Deutsch
English
Español
Français
Italiano
Nederlands
Polski
Русский
Türkçe
Svenska
Chinese
MagyarBreve Análise d Smartphone OnePlus 8T – Carga mais rápida por menos dinheiro
Comparison Devices
Rating | Date | Model | Weight | Drive | Size | Resolution | Best Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 87.8 % | 10/2020 | OnePlus 8T SD 865, Adreno 650 | 188 g | 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash | 6.55" | 2400x1080 | |
| 88.4 % | 06/2020 | OnePlus 8 SD 865, Adreno 650 | 180 g | 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash | 6.55" | 2400x1080 | |
| 86.5 % | 09/2019 | Apple iPhone 11 A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU | 194 g | 64 GB SSD | 6.10" | 1792x828 | |
| 88.1 % | 10/2020 | Samsung Galaxy Note20 Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11 | 192 g | 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash | 6.70" | 2400x1080 | |
| 87.4 % | 04/2020 | Huawei P40 Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16 | 175 g | 128 GB UFS 3.0 Flash | 6.10" | 2340x1080 | |
| 87.8 % | 06/2020 | Xiaomi Mi 10 SD 865, Adreno 650 | 208 g | 128 GB UFS 3.0 Flash | 6.67" | 2340x1080 |
| Networking | |
| iperf3 transmit AX12 | |
| Huawei P40 | |
| OnePlus 8 | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10 | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note20 | |
| OnePlus 8T | |
| Apple iPhone 11 | |
| iperf3 receive AX12 | |
| Huawei P40 | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10 | |
| OnePlus 8 | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note20 | |
| OnePlus 8T | |
| Apple iPhone 11 | |
| Average of class Smartphone (last 2 years) | |
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.
Hauptobjektiv BlumeHauptobjektiv UmgebungHauptobjektiv Low LightUltraweitwinkel
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
iluminação: 91 %
iluminação com acumulador: 743 cd/m²
Contraste: ∞:1 (Preto: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 0.89 | 0.5-29.43 Ø5
ΔE Greyscale 1.4 | 0.57-98 Ø5.3
97.2% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.199
| OnePlus 8T AMOLED, 2400x1080, 6.55 | OnePlus 8 AMOLED, 2400x1080, 6.55 | Apple iPhone 11 IPS, 1792x828, 6.10 | Samsung Galaxy Note20 Super AMOLED Plus, 2400x1080, 6.70 | Huawei P40 AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.10 | Xiaomi Mi 10 Super AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.67 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Screen | -6% | -5% | -76% | -89% | -11% | |
| Brightness middle | 743 | 778 5% | 679 -9% | 610 -18% | 583 -22% | 786 6% |
| Brightness | 734 | 783 7% | 671 -9% | 621 -15% | 593 -19% | 791 8% |
| Brightness Distribution | 91 | 95 4% | 93 2% | 95 4% | 94 3% | 96 5% |
| Black Level * | 0.68 | |||||
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 0.89 | 0.9 -1% | 0.8 10% | 2.4 -170% | 3.03 -240% | 1.1 -24% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 1.69 | 2.2 -30% | 2.4 -42% | 4.3 -154% | 5.33 -215% | 2.2 -30% |
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 1.4 | 1.7 -21% | 1.1 21% | 2.8 -100% | 2 -43% | 1.8 -29% |
| Gamma | 2.199 100% | 2.25 98% | 2.24 98% | 2.09 105% | 2.301 96% | 2.26 97% |
| CCT | 6423 101% | 6481 100% | 6610 98% | 6368 102% | 6621 98% | 6315 103% |
| Contrast | 999 |
* ... smaller is better
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
| Screen flickering / PWM detected | 458.7 Hz |  | |
The display backlight flickers at 458.7 Hz (worst case, e.g., utilizing PWM) . The frequency of 458.7 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 17900 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 3846000) Hz was measured. | |||
Display Response Times
| ↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
|---|---|---|
| 6 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 3 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 3 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. » 13 % 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 | ||
| 20 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 11 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 9 ms fall | ||
| The screen shows good response rates in our tests, but may be too slow for competitive gamers. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.2 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 27 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (33.7 ms). | ||
| GFXBench 3.1 | |
| on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value) | |
| OnePlus 8T | |
| OnePlus 8 | |
| Apple iPhone 11 | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note20 | |
| Huawei P40 | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10 | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (43 - 83, n=24) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (3.7 - 158, n=185, last 2 years) | |
