Notebookcheck

Teclast Tbook 16 Power 2-in-1 (x7-Z8750, 8 GB) Review

Magnesium. With its rare Atom x7-Z8750, 8 GB of RAM, and Android 6 / Windows 10 dual-boot capabilities, Teclast's Tbook 16 Power stands out against the crowd. By pushing it through our extensive test course we've found several problems along the way.

Working For Notebookcheck

Are you a loyal reader of notebookcheck? Are you a techie who knows how to write? Then join our Team!

Especially wanted: 
English-Swedish-Translator - 
Details here
Review Editor - 
Details here
News Editor - Details here

 

 

 

 

 

 

For the original German review, see here.

The Teclast Tbook 16 Power is an affordable tablet from China. Combined with an optional keyboard dock, it turns into a neat little 2-in-1 convertible. On the one hand it comes with Windows 10 and Android 6 out of the box, which means you can use apps from both providers. On the other hand, both operating systems have to share a rather meager 64 GB of combined storage. Only 18.2 GB was available after we first booted the device in Windows 10.

Teclast Tbook 16 Power
Memory
8192 MB 
, LPDDR3, single channel?, 8-10-11-23
Display
11.6 inch 16:9, 1920x1080 pixel 190 PPI, multitouch, native pen support, IPS, not laminated, glossy: yes, detachable screen
Mainboard
Intel Cherry Trail
Storage
64 GB eMMC Flash, 64 GB 
, 18.2 GB free
Soundcard
Intel SST Audio Device
Connections
2 USB 3.0 / 3.1 Gen1, 1 HDMI, 1 DisplayPort, Audio Connections: headset, Card Reader: MicroSD, Sensors: Kionix KXCJ9 3-axis accelerometer SPB
Networking
Realtek RTL8723BS (b/g/n), Bluetooth 4.0
Size
height x width x depth (in mm): 10 x 303 x 179.5 ( = 0.39 x 11.93 x 7.07 in)
Battery
8500 mAh Lithium-Polymer, 3.8 / 8500mAh polymer lithium-ion battery , Battery runtime (according to manufacturer): 7 h
Operating System
Microsoft Windows 10 Home 64 Bit
Camera
Primary Camera: 5 MPix
Secondary Camera: 2 MPix
Additional features
Speakers: stereo, fanless
Released
11/16/2016
Weight
897 g ( = 31.64 oz / 1.98 pounds) ( = 0 oz / 0 pounds)
Price
287 Euro

 

Case

The Teclast Tbook 16 Power’s case feels very sturdy and solid. The rear cover is made of metal and does not flex at all. According to Teclast, the frame is made from a magnesium-aluminum alloy called “magnalium”, but it feels more like plastic instead. It is easily scratched but incredibly strong; even under intense pressure the tablet barely flexed. The kickstand is freely adjustable and firm, and it allowed us to use the tablet at all angles. However, obviously we cannot judge the hinge’s rigidity in the long run. In addition, the groove that helps you open it is on the bottom of the device. It would be much easier to handle if Teclast had decided to put it on the side, as other manufacturers have.

Underneath the kickstand, the rear cover is attached to the frame with six T4 torx screws, and six more can be found at the joint of the kickstand and hinge. After removing these 12 screws, the rear cover can be taken off completely, yet it is pretty pointless: all components are soldered onto the motherboard and not a single piece can be upgraded and/or replaced. Even the power cables are soldered to the battery that, at least, is bolted in place.

Dual-boot menu
The display is not laminated, and there is a gap between the glass and the panel
Small touchpad means arduous usage
The kickstand is freely adjustable
The tablet can be charged via USB-C
Some external SSDs refused to work
White noise, only fixed through reboot
After a few hours, everything went back to normal

In regards to dimensions the Tbook is right between Microsoft’s Surface 3 and Surface Pro devices. However, due to its 16:9 aspect ratio it resembles the Cube i9 more closely.

Size Comparison

Connectivity

SanDisk Extreme 900 connected to the USB-A port. One of the few external SSDs that actually worked
SanDisk Extreme 900 connected to the USB-A port. One of the few external SSDs that actually worked

The Tbook’s connectivity is decent for a tablet at this price point. It charges through its USB-C port, which also supports DisplayPort, but we had some trouble connecting external SSDs. The same must also be said about the USB-A port – apparently, the current is too low to power the external G-Drive / WD or Angelbird (SSD2GO PKT) SSDs. On the other hand, the Asus PB287Q 4k display worked flawlessly when connected via a USB-C to DisplayPort cable. The MicroSD-card slot is hidden behind a small plastic flap, and it is deep enough for cards to be flush with the slot when inserted.

Left to right: MicroSD (behind flap), mini-HDMI, Power, USB-C (3.0), USB-A (3.0), audio jack
Left to right: MicroSD (behind flap), mini-HDMI, Power, USB-C (3.0), USB-A (3.0), audio jack

SD-Card Reader

Unfortunately, for reasons unknown to us, AS SSD refused to work with our Toshiba Exceria Pro M401 reference card in the slot. However, we were able to copy photos onto and from the card, and the Tbook was on a par with the Core i7 Surface Pro 4 model. That said, notebooks equipped with a full-size SD-card reader will be able to reach upwards of 150 MB/s with a UHS-II SD card.

