Notebookcheck

Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Yoga 2017 20JD0015US (i5-7200U, FHD) Convertible Review

Less expensive… but still expensive. Today’s ThinkPad X1 Yoga configuration preserves most of the major plusses of our previous review unit while dropping the price nearly in half. Is this the true sweet spot in the convertible PC market?

Working For Notebookcheck

Are you a techie who knows how to write? Then join our Team!

Currently wanted: 
News Editor - Details here

A little over a month ago, we posted our comprehensive review of Lenovo’s ThinkPad X1 Yoga 2017. The model we reviewed boasted some seriously high-end specs: a Core i7 CPU, 16 GB of RAM, 1 TB NVMe SSD, and—last but certainly not least—an extremely high-quality WQHD OLED display. Naturally, alongside these mind-boggling specifications came an equally shocking price: somewhere around $3,700 to be exact, which surely positions the configuration outside the realm of possibility for most consumers.

Today, we’ve got a much more affordable and practically-appointed configuration, starting with a (still capable) Intel Core i5-7200U CPU, 8 GB of dual-channel memory, a 1080p multi-touch display, and a 256 GB NVMe SSD. The price is still not cheap, but at around $2,267, it’s at least attainable for the average business user. How does today’s review candidate stack up against our previous top-end configuration—as well as the rest of the competitors? We’ll take a detailed look today in our review.

Please Note: We will be skipping or truncating the earlier sections accordingly today since we’ve just covered them extensively in our previous review. For much more information on the case design, connectivity, ports, and other such items, please reference that article.

Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Yoga 2017 20JD0015US (ThinkPad X1 Yoga 2017 Series)
Graphics adapter
Intel HD Graphics 620, Core: 300 - 1000 MHz, 21.20.16.4639
Memory
8192 MB 
, LPDDR3-1866 (dual-channel, soldered)
Display
14 inch 16:9, 1920 x 1080 pixel 157 PPI, yes, 10-point multi-touch, native pen support, B140HAN03.6, IPS, glossy: yes
Mainboard
Intel Sunrise Point-LP
Storage
Toshiba THNSF5256GPUK, 256 GB 
Soundcard
Conexant SmartAudio HD
Connections
3 USB 3.0 / 3.1 Gen1, 2 USB 3.1 Gen2, 2 Thunderbolt, 1 HDMI, 1 Kensington Lock, Audio Connections: 3.5, Card Reader: microSD, Touch-Fingerabdruckleser Fingerprint Reader, Sensors: gyrometer
Networking
Intel Ethernet Connection I219-V (10/100/1000MBit), Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 8265 (a/b/g/n/ac), Bluetooth 4.1
Size
height x width x depth (in mm): 17 x 335 x 231 ( = 0.67 x 13.19 x 9.09 in)
Battery
56 Wh Lithium-Ion
Operating System
Microsoft Windows 10 Pro 64 Bit
Camera
Webcam: 720p HD
Primary Camera: 1 MPix
Additional features
Speakers: 2.0 (2 x 2 W), Keyboard: 6-row wave keyboard (rise & fall), spill-resistant, Keyboard Light: yes, 36 Months Warranty
Weight
1.42 kg ( = 50.09 oz / 3.13 pounds), Power Supply: 282 g ( = 9.95 oz / 0.62 pounds)
Price
2267 USD

 

Case

The only major difference between the case of the previous X1 Yoga we reviewed and today’s unit is the color; while the former unit was classic ThinkPad black, today’s is silver. It’s attractive without a doubt, and functionally, one other benefit which many people may not initially consider is that it happens to absorb less heat from sunlight—so if outdoor use is a common occurrence, it might actually make sense to choose the silver color simply thanks to that. Otherwise, everything is identical, including the construction materials, hinge design and tuning, and so on. Again, please see our previous review for much more information on these items.

Communication

The WLAN adapter (Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 8265) is as that of our previous ThinkPad X1 Yoga review unit, but we retested the performance just for sake of thoroughness. Throughput is nearly identical to that of the previous device, with very good transfer rates of 623 Mb/s and 495 Mb/s receive/transmit, respectively.

Networking
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Yoga 2017 20JES03T00
Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 8265
678 MBit/s ∼100% +9%
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Yoga 2017 20JD0015US
Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 8265
623 MBit/s ∼92%
HP EliteBook x360 1030 G2
Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 8265
613 MBit/s ∼90% -2%
Toshiba Portege X20W-D-10R
Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 8265
500 MBit/s ∼74% -20%
Dell Latitude 12 5285 2-in-1
Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 8265
312 MBit/s ∼46% -50%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Toshiba Portege X20W-D-10R
Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 8265
663 MBit/s ∼100% +34%
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Yoga 2017 20JES03T00
Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 8265
514 MBit/s ∼78% +4%
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Yoga 2017 20JD0015US
Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 8265
495 MBit/s ∼75%
HP EliteBook x360 1030 G2
Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 8265
455 MBit/s ∼69% -8%
Dell Latitude 12 5285 2-in-1
Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 8265
446 MBit/s ∼67% -10%

Input Devices

Keyboard

As before, the Lift’n’Lock keyboard design is still in play in our review unit here, and it works well, though we once again did detect a slight bit of clattering while operating in laptop mode. In spite of the case color change, the keyboard color has not changed, so key visibility is not affected.

Touchpad and Touchscreen

The touchpad and touchscreen also remain the same, which is to say, both work well. The touchpad is still one of the best clickpads we’ve had the pleasure of using in recent memory.

