Notebookcheck Logo

Breve Análise do Phablet Xiaomi Mi Mix

O foco é a tela. A Xiaomi instala uma enorme tela de 6,4 polegadas em uma carcaça que é apenas um pouco maior que aquelas de smartphones de gama premium convencionais em seu novo phablet de gama alta. A partir de cerca de 700 Euros (~$737), não é exatamente uma barganha. Será que vale a pena importar o inovador aparelho?
Xiaomi Mi Mix (Mi Serie)
Processador
Qualcomm Snapdragon 821 MSM8996 Pro 4 x 2.4 GHz, Kryo
Placa gráfica
Memória
4 GB 
, LPDDR4
Pantalha
6.40 polegadas 17:9, 2040 x 1080 pixel 361 PPI, multitouch, Sharp FTE716, IPS, Brilhante: sim
Disco rígido
128 GB UFS 2.0 Flash, 128 GB 
, 119 GB livre
Conexões
1 USB 2.0, Conexões Audio: Conector de áudio de 3,5 mm, 1 Leitor de Impressões Digitais, NFC, Brightness Sensor, Sensores: acelerômetro, giroscópio e sensor de proximidade ultra sônico, bússola, barômetro, Miracast, USB-OTG, NFC, WiFi Direct
Funcionamento em rede
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac (a/b/g/n = Wi-Fi 4/ac = Wi-Fi 5/), Bluetooth 4.2, 2G (850/900/1800/1900 MHz), 3G (850/900/1900/2100 MHz), FDD-LTE: (bandas: 1/2/3/4/5/7/9), TD-LTE: (bandas 38/39/40/42), Dual SIM, LTE, GPS
Tamanho
altura x largura x profundidade (em mm): 7.9 x 158.8 x 81.9
Bateria
16.6 Wh, 4400 mAh Lítio-Ion
Sistema Operativo
Android 6.0 Marshmallow
Camera
Primary Camera: 16 MPix (auto-foco f/2.0, 2160p videos @ 30 fps)
Secondary Camera: 5 MPix 5 MPix (fix-focus f/2.2, 1080p videos @ 30 fps)
Características adicionais
Alto falantes: Alto falante mono na borda inferior, fone com sistema de áudi em cerâmica, Teclado: virtual, carregador, cabo de dados, capa de couro, Miui 8, Mi apps, 12 Meses Garantia, fanless
peso
209 g, Suprimento de energia: 63 g
Preço
0 Euro
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

 

Mi Mix front
Mi Mix front
Mi Mix front
Mi Mix closeup
Mi Mix closeup
Mi Mix closeup
Mi Mix rear
Mi Mix closeup
Mi Mix in the leather case
Mi Mix in the leather case

Size Comparison

158.8 mm 81.9 mm 7.9 mm 209 g158.2 mm 77.9 mm 7.3 mm 188 g156.9 mm 78.9 mm 7.9 mm 192 g154.7 mm 75.7 mm 8.5 mm 168 g151.9 mm 78.4 mm 8.3 mm 165 g152.7 mm 74.7 mm 7.35 mm 158 g150.9 mm 72.6 mm 7.7 mm 157 g148 mm 105 mm 1 mm 1.5 g
Networking
iperf3 transmit AX12
Apple iPhone 7
A10 Fusion GPU, A10 Fusion, 128 GB NVMe (Klaus I211)
485 MBit/s +107%
Google Pixel XL 2016
Adreno 530, SD 821, 32 GB eMMC Flash
435 MBit/s +86%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
Mali-T880 MP12, Exynos 8890, 32 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
335 MBit/s +43%
OnePlus 3T
Adreno 530, SD 821, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
313 MBit/s +34%
Xiaomi Mi Mix
Adreno 530, SD 821, 128 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
234 MBit/s
Huawei Mate 9
Mali-G71 MP8, Kirin 960, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
165 MBit/s -29%
iperf3 receive AX12
Apple iPhone 7
A10 Fusion GPU, A10 Fusion, 128 GB NVMe (Klaus I211)
532 MBit/s +84%
Google Pixel XL 2016
Adreno 530, SD 821, 32 GB eMMC Flash
515 MBit/s +78%
Xiaomi Mi Mix
Adreno 530, SD 821, 128 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
289 MBit/s
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
Mali-T880 MP12, Exynos 8890, 32 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
281 MBit/s -3%
Huawei Mate 9
Mali-G71 MP8, Kirin 960, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
259 MBit/s -10%
OnePlus 3T
Adreno 530, SD 821, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
257 MBit/s -11%
Garmin Edge 500 - route
Garmin Edge 500 - route
Garmin Edge 500 - underpass
Garmin Edge 500 - underpass
Garmin Edge 500 - turning point
Garmin Edge 500 - turning point
Xiaomi Mi Mix - route
Xiaomi Mi Mix - route
Xiaomi Mi Mix - underpass
Xiaomi Mi Mix - underpass
Xiaomi Mi Mix - turning point
Xiaomi Mi Mix - turning point