SDCardreader Transfer Speed - average JPG Copy Test (av. of 3 runs)
Apple MacBook Pro Retina 13 inch 2013-10
78 MB/s ∼100% +11%
Acer Aspire S 13 S5-371-71QZ
78 MB/s ∼100% +11%
Teclast Tbook 16 Power
70 MB/s ∼90%
Microsoft Surface Pro 4, Core i5, 256GB
68 MB/s ∼87% -3%
Lenovo ThinkPad Yoga 370-20JJS00100
65.9 MB/s ∼84% -6%
Dell Latitude 12 5285 2-in-1
64 MB/s ∼82% -9%
Asus Zenbook UX3410UA
32.9 MB/s ∼42% -53%
Chuwi Vi8 Plus (CWI519)
29 MB/s ∼37% -59%

Communication

The Tbook’s Realtek RTL8723BS Wi-Fi 802.11 n module only supports 2.4 GHz networks, which means that data transfer rates are nothing to write home about, and neither is the Tbook’s Wi-Fi range. Average distances to the Wi-Fi router won’t cause any problems but once you get a bit further away or have walls and ceilings in the way it quickly loses its Wi-Fi connection, and much sooner so than other Wi-Fi chips.

Networking
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Microsoft Surface Book with Performance Base
Marvell AVASTAR Wireless-AC Network Controller
501 MBit/s ∼100% +702%
Microsoft Surface Pro 4, Core i5, 128GB
Marvell AVASTAR Wireless-AC Network Controller (Klaus I211)
459 MBit/s ∼92% +634%
Cube i7 Book CDK09
Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 3165 (Klaus I211)
357 MBit/s ∼71% +471%
Teclast Tbook 16 Power
Realtek RTL8723BS
62.5 MBit/s ∼12%
Chuwi Hi10 Pro
802.11 b/g/n
40.6 MBit/s ∼8% -35%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Microsoft Surface Pro 4, Core i5, 128GB
Marvell AVASTAR Wireless-AC Network Controller (Klaus I211)
593 MBit/s ∼100% +978%
Microsoft Surface Book with Performance Base
Marvell AVASTAR Wireless-AC Network Controller
588 MBit/s ∼99% +969%
Cube i7 Book CDK09
Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 3165 (Klaus I211)
219 MBit/s ∼37% +298%
Teclast Tbook 16 Power
Realtek RTL8723BS
55 MBit/s ∼9%
Chuwi Hi10 Pro
802.11 b/g/n
41.6 MBit/s ∼7% -24%

Accessories

There are no accessories that we are aware of. Teclast does not even include a charger with the tablet, only a USB-A to USB-C cable can be found in the box.

Warranty

As far as we know, Teclast does not offer a warranty on the device. However, Gearbest, who provided us with the review sample, stepped in and offers a one-year limited warranty.

Cameras - If Need Be

Both camera modules are mediocre at best. Colors are highly inaccurate and images are far from crisp. They can be possibly used for taking a quick snap of a document or modest video chats but only under the most ideal lighting conditions.

Rear-facing camera - indoor with decent lighting conditions
Rear-facing camera - indoor with decent lighting conditions
Rear-facing camera - indoor, noticeable issues with sharpness and distorted reds
Rear-facing camera - indoor, noticeable issues with sharpness and distorted reds
The only acceptable photo with very limited dynamic range
The only acceptable photo with very limited dynamic range
Rear-facing camera in bright sunlight. Again, rather limited dynamic range
Rear-facing camera in bright sunlight. Again, rather limited dynamic range
Front-facing camera - colors and sharpness are practically non-existent
Front-facing camera - colors and sharpness are practically non-existent
Suitable for video chats
Suitable for video chats

Input Devices

Keyboard

The touch cover’s chiclet keyboard (model TL-T16s) offers decently sized keys (except for the function key row) and a decent layout. It is only available with a US layout, which can be disadvantageous to anyone who would prefer a different layout. Due to its limited height, key travel is very shallow, and unlike its very low noise level the actuation point wasn’t to our liking. Nevertheless, we had absolutely no trouble touch-typing right from the start. 

Touchpad

Quite frankly, the touch cover’s touchpad is pretty bad. It is very narrow and drove us crazy with constant misinterpretations of gestures, specifically the “swiping in from above” gesture that minimized the current window. The ClickPad’s integrated button was very mushy in the center, and we found ourselves using either an external mouse or the device’s touchscreen instead. 

Touchscreen

Speaking of which, the multitouch-capable touchscreen was very good. Input was detected reliably up to the very edges and the latency was decently low. In theory, the touchscreen offers stylus support but we were unable to verify or test this since we didn't have a stylus pen to hand.

Display

Our review unit's 16:9 touchscreen is not laminated and only shines at a maximum of 215 nits. Despite being relatively low, this is already an improvement since older reviews (for example, the one performed by Techtablets) were only able to measure up to 180 nits. Granted, they did use a different measuring device, but the difference is staggering nonetheless. The panel has clearly not been calibrated, and color representation was substandard at best. Since this is an IPS panel at least viewing angles are decent. Brightness distribution is once again below average, and our review unit’s screen suffered from minor yet visible backlight-bleeding at the bottom.