The keyboard is excellent, and the Lift'n'Lock mechanism works well.
The keyboard is excellent, and the Lift'n'Lock mechanism works well.
The Synaptics touchpad is one of the best clickpads we've used.
The Synaptics touchpad is one of the best clickpads we've used.

Display

Apart from case color, the first major difference between last month’s review model and today’s unit is the choice of display. Whereas the previous unit featured a WQHD OLED touchscreen, this one packs a mere FHD (1920x1080) IPS display. Both displays (in fact, all display options for the ThinkPad X1 Yoga) are glossy, but fortunately, even ours today—in spite of its obvious inferiority as compared to the WQHD OLED option in terms of resolution and contrast—remains apparently very good indeed for an IPS panel. Besides, in terms of resolution, the PPI of 157 is at least still fine by most standards.

Subjectively speaking, brightness is good and contrast seems strong. However, the first notable discrepancy (apart from obviously resolution) is that of color saturation, a category in which the screen on our review unit today seems to lack.

293.5
cd/m²
313.7
cd/m²
280.1
cd/m²
298
cd/m²
336.5
cd/m²
287.8
cd/m²
314.7
cd/m²
320.9
cd/m²
298.2
cd/m²
Distribution of brightness
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Maximum: 336.5 cd/m² Average: 304.8 cd/m² Minimum: 4.56 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 83 %
Center on Battery: 336.5 cd/m²
Contrast: 1346:1 (Black: 0.25 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 4 | 0.4-29.43 Ø6.3
ΔE Greyscale 2.9 | 0.64-98 Ø6.5
58.8% sRGB (Argyll 3D) 37.4% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 3D)
Gamma: 2.22
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Yoga 2017 20JD0015US
B140HAN03.6, IPS, 14, 1920x1080
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Yoga 2017 20JES03T00
LEN4140, OLED, 14, 2560x1440
Dell Latitude 12 5285 2-in-1
BOE06DC, IPS, 12.3, 1920x1280
Toshiba Portege X20W-D-10R
Toshiba TOS508F, IPS, 12.5, 1920x1080
HP EliteBook x360 1030 G2
CMN1374, IPS, 13.3, 1920x1080
Response Times
91%
4%
-36%
-4%
Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% *
45.6 (22.4, 23.2)
3.6 (1.6, 2)
92%
42.4 (20.4, 22)
7%
67 (33, 34)
-47%
55.2 (21.2, 34)
-21%
Response Time Black / White *
31.2 (18, 13.2)
3.2 (2, 1.2)
90%
30.8 (18, 12.8)
1%
39 (22, 17)
-25%
27.2 (7.6, 19.6)
13%
PWM Frequency
240.4 (80)
210.1 (99)
Screen
8%
7%
-2%
-14%
Brightness middle
336.5
243
-28%
523.2
55%
442
31%
262
-22%
Brightness
305
240
-21%
522
71%
410
34%
256
-16%
Brightness Distribution
83
95
14%
88
6%
86
4%
83
0%
Black Level *
0.25
0.42
-68%
0.22
12%
0.25
-0%
Contrast
1346
1246
-7%
2009
49%
1048
-22%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
4
5.3
-33%
4
-0%
5.22
-31%
5.13
-28%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *
6.5
8.9
-37%
8.6
-32%
11.84
-82%
9.46
-46%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
2.9
3.7
-28%
5.5
-90%
7.88
-172%
6.23
-115%
Gamma
2.22 108%
1.78 135%
2.16 111%
2.51 96%
2.45 98%
CCT
6487 100%
6202 105%
7546 86%
6756 96%
6413 101%
Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998)
37.4
84.8
127%
64.86
73%
64
71%
57.84
55%
Color Space (Percent of sRGB)
58.8
100
70%
93.97
60%
97
65%
88.57
51%
Total Average (Program / Settings)
50% / 25%
6% / 6%
-19% / -8%
-9% / -13%

* ... smaller is better

We measured an average brightness of 305 cd/m² (with a maximum of 336.5 cd/m²)—perfectly adequate for most purposes, though the glossy screen finish does inherently demand a higher compensatory brightness to help offset the inevitable reflections. Brightness distribution of 83% could be better, but as is typically the case, illumination inconsistencies are difficult to notice in practice. There was no conspicuous backlight bleed on our particular review unit. Contrast, meanwhile, remains very high (though, of course, lower than the infinite value from our OLED candidate) at 1346:1, thanks to a black level of 0.25 cd/m².

We mentioned the apparent lack of saturation earlier in our subjective impressions, and that observation is borne out in the form of our color coverage analysis, where the ThinkPad X1 Yoga FHD IPS panel manages a paltry 58.8% of sRGB and 37.4% of AdobeRGB—far below that of the OLED panel’s 100%/84.8%, and well below even the rest of today’s comparison field. This is consequently not the panel to select if you intend to do any serious photo editing or graphic design work.

vs. sRGB
vs. sRGB
vs. AdobeRGB
vs. AdobeRGB
vs. HP Spectre 13
vs. HP Spectre 13
vs. Dell Latitude 12 5285
vs. Dell Latitude 12 5285

Measurements from CalMAN are much more positive; we recorded DeltaE2000 values of 4 and 2.9 (ideal: 0) in ColorChecker and Greyscale respectively, as well as a Total Gamma of 2.2 (ideal: 2.4) and CCT Average of 6487K (ideal: 6500K), all of which are quite good for precalibration results.