Image Comparison

Choose a scene and navigate within the first image. One click changes the position on touchscreens. One click on the zoomed-in image opens the original in a new window. The first image shows the scaled photograph of the test device.

Scene 1Scene 2Scene 3
536
cd/m²
571
cd/m²
572
cd/m²
559
cd/m²
577
cd/m²
602
cd/m²
583
cd/m²
585
cd/m²
598
cd/m²
Distribuição do brilho
Sharp FTE716 tested with X-Rite i1Pro 2
Máximo: 602 cd/m² (Nits) Médio: 575.9 cd/m² Minimum: 1.27 cd/m²
iluminação: 89 %
iluminação com acumulador: 530 cd/m²
Contraste: 1374:1 (Preto: 0.42 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 2.7 | 0.5-29.43 Ø5
ΔE Greyscale 4.2 | 0.57-98 Ø5.3
Gamma: 2.23
Xiaomi Mi Mix
IPS, 2040x1080, 6.40
Huawei Mate 9
IPS, 1920x1080, 5.90
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
Super AMOLED, 2560x1440, 5.50
Google Pixel XL 2016
AMOLED, 2560x1440, 5.50
OnePlus 3T
Optic-AMOLED, 1920x1080, 5.50
Microsoft Lumia 950 XL
AMOLED, 2560x1440, 5.70
Apple iPhone 7 Plus
IPS, 1920x1080, 5.50
Screen
Brightness middle
577
696
21%
554
-4%
402
-30%
421
-27%
297
-49%
557
-3%
Brightness
576
680
18%
552
-4%
408
-29%
430
-25%
297
-48%
553
-4%
Brightness Distribution
89
93
4%
96
8%
85
-4%
84
-6%
93
4%
97
9%
Black Level *
0.42
0.42
-0%
0.35
17%
Contrast
1374
1657
21%
1591
16%
Colorchecker dE 2000 *
2.7
4.3
-59%
1.59
41%
4
-48%
7.1
-163%
2.67
1%
1.4
48%
Colorchecker dE 2000 max. *
6.9
9.4
-36%
2.56
63%
10.1
-46%
15.3
-122%
3.98
42%
3.1
55%
Greyscale dE 2000 *
4.2
4.8
-14%
2.01
52%
3.2
24%
6.8
-62%
2.81
33%
1.3
69%
Gamma
2.23 99%
2.33 94%
2.01 109%
2.19 100%
2.23 99%
2.08 106%
2.21 100%
CCT
7287 89%
7255 90%
6321 103%
7037 92%
7866 83%
6379 102%
6667 97%
Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998)
82.12
66.31
63.1
Color Space (Percent of sRGB)
99.98
99.79
99.83

* ... smaller is better

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 1136 Hz ≤ 10 % brightness setting

The display backlight flickers at 1136 Hz (worst case, e.g., utilizing PWM) Flickering detected at a brightness setting of 10 % and below. There should be no flickering or PWM above this brightness setting.