Grayscale uncalibrated
Grayscale uncalibrated
ColorChecker colors uncalibrated
ColorChecker colors uncalibrated
Backlight-bleeding at the bottom
Backlight-bleeding at the bottom
193
cd/m²
210
cd/m²
196
cd/m²
222
cd/m²
244
cd/m²
208
cd/m²
230
cd/m²
229
cd/m²
206
cd/m²
Distribution of brightness
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Maximum: 244 cd/m² Average: 215.3 cd/m² Minimum: 12.7 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 79 %
Center on Battery: 244 cd/m²
Contrast: 642:1 (Black: 0.38 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 6.7 | - Ø
ΔE Greyscale 7.4 | - Ø
93% sRGB (Argyll) 60.6% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll)
Gamma: 2.15
Teclast Tbook 16 Power
1920x1080, 11.6
Microsoft Surface Pro 4 Core i7
Samsung 123YL01-001 ID: SDC3853, , 2736x1824, 12.3
Cube i9
KDC0000, , 1920x1200, 12.2
Chuwi Hi12
SEC3542, , 2160x1440, 12
Response Times
-17%
-23%
39%
Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% *
40 (20, 20)
48.4 (20.4, 28)
-21%
37.2 (16.4, 20.8)
7%
28 (11.6, 16.4)
30%
Response Time Black / White *
30.2 (16.8, 13.4)
35.6 (8, 27.6)
-18%
24 (9.2, 14.8)
21%
16 (5.2, 10.8)
47%
PWM Frequency
12000 (26, 60)
10420
-13%
200 (99, 255)
-98%
Screen
50%
20%
19%
Brightness
215
433
101%
263
22%
277
29%
Brightness Distribution
79
87
10%
77
-3%
89
13%
Black Level *
0.38
0.326
14%
0.28
26%
0.256
33%
Contrast
642
1340
109%
939
46%
1145
78%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
6.7
1.82
73%
4.1
39%
5.2
22%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
7.4
1.44
81%
3.8
49%
8.5
-15%
Gamma
2.15 112%
2.1 114%
2.25 107%
2.21 109%
CCT
8867 73%
6560 99%
6433 101%
7048 92%
Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998)
60.6
62.3
3%
57.7
-5%
62
2%
Color Space (Percent of sRGB)
93
97.5
5%
76.2
-18%
82.5
-11%
Total Average (Program / Settings)
17% / 31%
-2% / 8%
29% / 23%

* ... smaller is better

Pretty much unusable in direct sunlight
Pretty much unusable in direct sunlight

Due to its low brightness, its glossy surface, and its visible display gap, the panel is not really usable outdoors in direct sunlight. Response times are pretty high but still within the range of what we have come to expect from IPS panels. At lower brightness levels, the display showed PWM-flickering at 60 KHz, which is high enough to not be noticeable to anyone but the most sensitive users.

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
30.2 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 16.8 ms rise
↘ 13.4 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. » 76 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (26.7 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
40 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 20 ms rise
↘ 20 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. » 43 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is similar to the average of all tested devices (42.8 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 detected 12000 Hz26 % brightness setting
60 cd/m² brightness

The display backlight flickers at 12000 Hz (Likely utilizing PWM) Flickering detected at a brightness setting of 26 % (60 cd/m²) and below. There should be no flickering or PWM above this brightness setting.

The frequency of 12000 Hz is quite high, so most users sensitive to PWM should not notice any flickering.

As the flickering occurs only on very low brightness settings, it should not be an issue in typical office settings. Nonetheless, use in low light conditions may be straining to the eyes.

In comparison: 57 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 6272 (minimum: 43 - maximum: 142900) Hz was measured.

Performance

The Tbook’s CPU is certainly noteworthy, since Teclast equips its “Power” models with the much less common Cherry Trail generation Atom x7-Z8750. It offers four Airmont cores and is very similar to the Pentium N3710, only much more power-efficient and with a slower GPU. The tablet is also equipped with 64 GB of Samsung eMMC storage (MCG8GA), which is partitioned into two 32 GB slices for each operating system.

Processor

As mentioned above, the Atom x7-Z8750 is very similar to the Pentium N3710. Clock speed is identical, and the only notable difference is the CPU’s TDP. Thus, overall performance is rather poor, especially during long periods of high load, since the device is not able to keep running at its full turbo boost speed of 2.56 GHz. The Tbook ranked between the x7-Z8700-equipped Surface 3 and its N3710 and Core m3-equipped competitors in the Cinebench R15 single-thread test, accordingly. It did a bit better in the multithread test, where it clearly outperformed HP’s N3710-equipped Pavilion x360 11t.

However, the 133 points we measured was only achievable when starting the benchmark with a cold device. Over time, performance settled down to around 122 points. With higher ambient temperatures performance fell once again, and the device only scored around 118 points.

Cinebench R15
CPU Single 64Bit
Cube i7 Book CDK09
Intel Core m3-6Y30
89 Points ∼100% +129%
Microsoft Surface Pro 4, Core m3
Intel Core m3-6Y30
88 Points ∼99% +126%
Cube i9
Intel Core m3-6Y30
73 Points ∼82% +88%
Acer TravelMate B117-M-P16Q
Intel Pentium N3710
42 Points ∼47% +8%
Chiligreen Mobilitas SF2600
Intel Pentium N3710
41 Points ∼46% +5%
Acer Swift 1 SF114-31-P6F6
Intel Pentium N3710
41 Points ∼46% +5%
HP Pavilion x360 11t T5M27AV
Intel Pentium N3710
39 Points ∼44% 0%
Teclast Tbook 16 Power
Intel Atom x7-Z8750
38.9 Points ∼44%
Microsoft Surface 3
Intel Atom x7-Z8700
38 Points ∼43% -2%
Chuwi Hi12
Intel Atom x5-Z8300
31 Points ∼35% -20%
VOYO VBook V3
Intel Atom x5-Z8300
28 Points ∼31% -28%
Medion Akoya P2211T MD98602
Intel Celeron N2910
27 Points ∼30% -31%
CPU Multi 64Bit
Cube i7 Book CDK09
Intel Core m3-6Y30
211 Points ∼100% +59%
Microsoft Surface Pro 4, Core m3
Intel Core m3-6Y30
206 Points ∼98% +55%
Cube i9
Intel Core m3-6Y30
192 Points ∼91% +44%
Acer Swift 1 SF114-31-P6F6
Intel Pentium N3710
152 Points ∼72% +14%
Acer TravelMate B117-M-P16Q
Intel Pentium N3710
150 Points ∼71% +13%
Chiligreen Mobilitas SF2600
Intel Pentium N3710
141 Points ∼67% +6%
Microsoft Surface 3
Intel Atom x7-Z8700
134 Points ∼64% +1%
Teclast Tbook 16 Power
Intel Atom x7-Z8750
133 (min: 112.75) Points ∼63%
HP Pavilion x360 11t T5M27AV
Intel Pentium N3710
105 Points ∼50% -21%
Teclast Tbook 10s
Intel Atom x5-Z8350
101 Points ∼48% -24%
Chuwi Hi12
Intel Atom x5-Z8300
99 Points ∼47% -26%
Medion Akoya P2211T MD98602
Intel Celeron N2910
97 Points ∼46% -27%
VOYO VBook V3
Intel Atom x5-Z8300
94 Points ∼45% -29%
Chuwi Hi10 Pro
Intel Atom x5-Z8300
85 Points ∼40% -36%
Cinebench R15 CPU Single 64Bit
38.9 Points
Cinebench R15 OpenGL 64Bit
10.3 fps
Cinebench R15 Ref. Match 64Bit
98 %
Cinebench R15 CPU Multi 64Bit
133 Points
Help
0102030405060708090100110120130Tooltip
Cinebench R15 CPU Multi 64 Bit