Color analysis (pre-calibration)
Color analysis (pre-calibration)
Saturation sweeps (pre-calibration)
Saturation sweeps (pre-calibration)
Grayscale analysis (pre-calibration)
Grayscale analysis (pre-calibration)
Color analysis (post-calibration)
Color analysis (post-calibration)
Saturation sweeps (post-calibration)
Saturation sweeps (post-calibration)
Grayscale analysis (post-calibration)
Grayscale analysis (post-calibration)

Display Response Times

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
31.2 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 18 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 0.8 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 80 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (25.9 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
45.6 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 22.4 ms rise
↘ 23.2 ms fall
The screen shows slow response rates in our tests and will be unsatisfactory for gamers.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.9 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 71 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (41.4 ms).

Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)

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 not detected

In comparison: 54 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 8882 (minimum: 43 - maximum: 142900) Hz was measured.

We did not detect any PWM from our review unit. The OLED panel, meanwhile, did employ low-frequency PWM for dimming, so that's an important consideration in terms of panel choice for those sensitive to the flickering to make during purchasing.

Outdoors, the display struggles in the sunlight because of its glossy finish; it’s practically unusable. However, in the shade, when positioned properly, the brightness and contrast are more than sufficient to support comfortable usage. Viewing angles are very good, as is expected of an IPS panel.

Quality journalism is made possible by advertising. We show the least amount of ads whenever possible. We intentionally show more ads when an adblocker is used. Please, switch off ad blockers.

Performance

Processor options for the ThinkPad X1 Yoga range from the Core i5-7200U up to the Core i7-7600U; the former is the CPU we received in today’s review unit, and the latter is what we evaluated in last month’s configuration. RAM options are partially correlated with the choice of CPU: at the higher end of the spectrum, the user can also choose 16 GB of dual-channel memory—but our review unit today features 8 GB (also dual-channel). Memory is soldered to the board and thus cannot be upgraded aftermarket. Finally, in terms of storage, both machines boast NVMe SSDs, so we ought to see good performance there.

LatencyMon detected no trouble playing real-time streaming audio and video. Meanwhile, performance while unplugged (battery only) is considerably lower than while plugged in; a second run of 3DMark 11 produced a score of 867, half that of the original score (1732).

CPU-Z CPU
CPU-Z CPU
CPU-Z Caches
CPU-Z Caches
CPU-Z Mainboard
CPU-Z Mainboard
CPU-Z Memory
CPU-Z Memory
GPU-Z
GPU-Z
ComputeMark
ComputeMark
HD Tune
HD Tune
LatencyMon
LatencyMon

Processor

In spite of the fact that we’ve taken a step down from last month’s model’s Core i7-7600U to the Core i5-7200U, it will be interesting to see how real-world performance differs between the two models considering that there was already a small drop in sustained performance in play in the previous model (as detected in our Cinebench R15 loop test). To summarize what we found in our testing of that unit, repeated runs of Cinebench R15 multi-CPU resulted in fluctuating results between 370 (initially) all the way down to 342, with scores eventually leveling out around the 355 mark. In realistic terms, that’s around a 4 percent performance drop over the long term on average.

If our synthetic benchmarks are any indication, however, the answer is likely that there are few surprises with the Core i5-7200U: even despite the minor turbo frequency constraints we experienced with the i7 unit, its performance is clearly and consistently above that of the Core i5 model, the latter which can barely come within 90% of the multi-core performance of the i7. Still, however, the Core i5-7200U does have one significant advantage on its side: its performance in our tests was stable and unyielding. We witnessed absolutely no performance drop, with scores averaging 321 over a long period of repeated testing. Overall, this means that the actual real-world multi-core performance difference between the Core i7-7600U and Core i5-7200U ThinkPad X1 Yoga models, as tested, is likely close to 9%, give or take a little (versus what would normally be a margin of around 13% if performance was ideal and stable on the Core i7 model).

Regardless of all this nitpicking, neither of these processors is a slouch, and in the world of business computing, both would likely be perfectly adequate for just about any task. Rarely in general use is the CPU the prevailing bottleneck these days, so although this is an interesting analysis, we wouldn’t concern ourselves too heavily over the discrepancies in processor performance between these two configurations.