The frequency of 1136 Hz is quite high, so most users sensitive to PWM should not notice any flickering.

In comparison: 53 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 17900 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 3846000) Hz was measured.

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
37.2 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 10.4 ms rise
↘ 26.8 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. » 95 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (21.5 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
36 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 14.8 ms rise
↘ 21.2 ms fall
The screen shows slow response rates in our tests and will be unsatisfactory for gamers.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.2 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 44 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is similar to the average of all tested devices (33.7 ms).
Grayscale (contrast: auto, target color space: sRGB)
Grayscale (contrast: auto, target color space: sRGB)
ColorChecker (contrast: auto, target color space: sRGB)
ColorChecker (contrast: auto, target color space: sRGB)
Saturation Sweeps (contrast: auto, target color space: sRGB)
Saturation Sweeps (contrast: auto, target color space: sRGB)
Colorspace (contrast: auto, target color space: sRGB)
Colorspace (contrast: auto, target color space: sRGB)
Grayscale (contrast: standard, target color space: sRGB)
Grayscale (contrast: standard, target color space: sRGB)
ColorChecker (contrast: standard, target color space: sRGB)
ColorChecker (contrast: standard, target color space: sRGB)
Saturation Sweeps (contrast: standard, target color space: sRGB)
Saturation Sweeps (contrast: standard, target color space: sRGB)
Colorspace (contrast: standard, target color space: AdobeRGB)
Colorspace (contrast: standard, target color space: AdobeRGB)
AnTuTu v6 - Total Score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix
138072 Points
Huawei Mate 9
124087 Points -10%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
128749 Points -7%
Google Pixel XL 2016
138641 Points 0%
OnePlus 3T
159866 Points +16%
Microsoft Lumia 950 XL
94122 Points -32%
Apple iPhone 7 Plus
165399 Points +20%
Geekbench 4.0
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix
4261 Points
Huawei Mate 9
5629 Points +32%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
5503 Points +29%
Google Pixel XL 2016
4167 Points -2%
OnePlus 3T
4236 Points -1%
Apple iPhone 7 Plus
5630 Points +32%
64 Bit Single-Core Score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix
1804 Points
Huawei Mate 9
1947 Points +8%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
1840 Points +2%
Google Pixel XL 2016
1513 Points -16%
OnePlus 3T
1881 Points +4%
Apple iPhone 7 Plus
3476 Points +93%
Compute RenderScript Score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix
7577 Points
Huawei Mate 9
3191 Points -58%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
2805 Points -63%
Google Pixel XL 2016
7047 Points -7%
PCMark for Android - Work performance score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix
5179 Points
Huawei Mate 9
7403 Points +43%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
4660 Points -10%
Google Pixel XL 2016
4739 Points -8%
OnePlus 3T
5664 Points +9%
BaseMark OS II
Web (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix
1026 Points
Huawei Mate 9
1076 Points +5%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
994 Points -3%
Google Pixel XL 2016
977 Points -5%
OnePlus 3T
891 Points -13%
Microsoft Lumia 950 XL
837 Points -18%
Apple iPhone 7 Plus
1542 Points +50%
Graphics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix
3415 Points
Huawei Mate 9
3939 Points +15%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
2203 Points -35%
Google Pixel XL 2016
5017 Points +47%
OnePlus 3T
4444 Points +30%
Microsoft Lumia 950 XL
2040 Points -40%
Apple iPhone 7 Plus
6875 Points +101%
System (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix
3399 Points
Huawei Mate 9