System Performance

For a Z8750-equipped tablet, overall PCMark 8 Home system performance was nothing to brag about. TDP limitations, passive cooling, and the slow eMMC storage all reared their ugly heads at the same time and slowed the device down noticeably compared to N3710-equipped convertibles. Even the slowest N3710 notebook, the aforementioned HP Pavilion x360 11t, is roughly 10% faster. The Acer Switch 1, based on the exact same SoC, is a stunning 41% faster. The Tbook can keep up with tablets built around the Z8300 SoC, and the x7-Z8500-equipped Surface 3 is only slightly faster.

Despite its 8 GB of RAM the tablet stuttered noticeably every now and then. Most of the time we were able to trace this back to the CPU, and a high load caused by unknown background system processes caused a noticeable slowdown as well. Even though the difference between the Tbook and a Core m3-powered device is noticeable the Atom’s performance is good enough for modest use.

PCMark 8 - Home Score Accelerated v2
Cube i7 Book CDK09
HD Graphics 515, 6Y30, FORESEE 64GB O1229B
2976 Points ∼100% +99%
Cube i9
HD Graphics 515, 6Y30, FORESEE 128GB O1229B
2628 Points ∼88% +75%
Microsoft Surface Pro 4, Core m3
HD Graphics 515, 6Y30, Samsung MZFLV128 NVMe
2426 Points ∼82% +62%
Acer Swift 1 SF114-31-P6F6
HD Graphics 405 (Braswell), N3710, 128 GB eMMC Flash
2114 Points ∼71% +41%
Acer TravelMate B117-M-P16Q
HD Graphics 405 (Braswell), N3710, Liteonit CV3-8D256
1999 Points ∼67% +33%
Chiligreen Mobilitas SF2600
HD Graphics 405 (Braswell), N3710
1792 Points ∼60% +20%
Microsoft Surface 3
HD Graphics (Cherry Trail), Z8700, 128 GB eMMC Flash
1677 Points ∼56% +12%
HP Pavilion x360 11t T5M27AV
HD Graphics 405 (Braswell), N3710, Toshiba MQ01ABF050
1651 Points ∼55% +10%
Teclast Tbook 16 Power
HD Graphics 405 (Braswell), Z8750, 64 GB eMMC Flash
1499 Points ∼50%
VOYO VBook V3
HD Graphics (Cherry Trail), Z8300, 64 GB eMMC Flash
1352 Points ∼45% -10%
Acer Switch One 10 SW1-011-14UQ
HD Graphics (Cherry Trail), Z8300, 64 GB eMMC Flash
1315 Points ∼44% -12%
Medion Akoya E2215T
HD Graphics (Cherry Trail), Z8350, 64 GB eMMC Flash
1282 Points ∼43% -14%
Teclast Tbook 10s
HD Graphics (Cherry Trail), Z8350, 64 GB eMMC Flash
1088 Points ∼37% -27%
PCMark 8 Home Score Accelerated v2
1499 points
PCMark 8 Creative Score Accelerated v2
1732 points
Help

Slow eMMC Storage

Instead of an SSD, the Tbook utilizes a much slower eMMC storage solution (which is actually quite common for Atom-based devices). The eMMC chip is made by Samsung and scored pretty low during our benchmarks. Only the Medion Akoya P2211T - also powered by eMMC storage - performed even worse in AS SSD. The Lenovo IdeaPad MIIX 310 scored three times as high, and the slowest SSD-equipped convertible, the MSI S20-i541, is faster still. The Cube i7 Book's 64 GB Foresee SSD scored 379 points (972%), and both the Surface 3 and the Surface Pro 4 are much faster than the Tbook 16 Power.

