Deutsch
English
Español
Français
Italiano
Nederlands
Polski
Русский
Türkçe
Svenska
Chinese
MagyarBreve Análise do Smartphone Samsung Galaxy Note 8
Samsung Galaxy Note 8 (Galaxy Note Serie)
Processador
Samsung Exynos 8895 Octa 8 x 2.3 GHz, Mongoose / Cortex-A53
Placa gráfica
ARM Mali-G71 MP20, Análises do: 850 MHz
Memória
6 GB
, LPDDR4x
Pantalha
6.30 polegadas 2.06:1, 2960 x 1440 pixel 522 PPI, capacitiva, 10 pontos multitouch, native pen support, Infinity Display, Super AMOLED, Corning Gorilla Glass 5, Brilhante: sim
Disco rígido
64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash, 64 GB
, 51 GB livre
peso
195 g, Suprimento de energia: 62 g
Preço
999 Euro
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Infinity Display tested with X-Rite i1Pro 2
Máximo: 560 cd/m² (Nits) Médio: 536 cd/m² Minimum: 1.84 cd/m²iluminação: 93 %
iluminação com acumulador: 530 cd/m²
Contraste: ∞:1 (Preto: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 2.6 | 0.5-29.43 Ø5
ΔE Greyscale 2.7 | 0.57-98 Ø5.3
Gamma: 2.04
| Samsung Galaxy Note 8 Super AMOLED, 2960x1440, 6.30 | Samsung Galaxy Note 7 Dual Edge Super AMOLED, 2560x1440, 5.70 | Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus Super AMOLED, 2960x1440, 6.20 | Huawei Mate 9 IPS, 1920x1080, 5.90 | Apple iPhone 7 Plus IPS, 1920x1080, 5.50 | Sony Xperia XZ Premium IPS, 3840x2160, 5.50 | Honor 8 Pro IPS, 2560x1440, 5.70 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Screen | 12% | 20% | -28% | 25% | 0% | -19% | |
| Brightness middle | 530 | 544 3% | 560 6% | 696 31% | 557 5% | 578 9% | 541 2% |
| Brightness | 536 | 523 -2% | 562 5% | 680 27% | 553 3% | 568 6% | 514 -4% |
| Brightness Distribution | 93 | 84 -10% | 93 0% | 93 0% | 97 4% | 92 -1% | 91 -2% |
| Black Level * | 0.42 | 0.35 | 0.62 | 0.3 | |||
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 2.6 | 1.9 27% | 1.7 35% | 4.3 -65% | 1.4 46% | 2.8 -8% | 3.2 -23% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 5.1 | 4.2 18% | 3.4 33% | 9.4 -84% | 3.1 39% | 5.1 -0% | 7.2 -41% |
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 2.7 | 1.8 33% | 1.6 41% | 4.8 -78% | 1.3 52% | 2.8 -4% | 4 -48% |
| Gamma | 2.04 108% | 2.12 104% | 2.13 103% | 2.33 94% | 2.21 100% | 2.15 102% | 2.27 97% |
| CCT | 6206 105% | 6449 101% | 6435 101% | 7255 90% | 6667 97% | 6728 97% | 7120 91% |
| Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998) | 83.92 | 81.57 | 63.1 | ||||
| Color Space (Percent of sRGB) | 100 | 99.87 | 99.83 | ||||
| Contrast | 1657 | 1591 | 932 | 1803 |
* ... smaller is better
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
ℹ
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 | 257.7 Hz |  | |
The display backlight flickers at 257.7 Hz (worst case, e.g., utilizing PWM) . The frequency of 257.7 Hz is relatively high, so most users sensitive to PWM should not notice any flickering. However, there are reports that some users are still sensitive to PWM at 500 Hz and above, so be aware. In comparison: 53 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 17942 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 3846000) Hz was measured. | |||
Display Response Times
ℹ
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 4 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 2 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 2 ms fall | ||
| The screen shows very fast response rates in our tests and should be very well suited for fast-paced gaming. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.1 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 11 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (21.5 ms). | ||
| ↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey | ||
| 4.8 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 2 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 2.8 ms fall | ||
| The screen shows very fast response rates in our tests and should be very well suited for fast-paced gaming. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.2 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 11 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (33.8 ms). | ||