Cinebench R11.5
Cinebench R11.5
Cinebench R15
Cinebench R15
Cinebench R15
CPU Single 64Bit
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Yoga 2017 20JES03T00
Intel Core i7-7600U
160 Points ∼77% +24%
Toshiba Portege X20W-D-10R
Intel Core i7-7600U
156 Points ∼75% +21%
Dell Latitude 12 5285 2-in-1
Intel Core i7-7600U
152 Points ∼73% +18%
HP EliteBook x360 1030 G2
Intel Core i5-7300U
144 Points ∼70% +12%
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Yoga 2017 20JD0015US
Intel Core i5-7200U
129 Points ∼62%
CPU Multi 64Bit
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Yoga 2017 20JES03T00
Intel Core i7-7600U
373 Points ∼13% +16%
HP EliteBook x360 1030 G2
Intel Core i5-7300U
346 Points ∼12% +8%
Dell Latitude 12 5285 2-in-1
Intel Core i7-7600U
329 Points ∼11% +2%
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Yoga 2017 20JD0015US
Intel Core i5-7200U
321 Points ∼11%
Toshiba Portege X20W-D-10R
Intel Core i7-7600U
319 Points ∼11% -1%
Cinebench R11.5
CPU Single 64Bit
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Yoga 2017 20JES03T00
Intel Core i7-7600U
1.85 Points ∼79% +27%
Dell Latitude 12 5285 2-in-1
Intel Core i7-7600U
1.76 Points ∼75% +21%
HP EliteBook x360 1030 G2
Intel Core i5-7300U
1.64 Points ∼70% +12%
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Yoga 2017 20JD0015US
Intel Core i5-7200U
1.46 Points ∼62%
CPU Multi 64Bit
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Yoga 2017 20JES03T00
Intel Core i7-7600U
4.08 Points ∼17% +14%
Dell Latitude 12 5285 2-in-1
Intel Core i7-7600U
3.62 Points ∼15% +1%
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Yoga 2017 20JD0015US
Intel Core i5-7200U
3.58 Points ∼15%
HP EliteBook x360 1030 G2
Intel Core i5-7300U
3.57 Points ∼15% 0%
wPrime 2.0x - 1024m
Dell Latitude 12 5285 2-in-1
Intel Core i7-7600U
545.624 s * ∼6% -9%
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Yoga 2017 20JD0015US
Intel Core i5-7200U
500.186 s * ∼6%
Super Pi Mod 1.5 XS 32M - ---
Dell Latitude 12 5285 2-in-1
Intel Core i7-7600U
688.22 Seconds * ∼3%

* ... smaller is better

Cinebench R11.5 OpenGL 64Bit
35.65 fps
Cinebench R11.5 CPU Multi 64Bit
3.58 Points
Cinebench R11.5 CPU Single 64Bit
1.46 Points
Cinebench R15 OpenGL 64Bit
45.66 fps
Cinebench R15 Ref. Match 64Bit
97.8 %
Cinebench R15 CPU Multi 64Bit
321 Points
Cinebench R15 CPU Single 64Bit
129 Points
Help
0102030405060708090100110120130140150160170180190200210220230240250260270280290300310320330Tooltip
Cinebench R15 CPU Multi 64 Bit

System Performance

Our synthetic system performance benchmarks offer a solid endorsement of the ThinkPad X1 Yoga’s capabilities. Processor differences notwithstanding, the only other major contributing factor to application performance discrepancies is likely the choice of storage drive—but we’ll cover that in more detail in a moment. Scores of 4687 and 4599 in PCMark 8 Work and Home Accelerated respectively are very good results overall. In real terms, they’re just 4% and 10% below that of the i7/1 TB SSD model, which is encouraging to say the least. For all practical everyday purposes, the ThinkPad X1 Yoga’s performance should prove to be more than satisfactory.

PCMark Home Accelerated
PCMark Home Accelerated
PCMark Work Accelerated
PCMark Work Accelerated
PCMark Creative Accelerated
PCMark Creative Accelerated
PCMark 10
PCMark 10
PCMark 8
Work Score Accelerated v2
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Yoga 2017 20JES03T00
HD Graphics 620, 7600U, Samsung SSD PM961 1TB M.2 PCIe 3.0 x4 NVMe (MZVLW1T0)
4852 Points ∼74% +4%
HP EliteBook x360 1030 G2
HD Graphics 620, 7300U, Sandisk SD8TN8U-256G-1006
4803 Points ∼74% +2%
Toshiba Portege X20W-D-10R
HD Graphics 620, 7600U, Toshiba SG5 THNSNK512GVN8
4797 Points ∼74% +2%
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Yoga 2017 20JD0015US
HD Graphics 620, 7200U, Toshiba THNSF5256GPUK
4687 Points ∼72%
Dell Latitude 12 5285 2-in-1
HD Graphics 620, 7600U, Samsung PM961 MZVLW256HEHP
3510 Points ∼54% -25%
Creative Score Accelerated v2
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Yoga 2017 20JES03T00
HD Graphics 620, 7600U, Samsung SSD PM961 1TB M.2 PCIe 3.0 x4 NVMe (MZVLW1T0)
5051 Points ∼53% +10%
HP EliteBook x360 1030 G2
HD Graphics 620, 7300U, Sandisk SD8TN8U-256G-1006
4781 Points ∼50% +4%
Dell Latitude 12 5285 2-in-1
HD Graphics 620, 7600U, Samsung PM961 MZVLW256HEHP
4602 Points ∼48% 0%
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Yoga 2017 20JD0015US
HD Graphics 620, 7200U, Toshiba THNSF5256GPUK
4599 Points ∼48%
Home Score Accelerated v2
Dell Latitude 12 5285 2-in-1
HD Graphics 620, 7600U, Samsung PM961 MZVLW256HEHP
4741 Points ∼78% +24%
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Yoga 2017 20JES03T00
HD Graphics 620, 7600U, Samsung SSD PM961 1TB M.2 PCIe 3.0 x4 NVMe (MZVLW1T0)
3860 Points ∼63% +1%
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Yoga 2017 20JD0015US
HD Graphics 620, 7200U, Toshiba THNSF5256GPUK
3817 Points ∼63%
HP EliteBook x360 1030 G2
HD Graphics 620, 7300U, Sandisk SD8TN8U-256G-1006
3774 Points ∼62% -1%
Toshiba Portege X20W-D-10R
HD Graphics 620, 7600U, Toshiba SG5 THNSNK512GVN8
3654 Points ∼60% -4%
PCMark 8 Home Score Accelerated v2
3817 points
PCMark 8 Creative Score Accelerated v2
4599 points
PCMark 8 Work Score Accelerated v2
4687 points
Help

Storage Devices

Although the Samsung PM961 NVMe SSD we tested in our previous review unit is considerably faster overall than today’s Toshiba 256 GB NVMe drive, both are still very fast overall. The latter produced sequential QD32 read/write speeds of 1936 MB/s and 801.1 MB/s in CDM 5.0 as well as decent 4K QD32 R/W values of 396.4 MB/s and 380.4 MB/s. In real-world terms, it’s not a huge step down in terms of performance versus the Samsung PM961, so choose based on your capacity needs rather than your performance concerns.