| 1920x1080 Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value) | |
| OnePlus 8T | |
| OnePlus 8 | |
| Apple iPhone 11 | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note20 | |
| Huawei P40 | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10 | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (67 - 103, n=24) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (6.2 - 279, n=185, last 2 years) | |
| AnTuTu v8 - Total Score (sort by value) | |
| OnePlus 8T | |
| OnePlus 8 | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note20 | |
| Huawei P40 | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10 | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (527301 - 631025, n=24) | |
| Jetstream 2 - Total Score | |
| Apple iPhone 11 (Safari Mobile 13.0) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (13.8 - 351, n=173, last 2 years) | |
| OnePlus 8T (Chrome 86) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (45.2 - 77, n=20) | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note20 (Samsung Browser 12.1) | |
| Huawei P40 (Huawei Browser 10.1) | |
| OnePlus 8 (Chrome 83) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10 (Xiaomi Browser V11.4.23) | |
| JetStream 1.1 - Total Score | |
| Apple iPhone 11 (Safari Mobile 13.0) | |
| OnePlus 8T (Chrome 86) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (74.2 - 145.1, n=21) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10 (Xiaomi Browser V11.4.23) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (last 2 years) | |
| Huawei P40 (Huawei Browser 10.1) | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note20 (Samsung Browser 12.1) | |
| OnePlus 8 (Chrome 83) | |
| Speedometer 2.0 - Result | |
| Apple iPhone 11 (Safari Mobile 13.0) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (14.9 - 445, n=157, last 2 years) | |
| OnePlus 8T (Chome 86) | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note20 (Samsung Browser 12.1) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (30.6 - 74.5, n=19) | |
| Huawei P40 (Huawei Browser 10.1) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10 (Xiaomi Browser V11.4.23) | |
| OnePlus 8 (Chrome 83) | |
| WebXPRT 3 - Overall | |
| Apple iPhone 11 (Safari Mobile 13.0) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (39 - 304, n=122, last 2 years) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10 (Xiaomi Browser V11.4.23) | |
| OnePlus 8T (Chrome 86) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (97 - 127, n=23) | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note20 (Samsung Browser 12.1) | |
| OnePlus 8 (Chrome 83) | |
| Huawei P40 (Huawei Browser 10.1) | |
| Octane V2 - Total Score | |
| Apple iPhone 11 (Safari Mobile 13.0) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (4633 - 89112, n=211, last 2 years) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (14606 - 31224, n=23) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10 (Xiaomi Browser V11.4.23) | |
| Huawei P40 (Huawei Browser 10.1) | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note20 (Samsung Browser 12.1) | |
| OnePlus 8T (Chrome 86) | |
| OnePlus 8 (Chrome 83) | |
| Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total | |
| OnePlus 8 (Chrome 83) | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note20 (Samsung Browser 12.1) | |
| Huawei P40 (Huawei Browser 10.1) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10 (Xiaomi Browser V11.4.23) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (1623 - 2911, n=24) | |
| OnePlus 8T (Chrome 86) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (388 - 9999, n=173, last 2 years) | |
| Apple iPhone 11 (Safari Mobile 13.0) | |
* ... smaller is better
| OnePlus 8T | OnePlus 8 | Samsung Galaxy Note20 | Huawei P40 | Xiaomi Mi 10 | Average 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AndroBench 3-5 | 34% | 40% | 8% | 29% | 47% | 63% | |
| Sequential Read 256KB | 1659 | 1707 3% | 1683 1% | 1592 -4% | 1498 -10% | 1599 ? -4% | 1505 ? -9% |
| Sequential Write 256KB | 728 | 748 3% | 780 7% | 212.9 -71% | 680 -7% | 777 ? 7% | 1112 ? 53% |
| Random Read 4KB | 132.6 | 215 62% | 207.6 57% | 189.4 43% | 207 56% | 244 ? 84% | 247 ? 86% |
| Random Write 4KB | 121.4 | 203.9 68% | 233.8 93% | 197 62% | 215.9 78% | 245 ? 102% | 271 ? 123% |
| Sequential Read 256KB SDCard | 81.6 ? | 85.9 ? | |||||
| Sequential Write 256KB SDCard | 66.4 ? | 68.8 ? |
(±) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 45 °C / 113 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 43.8 °C / 111 F, compared to the average of 33.8 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 25 °C / 77 F, compared to the device average of 32.7 °C / 91 F.