AnTuTu v6 | PCMark for Android | BaseMark OS II | Geekbench 4.4 | 3DMark | GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7 | GFXBench 3.0 | GFXBench 3.1 | GFXBench | Lightmark | Basemark X 1.1 | Basemark ES 3.1 / Metal | Epic Citadel
| AnTuTu v6 - Total Score (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 8 | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 7 | |
| Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus | |
| Huawei Mate 9 | |
| LG V30 | |
| HTC U11 | |
| Honor 8 Pro | |
| HP Elite x3 | |
| Apple iPhone 7 Plus | |
| PCMark for Android | |
| Work performance score (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 8 | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 7 | |
| Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus | |
| Huawei Mate 9 | |
| LG V30 | |
| HTC U11 | |
| Honor 8 Pro | |
| Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 8 | |
| Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus | |
| Huawei Mate 9 | |
| LG V30 | |
| HTC U11 | |
| Honor 8 Pro | |
| Geekbench 4.4 | |
| 64 Bit Single-Core Score (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 8 | |
| Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus | |
| Huawei Mate 9 | |
| LG V30 | |
| HTC U11 | |
| Honor 8 Pro | |
| 64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 8 | |
| Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus | |
| Huawei Mate 9 | |
| LG V30 | |
| HTC U11 | |
| Honor 8 Pro | |
| Compute RenderScript Score (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 8 | |
| Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus | |
| Huawei Mate 9 | |
| LG V30 | |
| HTC U11 | |
| GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7 | |
| T-Rex Onscreen (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 8 | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 7 | |
| Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus | |
| Huawei Mate 9 | |
| LG V30 | |
| HTC U11 | |
| Honor 8 Pro | |
| HP Elite x3 | |
| Apple iPhone 7 Plus | |
| 1920x1080 T-Rex Offscreen (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 8 | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 7 | |
| Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus | |
| Huawei Mate 9 | |
| LG V30 | |
| HTC U11 | |
| Honor 8 Pro | |
| HP Elite x3 | |
| Apple iPhone 7 Plus | |
| GFXBench 3.0 | |
| on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 8 | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 7 | |
| Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus | |
| Huawei Mate 9 | |
| LG V30 | |
| HTC U11 | |
| Honor 8 Pro | |
| Apple iPhone 7 Plus | |
| 1920x1080 1080p Manhattan Offscreen (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 8 | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 7 | |
| Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus | |
| Huawei Mate 9 | |
| LG V30 | |
| HTC U11 | |
| Honor 8 Pro | |
| Apple iPhone 7 Plus | |
| GFXBench 3.1 | |
| on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 8 | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 7 | |
| Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus | |
| Huawei Mate 9 | |
| LG V30 | |
| HTC U11 | |
| Honor 8 Pro | |
| HP Elite x3 | |
| Apple iPhone 7 Plus | |
| 1920x1080 Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 8 | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 7 | |
| Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus | |
| Huawei Mate 9 | |
| LG V30 | |
| HTC U11 | |
| Honor 8 Pro | |
| HP Elite x3 | |
| Apple iPhone 7 Plus | |
| GFXBench | |
| on screen Car Chase Onscreen (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 8 | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 7 | |
| Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus | |
| Huawei Mate 9 | |
| LG V30 | |
| HTC U11 | |
| Honor 8 Pro | |
| 1920x1080 Car Chase Offscreen (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 8 | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 7 | |
| Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus | |
| Huawei Mate 9 | |
| LG V30 | |
| HTC U11 | |
| Honor 8 Pro | |
