Deutsch
English
Español
Français
Italiano
Nederlands
Polski
Русский
Türkçe
Svenska
Chinese
MagyarBreve Análise do OnePlus 8: Ótimo smartphone mesmo na versão não pro
Competing Devices
Rating | Date | Model | Weight | Drive | Size | Resolution | Best Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 88.4 % | 06/2020 | OnePlus 8 SD 865, Adreno 650 | 180 g | 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash | 6.55" | 2400x1080 | |
| 87.4 % | 04/2020 | Huawei P40 Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16 | 175 g | 128 GB UFS 3.0 Flash | 6.10" | 2340x1080 | |
| 87.7 % | 03/2020 | Samsung Galaxy S20 Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11 | 163 g | 128 GB UFS 3.0 Flash | 6.20" | 3200x1440 | |
| 87.8 % | 06/2020 | Xiaomi Mi 10 SD 865, Adreno 650 | 208 g | 128 GB UFS 3.0 Flash | 6.67" | 2340x1080 | |
| 85.8 % | 11/2019 | Google Pixel 4 XL SD 855, Adreno 640 | 193 g | 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | 6.30" | 3040x1440 |
| Networking | |
| iperf3 transmit AX12 | |
| Huawei P40 | |
| OnePlus 8 | |
| Samsung Galaxy S20 | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10 | |
| Google Pixel 4 XL | |
| iperf3 receive AX12 | |
| Huawei P40 | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10 | |
| OnePlus 8 | |
| Samsung Galaxy S20 | |
| Google Pixel 4 XL | |
| 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.
HauptkameraUltraweitZoom (5-fach)LowLight
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
iluminação: 95 %
iluminação com acumulador: 778 cd/m²
Contraste: ∞:1 (Preto: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 0.9 | 0.5-29.43 Ø5
ΔE Greyscale 1.7 | 0.57-98 Ø5.3
97.7% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.25
| OnePlus 8 AMOLED, 2400x1080, 6.55 | Huawei P40 AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.10 | Samsung Galaxy S20 AMOLED, 3200x1440, 6.20 | Xiaomi Mi 10 Super AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.67 | Google Pixel 4 XL P-OLED, 3040x1440, 6.30 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Screen | -75% | -55% | -4% | -112% | |
| Brightness middle | 778 | 583 -25% | 745 -4% | 786 1% | 557 -28% |
| Brightness | 783 | 593 -24% | 740 -5% | 791 1% | 555 -29% |
| Brightness Distribution | 95 | 94 -1% | 97 2% | 96 1% | 95 0% |
| Black Level * | |||||
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 0.9 | 3.03 -237% | 2.67 -197% | 1.1 -22% | 3.9 -333% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 2.2 | 5.33 -142% | 4.52 -105% | 2.2 -0% | 6.1 -177% |
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 1.7 | 2 -18% | 2 -18% | 1.8 -6% | 3.5 -106% |
| Gamma | 2.25 98% | 2.301 96% | 2.092 105% | 2.26 97% | 2.18 101% |
| CCT | 6481 100% | 6621 98% | 6240 104% | 6315 103% | 6127 106% |
* ... smaller is better
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
| Screen flickering / PWM detected | 373.1 Hz | ≤ 99 % brightness setting |  |
The display backlight flickers at 373.1 Hz (worst case, e.g., utilizing PWM) Flickering detected at a brightness setting of 99 % and below. There should be no flickering or PWM above this brightness setting. The frequency of 373.1 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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 2.8 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 1.6 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 1.2 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. » 8 % 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 | ||
| 2.8 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 1.2 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 1.6 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. » 7 % 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 3.0 | |
| on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sort by value) | |
| OnePlus 8 | |
| Huawei P40 | |
| Samsung Galaxy S20 | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10 | |
| Google Pixel 4 XL | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (50 - 111, n=23) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (6.8 - 165, n=185, last 2 years) | |