Performance Rating
Microsoft Surface Pro 4, Core m3
Samsung MZFLV128 NVMe
94.4 pt ∼94%
Cube i9
FORESEE 128GB O1229B
68.2 pt ∼68%
Cube i7 Book CDK09
FORESEE 64GB O1229B
65.7 pt ∼66%
Microsoft Surface 3
128 GB eMMC Flash
22.9 pt ∼23%
Teclast Tbook 16 Power
64 GB eMMC Flash
12.1 pt ∼12%
Medion Akoya P2211T MD98602
64 GB eMMC Flash
11.3 pt ∼11%
CrystalDiskMark 3.0
Write 4k QD32
Microsoft Surface Pro 4, Core m3
Samsung MZFLV128 NVMe
149.2 MB/s ∼100% +7143%
Cube i9
FORESEE 128GB O1229B
116 MB/s ∼78% +5531%
Cube i7 Book CDK09
FORESEE 64GB O1229B
96.18 MB/s ∼64% +4569%
Microsoft Surface 3
128 GB eMMC Flash
11.2 MB/s ∼8% +444%
Teclast Tbook 16 Power
64 GB eMMC Flash
2.06 MB/s ∼1%
Medion Akoya P2211T MD98602
64 GB eMMC Flash
1.775 MB/s ∼1% -14%
Read 4k QD32
Microsoft Surface Pro 4, Core m3
Samsung MZFLV128 NVMe
243.7 MB/s ∼100% +2126%
Cube i7 Book CDK09
FORESEE 64GB O1229B
121.3 MB/s ∼50% +1008%
Microsoft Surface 3
128 GB eMMC Flash
27.94 MB/s ∼11% +155%
Cube i9
FORESEE 128GB O1229B
22.7 MB/s ∼9% +107%
Teclast Tbook 16 Power
64 GB eMMC Flash
10.95 MB/s ∼4%
Medion Akoya P2211T MD98602
64 GB eMMC Flash
7.358 MB/s ∼3% -33%
Write 4k
Microsoft Surface Pro 4, Core m3
Samsung MZFLV128 NVMe
68.02 MB/s ∼100% +3424%
Cube i9
FORESEE 128GB O1229B
56.8 MB/s ∼84% +2843%
Cube i7 Book CDK09
FORESEE 64GB O1229B
51.25 MB/s ∼75% +2555%
Microsoft Surface 3
128 GB eMMC Flash
9.52 MB/s ∼14% +393%
Teclast Tbook 16 Power
64 GB eMMC Flash
1.93 MB/s ∼3%
Medion Akoya P2211T MD98602
64 GB eMMC Flash
1.504 MB/s ∼2% -22%
Read 4k
Microsoft Surface Pro 4, Core m3
Samsung MZFLV128 NVMe
30.14 MB/s ∼100% +279%
Cube i9
FORESEE 128GB O1229B
18.4 MB/s ∼61% +131%
Cube i7 Book CDK09
FORESEE 64GB O1229B
14.72 MB/s ∼49% +85%
Microsoft Surface 3
128 GB eMMC Flash
12.64 MB/s ∼42% +59%
Teclast Tbook 16 Power
64 GB eMMC Flash
7.96 MB/s ∼26%
Medion Akoya P2211T MD98602
64 GB eMMC Flash
6.615 MB/s ∼22% -17%
Write 512
Cube i9
FORESEE 128GB O1229B
199 MB/s ∼100% +648%
Microsoft Surface Pro 4, Core m3
Samsung MZFLV128 NVMe
158.2 MB/s ∼79% +495%
Cube i7 Book CDK09
FORESEE 64GB O1229B
130.7 MB/s ∼66% +391%
Microsoft Surface 3
128 GB eMMC Flash
39.9 MB/s ∼20% +50%
Teclast Tbook 16 Power
64 GB eMMC Flash
26.61 MB/s ∼13%
Medion Akoya P2211T MD98602
64 GB eMMC Flash
9.096 MB/s ∼5% -66%
Read 512
Microsoft Surface Pro 4, Core m3
Samsung MZFLV128 NVMe
313.1 MB/s ∼100% +328%
Cube i7 Book CDK09
FORESEE 64GB O1229B
252.4 MB/s ∼81% +245%
Cube i9
FORESEE 128GB O1229B
197 MB/s ∼63% +169%
Microsoft Surface 3
128 GB eMMC Flash
133.7 MB/s ∼43% +83%
Medion Akoya P2211T MD98602
64 GB eMMC Flash
78.07 MB/s ∼25% +7%
Teclast Tbook 16 Power
64 GB eMMC Flash
73.22 MB/s ∼23%
Write Seq
Cube i9
FORESEE 128GB O1229B
208 MB/s ∼100% +646%
Microsoft Surface Pro 4, Core m3
Samsung MZFLV128 NVMe
158.2 MB/s ∼76% +467%
Cube i7 Book CDK09
FORESEE 64GB O1229B
157 MB/s ∼75% +463%
Microsoft Surface 3
128 GB eMMC Flash
47.99 MB/s ∼23% +72%
Medion Akoya P2211T MD98602
64 GB eMMC Flash
40.52 MB/s ∼19% +45%
Teclast Tbook 16 Power
64 GB eMMC Flash
27.9 MB/s ∼13%
Read Seq
Microsoft Surface Pro 4, Core m3
Samsung MZFLV128 NVMe
662.5 MB/s ∼100% +786%
Cube i7 Book CDK09
FORESEE 64GB O1229B
433.2 MB/s ∼65% +479%
Cube i9
FORESEE 128GB O1229B
337 MB/s ∼51% +351%
Microsoft Surface 3
128 GB eMMC Flash
149.3 MB/s ∼23% +100%
Medion Akoya P2211T MD98602
64 GB eMMC Flash
86.39 MB/s ∼13% +15%
Teclast Tbook 16 Power
64 GB eMMC Flash
74.8 MB/s ∼11%
64 GB eMMC Flash
Sequential Read: 74.8 MB/s
Sequential Write: 27.9 MB/s
512K Read: 73.22 MB/s
512K Write: 26.61 MB/s
4K Read: 7.96 MB/s
4K Write: 1.93 MB/s
4K QD32 Read: 10.95 MB/s
4K QD32 Write: 2.06 MB/s

Graphics Card - Low HD 405 Performance

The x7-Z8750 is paired with a Braswell generation Intel HD Graphics 405, formerly known as Intel HD Graphics. It runs at between 400 and 600 MHz and thus around 100 MHz slower than the Pentium N3710’s iGPU (400 - 700 MHz), which shows clearly in our 3D Mark 11 scores: its 16% higher clock speed results in 13 to 22% higher scores. On the plus side, the slower Z8300 Atoms are left behind. The Core m3-based models are much faster, and the Aspire ES1’s dedicated GeForce 910M is a whopping 246% faster.