| Lightmark - 1920x1080 1080p (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 8 | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 7 | |
| Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus | |
| Huawei Mate 9 | |
| HTC U11 | |
| Basemark ES 3.1 / Metal - offscreen Overall Score (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 8 | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 7 | |
| Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus | |
| Huawei Mate 9 | |
| HTC U11 | |
| Apple iPhone 7 Plus | |
| Epic Citadel - Ultra High Quality (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 8 | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 7 | |
| Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus | |
| Huawei Mate 9 | |
| HTC U11 | |
| JetStream 1.1 - Total Score | |
| Apple iPhone 7 Plus (Safari Mobile 10.0) | |
| OnePlus 5 (Chrome 59) | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 8 (Samsung Browser 6.0) | |
| HTC U11 (Chrome 58) | |
| Huawei Mate 9 (Chrome 54) | |
| Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus (Samsung Browser 5.2) | |
| Sony Xperia XZ Premium (Chrome 59) | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 7 (Chrome Mobile 44.0.2403.133) | |
| Honor 8 Pro (Chrome Version 57) | |
| HP Elite x3 | |
| Octane V2 - Total Score | |
| Apple iPhone 7 Plus (Safari Mobile 10.0) | |
| Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus (Samsung Browser 5.2) | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 8 (Samsung Browser 6.0) | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 7 (Chrome Mobile 44.0.2403.133) | |
| OnePlus 5 (Chrome 59) | |
| Huawei Mate 9 (Chrome 54) | |
| HTC U11 (Chrome 58) | |
| Sony Xperia XZ Premium (Chrome 59) | |
| Honor 8 Pro (Chrome Version 57) | |
| HP Elite x3 (Edge 1.14393) | |
| Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total | |
| HP Elite x3 (Edge 1.14393) | |
| Sony Xperia XZ Premium (Chrome 59) | |
| Honor 8 Pro (Chrome Version 57) | |
| HTC U11 (Chrome 58) | |
| Huawei Mate 9 (Chrome 54) | |
| OnePlus 5 (Chrome 59) | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 7 (Chrome Mobile 44.0.2403.133) | |
| Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus (Samsung Browser 5.2) | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 8 (Samsung Browser 6.0) | |
| Apple iPhone 7 Plus (Safari Mobile 10.0) | |
| WebXPRT 2015 - Overall | |
| Apple iPhone 7 Plus | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 7 (Chrome Mobile 44.0.2403.133) | |
| HTC U11 (Chrome 58) | |
| OnePlus 5 (Chrome 59) | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 8 (Samsung Browser 6.0) | |
| Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus (Samsung Browser 5.2) | |
| Huawei Mate 9 (Chrome 54) | |
| Sony Xperia XZ Premium (Chrome 59) | |
| Honor 8 Pro (Chrome Version 57) | |
| HP Elite x3 (Edge 1.14393) | |
* ... smaller is better
| Samsung Galaxy Note 8 | Samsung Galaxy Note 7 | Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus | Huawei Mate 9 | HTC U11 | Honor 8 Pro | Sony Xperia XZ Premium | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AndroBench 3-5 | -21% | 1% | -32% | 66% | 149% | -22% | |
| Sequential Read 256KB | 797 | 484.6 -39% | 788 -1% | 594 -25% | 717 -10% | 738 -7% | 687 -14% |
| Sequential Write 256KB | 205.9 | 135.2 -34% | 194.2 -6% | 142.9 -31% | 206.4 0% | 187.1 -9% | 194 -6% |
| Random Read 4KB | 122.5 | 82.7 -32% | 127.2 4% | 94.7 -23% | 91.4 -25% | 166.4 36% | 74.1 -40% |
| Random Write 4KB | 14.55 | 14.72 1% | 15.27 5% | 8.77 -40% | 80 450% | 151.6 942% | 17.2 18% |
| Sequential Read 256KB SDCard | 67.9 ? | 72.4 ? 7% | 71.1 ? 5% | 54 ? -20% | 68.8 ? 1% | 54.2 ? -20% | 36.79 ? -46% |
| Sequential Write 256KB SDCard | 59.3 ? | 43.84 ? -26% | 57.2 ? -4% | 29.53 ? -50% | 46.25 ? -22% | 32.16 ? -46% | 33.31 ? -44% |
(±) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 34 °C / 93 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 35.7 °C / 96 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 36.4 °C / 98 F, compared to the average of 33.8 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 30.1 °C / 86 F, compared to the device average of 32.7 °C / 91 F.
