Urgent.News

What's breaking now, across thousands of outlets.

Tech

The Lenovo Legion Tab Gen 5 would be my perfect Steam tablet if it didn’t cost $900

For every Android-powered slate I’ve used, only Nvidia’s Shield Tablet really stands out in my memory. Part of the company’s occasional ( and all-but-dead ) dip into hardware products, the Shield Tablet — and its revitalized K1 follow-up, which I also owned through a recall program on the original — carried me through the back half of college, frequently keeping my Chromebook in my backpack in…

The Lenovo Legion Tab Gen 5 would be my perfect Steam tablet if it didn’t cost $900

The Lenovo Legion Tab Gen 5 stands out as a compelling Steam tablet option despite its hefty $900 price tag. Nvidia's Shield Tablet, once a standout choice, has faded from the market, leaving Lenovo to fill the gap. The Gen 5 tablet, much like its predecessor, boasts a 8.8-inch 16:10 LCD panel and a boxy matte-black design, reminiscent of the original Shield Tablet.

Its weight of 360 grams is slightly heavier than anticipated for a device of its size, but this is less noticeable when held in portrait mode. The tablet's display is sharp, fast, and reasonably bright, providing an excellent viewing experience for movies and gaming. Despite the absence of a built-in stylus, the tablet offers an overall satisfying experience.

However, the inclusion of a camera bump detracts from its flat-laying capability on a desk, and the tablet struggles with fingerprint smudges, a common issue with matte-black finishes. Despite these minor drawbacks, the Legion Tab Gen 5 appears to be a promising contender in the miniature gaming tablet market, offering a blend of nostalgia and modern advancements.

Written by urgent.news from 9to5Google's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.

Read the original at 9to5google.com →

More in Tech

Our service was slow, and the database was bored

A service I measured stopped at about 18,000 requests per second. Adding more concurrent clients didn't move it: 64 clients, 1,000 clients, 4,000 clients, all 18,000.

  • Service struggled with high request volume of 18,000 per second
  • Database was mostly idle, not the bottleneck
  • Batching requests improved performance to 252,000 requests per second

More from Wednesday 11 November →