3DMark 11 - 1280x720 Performance GPU
Acer Aspire ES1-731G-P5UR
NVIDIA GeForce 910M, Intel Pentium N3700
1413 Points ∼100% +246%
Cube i9
Intel HD Graphics 515, Intel Core m3-6Y30
899 Points ∼64% +120%
Acer Swift 1 SF114-31-P6F6
Intel HD Graphics 405 (Braswell), Intel Pentium N3710
496 Points ∼35% +22%
Chiligreen Mobilitas SF2600
Intel HD Graphics 405 (Braswell), Intel Pentium N3710
489 Points ∼35% +20%
Acer TravelMate B117-M-P16Q
Intel HD Graphics 405 (Braswell), Intel Pentium N3710
473 Points ∼33% +16%
HP Pavilion x360 11t T5M27AV
Intel HD Graphics 405 (Braswell), Intel Pentium N3710
463 Points ∼33% +13%
Lenovo Yoga Book 2016 Windows 64GB LTE
Intel HD Graphics 400 (Braswell), Intel Atom x5-Z8550
418 Points ∼30% +2%
Teclast Tbook 16 Power
Intel HD Graphics 405 (Braswell), Intel Atom x7-Z8750
408 Points ∼29%
HP 250 G5 Y1V08UT
Intel HD Graphics 400 (Braswell), Intel Celeron N3060
382 Points ∼27% -6%
Acer Switch One 10 SW1-011-14UQ
Intel HD Graphics (Cherry Trail), Intel Atom x5-Z8300
298 Points ∼21% -27%
3DMark
1920x1080 Fire Strike Graphics
Acer Aspire ES1-731G-P5UR
NVIDIA GeForce 910M, Intel Pentium N3700
1022 Points ∼100%
Acer TravelMate B117-M-P16Q
Intel HD Graphics 405 (Braswell), Intel Pentium N3710
278 Points ∼27%
HP Pavilion x360 11t T5M27AV
Intel HD Graphics 405 (Braswell), Intel Pentium N3710
231 Points ∼23%
1280x720 Cloud Gate Standard Graphics
Acer Aspire ES1-731G-P5UR
NVIDIA GeForce 910M, Intel Pentium N3700
6636 Points ∼100% +276%
Cube i9
Intel HD Graphics 515, Intel Core m3-6Y30
5602 Points ∼84% +217%
Acer TravelMate B117-M-P16Q
Intel HD Graphics 405 (Braswell), Intel Pentium N3710
2831 Points ∼43% +60%
Lenovo Yoga Book 2016 Windows 64GB LTE
Intel HD Graphics 400 (Braswell), Intel Atom x5-Z8550
2455 Points ∼37% +39%
Chiligreen Mobilitas SF2600
Intel HD Graphics 405 (Braswell), Intel Pentium N3710
2329 Points ∼35% +32%
HP 250 G5 Y1V08UT
Intel HD Graphics 400 (Braswell), Intel Celeron N3060
1907 Points ∼29% +8%
HP Pavilion x360 11t T5M27AV
Intel HD Graphics 405 (Braswell), Intel Pentium N3710
1897 Points ∼29% +7%
Teclast Tbook 16 Power
Intel HD Graphics 405 (Braswell), Intel Atom x7-Z8750
1767 Points ∼27%
3DMark 06 Standard
2274 points
3DMark 11 Performance
451 points
3DMark Cloud Gate Standard Score
1743 points
Help

Gaming Performance

Accordingly, graphics performance is not even close to being able to run current games. Even the rather modest Farming Simulator 17 was unplayable on the device. Even though they’re only 100 MHz apart the HD 405 in the Pentium N3710 performed much better.

Farming Simulator 17 - 1280x720 Low Preset
Cube i9
Intel HD Graphics 515, Intel Core m3-6Y30
48 (min: 42) fps ∼100% +173%
Acer Swift 1 SF114-31-P6F6
Intel HD Graphics 405 (Braswell), Intel Pentium N3710
31.3 fps ∼65% +78%
Chuwi Hi12
Intel HD Graphics (Cherry Trail), Intel Atom x5-Z8300
22.6 (min: 21) fps ∼47% +28%
Teclast Tbook 16 Power
Intel HD Graphics 405 (Braswell), Intel Atom x7-Z8750
17.6 (min: 16) fps ∼37%
Dota 2 Reborn - 1280x720 min (0/3) fastest
Cube i9
Intel HD Graphics 515, Intel Core m3-6Y30
50.4 (min: 43) fps ∼100% +128%
Acer Swift 1 SF114-31-P6F6
Intel HD Graphics 405 (Braswell), Intel Pentium N3710
35.2 fps ∼70% +59%
Teclast Tbook 16 Power
Intel HD Graphics 405 (Braswell), Intel Atom x7-Z8750
22.1 (min: 19) fps ∼44%
Chuwi Hi12
Intel HD Graphics (Cherry Trail), Intel Atom x5-Z8300
20 (min: 18) fps ∼40% -10%
World of Warships - 1366x768 Low Preset AF:Trilinear
Cube i9
Intel HD Graphics 515, Intel Core m3-6Y30
32 (min: 13) fps ∼100% +113%
Acer TravelMate B117-M-P16Q
Intel HD Graphics 405 (Braswell), Intel Pentium N3710
21.8 fps ∼68% +45%
Teclast Tbook 16 Power
Intel HD Graphics 405 (Braswell), Intel Atom x7-Z8750
15 (min: 4) fps ∼47%
Chuwi Hi12
Intel HD Graphics (Cherry Trail), Intel Atom x5-Z8300
13.9 (min: 7) fps ∼43% -7%
low med. high ultra
Dota 2 Reborn (2015) 22.113.7fps
World of Warships (2015) 15fps
Farming Simulator 17 (2016) 17.6fps
Rocket League (2017) 18.7fps
Team Fortress 2 (2017) 19.6fps

Android Performance

Since this is a dual-boot device out of the box you can also boot up Android 6, which is installed on a separate partition. However, as can be seen on the screenshot below, the storage is not partitioned in two but features a plethora of different partitions of varying sizes. Android 6 performance was very good, and web-browsing felt much quicker when compared to Windows 10 and Microsoft Edge. Unfortunately, we were unable to run any Android benchmarks since the boot option disappeared after installing a Windows update, and we were unable to boot into Android henceforth.