3616 Points +6%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
4080 Points +20%
Google Pixel XL 2016
3889 Points +14%
OnePlus 3T
3130 Points -8%
Microsoft Lumia 950 XL
1386 Points -59%
Apple iPhone 7 Plus
6582 Points +94%
Overall (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix
2136 Points
Huawei Mate 9
2772 Points +30%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
2074 Points -3%
Google Pixel XL 2016
2378 Points +11%
OnePlus 3T
2218 Points +4%
Microsoft Lumia 950 XL
1465 Points -31%
Apple iPhone 7 Plus
3097 Points +45%
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7
T-Rex Onscreen (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix
60 fps
Huawei Mate 9
60 fps 0%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
51 fps -15%
Google Pixel XL 2016
55 fps -8%
OnePlus 3T
59 fps -2%
Microsoft Lumia 950 XL
18.75 fps -69%
Apple iPhone 7 Plus
57.7 fps -4%
1920x1080 T-Rex Offscreen (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix
85 fps
Huawei Mate 9
80 fps -6%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
81 fps -5%
Google Pixel XL 2016
91 fps +7%
OnePlus 3T
91 fps +7%
Microsoft Lumia 950 XL
27.11 fps -68%
Apple iPhone 7 Plus
92 fps +8%
GFXBench 3.0
1920x1080 1080p Manhattan Offscreen (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix
47 fps
Huawei Mate 9
34 fps -28%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
38 fps -19%
Google Pixel XL 2016
48 fps +2%
OnePlus 3T
46 fps -2%
Microsoft Lumia 950 XL
17.54 fps -63%
Apple iPhone 7 Plus
58.7 fps +25%
on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix
47 fps
Huawei Mate 9
37 fps -21%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
27 fps -43%
Google Pixel XL 2016
30 fps -36%
OnePlus 3T
45 fps -4%
Microsoft Lumia 950 XL
11.81 fps -75%
Apple iPhone 7 Plus
55.2 fps +17%
GFXBench 3.1
1920x1080 Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix
30 fps
Huawei Mate 9
24 fps -20%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
28 fps -7%
Google Pixel XL 2016
32 fps +7%
OnePlus 3T
32 fps +7%
Apple iPhone 7 Plus
41.3 fps +38%
on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix
31 fps
Huawei Mate 9
28 fps -10%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
15 fps -52%
Google Pixel XL 2016
17 fps -45%
OnePlus 3T
32 fps +3%
Apple iPhone 7 Plus
41.5 fps +34%
3DMark
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix
32263 Points
Huawei Mate 9
27364 Points -15%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
28671 Points -11%
Google Pixel XL 2016
27766 Points -14%
OnePlus 3T
30810 Points -5%
Apple iPhone 7 Plus
37746 Points +17%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Graphics Score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix
36559 Points
Huawei Mate 9
35626 Points -3%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
33031 Points -10%
Google Pixel XL 2016
32652 Points -11%
OnePlus 3T
34494 Points -6%
Apple iPhone 7 Plus
63386 Points +73%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix
22860 Points
Huawei Mate 9
15104 Points -34%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
19610 Points -14%
Google Pixel XL 2016
18222 Points -20%
OnePlus 3T
22426 Points -2%
Apple iPhone 7 Plus
15626 Points -32%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix
1990 Points
Huawei Mate 9
2123 Points +7%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
2002 (1539min) Points +1%
Google Pixel XL 2016
1902 Points -4%
OnePlus 3T
1452 Points -27%
Apple iPhone 7 Plus
1522 Points -24%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix
3874 Points
Huawei Mate 9
2448 Points -37%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
3015 (2895min) Points -22%
Google Pixel XL 2016
3935 Points +2%
OnePlus 3T
3310 Points -15%
Apple iPhone 7 Plus
4235 Points +9%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix
3200 Points
Huawei Mate 9
2367 Points -26%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
2710 (2421min) Points -15%
Google Pixel XL 2016
3180 Points -1%
OnePlus 3T
2577 Points -19%
Apple iPhone 7 Plus
3034 Points -5%