Drive replacements are relatively easy in the ThinkPad X1 Yoga thanks to its removable rear cover.

The internal SSD in its sleeve
The internal SSD in its sleeve
CrystalDiskMark 5.0
CrystalDiskMark 5.0
AS SSD
AS SSD
PCMark 8 Storage Accelerated v2
PCMark 8 Storage Accelerated v2
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Yoga 2017 20JD0015US
Toshiba THNSF5256GPUK
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Yoga 2017 20JES03T00
Samsung SSD PM961 1TB M.2 PCIe 3.0 x4 NVMe (MZVLW1T0)
Dell Latitude 12 5285 2-in-1
Samsung PM961 MZVLW256HEHP
Toshiba Portege X20W-D-10R
Toshiba SG5 THNSNK512GVN8
HP EliteBook x360 1030 G2
Sandisk SD8TN8U-256G-1006
AS SSD
221%
16%
-38%
-47%
Score Total
1515
5215
244%
2760
82%
906
-40%
736
-51%
Score Write
461
1527
231%
150
-67%
262
-43%
194
-58%
Score Read
732
2475
238%
1768
142%
430
-41%
362
-51%
4K-64 Write
340.42
1195.53
251%
126.09
-63%
160.89
-53%
120.88
-64%
4K-64 Read
550.85
2140.02
288%
1607.49
192%
357.96
-35%
286.23
-48%
4K Write
91.9
158.07
72%
1.23
-99%
76.71
-17%
52.56
-43%
4K Read
31.96
56.39
76%
27.6
-14%
23.06
-28%
27.37
-14%
Seq Write
286.16
1733.64
506%
223.08
-22%
243.65
-15%
201.9
-29%
Seq Read
1493.32
2783.42
86%
1328.03
-11%
485.84
-67%
486.87
-67%
Toshiba THNSF5256GPUK
Transfer Rate Minimum: 314.1 MB/s
Transfer Rate Maximum: 1213.1 MB/s
Transfer Rate Average: 778.1 MB/s
Access Time: 0.1 ms
Burst Rate: 302.6 MB/s
CPU Usage: 5.3 %

GPU Performance

There are few if any significant GPU performance differences between the Core i7-7600U equipped X1 Yoga and our Core i5-7200U review unit. Both pack Intel HD Graphics 620, and although the i7’s is clocked higher (at 300 – 1150 MHz versus the 300 – 1000 MHz of the Core i5 chip), our benchmarks reveal nearly identical performance across the board in the X1.

3DMark 11
1280x720 Performance Combined
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Yoga 2017 20JD0015US
Intel HD Graphics 620, 7200U
1608 Points ∼9%
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Yoga 2017 20JES03T00
Intel HD Graphics 620, 7600U
1566 Points ∼9% -3%
Dell Latitude 12 5285 2-in-1
Intel HD Graphics 620, 7600U
1490 Points ∼8% -7%
Toshiba Portege X20W-D-10R
Intel HD Graphics 620, 7600U
1354 Points ∼8% -16%
HP EliteBook x360 1030 G2
Intel HD Graphics 620, 7300U
1347 Points ∼8% -16%
1280x720 Performance GPU
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Yoga 2017 20JES03T00
Intel HD Graphics 620, 7600U
1633 Points ∼3% +5%
Dell Latitude 12 5285 2-in-1
Intel HD Graphics 620, 7600U
1589 Points ∼3% +2%
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Yoga 2017 20JD0015US
Intel HD Graphics 620, 7200U
1562 Points ∼3%
Toshiba Portege X20W-D-10R
Intel HD Graphics 620, 7600U
1553 Points ∼3% -1%
HP EliteBook x360 1030 G2
Intel HD Graphics 620, 7300U
1476 Points ∼3% -6%
3DMark
1920x1080 Fire Strike Graphics
Dell Latitude 12 5285 2-in-1
Intel HD Graphics 620, 7600U
1084 Points ∼3% +7%
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Yoga 2017 20JD0015US
Intel HD Graphics 620, 7200U
1017 Points ∼3%
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Yoga 2017 20JES03T00
Intel HD Graphics 620, 7600U
1000 Points ∼2% -2%
HP EliteBook x360 1030 G2
Intel HD Graphics 620, 7300U
972 Points ∼2% -4%
1280x720 Cloud Gate Standard Graphics
Dell Latitude 12 5285 2-in-1
Intel HD Graphics 620, 7600U
8850 Points ∼5% +3%
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Yoga 2017 20JD0015US
Intel HD Graphics 620, 7200U
8570 Points ∼5%
HP EliteBook x360 1030 G2
Intel HD Graphics 620, 7300U
8220 Points ∼4% -4%
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Yoga 2017 20JES03T00
Intel HD Graphics 620, 7600U
8075 Points ∼4% -6%
Toshiba Portege X20W-D-10R
Intel HD Graphics 620, 7600U
7562 Points ∼4% -12%
1920x1080 Ice Storm Extreme Graphics
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Yoga 2017 20JD0015US
Intel HD Graphics 620, 7200U
49846 Points ∼7%
HP EliteBook x360 1030 G2
Intel HD Graphics 620, 7300U
44238 Points ∼6% -11%
Dell Latitude 12 5285 2-in-1
Intel HD Graphics 620, 7600U
41229 Points ∼6% -17%
3DMark 06 Standard
10136 points
3DMark 11 Performance
1732 points
3DMark Ice Storm Standard Score
49899 points
3DMark Cloud Gate Standard Score
6530 points
3DMark Fire Strike Score
933 points
3DMark Time Spy Score
374 points
Help
low med. high ultra
BioShock Infinite (2013) 6133278fps