Emissions

System Noise

Thanks to passive cooling and a total lack of coil whining the Tbook 16 stays dead quiet in all situations.

Temperature

Despite passive cooling, surface temperatures stayed relatively low. Understandably, only the tablet part heats up during use. When idle the surface stayed nice and cool to the touch, and even during our Furmark (GPU) and Prime95 (CPU) stress test it did not get hotter than 43 °C (110 °F). Since there are no fans inside the tablet the case’s temperature turned out to be a very good indicator for system load.

Internal temperatures remained well within their specified range. The CPU, which is allowed to reach up to 90 °C (194 °F) according to Intel, heated up to a maximum of 83 °C (181 °F). The GPU remained at 73 °C (163 °F).

Max. Load
 41 °C32 °C27 °C 
 43 °C32 °C27 °C 
 41 °C33 °C30 °C 
Maximum: 43 °C
Average: 34 °C
28 °C32 °C35 °C
29 °C33 °C40 °C
29 °C33 °C38 °C
Maximum: 40 °C
Average: 33 °C
Room Temperature 21 °C | Fluke 62 Mini
Stress test (Furmark+Prime95) front
Stress test (Furmark+Prime95) front
Stress test (Furmark+Prime95) rear
Stress test (Furmark+Prime95) rear

Speakers

The device’s stereo speakers are on the bottom side of the tablet, which renders the stereo effect rather pointless, and they also performed rather poorly. They are not particularly loud or clear, especially when compared to the MacBook 12 (our reference when it comes to small form factor devices). While it may be enough for the occasional YouTube video in quiet environments with no ambient noise it is certainly no treat, and we strongly advise you to make use of the built-in audio jack. It worked quite well with a pair of AKG K701 headphones.

dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs203735.52533.231.53130.831.94033.137.75031.732.56328.330.78028.527.410026.826.61252526.416025.22620023.82825022.332.831522.428.940021.925.850020.141.363020.151.18001955.9100018.662.5125018.462.6160017.958.5200017.452.1250017.454.6315017.455.7400017.461.5500017.563.5630017.557800017.642.41000017.537.41250017.537.71600017.529.3SPL30.570.6N1.523.4median 18.4Teclast Tbook 16 Powermedian 42.4Delta2.514.535.335.132.931.831.83236.535.132.428.93328.936.328.848.32761.52752.924.860.92462.822.763.32269.521.267.82174.82075.919.472.718.97117.770.117.86917.671.817.668.117.671.417.673.717.670.417.571.617.671.617.669.617.459.717.583.630.662.51.5median 69.6Apple MacBook 12 (Early 2016) 1.1 GHzmedian 17.84.62.4hearing rangehide median Pink Noise
Teclast Tbook 16 Power audio analysis

(-) | not very loud speakers (70.6 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(±) | reduced bass - on average 14.3% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (8.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 13.2% higher than median
(-) | mids are not linear (26.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 12.2% higher than median
(-) | highs are not linear (22.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(-) | overall sound is not linear (53.2% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 99% of all tested devices in this class were better, 1% similar, 0% worse
» The best had a delta of 11%, average was 23%, worst was 53%
Compared to all devices tested
» 100% of all tested devices were better, 0% similar, 0% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 22%, worst was 53%

Apple MacBook 12 (Early 2016) 1.1 GHz audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (83.6 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(±) | reduced bass - on average 11.3% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (14.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 2.4% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (5.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 2% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (4.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(+) | overall sound is linear (9.3% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 2% of all tested devices in this class were better, 2% similar, 97% worse
» The best had a delta of 9%, average was 19%, worst was 41%
Compared to all devices tested
» 1% of all tested devices were better, 0% similar, 98% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 22%, worst was 53%

Frequency comparison (checkboxes selectable/deselectable!)

Energy Management

Power Consumption

Thanks to its power-efficient components, power consumption is comparatively low. It performed similar to other Atom Z8xxx convertibles, and as with most of these standby power draw was a bit too high as well.

Power Consumption
Off / Standbydarklight 0.215 / 2.2 Watt
Idledarkmidlight 2.6 / 2.7 / 2.7 Watt
Load midlight 12.7 / 13.1 Watt
 color bar
Key: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        Metrahit Energy
Teclast Tbook 16 Power
Z8750, HD Graphics 405 (Braswell), 64 GB eMMC Flash, IPS, 1920x1080, 11.6
Chuwi Hi12
Z8300, HD Graphics (Cherry Trail), Hynix HCG8E 64 GB, IPS, 2160x1440, 12
Cube i7 Book CDK09
6Y30, HD Graphics 515, FORESEE 64GB O1229B, IPS, 1920x1080, 10.6
Cube i9
6Y30, HD Graphics 515, FORESEE 128GB O1229B, IPS, 1920x1200, 12.2
Microsoft Surface 3
Z8700, HD Graphics (Cherry Trail), 128 GB eMMC Flash, IPS, 1920x1280, 10.8
Acer Swift 1 SF114-31-P6F6
N3710, HD Graphics 405 (Braswell), 128 GB eMMC Flash, TN LED, 1366x768, 14
Power Consumption
21%
-180%
-132%
-70%
-100%
Idle Minimum *
2.6
1.7
35%
6.6
-154%
4.6
-77%
2.5
4%
4.1
-58%
Idle Average *
2.7
1.7
37%
10
-270%
9.6
-256%
7
-159%
8.3
-207%
Idle Maximum *
2.7
3.3
-22%
12
-344%
9.6
-256%
8.4
-211%
8.6
-219%
Load Average *
12.7
7.9
38%
21.1
-66%
18.6
-46%
11.2
12%
13.5
-6%
Load Maximum *
13.1
10.8
18%
22
-68%
16.3
-24%
12.4
5%
14.5
-11%