Legend

 
Xiaomi Mi Mix Qualcomm Snapdragon 821 MSM8996 Pro, Qualcomm Adreno 530, 128 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
 
Huawei Mate 9 HiSilicon Kirin 960, ARM Mali-G71 MP8, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
 
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge Samsung Exynos 8890 Octa, ARM Mali-T880 MP12, 32 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
 
Google Pixel XL 2016 Qualcomm Snapdragon 821 MSM8996 Pro, Qualcomm Adreno 530, 32 GB eMMC Flash
 
OnePlus 3T Qualcomm Snapdragon 821 MSM8996 Pro, Qualcomm Adreno 530, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
 
Microsoft Lumia 950 XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 810 MSM8994, Qualcomm Adreno 430, 32 GB eMMC Flash
 
Apple iPhone 7 Plus Apple A10 Fusion, Apple A10 Fusion GPU / PowerVR, 128 GB NVMe
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix
2404 ms *
Huawei Mate 9
2734 ms * -14%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
2564 ms * -7%
Google Pixel XL 2016
2654 ms * -10%
OnePlus 3T
2719 ms * -13%
Microsoft Lumia 950 XL
5553 ms * -131%
Apple iPhone 7 Plus
1103 ms * +54%
Octane V2 - Total Score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix
9608 Points
Huawei Mate 9
11897 Points +24%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
13191 Points +37%
Google Pixel XL 2016
8690 Points -10%
OnePlus 3T
9798 Points +2%
Microsoft Lumia 950 XL
8059 Points -16%
Apple iPhone 7 Plus
26053 Points +171%
WebXPRT 2015 - Overall (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix
107 Points
Huawei Mate 9
152 Points +42%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
163 Points +52%
Google Pixel XL 2016
126 Points +18%
OnePlus 3T
135 Points +26%
Microsoft Lumia 950 XL
113 Points +6%
Apple iPhone 7 Plus
204 Points +91%
JetStream 1.1 - Total Score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix
58.4 Points
Huawei Mate 9
68.6 Points +17%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
75.1 Points +29%
Google Pixel XL 2016
55.4 Points -5%
OnePlus 3T
54.5 Points -7%
Microsoft Lumia 950 XL
46 Points -21%
Apple iPhone 7 Plus
168.1 Points +188%

* ... smaller is better

Xiaomi Mi MixHuawei Mate 9Samsung Galaxy S7 EdgeGoogle Pixel XL 2016OnePlus 3TMicrosoft Lumia 950 XLApple iPhone 7 Plus
AndroBench 3-5
Random Read 4KB
116.6
94.7
-19%
86.7
-26%
87.7
-25%
123.6
6%
Random Write 4KB
15.15
8.77
-42%
15.79
4%
14.56
-4%
74.4
391%
Sequential Write 256KB
161.3
142.9
-11%
145.1
-10%
83.4
-48%
165.3
2%
Sequential Read 256KB
409.9
594
45%
487.3
19%
258.2
-37%
436.4
6%
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard
29.53
50.4
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard
54
76.4
BaseMark OS II
Memory
1747
3850
120%
2072
19%
1677
-4%
1954
12%
1945
11%
1319
-24%
Asphalt 8: Airborne
 ConfiguraçõesValor
 high29 fps
 very low29 fps
Real Racing 3
 ConfiguraçõesValor
 high51 fps
 low60 fps
Carga Máxima
 40.1 °C40.2 °C37.9 °C 
 38 °C39.4 °C39.4 °C 
 36.4 °C37.3 °C39.6 °C 
Máximo: 40.2 °C
Médio: 38.7 °C
32.3 °C33.7 °C36.2 °C
32.4 °C32.9 °C36.2 °C
31.9 °C32.6 °C33.6 °C
Máximo: 36.2 °C
Médio: 33.5 °C
alimentação elétrica  32.6 °C | Temperatura do quarto 21.4 °C | Voltcraft IR-260
(-) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 38.7 °C / 102 F, compared to the average of 32.7 °C / 91 F for the devices in the class Smartphone.
(±) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 40.2 °C / 104 F, compared to the average of 35 °C / 95 F, ranging from 21.9 to 56 °C for the class Smartphone.
(+) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 36.2 °C / 97 F, compared to the average of 33.8 °C / 93 F
(±) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 32 °C / 90 F, compared to the device average of 32.7 °C / 91 F.
dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2031.643.72525.436.73125.3364032.934.65033.649.86331.637.48028.429.61002732.912520.837.71602246.920021.353.725020.858.931521.26340019.465.650019.566.663017.769.380017.968.3100017.870.6125017.372.2160017.475.7200016.776.7250017.277.2315018.276.3400017.974.4500017.678.7630017.778.5800017.881.41000017.980.51250018.167.91600018.255.8SPL3088.4N1.375.4median 17.9median 70.6Delta1.48.731.635.725.424.825.324.932.925.633.635.131.630.128.423.32724.820.828.72235.521.343.320.849.321.253.719.455.119.56017.763.317.961.917.863.517.367.117.461.116.77017.272.618.274.117.976.217.675.717.773.917.871.517.972.518.166.718.254.13083.91.353.7median 17.9median 63.31.410.7hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseXiaomi Mi MixHuawei Mate 9
Xiaomi Mi Mix audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (88.4 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 21.8% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 3.2% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (3.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 7.5% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (3.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (18.9% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 17% of all tested devices in this class were better, 9% similar, 74% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 38%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 39% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 54% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%