| 1920x1080 1080p Manhattan Offscreen (sort by value) | |
| OnePlus 8 | |
| Huawei P40 | |
| Samsung Galaxy S20 | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10 | |
| Google Pixel 4 XL | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (96 - 151, n=23) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (9.2 - 363, n=185, last 2 years) | |
| GFXBench 3.1 | |
| on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value) | |
| OnePlus 8 | |
| Huawei P40 | |
| Samsung Galaxy S20 | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10 | |
| Google Pixel 4 XL | |
| 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 8 | |
| Huawei P40 | |
| Samsung Galaxy S20 | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10 | |
| Google Pixel 4 XL | |
| 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 8 | |
| Huawei P40 | |
| Samsung Galaxy S20 | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10 | |
| Google Pixel 4 XL | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (527301 - 631025, n=24) | |
| Jetstream 2 - Total Score | |
| Average of class Smartphone (13.8 - 351, n=173, last 2 years) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (45.2 - 77, n=20) | |
| Huawei P40 (Huawei Browser 10.1) | |
| Samsung Galaxy S20 (Chrome 80) | |
| OnePlus 8 (Chrome 83) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10 (Xiaomi Browser V11.4.23) | |
| JetStream 1.1 - Total Score | |
| 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 S20 (Chrome 80) | |
| Google Pixel 4 XL (Chrome 80) | |
| OnePlus 8 (Chrome 83) | |
| Speedometer 2.0 - Result | |
| Average of class Smartphone (14.9 - 445, n=157, last 2 years) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (30.6 - 74.5, n=19) | |
| Huawei P40 (Huawei Browser 10.1) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10 (Xiaomi Browser V11.4.23) | |
| Samsung Galaxy S20 (Chome 80) | |
| OnePlus 8 (Chrome 83) | |
| WebXPRT 3 - Overall | |
| Average of class Smartphone (39 - 304, n=122, last 2 years) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10 (Xiaomi Browser V11.4.23) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (97 - 127, n=23) | |
| Google Pixel 4 XL (Chrome 80) | |
| OnePlus 8 (Chrome 83) | |
| Samsung Galaxy S20 (Chrome 80) | |
| Huawei P40 (Huawei Browser 10.1) | |
| Octane V2 - Total Score | |
| Average of class Smartphone (4633 - 89112, n=213, last 2 years) | |
| Google Pixel 4 XL (Chrome 80) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (14606 - 31224, n=23) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10 (Xiaomi Browser V11.4.23) | |
| Huawei P40 (Huawei Browser 10.1) | |
| Samsung Galaxy S20 (Chrome 80) | |
| OnePlus 8 (Chrome 83) | |
| Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total | |
| OnePlus 8 (Chrome 83) | |
| Samsung Galaxy S20 (Chrome 80) | |
| Google Pixel 4 XL (Chrome 80) | |
| Huawei P40 (Huawei Browser 10.1) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10 (Xiaomi Browser V11.4.23) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (1623 - 2911, n=24) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (388 - 9999, n=173, last 2 years) | |
* ... smaller is better
| OnePlus 8 | Huawei P40 | Samsung Galaxy S20 | Xiaomi Mi 10 | Google Pixel 4 XL | Average 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AndroBench 3-5 | -24% | -3% | -5% | -44% | -11% | 21% | |
| Sequential Read 256KB | 1707 | 1592 -7% | 1542 -10% | 1498 -12% | 871 -49% | 1547 ? -9% | 1508 ? -12% |
| Sequential Write 256KB | 748 | 212.9 -72% | 670 -10% | 680 -9% | 197.4 -74% | 575 ? -23% | 1118 ? 49% |
| Random Read 4KB | 215 | 189.4 -12% | 205.3 -5% | 207 -4% | 142.2 -34% | 210 ? -2% | 247 ? 15% |
| Random Write 4KB | 203.9 | 197 -3% | 228.1 12% | 215.9 6% | 164.2 -19% | 188.5 ? -8% | 272 ? 33% |
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 32 °C / 90 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 31.9 °C / 89 F, compared to the average of 33.8 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 28.6 °C / 83 F, compared to the device average of 32.7 °C / 91 F.