* ... smaller is better

Battery Life

During our Wi-Fi test with brightness set to 150 nits, the Tbook performed rather poorly. The average of all convertibles was a tad above 7 hours, with the Asus Transformer Book T302CA at the top of the list with a runtime of almost 13.5 hours.

Battery Runtime
WiFi Surfing v1.3
6h 16min
Big Buck Bunny H.264 1080p
7h 06min
Battery Runtime - WiFi Websurfing 1.3
Acer Swift 1 SF114-31-P6F6
N3710, HD Graphics 405 (Braswell)
661 min ∼100% +76%
Acer Switch One 10 SW1-011-14UQ
Z8300, HD Graphics (Cherry Trail)
533 min ∼81% +42%
Microsoft Surface Pro 4, Core m3
6Y30, HD Graphics 515
488 min ∼74% +30%
Chuwi Vi10 Ultimate 64GB
Z8300, HD Graphics (Cherry Trail)
435 min ∼66% +16%
Chuwi Hi12
Z8300, HD Graphics (Cherry Trail)
405 min ∼61% +8%
Teclast Tbook 16 Power
Z8750, HD Graphics 405 (Braswell)
376 min ∼57%
Chuwi Hi10 Pro
Z8300, HD Graphics (Cherry Trail)
364 min ∼55% -3%
Cube i7 Book CDK09
6Y30, HD Graphics 515
300 min ∼45% -20%
Cube i9
6Y30, HD Graphics 515
262 min ∼40% -30%
Teclast Tbook 10s
Z8350, HD Graphics (Cherry Trail)
228 min ∼34% -39%

Verdict

Pros

+ high quality
+ silent cooling
+ USB-C power delivery and DisplayPort

Cons

- problems accessing external USB(-C) devices
- high idle power consumption
- no charger included
- slow eMMC storage
- narrow touchpad
TBook 16 Power, affordable 2-in-1 convertible with some drawbacks
TBook 16 Power, affordable 2-in-1 convertible with some drawbacks

The Teclast Tbook 16 Power’s biggest selling point is its fast Atom x7 microprocessor. While it outperformed the Atom x5 competition, it was also much slower than its Core m3 and Pentium N3710 competitors. Especially in games, the Intel HD Graphics 405 was a huge disappointment.

Another big selling point is its preinstalled Android 6 operating system. During the short time we were able to use it, it performed very well and seemed snappy and smooth. Unfortunately, the dual-boot option disappeared after performing a Windows update, so we were unable to test it any further.

Overall, we suffered through a bunch of major and minor problems with our review unit. One morning, the display refused to show anything but white noise and the device had to be rebooted. For some reason, the edges remained brighter than the rest of the display for a couple of hours afterwards. The missing charger also caused some major headaches – neither Apple’s nor Inateck’s nor Anker’s USB-C charger worked well and consistently with the device. Sometimes, it refused to charge altogether; sometimes, it changed its mind every other second; and sometimes, it lost the connection after the battery was fully charged.

The integrated USB ports did not work as expected, and we were unable to use external SSDs, such as the G-Drive, the Angelbird, or the OCZ ones. Other devices, like an external hard drive or the SanDisk Extreme 900, worked flawlessly. Our guess is that the USB ports are not powerful enough. Standby was also a major issue with this device. Besides high standby battery drain the tablet sometimes simply stayed on with the display turned off and some background process causing a high CPU load thereby draining the battery completely in no time. We were not able to determine the cause of this; our best guess is that it’s a faulty or buggy device driver.

Besides all these problems, the tablet also has a couple of noticeable downsides by design: cameras, speakers, and touchpad. In addition, the device is currently not available for purchase in Europe yet due to its missing CE certification, and it can only be imported from China at the time of writing. Warranty and support thus fully depend on the dealer, and it comes with high duties and shipping costs.

However, there are some positive aspects as well. Despite being unsuited for outside use the display wasn’t too shabby. The case’s rigidity is excellent, and it offers a very pleasant touch and feel. We liked the total lack of system noise (no fan, no coil whining), and the MicroSD-card reader was comparatively fast.

We received our review unit from Gearbest directly from China, where it currently sells for around $310. The keyboard dock is an extra $35 and is, despite its drawbacks, definitely recommendable. 

Teclast Tbook 16 Power - 05/15/2017 v6
Klaus Hinum

Chassis
82 / 98 → 84%
Keyboard
72%
Pointing Device
83%
Connectivity
40 / 80 → 50%
Weight
77 / 78 → 97%
Battery
89%
Display
78%
Games Performance
35 / 68 → 52%
Application Performance
41 / 87 → 47%
Temperature
90%
Noise
100%
Audio
38 / 91 → 41%
Camera
26 / 85 → 31%
Add Points
-1%
Average
61%
79%
Convertible - Weighted Average

Pricecompare

static version load dynamic
Loading Comments
Comment this article
Please share our article, every link counts!
> Notebook / Laptop Reviews and News > Reviews > Teclast Tbook 16 Power 2-in-1 (x7-Z8750, 8 GB) Review
Klaus Hinum, 2017-05-19 (Update: 2017-05-23)