Huawei Mate 9 audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (83.9 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 24.1% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (11.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 3.2% away from median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (8.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 10.4% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (3.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (25.2% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 56% of all tested devices in this class were better, 8% similar, 36% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 38%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 73% of all tested devices were better, 6% similar, 21% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%

Consumo de energia
desligadodarklight 0.08 / 0.29 Watt
Ociosodarkmidlight 0.87 / 2.16 / 2.28 Watt
Carga midlight 9.21 / 11.76 Watt
 color bar
Key: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        Metrahit Energy
Currently we use the Metrahit Energy, a professional single phase power quality and energy measurement digital multimeter, for our measurements. Find out more about it here. All of our test methods can be found here.
Xiaomi Mi Mix
4400 mAh
Huawei Mate 9
4000 mAh
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
3600 mAh
Google Pixel XL 2016
3450 mAh
OnePlus 3T
3400 mAh
Microsoft Lumia 950 XL
3340 mAh
Apple iPhone 7 Plus
2915 mAh
Power Consumption
18%
37%
45%
21%
-57%
19%
Idle Minimum *
0.87
0.78
10%
0.63
28%
0.53
39%
0.61
30%
2.85
-228%
0.77
11%
Idle Average *
2.16
2.13
1%
1.1
49%
1.07
50%
1.77
18%
2.95
-37%
2.04
6%
Idle Maximum *
2.28
2.17
5%
1.56
32%
1.12
51%
1.81
21%
3.26
-43%
2.24
2%
Load Average *
9.21
6.32
31%
5.95
35%
5.53
40%
6.67
28%
8.92
3%
4.69
49%
Load Maximum *
11.76
6.49
45%
6.7
43%
6.26
47%
10.98
7%
9.39
20%
8.66
26%

* ... smaller is better

Tempo de Execução da Bateria
Ocioso (sem WLAN, min brilho)
29h 57min
WiFi Websurfing (Chrome 55)
10h 44min
Big Buck Bunny H.264 1080p
16h 04min
Carga (máximo brilho)
4h 52min
Xiaomi Mi Mix
4400 mAh
Huawei Mate 9
4000 mAh
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
3600 mAh
Google Pixel XL 2016
3450 mAh
OnePlus 3T
3400 mAh
Microsoft Lumia 950 XL
3340 mAh
Apple iPhone 7 Plus
2915 mAh
Battery Runtime
-6%
9%
-29%
-16%
-40%
-12%
Reader / Idle
1797
1538
-14%
1663
-7%
1333
-26%
1423
-21%
1078
-40%
1835
2%
H.264
964
947
-2%
914
-5%
505
-48%
810
-16%
611
-37%
813
-16%
WiFi v1.3
644
758
18%
732
14%
505
-22%
494
-23%
369
-43%
587
-9%
Load
292
219
-25%
392
34%
230
-21%
282
-3%
179
-39%
225
-23%