Stress Test

Synthetic stress tests are helpful for hypothetical purposes just to see how far a machine can be pushed before it buckles. As with most ultraportable devices with integrated graphics, the ThinkPad X1 Yoga can’t handle combined CPU + GPU stress without throttling its CPU frequency to below the base frequency (in this case, to 1.5 GHz). GPU in this instance remains around 900 MHz, with the CPU/GPU package temperature resting at around 75 °C, which seems to be the thermal limit set by the Yoga firmware.

On the other hand, individual CPU/GPU stress is handled surprisingly smoothly. The notebook still achieves a 3.1 GHz average clock rate during Prime95 CPU stress and a 950 MHz GPU frequency, with temperatures in both scenarios averaging, once again, 75 °C.

Full CPU stress
Full CPU stress
Full GPU stress
Full GPU stress
Combined system stress
Combined system stress
CPU Clock (GHz) GPU Clock (MHz) Average CPU Temperature (°C) Average GPU Temperature (°C)
Prime95 Stress 3.1 - 75 -
FurMark Stress - 950 - 75
Prime95 + FurMark Stress 1.5 900 75 75

Emissions

System Noise

The ThinkPad X1 Yoga is a very quiet and unobtrusive machine overall; it’s essentially silent while idling, as the measurements across the board under those conditions match that of our environmental ambient noise level. Load conditions do produce a bit of noise, but it’s hardly anything bothersome: we recorded an overall maximum noise level of 33.6 dB(A), which is only 5.7 dB(A) above ambient noise levels.

It’s also worth pointing out that due to slight discrepancies in background noise levels, our previous Core i7 review unit was comparably quiet—though perhaps slightly noisier overall—even despite somewhat larger differences in absolute measurements as displayed in our table below.

The cooling fan is barely (if at all) audible under most circumstances.
The cooling fan is barely (if at all) audible under most circumstances.
Fan noise profile
Fan noise profile

Noise Level

Idle
27.9 / 27.9 / 27.9 dB(A)
Load
33.6 / 33.6 dB(A)
  red to green bar
 
 
30 dB
silent
40 dB(A)
audible
50 dB(A)
loud
 
min: dark, med: mid, max: light   BK Precision 732A (15 cm distance)   environment noise: 27.9 dB(A)
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Yoga 2017 20JD0015US
HD Graphics 620, 7200U, Toshiba THNSF5256GPUK
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Yoga 2017 20JES03T00
HD Graphics 620, 7600U, Samsung SSD PM961 1TB M.2 PCIe 3.0 x4 NVMe (MZVLW1T0)
Dell Latitude 12 5285 2-in-1
HD Graphics 620, 7600U, Samsung PM961 MZVLW256HEHP
Toshiba Portege X20W-D-10R
HD Graphics 620, 7600U, Toshiba SG5 THNSNK512GVN8
HP EliteBook x360 1030 G2
HD Graphics 620, 7300U, Sandisk SD8TN8U-256G-1006
Noise
-9%
1%
-4%
-4%
off / environment *
27.9
29.3
-5%
28.2
-1%
30.4
-9%
29
-4%
Idle Minimum *
27.9
29.3
-5%
28.2
-1%
30.5
-9%
29
-4%
Idle Average *
27.9
31.1
-11%
28.2
-1%
30.5
-9%
29
-4%
Idle Maximum *
27.9
33.3
-19%
28.2
-1%
30.5
-9%
29
-4%
Load Average *
33.6
33.3
1%
30.4
10%
31.2
7%
33.6
-0%
Load Maximum *
33.6
38.9
-16%
34
-1%
31.3
7%
35.8
-7%

* ... smaller is better

Temperature

The cooling system does a good job of keeping temperatures in check.
The cooling system does a good job of keeping temperatures in check.

Our temperature measurements revealed the next major difference between the Core i5 and Core i7 ThinkPad X1 Yoga configurations. Whereas our previous unit witnessed average case temperatures under load of around 37 °C and 36 °C on top and bottom respectively, the Core i5 model sees these values plummet to just 31.2 °C / 27.9 °C. Room temperatures are nearly identical in both cases, too (20.4 °C before vs. 20 °C today), so the inconsistency can’t be explained away in that manner. The Core i5 is quite simply a cooler machine.

