-20NC0003GE Toshiba KBG30ZMT512G | Lenovo ThinkPad E580-20KS001RGE Lenovo LENSE20256GMSP34MEAT2TA | Dell Latitude 15 3590-K8JP Toshiba MQ01ACF050 | HP ProBook 450 G6-5TJ93EA Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB512HAJQ | Toshiba Tecra A50-E-110 Samsung SSD PM871b MZNLN256HAJQ | Acer TravelMate P2510-G2-MG-50WE SK Hynix HFS256G39TND-N210A | Average Toshiba KBG30ZMT256G | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CrystalDiskMark 5.2 / 6 | -26% | 1% | -93% | 83% | -35% | -48% | -3% | |
Write 4K | 111.2 | 53.4 -52% | 86.1 -23% | 1.216 -99% | 126.1 13% | 80.1 -28% | 71.8 -35% | 100.2 ? -10% |
Read 4K | 49.01 | 33.03 -33% | 36.81 -25% | 0.451 -99% | 43.92 -10% | 32.05 -35% | 21.23 -57% | 48.4 ? -1% |
Write Seq | 586 | 624 6% | 845 44% | 117.6 -80% | 1669 185% | 505 -14% | 257.1 -56% | 669 ? 14% |
Read Seq | 783 | 835 7% | 1268 62% | 120 -85% | 2224 184% | 528 -33% | 476.3 -39% | 840 ? 7% |
Write 4K Q32T1 | 263 | 87.4 -67% | 161.1 -39% | 1.212 -100% | 410.4 56% | 204.9 -22% | 202.6 -23% | 232 ? -12% |
Read 4K Q32T1 | 481.5 | 135.9 -72% | 249.6 -48% | 0.844 -100% | 338.1 -30% | 226.6 -53% | 282 -41% | 398 ? -17% |
Write Seq Q32T1 | 784 | 784 0% | 1034 32% | 115.1 -85% | 1979 152% | 533 -32% | 265.6 -66% | 792 ? 1% |
Read Seq Q32T1 | 1602 | 1623 1% | 1732 8% | 121.6 -92% | 3368 110% | 551 -66% | 559 -65% | 1573 ? -2% |
GPU
The ThinkPad has an AMD Polaris GPU on board in the form of a Radeon RX 550X. This GPU supports DirectX 12 and can achieve clock rates of up to 1,176 MHz. It has 2,048 MB of GDDR5 RAM at its disposal. 3DMark benchmark results place the GPU somewhere near the level of the Nvidia GeForce MX150/MX250. This means that the ThinkPad has somewhat more potential graphical performance than other dedicated GPU-equipped competition such as the HP ProBook 450 G6 and Acer TravelMate P2510-G2-MG. Enabling dual channel RAM mode (by adding a second RAM module) resulted in a slight improvement in 3DMark results, and looking at the details it is clear that it helps more significantly in physics computation. In battery mode the GPU is significantly hobbled, as it is only able to achieve 549 Mhz clock rate.
The RX 550X is definitely not able to reach its potential as it is throttled by Lenovo. AMD rates this GPU at a maximum clock rate of 1,287 Mhz, whereas Lenovo has set this at 1,176 Mhz. In addition, the RAM only has a 64-bit connection instead of the usual AMD-specified 128-bit. This last element in particular results in significantly reduced performance. The assumption here is that Lenovo made these decisions for reasons of thermal dissipation capacity. This was the case with the Radeon RX 550 in the ThinkPad E480 and E580 models also.
The CPU integrated Intel UHD Graphics 620 is enabled and the laptop features AMD's graphics-switching technology Enduro. There is no ability to disable the dedicated Radeon GPU in the BIOS.