Pro

+ Tela impressionante
+ Carcaça sólida e de alta qualidade
+ Dual-SIM
+ Miracast, USB OTG, e NFC
+ MIUI 8.0 com muitos recursos extra
+ Leitor de digitais confiável
+ Alto desempenho
+ Capa de couro inclusa
+ Longa duração da bateria

Contra

- Se afoga sob carga permanente
- Carcaça suscetível a digitais
- Sem headset incluído
- Bateria não removível
- Câmera sem estabilizador de imagem
- Se localização na Alemanha
- Tradução incompleta para o inglês
- Sem Google services de fábrica
- Sem LTE banda 20
In review: Xiaomi Mi Mix. Review sample courtesy of TradingShenzen.com
In review: Xiaomi Mi Mix. Review sample courtesy of TradingShenzen.com

O destaque do Mi Mix certamente é sua incomum tela IPS de 6,4 polegadas que é incorporada quase sem bordas em uma elegante carcaça de cerâmica. Não apenas sua grande superfície é impressionante, mas também sua resolução, brilho, e contraste são aptos para o dia a dia. Os detalhes como as esquinas arredondadas fornecem à tela um visual futurista. O phablet também é bem atualizado. Com o SoC premium da Qualcomm, 4 GB de RAM, e armazenamento UFS 2.0 de 128 GB, o aparelho sempre funciona fluentemente e lança aplicativos sem longos tempos de espera. Não existem muito motivos de reclamo em termos de conectividade graças ao NFC integrado, USB OTG, Miracast, e Bluetooth 4.2. O confiável leitor de digitais, a capa de couro inclusa e a porta USB Type-C reversível também são recursos convenientes para o uso diários. É uma pena que a câmera não tenha um estabilizador ótico de imagem e que a banda 20 LTE, utilizada com frequência na Europa não seja suportada.

Os usuários europeus terão que fazer compromissos no software. A interface do usuário da Xiaomi vem com muitos extras úteis, mas um pacote do idioma alemão não está disponível e a tradução para o inglês não está completa. Além disso, os serviços Google não estão pré-carregados, à diferença de virtualmente todos os aparelhos Android oficialmente disponíveis na Alemanha. No entanto, os ROMs  alternativos, ou a instalação da Play Store podem resolver esse problema.

O Xiaomi Mi Mix se destaca entre os outros smartphones e phablets de gama alta especialmente com seu inovador design da tela. Infelizmente, o aparelho não foi otimizado para seu uso na Europa como foi notado no limitado suporte para LTE e tradução incompleta.

O Mi Mix somente está disponível na Europe mediante importadores, como TradingShenzen que nos emprestou o modelo de teste. Ele atualmente custa 677 Euros (~$713) mais envio e um possível imposto de importação. Um alternativa interessante é definitivamente o novo phablet Huawei  Mate 9 que atualmente custa cerca de 700 Euros (~$737). Embora o comprador não encontre a incomum tela  do modelo de teste aqui, as redes LTE europeias e a interface do usuário feita para a China não serão problema.

Xiaomi Mi Mix - 01/02/2017 v6(old)
Andreas Kilian

Acabamento
89%
Teclado
72 / 75 → 95%
Mouse
95%
Conectividade
47 / 60 → 78%
Peso
88%
Bateria
95%
Pantalha
87%
Desempenho do jogos
60 / 63 → 96%
Desempenho da aplicação
59 / 70 → 85%
Temperatura
89%
Ruído
100%
Audio
70 / 91 → 77%
Camera
73%
Médio
79%
87%
Smartphone - Médio equilibrado

Pricecompare

Please share our article, every link counts!
> Análises e revisões de portáteis e celulares > Análises > Análises > Breve Análise do Phablet Xiaomi Mi Mix
Andreas Kilian, 2017-01-18 (Update: 2017-05-23)