Max. Load
 32 °C
90 F
45.4 °C
114 F
30.6 °C
87 F
 
 27.2 °C
81 F
40.4 °C
105 F
26.8 °C
80 F
 
 26.8 °C
80 F
26 °C
79 F
26 °C
79 F
 
Maximum: 45.4 °C = 114 F
Average: 31.2 °C = 88 F
27.8 °C
82 F
40 °C
104 F
28.6 °C
83 F
24.8 °C
77 F
31.8 °C
89 F
26.4 °C
80 F
23 °C
73 F
24.6 °C
76 F
24.4 °C
76 F
Maximum: 40 °C = 104 F
Average: 27.9 °C = 82 F
Power Supply (max.)  37.4 °C = 99 F | Room Temperature 20 °C = 68 F | Fluke 62 Mini IR Thermometer
Thermal profile, top of base unit
Thermal profile, top of base unit
Thermal profile, underside
Thermal profile, underside

Speakers

Speakers, of course, are identical across the two review units. To quickly reiterate our previous impressions, volume is adequate, overall sound quality is decent, and voices are clear and easy to understand.

The speakers do an adequate job for a business machine.
The speakers do an adequate job for a business machine.
Speaker sound profile
Speaker sound profile
dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2040.640.840.62536.435.836.43135.734.935.74034.534.234.55033.933.733.96333.835.433.88031.832.131.810031.73131.712531.230.431.216036.129.836.12004028.84025047.627.647.631553.127.453.140055.526.655.55006025.66063057.825.457.880060.425.260.4100056.724.656.7125056.524.356.5160065.223.965.2200059.323.959.3250058.223.858.2315057.823.657.8400061.823.361.8500064.823.464.8630056.723.356.780006723.3671000059.523.359.51250051.523.251.51600046.123.346.1SPL73.236.373.2N32.22.732.2median 56.7Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Yoga 2017 20JD0015USmedian 24.3median 56.7Delta61.7631.830.331.83232.23236.335.136.329.328.329.328.431.428.427.627.527.626.725.826.725.825.325.825.624.125.624.923.524.926.122.126.138.421.738.448.421.148.454.620.654.654.52054.555.919.455.961.218.761.257.618.657.658.51858.562.51862.564.717.664.765.417.765.462.317.862.362.118.262.159.418.359.457.118.457.155.218.455.249.818.649.855.718.555.755.918.655.973.130.673.129.21.429.2median 55.9Toshiba Portege X20W-D-10Rmedian 18.6median 55.98.41.78.4hearing rangehide median Pink Noise
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Yoga 2017 20JD0015US audio analysis

(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (73.24 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 16.8% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (11.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 2.6% away from median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (11.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 4.1% away from median
(-) | highs are not linear (15.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (22.2% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 55% of all tested devices in this class were better, 5% similar, 39% worse
» The best had a delta of 11%, average was 22%, worst was 53%
Compared to all devices tested
» 56% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 37% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Toshiba Portege X20W-D-10R audio analysis

(-) | not very loud speakers (64 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 24.3% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (11.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 3.5% away from median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (7.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 4.8% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (6.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (24.2% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 64% of all tested devices in this class were better, 9% similar, 27% worse
» The best had a delta of 11%, average was 22%, worst was 53%
Compared to all devices tested
» 66% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 26% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Frequency Comparison (Checkbox selectable!)
Graph 1: Pink Noise 100% Vol.; Graph 2: Audio off

Energy Management

Power Consumption

Undoubtedly thanks in large part to the step down to the FHD IPS display (from the Core i7 model’s WQHD OLED panel), today’s ThinkPad X1 Yoga review candidate boasts somewhat lower power consumption than the previous configuration. We measured an idle average of 7.4 W, slightly below the 7.6 W of the OLED model—but we also witnessed a maximum of just 7.6 W from today’s unit versus 13.8 W from the previous one. Load average and max values are also similarly correlated: 31.3 / 34.4 W on the Core i5 model versus 33.4 W / 46.5 W on the Core i7 unit. Regardless, however, neither unit is particularly efficient as compared to other machines in today’s comparison field: the Dell Latitude, HP Elitebook, and Toshiba Portege models we’ve included for context are around 10% to 25% more efficient while idling and (in the case of the Toshiba) as much as 32% more efficient under load.

Power Consumption
Off / Standbydarklight 0.3 / 0.5 Watt
Idledarkmidlight 4.4 / 7.4 / 7.6 Watt
Load midlight 31.3 / 34.4 Watt
 color bar
Key: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        Metrahit Energy
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Yoga 2017 20JD0015US
7200U, HD Graphics 620, Toshiba THNSF5256GPUK, IPS, 1920x1080, 14
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Yoga 2017 20JES03T00
7600U, HD Graphics 620, Samsung SSD PM961 1TB M.2 PCIe 3.0 x4 NVMe (MZVLW1T0), OLED, 2560x1440, 14
Dell Latitude 12 5285 2-in-1
7600U, HD Graphics 620, Samsung PM961 MZVLW256HEHP, IPS, 1920x1280, 12.3
Toshiba Portege X20W-D-10R
7600U, HD Graphics 620, Toshiba SG5 THNSNK512GVN8, IPS, 1920x1080, 12.5
HP EliteBook x360 1030 G2
7300U, HD Graphics 620, Sandisk SD8TN8U-256G-1006, IPS, 1920x1080, 13.3
Power Consumption
-28%
8%
25%
10%
Idle Minimum *
4.4
4.9
-11%
2.85
35%
3.4
23%
3.2
27%
Idle Average *
7.4
7.6
-3%
6.76
9%
5.8
22%
5.5
26%
Idle Maximum *
7.6
13.8
-82%
6.91
9%
6.7
12%
6.5
14%
Load Average *
31.3
33.4
-7%
32.88
-5%
21.4
32%
29.7
5%
Load Maximum *
34.4
46.5
-35%
37.41
-9%
21.6
37%
41.3
-20%

