An excellent screen and a well-documented weakness: performance that falls away under sustained load. Reviewers have used the phrase poor longevity specifically about how it holds power over time.
This entry is written from the 4 sources listed at the bottom of the page. The numbers are our editorial estimates drawn from that material, not measurements, and no statistical sample sits behind them.
It depends on how you will use it. 72% would buy it again, which means roughly 28% would not. Throttling under sustained load is the defining criticism.
The screen is still the best thing about it. If your work pushes the processor for more than a few minutes, you have already met the limitation.
Throttling under sustained load is the defining criticism. Burn-in is a real long-term OLED consideration. Battery degradation is noticeable by the second year.
Worth it for: Document, web and media work; People who want an OLED screen cheaply; Travel with light workloads. Think twice if: Sustained compiling, rendering or video work; Static interfaces displayed for hours; You are sensitive to fan noise.
Our reading of how sentiment moves across an ownership period, drawn from the sources below. It is an editorial estimate, not tracked longitudinal data.
| At purchase | 8.3 / 10 |
|---|---|
| First week | 8.4 / 10 |
| One month | 7.7 / 10 |
| Six months | 7.4 / 10 |
| One year | 7.3 / 10 |
| Two years or more | 7.3 / 10 |
Owner reviews move this score. The researched figure stays visible next to it, so you can always see what the sources said before anyone voted.
Leave a review on the live pageEvery complaint and every piece of praise above traces back to these. The summaries are ours; nothing is quoted, and no link, quote or username anywhere on this site is invented.
Review documenting sustained-performance drop-off.
Extended-use review with thermal measurements.
Measured review of sustained performance.
Owner discussion of battery and screen.