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%
Xiaomi Mi 10 audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (83.5 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 23.2% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (11.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 3.5% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (4.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 5.2% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (2.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (19.8% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 24% of all tested devices in this class were better, 8% similar, 68% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 38%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 45% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 48% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
| desligado |   0.02 / 0.29 Watt |
| Ocioso |  0.9 / 2.3 / 2.33 Watt |
| Carga |
3.5 / 7.68 Watt |
    
| |
| OnePlus 8 4300 mAh | Huawei P40 3800 mAh | Samsung Galaxy S20 4000 mAh | Xiaomi Mi 10 4780 mAh | Google Pixel 4 XL 3700 mAh | Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power Consumption | 3% | -8% | 18% | 8% | -21% | 0% | |
| Idle Minimum * | 0.9 | 1 -11% | 0.9 -0% | 0.53 41% | 0.83 8% | 1.133 ? -26% | 0.897 ? -0% |
| Idle Average * | 2.3 | 1.9 17% | 1.5 35% | 1.46 37% | 1.24 46% | 2.23 ? 3% | 1.452 ? 37% |
| Idle Maximum * | 2.33 | 2.4 -3% | 2 14% | 1.52 35% | 1.25 46% | 2.45 ? -5% | 1.629 ? 30% |
| Load Average * | 3.5 | 3.5 -0% | 4.8 -37% | 3.83 -9% | 4.98 -42% | 5.26 ? -50% | 5.55 ? -59% |
| Load Maximum * | 7.68 | 6.9 10% | 11.5 -50% | 8.89 -16% | 9.09 -18% | 9.68 ? -26% | 8.31 ? -8% |
* ... smaller is better
| OnePlus 8 4300 mAh | Huawei P40 3800 mAh | Samsung Galaxy S20 4000 mAh | Xiaomi Mi 10 4780 mAh | Google Pixel 4 XL 3700 mAh | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Battery Runtime | 16% | 16% | 8% | -40% | |
| Reader / Idle | 1374 | 2063 50% | 2105 53% | 1789 30% | |
| H.264 | 1096 | 1052 -4% | 809 -26% | 1126 3% | |
| WiFi v1.3 | 1045 | 806 -23% | 726 -31% | 662 -37% | 623 -40% |
| Load | 168 | 236 40% | 279 66% | 226 35% |
Pro
Contra
Veredicto - Bom Smartphone Aguarda Melhor Cobertura 5G
Em nossa análise, o OnePlus 8 resultou ser um smartphone bem feito, em geral. O fato de também suportar 5G quase se torna secundário. Os resultados dos testes de desempenho do sistema e as características da câmera são convincentes. A experiência do usuário tem sido totalmente tranquila, os aplicativos se iniciam rapidamente e não houve atrasos na navegação na web. Dado que a configuração top implementa 12 GB de RAM e 256 GB de armazenamento interno, a falta de um slot de cartão microSD não é um problema particularmente perceptível.
Com uma configuração de memória generosa, bom desempenho de câmera e um sistema muito fluente em geral, o OnePlus 8 é um ótimo smartphone. Quando a cobertura 5G se tornar mais ampla, os compradores poderão aproveitar ao máximo os pontos fortes do smartphone.
A julgar pelas medidas brutas e resultados de benchmark, o OnePlus 8 também pertence ao topo da sua classe. O OxygenOS não inclui aplicativos desnecessários e as velocidades Wi-Fi são boas. Nossa principal crítica em relação à tela OLED é a redução agressiva do brilho, embora esta seja provavelmente uma medida de segurança projetada para proteger a tela de 90-Hz de altas temperaturas. A câmera ganha muitos elogios devido à sua capacidade de produzir imagens deslumbrantes que tendem a parecer melhores do que os resultados de muitos concorrentes.
Assim, nossa configuração do OnePlus 8 oferece muito bom hardware por um preço razoável que seria justificado mesmo sem o suporte adicional de 5G. No entanto, como este último também está incluído, o preço atual do smartphone de cerca de US$ 800 é mais do que justo. Os potenciais compradores com menor demanda podem economizar cerca de US$ 100 comprando o smartphone 5G com 8 GB de RAM/128 GB de armazenamento interno.
OnePlus 8
-
08/31/2022 v7
Mike Wobker
Pricecompare