OnePlus 8T audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (82.5 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 66.7% lower than median
(+) | bass is linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(-) | nearly no mids - on average 66.7% lower than median
(+) | mids are linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(-) | nearly no highs - on average 66.7% lower than median
(+) | highs are linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(-) | overall sound is not linear (117.1% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 85% of all tested devices in this class were better, 7% similar, 7% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 38%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 95% of all tested devices were better, 2% similar, 2% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
OnePlus 8 audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (89.4 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 27% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | reduced mids - on average 5.4% lower than median
(+) | mids are linear (4.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 6.1% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (3.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (21.1% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 33% of all tested devices in this class were better, 8% similar, 59% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 38%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 53% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 40% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
| desligado |   0 / 0.2 Watt |
| Ocioso |  1.1 / 1.5 / 1.7 Watt |
| Carga |
4.6 / 9.4 Watt |
    
| |
| OnePlus 8T 4500 mAh | OnePlus 8 4300 mAh | Apple iPhone 11 3110 mAh | Samsung Galaxy Note20 4300 mAh | Huawei P40 3800 mAh | Xiaomi Mi 10 4780 mAh | Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power Consumption | -6% | -15% | 0% | -2% | 18% | -23% | 3% | |
| Idle Minimum * | 1.1 | 0.9 18% | 0.56 49% | 0.92 16% | 1 9% | 0.53 52% | 1.133 ? -3% | 0.897 ? 18% |
| Idle Average * | 1.5 | 2.3 -53% | 2.99 -99% | 1.5 -0% | 1.9 -27% | 1.46 3% | 2.23 ? -49% | 1.452 ? 3% |
| Idle Maximum * | 1.7 | 2.33 -37% | 3.02 -78% | 1.54 9% | 2.4 -41% | 1.52 11% | 2.45 ? -44% | 1.629 ? 4% |
| Load Average * | 4.6 | 3.5 24% | 4.17 9% | 5.49 -19% | 3.5 24% | 3.83 17% | 5.26 ? -14% | 5.55 ? -21% |
| Load Maximum * | 9.4 | 7.68 18% | 5.44 42% | 9.99 -6% | 6.9 27% | 8.89 5% | 9.68 ? -3% | 8.31 ? 12% |
* ... smaller is better
| OnePlus 8T 4500 mAh | OnePlus 8 4300 mAh | Apple iPhone 11 3110 mAh | Samsung Galaxy Note20 4300 mAh | Huawei P40 3800 mAh | Xiaomi Mi 10 4780 mAh | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Battery Runtime | -7% | 25% | 14% | 6% | -2% | |
| Reader / Idle | 1539 | 1374 -11% | 2765 80% | 2067 34% | 2063 34% | 1789 16% |
| H.264 | 1103 | 1096 -1% | 1147 4% | 1123 2% | 1052 -5% | 1126 2% |
| WiFi v1.3 | 1023 | 1045 2% | 866 -15% | 589 -42% | 806 -21% | 662 -35% |
| Load | 203 | 168 -17% | 267 32% | 326 61% | 236 16% | 226 11% |
Pro
Contra
Veredicto – Mais por menos
O OnePlus 8T oferece pequenas melhorias em comparação com seu já muito bom predecessor. Por exemplo, ele oferece uma tela com uma taxa de atualização de 120 Hz, uma câmera macro com uma resolução mais alta e uma lente adicional que fornece mais dados para fotos. No entanto, a qualidade da câmera não pode ser comparada à de seus concorrentes de ponta mais caros, pois as imagens não têm nitidez de detalhes.
Ficamos satisfeitos com o alto desempenho sem afogamento, a localização precisa, o carregamento muito rápido e a calibração precisa da tela. O novo software é atraente e oferece muitas mais opções de configuração, ao mesmo tempo que é fácil de usar para veteranos do Android.
O aparelho esquenta um pouco demais para o nosso gosto e seus alto-falantes estéreo oferecem uma qualidade de som apenas média. O Wi-Fi não é tão rápido quanto em outros dispositivos Wi-Fi 6. Os usuários também terão que se virar sem carregamento sem fio ou certificação IP.
O OnePlus 8T omite a maioria dos truques de ponta e concentra-se em sua proposta principal: muita potência e conectividade por um preço acessível.
Se você está procurando a melhor câmera para smartphone do mercado, o OnePlus 8T pode não ser a escolha certa para você. Embora produza imagens decentes de gama alta, outros fazem um trabalho ainda melhor. Se, por outro lado, você deseja o melhor desempenho e ótima conectividade com o mínimo de dinheiro, você está no lugar certo.
OnePlus 8T
-
08/31/2022 v7
Florian Schmitt
Pricecompare