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 35.7 °C / 96 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 36.4 °C / 98 F, compared to the average of 33.8 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 30.1 °C / 86 F, compared to the device average of 32.7 °C / 91 F.
Consumo de energia
| desligado |   0.06 / 0.13 Watt |
| Ocioso |  0.73 / 1.44 / 1.53 Watt |
| Carga |
4.56 / 5.09 Watt |
    
| |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 8 3300 mAh | Samsung Galaxy Note 7 3500 mAh | Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus 3500 mAh | Huawei Mate 9 4000 mAh | Sony Xperia XZ Premium 3230 mAh | HP Elite x3 4150 mAh | Apple iPhone 7 Plus 2915 mAh | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power Consumption | -9% | 9% | -33% | -37% | -37% | -33% | |
| Idle Minimum * | 0.73 | 0.72 1% | 0.68 7% | 0.78 -7% | 0.62 15% | 0.86 -18% | 0.77 -5% |
| Idle Average * | 1.44 | 1.37 5% | 1.13 22% | 2.13 -48% | 2.44 -69% | 1.46 -1% | 2.04 -42% |
| Idle Maximum * | 1.53 | 1.44 6% | 1.16 24% | 2.17 -42% | 2.59 -69% | 1.59 -4% | 2.24 -46% |
| Load Average * | 4.56 | 5.56 -22% | 4.69 -3% | 6.32 -39% | 4.94 -8% | 8.1 -78% | 4.69 -3% |
| Load Maximum * | 5.09 | 6.78 -33% | 5.24 -3% | 6.49 -28% | 7.91 -55% | 9.35 -84% | 8.66 -70% |
* ... smaller is better
| Samsung Galaxy Note 8 | Samsung Galaxy Note 7 | Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus | HP Elite x3 | Huawei Mate 9 | Apple iPhone 7 Plus | HTC U11 | OnePlus 5 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Battery Runtime | 37% | 29% | 18% | 32% | 25% | -3% | 10% | |
| Reader / Idle | 1134 | 1429 26% | 1565 38% | 2205 94% | 1538 36% | 1835 62% | 1250 10% | 1534 35% |
| H.264 | 662 | 960 45% | 742 12% | 760 15% | 947 43% | 813 23% | 498 -25% | 623 -6% |
| WiFi v1.3 | 474 | 607 28% | 736 55% | 422 -11% | 758 60% | 587 24% | 560 18% | 518 9% |
| Load | 246 | 361 47% | 275 12% | 185 -25% | 219 -11% | 225 -9% | 212 -14% | 247 0% |
| PCMark for Android - Work 2.0 battery life | |
| Huawei Mate 9 | |
| Samsung Galaxy J7 2017 | |
| Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 8 | |
| HTC U11 | |
A Samsung lançou novamente um excelente produto com o Galaxy Note 8 e não há nenhum phablet alternativo real para os fanáticos da S Pen. O aparelho vem com uma excelente configuração. No entanto, o fabricante poderia ter sido um pouco mais generoso com o armazenamento interno em vista do preço.
A tela, o desempenho e a câmera são de primeira classe. As medidas de segurança são a única explicação para a bateria menor quando se olha para os primeiros resultados do teste. Os tempos de duração permanecem por trás das expectativas. No entanto, a maioria dos usuários deve passar um dia com facilidade. O peso adicional do Note 8 nos confunde aqui.
O Galaxy Note 8 da Samsung está a partir de 999 Euros (~$950). Uma estação docking DeX é adicionada gratuitamente quando pré-encomendado. O aparelho provavelmente receberá uma classificação muito boa, apesar da duração da bateria mais fraca e da tela não idealmente configurada. No entanto, ainda é incerto se é suficiente para ganhar um lugar no pódio.