* ... smaller is better

Battery Life

The ThinkPad X1 Yoga did well in our Wi-Fi Surfing benchmark with a result of 10 hours and 47 minutes—quite a bit longer than the 6 hours and 8 minutes of the Core i7/WQHD OLED version of the machine. On the other hand, thanks certainly to the power efficiency of OLED at low brightness values, the latter model actually does better in the Idle benchmark with over 13 hours—whereas today’s review unit managed “only” 12 hours and 33 minutes.

Battery Runtime (Load)
Battery Runtime (Load)
Battery Runtime (Idle)
Battery Runtime (Idle)
Battery Runtime (Web Surfing)
Battery Runtime (Web Surfing)
The internal battery
The internal battery
Battery Runtime
Idle (without WLAN, min brightness)
12h 33min
NBC WiFi Websurfing Battery Test 1.3
10h 47min
Load (maximum brightness)
2h 15min
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Yoga 2017 20JD0015US
7200U, HD Graphics 620, 56 Wh
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Yoga 2017 20JES03T00
7600U, HD Graphics 620, 56 Wh
Dell Latitude 12 5285 2-in-1
7600U, HD Graphics 620, 42 Wh
Toshiba Portege X20W-D-10R
7600U, HD Graphics 620, 44 Wh
HP EliteBook x360 1030 G2
7300U, HD Graphics 620, 57 Wh
Battery Runtime
-17%
-1%
18%
54%
Reader / Idle
753
784
4%
1075
43%
1001
33%
1387
84%
WiFi v1.3
647
368
-43%
486
-25%
719
11%
630
-3%
Load
135
120
-11%
105
-22%
150
11%
244
81%

Pros

+ clever case and keyboard design
+ rigid build
+ fast system performance
+ excellent keyboard and touchpad
+ very good port selection for its class
+ fast and accurate fingerprint sensor
+ bright, attractive display which lacks only in color gamut
+ active stylus included
+ 3-year warranty standard

Cons

- still rather expensive
- screen is highly reflective
- limited extensibility

Verdict

In review: Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Yoga
In review: Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Yoga

The ThinkPad X1 Yoga is not a cheap machine no matter how it’s equipped, with prices just above $2,000 for most configurations (today’s: $2,267). However, with a cost more than $1,500 lower than our Core i7/OLED review candidate, this unit probably seems far more attainable for the average business user. And that’s not the only thing that renders it potentially even more enticing than its WQHD peer: there’s also no CPU sustained performance reduction, it’s quieter, battery life is considerably longer in most cases, and thermals are much more in line. There's also no PWM in play, unlike what we discovered on our OLED review unit.

There’s not really a whole lot wrong with the ThinkPad X1 Yoga; if a 360-degree hinge convertible is what you’re after, it really ought to be on your short list.

In fact, apart from the lack of OLED and WQHD resolution (this one’s Full HD), slightly less capable CPU, and slower SSD, these are practically the same machine. And because of that, there’s not really a whole lot wrong with the ThinkPad X1 Yoga: it’s a well-rounded, quiet, cool-running, nimble, attractive piece of technology. If a 360-degree hinge convertible is what you’re after, it really ought to be on your short list.

Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Yoga 2017 20JD0015US - 07/29/2017 v6
Steve Schardein

Chassis
87 / 98 → 89%
Keyboard
92%
Pointing Device
94%
Connectivity
64 / 80 → 80%
Weight
70 / 35-78 → 81%
Battery
93%
Display
88%
Games Performance
60 / 68 → 88%
Application Performance
91 / 87 → 100%
Temperature
92%
Noise
97%
Audio
60 / 91 → 66%
Camera
60 / 85 → 71%
Average
81%
89%
Convertible - Weighted Average

Pricecompare

Read all 6 comments / answer
static version load dynamic
Loading Comments
Comment this article
Please share our article, every link counts!
> Notebook / Laptop Reviews and News > Reviews > Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Yoga 2017 20JD0015US (i5-7200U, FHD) Convertible Review
Steve Schardein, 2017-08- 2 (Update: 2017-08- 2)
Steve Schardein
Steve Schardein - Review Editor - @othersteve
In grade school, my first computer—an Apple IIGS—started it all for me. Later, in the nineties, if I wasn’t repairing computers for family and friends, I was busy cooking up nifty Visual Basic projects and playing PC games like Command & Conquer and Heroes of Might and Magic. Soon, much of my free time was spent moderating popular gaming forums and covering the industry for various websites. All the while, I never stopped repairing computers, and in 2006, I started a technology consulting company in Louisville, KY—Triple-S Computers—which I have been fortunate to nurture to great success by specializing in not only repairs, but also new machine consultations and purchasing, data recovery, and malware/security. And since 2012, I have proudly contributed many dozens of reviews to Notebookcheck, a site which I have long considered to be the ultimate authority on laptops and related technology. Today, I am truly living my dream: still a child at heart, ever-curious, constantly learning, and thankful to you, our readers.