3DMark 05 Standard | 26820 points | |
3DMark 06 Standard Score | 21405 points | |
3DMark Vantage P Result | 14630 points | |
3DMark 11 Performance | 5440 points | |
3DMark Ice Storm Standard Score | 51411 points | |
3DMark Cloud Gate Standard Score | 12688 points | |
3DMark Fire Strike Score | 3232 points | |
3DMark Time Spy Score | 1162 points | |
Help |
GFXBench 3.0 | |
1920x1080 1080p Manhattan Offscreen | |
Average of class Office (18 - 304, n=13, last 2 years) | |
Acer Aspire 5 A515-52G-723L | |
Acer TravelMate P2510-G2-MG-50WE | |
Lenovo ThinkPad E590-20NB0012GE | |
Average AMD Radeon RX 550X (Laptop) () | |
on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL | |
Average of class Office (23 - 260, n=13, last 2 years) | |
Acer Aspire 5 A515-52G-723L | |
Acer TravelMate P2510-G2-MG-50WE | |
Lenovo ThinkPad E590-20NB0012GE | |
Average AMD Radeon RX 550X (Laptop) () |
GFXBench 3.1 | |
1920x1080 Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen | |
Average of class Office (8.2 - 237, n=13, last 2 years) | |
Acer Aspire 5 A515-52G-723L | |
Lenovo ThinkPad E590-20NB0012GE | |
Average AMD Radeon RX 550X (Laptop) () | |
Acer TravelMate P2510-G2-MG-50WE | |
on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen | |
Average of class Office (15 - 221, n=13, last 2 years) | |
Acer Aspire 5 A515-52G-723L | |
Acer TravelMate P2510-G2-MG-50WE | |
Lenovo ThinkPad E590-20NB0012GE | |
Average AMD Radeon RX 550X (Laptop) () |
Gaming Performance
This ThinkPad is not a gaming laptop and as a result its performance in gaming is not one of its main target criteria - this is for the best, as in this area it did not achieve good results. As our Witcher 3 testing showed, after a short period of playtime GPU and Graphics RAM clockrates were significantly throttled in order to allow them to cool. This results in significantly reduced frame rates. In our other gaming benchmarks there were also drops in frame rate.
Whilst the Radeon GPU in GPU benchmarks frequently sat alongside Nvidia's GeForce MX150/MX250 GPUs, this was not the case in practical testing, which resulted in the RX 550X falling more often in between the MX150/MX250 and MX130/MX230.
low | med. | high | ultra | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Tomb Raider (2013) | 178.4 | 86.9 | 69.4 | 36.8 |
BioShock Infinite (2013) | 171.5 | 99.3 | 79.2 | 28 |
The Witcher 3 (2015) | 62.7 | 39.4 | 20 | 12.6 |
Dota 2 Reborn (2015) | 98 | 87 | 53.5 | 49.6 |
X-Plane 11.11 (2018) | 42 | 32.4 | 28.8 | |
F1 2018 (2018) | 52 | 26 | 20 | 14 |
Dota 2 Reborn - 1920x1080 ultra (3/3) best looking | |
Acer Aspire 5 A515-52G-723L | |
Average of class Office (13.4 - 121.2, n=88, last 2 years) | |
Lenovo ThinkPad E590-20NB0012GE | |
Average AMD Radeon RX 550X (Laptop) (49.1 - 49.6, n=2) | |
HP ProBook 450 G6-5TJ93EA |
X-Plane 11.11 - 1280x720 low (fps_test=1) | |
Acer Aspire 5 A515-52G-723L | |
Average of class Office (13.6 - 128.2, n=85, last 2 years) | |
Lenovo ThinkPad E590-20NB0012GE | |
Average AMD Radeon RX 550X (Laptop) (11 - 42, n=2) |
Tomb Raider - 1366x768 High Preset AA:FX AF:8x | |
Acer Aspire 5 A515-52G-53PU | |
Lenovo ThinkPad E590-20NB0012GE | |
Average AMD Radeon RX 550X (Laptop) () |
In order to test whether or not frame rates can be sustained over a longer play period, we leave the game "The Witcher 3" running for around 60 minutes in 1080p and at maximum detail settings. The playable character is not moved during this time period.
Within just a few minutes we observed noticeable drops in frame rate due to the fact that the clock rates of the GPU and GDDR5 were drastically reduced, and the game was not realistically playable. We ran the test on battery power also where the GPU is only able to run at 549 Mhz. In this test the GPU stayed at a constant level, but the GDDR5 was again repeatedly throttled.
The varied benchmarks we ran show that throttling of the GPU starts when it reaches a temperature of 74/75 degrees celsius (~165/167 degrees Fahrenheit). We can only surmise that the cooling system is simply not capable of absorbing enough heat, or the fan is configured to run too slowly and thus the heat cannot be dissipated quickly enough.